Has CAP Lost Most of Its' Ground Team Missions?

[RADIOMAN015]

It seems to me in my wing that there's very little chance of trained ground teams ever getting a mission.  With the exception of the UDF teams call outs, it's been maybe 15 years since a ground team was really needed.

Additionally, within the state, the state police as well as the state environmental police (as well as many fire departments throughout the state), seem to have appropriate ATV's and snow mobiles (as well as helicopters) to get to a found aircraft accident in the woods much quicker than CAP ever could.

I tend to feel that the AF has pretty much written off the overall ground team mission (other than UDF, and perhaps transporting of critical supplies such as blood or even government officials) and lst AF in it's disaster support role is primarily looking at Air Assets.   I would think ground support wise that radio communications, other mission base, and flight line support would be needed.

When one looks at the press releases on CAP missions, it seems that CAP aircraft/aircrews do a great in locating the crash site, BUT subsequently it's usually a local LE or FD team that responds to the crash site and not CAP members.
RM     

[Eclipse]

It seems to me in my wing that there's very little chance of trained ground teams ever getting a mission. 

A local problem you should address in your wing.

[dbaran]

There was one in the past week in CA that used a GT to handle a downed aircraft.   There was another one a while back (maybe 2 years) where the GT was lifted in by helicopter and there were 2 saves out of that one.   While it is true that the sheriff SAR teams do most of the work because they are so numerous in CA,  I'm not having any trouble coming up with examples of where lives were saved because we have retained the skill set even if it isn't used every day. 

Our members who want more GT search activity just join the local county SAR team as well.

[isuhawkeye]

My state has a great need for trained ground searchers.  the myth that law enforcement and the fire service are trained for these missions is not true around here.  A trained dedicated search team that builds relationships with local authorities, and trains to national standards certainly can get requested for missions.  YMMV

[RiverAux]

My state has a great need for trained ground searchers.  the myth that law enforcement and the fire service are trained for these missions is not true around here.  A trained dedicated search team that builds relationships with local authorities, and trains to national standards certainly can get requested for missions.  YMMV

Very, very true.  I think that this could actually be a major area of mission growth for CAP if it were recognized and respected as such.  As it stands, we are the only nationwide GSAR organization, but you'd never know it.  I've become quite pessimistic about the long-term usefulness of our small aircraft for many missions, but boots on the ground will always be needed. 

[RADIOMAN015]

It seems to me in my wing that there's very little chance of trained ground teams ever getting a mission. 

A local problem you should address in your wing.

Yea your group / wing is always in woods isn't it    GT missions are not filling sand bags with dirt, shelter operations, handing out food/drink, AS PRESENTLY DEFINED in the CAP GT task book.  Also calling out a GT when only a UDF is needed doesn't count either.   

My wing is aware of this problem already.   I think the priority is on air support and not GT, primarily I think because there's not enough senior member interest on the ground team side (except for UDF), with some state SAR plan age limitations, and the air support side is much easier to ramp up & control.   The wing continues to provide (in my opinion an expensive training program (due to equipment requirements) to the individual, primarily cadets) via a yearly cycle GT training school.   
RM   

[Eclipse]

Yea your group / wing is always in woods isn't it    GT missions are not filling sand bags with dirt, shelter operations, handing out food/drink, AS PRESENTLY DEFINED in the CAP GT task book.  Also calling out a GT when only a UDF is needed doesn't count either.   

So, you make up your own rules and limitations and then whine that it has been 15 years since you had a ground team mission?  GT Missions
are whatever needs to be done.

My wing is aware of this problem already.   I think the priority is on air support and not GT, primarily I think because there's not enough senior member interest on the ground team side (except for UDF), with some state SAR plan age limitations, and the air support side is much easier to ramp up & control.   The wing continues to provide (in my opinion an expensive training program (due to equipment requirements) to the individual, primarily cadets) via a yearly cycle GT training school. 

Again, you're citing problems specific to your wing as if they were typical.  The majority of active, responding GT's in my wing are adults.  We do not
consider GT as a cadet endeavor as some wings do, though we have any number of sharp cadets involved.

GT need not be expensive.  It is simple common sense and basic wilderness survival.  One need not buy a single piece of equipment to participate.
The result is self-sufficient members ready to go where needed, when needed, and not be a mission liability.

But again, if it has been 15 years since your wing did anything, that isn't even within the last two versions of the current curriculum.

[Smithsonia]

Part of this issue is how to get on the County/State/local team.

1. Many Sheriffs/Emergency Managers are unfamiliar with CAP Ground team capabilities.
2. CAP should cross train with county search teams.
3. CAP GTMs should get their SAR TECH rating (This is a SAR Board not CAP training)
4.  CAP can offer supplemental services (PIO, ABDO, Comm, and staff)
5. CAP GTM should be CERTs
6. CAP GTMs should think about a forward deployment team.
7. PIO/IC or ABDO, CUL or MRO, MSA, and GBD could and should be deployed before planes are required.
8. Be an active team inside the ICS team. Prepare, be pro-active, respond.
   
Meaning (with approval of CAP) at night drive to the County Search ICP. Be there before sunrise or the weather lifts and help sign in crews, take a load off the County IC, do some grunt work like LO/Comm/Sign ins/liaison with family or FAA, make coffee, make maps, copy intel onto these maps, set up the comm shack, etc. Meaning run the all night shift and spell the local teams. Sweep the floors if necessary. Be humble and work your way up. Particularly in small or remote counties where resources are scarce and training on DF equipment is once a year or so... these CAP core competencies are appreciated. Photo work is also needed and not just from the air but to build an intel library for the IC. I think there are numerous things we could do to aid in lost hiker, downed planes, weather events, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes... etc.

We have much to offer. We need some latitude in our commanders/ICs/Sheriffs/State Emergency Managers/ and Air Force to make this happen. There are holes in the system. If we plug them we will build confidence. If we build confidence we will be players. I am not sure we will be competitors to the specialized
teams like swift water, high altitude, technical climbing teams. We can aid, assist, help, and support them.

We need some forward thinking to make a place for us. I've done exactly this several times and always felt appreciated. The trick is figure out where the holes in the system are and show up the "fustest with the mustus."

[RADIOMAN015]

Yea your group / wing is always in woods isn't it    GT missions are not filling sand bags with dirt, shelter operations, handing out food/drink, AS PRESENTLY DEFINED in the CAP GT task book.  Also calling out a GT when only a UDF is needed doesn't count either.   

So, you make up your own rules and limitations and then whine that it has been 15 years since you had a ground team mission?  GT Missions
are whatever needs to be done.

I'm not involved in the ground side, other than a bit of local UDF, but primarily mission base radio type support.  The wing itself cannot control what is in the State SAR plan as written into the laws, and there is an age limitation at this time.  The issue with many of the senior members that are/were trained gets down to availability for a quick response when compared to the state police tactical teams and even local fire/volunteer fire departments that can be basically toned out for a ground search & rescue response in a much more timely manner, by law controlled by the state PD.   Again the question is to others on the board 

My wing is aware of this problem already.   I think the priority is on air support and not GT, primarily I think because there's not enough senior member interest on the ground team side (except for UDF), with some state SAR plan age limitations, and the air support side is much easier to ramp up & control.   The wing continues to provide (in my opinion an expensive training program (due to equipment requirements) to the individual, primarily cadets) via a yearly cycle GT training school. 

Again, you're citing problems specific to your wing as if they were typical.  The majority of active, responding GT's in my wing are adults.  We do not consider GT as a cadet endeavor as some wings do, though we have any number of sharp cadets involved.

GT need not be expensive.  It is simple common sense and basic wilderness survival.  One need not buy a single piece of equipment to participate.
The result is self-sufficient members ready to go where needed, when needed, and not be a mission liability.

But again, if it has been 15 years since your wing did anything, that isn't even within the last two versions of the current curriculum.

Your web page for your group is pretty sparse on presenting any GT calls out 'adventures', IF we included UDF call outs, there's about 1 a month in my wing , but GT overall ain't there.    I don't think most people have sleeping bags, tents, numerous pairs of CAP utility uniforms, compass, "real" cold weather gear, etc, they have to go buy these items.  As far as the revision in the GT curriculum I doubt that much has really changed.   Maybe more CERT training/affiliation with local communities might get the wing more missions.  I will agree with you that the training itself is good training, and as one former NESA instructor told me an excellent cadet retention tool.  HOWEVER, personally, I'm impatient and prefer to spend my volunteer training time in what I know historically can readily be used on most CAP missions.   
RM

[Eclipse]

I don't think you actually asked a question.

You made a statement which apparently is based on your "non-involvement".

[RADIOMAN015]

I don't think you actually asked a question.

You made a statement which apparently is based on your "non-involvement".

I get all the wing alert pages, so I'm well aware of what our wing is being called out on -- cause radio wise I might have to support the mission.    I'm not sure what other wings get their GT's called out on BUT looking at the articles on the CAP Volunteer Now website, there just doesn't appear to be that many full ground team call outs.  I would not classify a UDF team (2 members) as the same as a full GT team (4 members).   Also IF an IC calls a GT out for a simple UDF mission just as a precaution, BUT it's still a UDF type mission e.g. they don't go into the woods (just basically at the airport or suburban type area), than that really isn't GT utilization.   

As others have posted prior to your post, it seems we do need to look at other ways to use our ground teams.  HOWEVER, it appears to me that GT's especially with cadets, seem more attuned to running around in the woods searching for that crashed aircraft or lost person, when it is more likely (at least in my wing/state) others have that duty as designated by state law and what happen about 15 years ago (before the current SAR Plan/state statue), isn't going to happen again

HOWEVER, Again the question to you is how many time since the beginning of the year has a GT been called out in your group (isn't it group 22) for the type of mission (ground search & rescue) that the team trains for    
RM

[Eclipse]

HOWEVER, Again the question to you is how many time since the beginning of the year has a GT been called out in your group (isn't it group 22) for the type of mission (ground search & rescue) that the team trains for.

First, I don't accept your repeated attempts to put an asterisk on our capabilities.  Ground teams train to be self-sufficient resources, with no specific mission in mind, so whether it is an ELT, DR mission, or "other", they are doing exactly what they are training to do.  If you think artificially limiting your people because of your misunderstanding of what Ground Teams are for, then you're part of the problem.

My wing does call-outs for the whole wing, and while we have units and people who tend to work together on a regular basis, there are no units who have coherent "teams" which are called as such.  Members respond to the pages or they do not, with no specific "unit-level" response.

Reviewing emails I'm counting 6-10 missions which included full ground teams, but I know we have been involved in DR work as well, and I'm guessing the way I'm searching isn't showing everything.  On occasion I hear about mission work after the fact because it was in a specific AOR and people were already standing there, etc.

[N Harmon]

The question RADIOMAN015 asked is in the topic subject: Has CAP Lost Most of Its' Ground Team Missions?

The answer for most wings? Yes, it has.

Okay, great. We have identified that CAP has lost most of its Ground Team missions. Now what?

[RADIOMAN015]

HOWEVER, Again the question to you is how many time since the beginning of the year has a GT been called out in your group (isn't it group 22) for the type of mission (ground search & rescue) that the team trains for.

First, I don't accept your repeated attempts to put an asterisk on our capabilities.  Ground teams train to be self-sufficient resources, with no specific mission in mind, so whether it is an ELT, DR mission, or "other", they are doing exactly what they are training to do.  If you think artificially limiting your people because of your misunderstanding of what Ground Teams are for, then you're part of the problem.

My wing does call-outs for the whole wing, and while we have units and people who tend to work together on a regular basis, there are no units who have coherent "teams" which are called as such.  Members respond to the pages or they do not, with no specific "unit-level" response.

Reviewing emails I'm counting 6-10 missions which included full ground teams, but I know we have been involved in DR work as well, and I'm guessing the way I'm searching isn't showing everything.  On occasion I hear about mission work after the fact because it was in a specific AOR and people were already standing there, etc.

Fair enough on the wing wide call outs.  My wing has even done that with a simple UDF (2 people) in the same geographic area.  HOWEVER, my squadron can usually support the western area of the state response.  I will respond to the two local commercial airports for UDF BUT I'm not interested in traveling further away)   GT wise though, usually the team has normally deployed from one site in the CAP squadron van, BUT again in a pinch the two geographically close squadrons in my area could likely put together a ground team. 

The "other" missions to me don't necessarily mean qualified ground teams.  My wing has supported military base open house/air shows and National Park Service historic reenactments, (parking control & courtesy/safety type patrols e.g. observe, report, and render assistance if able) and did not require any ES qualifications for doing this.

So could you better defining of that  "other" category   Maybe some wings just aren't being innovative enough on this.

I personally, would like to see our GT trained members performing these field support functions first IF at all possible, because I know the cadets have worked very hard to get qualified; HOWEVER, even on "scheduled" events, there's sometimes some restrictions (e.g. age), as well as availability challenges.             

Generally when I am talking about GT responses, I'm referring to unscheduled / no notice type activities.

RM

[Eclipse]

Generally when I am talking about GT responses, I'm referring to unscheduled / no notice type activities.

What do you mean "no notice"?  DR rarely is scheduled, though we almost always have a day or two before activation.

[coudano]

My GT's opstempo has dropped dramatically since they stopped running satellite 121.5 ELT missions.
we have done a little DR since then

[sarmed1]

I think there would need to be some historical research done here.  What GT missions are we talking about:  missing person search, crashed aircraft, or ELT or what?  and then maybe a little of the why:  Is it because they are going to someone else or are the actual missions themselves (regardless of agency) decreasing?  The AFRCC 2010 showed something like 77 aircraft incidents, 162 missing person searches and 680 elt type missions (I dont know if all of these went exclusively to CAP or not) and I dont know the breakdown from previous years missions.

Looking at the AFRCC report it looks like there was a 50%ish decrease in mission after 2008.  (I can only assume that was because of the termination of 121.5 satalite monitoring)  Anecdotally I can make some other assumptions.  Specifically towards missing person search: I know around here there are more and more non CAP type SAR agencies every year (compared to even 5-10 years ago)  Was CAP more used then by the few out there even just for manpower, where that gap is now filled early on in the mission by other agencies that CAP doesnt even get a call.  Or worse are these team better at the mission so they have success now faster so they dont need to call CAP resources.  Or does CAP not have enough of a qualified/capable GT's out there to meet the non-CAP teams expectation or capability need; so they just dont call?

My thoughts would be: if the missions arent there, then well they arent there, and CAP needs to find another mission and adapt to it.... Disaster Relief comes to mind....ie an actuall qualification and skill set to meet more than a "we need bodies" sort of request.  If  the missions are there and CAP just doent bring the right skill set (assuming "they" want to keep that mission) CAP needsto re-train and re-tool to meet the mission needs.  ie minimum age requirements, outside certifiaction or specialized equipment or otherwise find a way that ES forces augment/compliment existing CAP capabilities (ie aviation platform support, either mission base or GSAR/Air Liason.)

mk

[Smoothice]

I feel the same here. In my state, the mountains attract alot of "flatlanders". So far this summer (I have been keeping track) there have been at least 4 situations of these flip-flop mountain hikers getting lost, and requiring assistance. One was even over 24 hours. All of these cases were covered by the State authorities.

[Irishrenegade]

Alot of times the ground teams are not CERT certified or have proper nationally recognized qualifications/training...at least in OK from what I have seen.

[RiverAux]

Alot of times the ground teams are not CERT certified or have proper nationally recognized qualifications/training...at least in OK from what I have seen.

What national standards?  Those produced by some other organization that has self-appointed itself to produce ground SAR standards?  Those are no more legitimate than CAP's standards, just better known.  And there isn't much that a CERT team is actually useful for anyway that a CAP ground team can't do.  We're certainly way more qualified than a CERT Team to do any SAR work.