Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2018, 05:29:13 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: CAP-SAR & State Laws
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Print
Author Topic: CAP-SAR & State Laws  (Read 2883 times)
cpyahoo
Member

Posts: 69
Unit: PCR-WA-082

« on: May 17, 2018, 11:48:17 AM »

Lemme bounce this off you folks...

Is your CAP ground teams hindered in participating in local SAR because of state laws???

Here in Washington State, SAR is very different.  All air search & rescue is handled by the Washington State Dept. of Transportation - Aviation Emergency Services (WSDOT-AES).  They conduct all ELT and EPIRB searches.  If the search becomes extensive, they will contact CAP for help.  State law mandates WSDOT-AES is the state authority for all air SAR missions and is the de facto Incident Commander (OK, fair enough). 

In order for CAP to participate, you MUST attend WSDOT's 8- hour AES volunteer orientation course AND be issued an AES volunteer ID.  If you do not have this ID... you will not perform on any WSDOT AES mission.  But, it gets stickier...

By state law, the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county" (Sheriff) is responsible for GSAR.  If a CAP ground team, on a WSDOT missions, locates the ELT signal and it's attached to an airplane that's schmucked into the side of a hill or sifted through the trees, they have to disengage and back off because the incident now becomes a ground search & rescue incident!  CAP are only considers "support teams" for WSDOT, unless your ground team possesses the required state certification for GSAR and the state emergency worker's ID card.  Then... and ONLY then... can they engage the incident as a GSAR team.
Anybody in any other wings deal with similar issues?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 11:52:24 AM by cpyahoo » Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2018, 11:55:15 AM »

Is your CAP ground teams hindered in participating in local SAR because of state laws???

No.

Here in Washington State, SAR is very different.  All air search & rescue is handled by the Washington State Dept. of Transportation - Aviation Emergency Services (WSDOT-AES).  They conduct all ELT and EPIRB searches.  If the search becomes extensive, they will contact CAP for help.  State law mandates WSDOT-AES is the state authority for all air SAR missions and is the de facto Incident Commander (OK, fair enough).

In order for CAP to participate, you MUST attend WSDOT's 8- hour AES volunteer orientation course AND be issued an AES volunteer ID.  If you do not have this ID... you will not perform on any WSDOT AES mission.  But, it gets stickier...

By state law, the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county" (Sheriff) is responsible for GSAR.  If a CAP ground team, on a WSDOT missions, locates the ELT signal and it's attached to an airplane that's schmucked into the side of a hill or sifted through the trees, they have to disengage and back off because the incident now becomes a ground search & rescue incident!  CAP ground teams are only considered "support teams" for WSDOT unless they possess the state emergency worker ID card for GSAR. 

Anybody in any other wings deal with similar issues?

A state's EMA or similar being in front of disaster response, SAR, and similar incidents is not unusual, nor are states and
counties with special rules regarding who can respond and when / where.

Since CAP normally responds to ELT activation without even notifying a state's resources,
and is a Federal instrumentality when doing so, one would have to pre-suppose that this
situation has been worked out over time between WAWG and the NOC, etc., otherwise
how would they even be aware?

Just go to the classes if you want to participate.

If you're in WAWG, why does it say SER-TN-170 in your profile?
Logged


Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,288
Unit: Worry

« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2018, 11:55:59 AM »

Lemme bounce this off you folks...

Is your CAP ground teams hindered in participating in local SAR because of state laws???

Here in Washington State, SAR is very different.  All air search & rescue is handled by the Washington State Dept. of Transportation - Aviation Emergency Services (WSDOT-AES).  They conduct all ELT and EPIRB searches.  If the search becomes extensive, they will contact CAP for help.  State law mandates WSDOT-AES is the state authority for all air SAR missions and is the de facto Incident Commander (OK, fair enough). 

In order for CAP to participate, you MUST attend WSDOT's 8- hour AES volunteer orientation course AND be issued an AES volunteer ID.  If you do not have this ID... you will not perform on any WSDOT AES mission.  But, it gets stickier...

By state law, the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county" (Sheriff) is responsible for GSAR.  If a CAP ground team, on a WSDOT missions, locates the ELT signal and it's attached to an airplane that's schmucked into the side of a hill or sifted through the trees, they have to disengage and back off because the incident now becomes a ground search & rescue incident!  CAP are only considers "support teams" for WSDOT, unless your ground team possesses the required state certification for GSAR and the state emergency worker's ID card.  Then... and ONLY then... can they engage the incident as a GSAR team.
Anybody in any other wings deal with similar issues?

Ping me offline about this. I'm actively working through our chain of command to solve these problems.
Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,288
Unit: Worry

« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2018, 11:57:39 AM »

Is your CAP ground teams hindered in participating in local SAR because of state laws???

No.

Here in Washington State, SAR is very different.  All air search & rescue is handled by the Washington State Dept. of Transportation - Aviation Emergency Services (WSDOT-AES).  They conduct all ELT and EPIRB searches.  If the search becomes extensive, they will contact CAP for help.  State law mandates WSDOT-AES is the state authority for all air SAR missions and is the de facto Incident Commander (OK, fair enough).

In order for CAP to participate, you MUST attend WSDOT's 8- hour AES volunteer orientation course AND be issued an AES volunteer ID.  If you do not have this ID... you will not perform on any WSDOT AES mission.  But, it gets stickier...

By state law, the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county" (Sheriff) is responsible for GSAR.  If a CAP ground team, on a WSDOT missions, locates the ELT signal and it's attached to an airplane that's schmucked into the side of a hill or sifted through the trees, they have to disengage and back off because the incident now becomes a ground search & rescue incident!  CAP ground teams are only considered "support teams" for WSDOT unless they possess the state emergency worker ID card for GSAR. 

Anybody in any other wings deal with similar issues?

A state's EMA or similar being in front of disaster response, SAR, and similar incidents is not unusual, nor are states and
counties with special rules regarding who can respond and when / where.

Since CAP normally responds to ELT activation without even notifying a state's resources,
and is a Federal instrumentality when doing so, one would have to pre-suppose that this
situation has been worked out over time between WAWG and the NOC, etc., otherwise
how would they even be aware?

Just go to the classes if you want to participate.

I don't have 10 hours to dedicate to driving to go to said class as I live on the wrong side of the state. The one year we requested they do a class on our side of the state they did so without letting us know and 8 of the 10 people that wanted to go couldn't deconflict their schedule.
Logged
cpyahoo
Member

Posts: 69
Unit: PCR-WA-082

« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2018, 12:14:08 PM »

It's just interesting how it varies so much from state to state.  In Tennessee, ELT searches were handled by CAP, but search & rescue was [supposedly] done by the county volunteer rescue squad.

Meanwhile, over in North Carolina, CAP was hard-wired into the state EMA and automatically called out for any missing person search in the state.
Logged
cpyahoo
Member

Posts: 69
Unit: PCR-WA-082

« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2018, 12:36:52 PM »

Holding Pattern... sound familiar.  We used to go up to ESTA for the AES orientation.  Now, Olympia has whacked their training budget and even the AES director's job may be in peril.  We're struggling to get our team on its feet.  Once it's up, we'll be reaching out to Walla Walla and Yakima.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,893

« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2018, 01:25:24 PM »

It's just interesting how it varies so much from state to state.  In Tennessee, ELT searches were handled by CAP, but search & rescue was [supposedly] done by the county volunteer rescue squad.

Meanwhile, over in North Carolina, CAP was hard-wired into the state EMA and automatically called out for any missing person search in the state.

Yeah, that Tenth Amendment really puts a crimp in things.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,893

« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2018, 01:27:06 PM »

Lemme bounce this off you folks...

Is your CAP ground teams hindered in participating in local SAR because of state laws???

Here in Washington State, SAR is very different.  All air search & rescue is handled by the Washington State Dept. of Transportation - Aviation Emergency Services (WSDOT-AES).  They conduct all ELT and EPIRB searches.  If the search becomes extensive, they will contact CAP for help.  State law mandates WSDOT-AES is the state authority for all air SAR missions and is the de facto Incident Commander (OK, fair enough). 

In order for CAP to participate, you MUST attend WSDOT's 8- hour AES volunteer orientation course AND be issued an AES volunteer ID.  If you do not have this ID... you will not perform on any WSDOT AES mission.  But, it gets stickier...

By state law, the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county" (Sheriff) is responsible for GSAR.  If a CAP ground team, on a WSDOT missions, locates the ELT signal and it's attached to an airplane that's schmucked into the side of a hill or sifted through the trees, they have to disengage and back off because the incident now becomes a ground search & rescue incident!  CAP are only considers "support teams" for WSDOT, unless your ground team possesses the required state certification for GSAR and the state emergency worker's ID card.  Then... and ONLY then... can they engage the incident as a GSAR team.
Anybody in any other wings deal with similar issues?

Ping me offline about this. I'm actively working through our chain of command to solve these problems.

Or, since everybody else is impacted, just put it out there. No need to maintain the secret squirrel cylinder of mediocrity...
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
sardak
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,215

« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2018, 02:04:23 PM »

Is your CAP ground teams hindered in participating in local SAR because of state laws???

Here in Washington State, SAR is very different.  All air search & rescue is handled by the Washington State Dept. of Transportation - Aviation Emergency Services (WSDOT-AES).

By state law, the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county" (Sheriff) is responsible for GSAR.

It's just interesting how it varies so much from state to state.  In Tennessee, ELT searches were handled by CAP, but search & rescue was [supposedly] done by the county volunteer rescue squad.

Meanwhile, over in North Carolina, CAP was hard-wired into the state EMA and automatically called out for any missing person search in the state.
Anybody in any other wings deal with similar issues?
As a former commander of AFRCC said, 50 states, 50 ways of doing SAR. AFRCC has an MOU with each state defining who the lead agency is for ELT search, PLB search, missing person search and missing aircraft search.  There is a also a State SAR Coordinators Council, the chairman of which is the Washington State SAR coordinator, the vice-chair is from North Carolina and the secretary is from Colorado.

Summarizing how SAR is handled within the states, there are 13 states in which the state aeronautics department or equivalent is in charge of missing aircraft search while law enforcement is charge of missing person search. So you aren't alone in Washington.

Quote
Is your CAP ground team hindered in participating in local SAR because of state laws???
You aren't hindered. You're simply required to take training outside of what you had to take in CAP, which is a good idea. All the rest of the ground SAR personnel had to take the same training.

Mike
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 691

« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2018, 08:11:54 PM »

Also, having taken CAP and WSDOT training for various tasks I can attest to the very high quality of the WSDOT product.  I know this sounds snarky - though I do NOT intend it as such... If anyone of us can't "take 10 hours" to get required training, how can we take time to actually participate in a SAR or DR emergency?  A bigger question might be:  If our training doesn't mesh with that required by the Agency in charge, are we destined to (maybe) become part of the problem in the SAR/relief effort... rather that an element of the safely accomplished outcome?
Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 485
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2018, 01:48:45 PM »

Also, having taken CAP and WSDOT training for various tasks I can attest to the very high quality of the WSDOT product.  I know this sounds snarky - though I do NOT intend it as such... If anyone of us can't "take 10 hours" to get required training, how can we take time to actually participate in a SAR or DR emergency?  A bigger question might be:  If our training doesn't mesh with that required by the Agency in charge, are we destined to (maybe) become part of the problem in the SAR/relief effort... rather that an element of the safely accomplished outcome?
The issue is availability of training. WSDOT is not good about being 'user-friendly' wrt scheduling, notice or geography.
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 691

« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2018, 08:50:37 PM »


The issue is availability of training. WSDOT is not good about being 'user-friendly' wrt scheduling, notice or geography.

I agree that's a problem.  However, it is definitely NOT unique to WSDOT! 

When was the last time Wing coordinated a pilot clinic, mountain flying clinic, MO, Scanner, GTL, PAO, etc. or other key training opportunities near squadrons distant from the centroid of population (CAP and other)?  If recently (in the past year) great!  If not, well... let's be sure to compare apples and apple sauce.  FWIW, I see very little to not much Wing training near my Squadron.  While State resources come over from time to time... budget does affect Agency travel just like it affects my ability to go to locations closer to Wing HQ.  I recall my last training investment was in the multiples of $100 and a couple of days.  Gotta do what we think are our priorities, I guess.
Logged
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,658

« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2018, 10:47:48 PM »


The issue is availability of training. WSDOT is not good about being 'user-friendly' wrt scheduling, notice or geography.

I agree that's a problem.  However, it is definitely NOT unique to WSDOT! 

When was the last time Wing coordinated a pilot clinic, mountain flying clinic, MO, Scanner, GTL, PAO, etc. or other key training opportunities near squadrons distant from the centroid of population (CAP and other)?  If recently (in the past year) great!  If not, well... let's be sure to compare apples and apple sauce.  FWIW, I see very little to not much Wing training near my Squadron.  While State resources come over from time to time... budget does affect Agency travel just like it affects my ability to go to locations closer to Wing HQ.  I recall my last training investment was in the multiples of $100 and a couple of days.  Gotta do what we think are our priorities, I guess.

When was the last time your squadron or group offered such training?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,718

« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2018, 08:29:43 AM »

Why is this even asked?

Many, many, many times there is NO local resource that can sign off in such a task! My Group does not have SETs in many of the tasks I wanted my squadron to be certified. I started coordinating such training but had to stop after four attempts. I was successful two times. Received no response for two others, and I called two adjoining groups and Wing HQ

No response. Zero. Nada. Zilch!

I have to add, that another Group member is receiving the cooperaion of another member from an adjoining group.

I am willing to bet the answer to your question is that there was no response from other groups.

 ::)
Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,301

« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2018, 11:04:45 AM »

Why is this even asked?
Because many times, units expect someone else to provide training that meets the unit's schedule, but are unwilling to step up and even assist in planning training. i.e. arrange for a location.

Quote
Many, many, many times there is NO local resource that can sign off in such a task! My Group does not have SETs in many of the tasks I wanted my squadron to be certified. I started coordinating such training but had to stop after four attempts. I was successful two times. Received no response for two others, and I called two adjoining groups and Wing HQ

No response. Zero. Nada. Zilch!

I have to add, that another Group member is receiving the cooperaion of another member from an adjoining group.

I am willing to bet the answer to your question is that there was no response from other groups.

 ::)
Training and task evaluation are two different things. Anyone can do the training. You can even do it on your own. Task evaluation requires a SET. I ran a complete GTM3 training program over four months at my unit a couple years ago, culminating in a ground based SAREX expressly for the purpose of qualifying GTM3s. I received plenty of help from group and wing. What I did not get was other units participating in the SAREX, which was 45 mins - 1 hr away from them (a couple were only 15 mins out). We still got a few folks from my unit signed off (including me) and I heard later that year some of those units were complaining no one offered ground based SAREXs so they could get their folks signed off, but they did not want to put forth the effort to help make it happen.
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 691

« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2018, 12:17:23 PM »


The issue is availability of training. WSDOT is not good about being 'user-friendly' wrt scheduling, notice or geography.

I agree that's a problem. ...

When was the last time your squadron or group offered such training?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good question.  Squadrn tng has occurred in the last year.  About 18 months ago Wing sponsored an AP course.  That about the same amount of time since the last WSDOT training opportunities outside of the Seattle and Puget Sound area.

Something to keep in mind, however, is that most squadrons don't have the capability to provide really top notch instruction.  Neither do many groups.  An often overlooked reality is that WSDOT/Aviation, IDTOT/Aviation, and other States that are significantly involved in aviation SAR/DR have paid staff and the ability to pull together professionally done training.  It's also important that when training is offered over one or more blocks spanning multiple weekends retention and skill set development is more likely to occur.  Unfortunately, the 'norm' for participation of training offered at squadron meetings is at best spotty.  In every case I've seen that just doesn't lead to good retention of material.  Death-by-powerpoint with NESA materials is the norm for all of the Squadron (or group) training I've seen.  Also, merely having SET approval doesn't mean even that step is well done.  Check rides with WSDOT, as well as all of their instruction far exceeds the quality and accountability of any "comparable" CAP SAR/DR training (including NESA) I've attended.  IOW, inexpensive (local) squadron options are not likely to achieve an acceptable outcome if the goal is to develop effective SAR/DR skill sets.  Unfortunately, it's my observation that neither does group or Wing offered training.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 12:27:05 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,718

« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2018, 03:59:35 PM »

If the training does not come from a SET you run the risk of that SET stating "you are not a SET therefore that training is not valid." Plus since the publications are so old the SET will judge task attainment differently.

Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2018, 04:02:30 PM »

One thing being missed here is that WSDOT appears to have it own, robust SAR volunteer program
that does not need CAP's help, so they, like the ARC, are not incentivized to help CAP, and it's
likely CAP's involvement may actually be a negative in some areas in regards to overtime
and other funding for full-timers.

We have the same issue in my wing with CD - it's a nice way to build hours for other agencies,
so in most areas we only get flights when something needs to be checked in a hurry and
there's no other agency available, it is what it is.

I agree completely that Wings are not responsible for wrench-turning training, however I would say in cases
like these it's actually wing's, or even National's problem to intervene and try to get CAP involved, that's
really the intended role and mission of higher HQ, not running flight clinics and training MSAs.

Units should start training plans with local mission needs first, then teaching themselves the skills necessary.
Once proficiency is achieved, start looking for an SET.
Logged


Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2018, 04:06:30 PM »

If the training does not come from a SET you run the risk of that SET stating "you are not a SET therefore that training is not valid." Plus since the publications are so old the SET will judge task attainment differently.

Negative, and if you're having that issue in your wing it needs to be addressed directly and swiftly with the Wing's DO,
CC, or higher iF the response is not correct.

The ONLY THING an SET can require is that you complete the tasks exactly the way they are indicated in the task guides.
No embellishment, no "local flavor", and no requirement an SET be the one who provided the actual training.

If fact, reality and expediency aside, most people consider the trainer being the SET as "not a best practice" at best, and
a conflict of interest at worst.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, CAP is far too short-handed for it not too, but when the
trainer is also the SET, bad habits, or worse, can get propagated instead of caught.
Logged


Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,718

« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2018, 04:18:03 PM »

Not all wings are the same, and no Wing DOS are the same.

Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2018, 04:22:27 PM »

Not all wings are the same, and no Wing DOS are the same.

Agreed, which is why my comment indicated you should keep going "up" until the right answer comes out.

Lots of people like to make things up locally, either to maintain a fiefdom, because they don't know
better, or "reasons".  That doesn't make it right.

It's a national standard for a reason.
Logged


Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,718

« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2018, 04:39:31 PM »

Two examples.

One SET I know very experienced otherwise. He teaches that on a line search, one person marks the path taken in a forest with flagging tape. At the end of the required path, the team does a 180 turn and the tape is removed.

The required tasks do not say anything the tape is removed. It may stand for reason, such as ecological, but what if a second team will follow this team?

Second example.

Another SET I know teaches that on a pace count, the distance of one pace is one standard step such as that taken when marching. And the step he takes is a long one. That everyone should take the same distance.

The required task states that the pace is individual, to obtain the pace length you set a course 100 meters long then you walk it, to see how many paces it takes you to travel it. Which he does not use.

And there is such differences between each and everyone.

Plus when you announce "local training" you are always, but always asked "will there be someone to sign you off?" If you answer "no," almost no one attends.


Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2018, 06:41:57 PM »

^ The answers are in your questions, and start with "show me", and end with
a memo to the Wing DO regarding one of his SETs not following procedure.

As to people not showing up if no one will sign them off, that is an attitudinal adjustment,
but also a self-leveling problem - no one shows then you don't have an issue next time they
whine about wanting training.

People can't have it both ways.
Logged


Toth
Member

Posts: 60

« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2018, 09:14:09 PM »

In Montana, by state law, SAR is run completely by the local sheriff's office. If they choose to use CAP as a resource, great, but 99/100 times we don't get called. Mostly MTWG just runs planes for photographing things like flooding and wildfire. As a result, even our most senior cadets usually only have GTM3 training, if that, and those of us who have more quals usually get them from NCSAs.
Logged
C/Capt Toth Mendius, CAP
C/CC RMR-MT-053 (ret.), RMR Ass't Rep NCAC (ret.)
Mitchell #65174, Earhart #17361
GES, ♦ICUT, ♦FLM, GTM3, UDF, SET, MS, MRO, EMT, *GTM2
sardak
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,215

« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2018, 11:56:40 PM »

^^^^
In Montana, as with Washington (and Idaho in-between), the sheriff is responsible for ground SAR but the state aeronautics division is responsible for aeronautical SAR. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/aviation/search-rescue.shtml

Mike
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,974

« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2018, 06:47:49 AM »

In Montana, by state law, SAR is run completely by the local sheriff's office. If they choose to use CAP as a resource, great, but 99/100 times we don't get called. Mostly MTWG just runs planes for photographing things like flooding and wildfire. As a result, even our most senior cadets usually only have GTM3 training, if that, and those of us who have more quals usually get them from NCSAs.
Then that is a problem in your ES program in that the squadron/group/Wing ES officers aren't taking the time necessary to go and meet with the sheriffs to discuss CAP's abilities as they should be doing.  This is apparently a problem in most Wings, so don't take it personally.  This sort of coordination won't solve the call-out problem unless you also have enough well-trained people that it is worth their while to remember to call you.  Sort of a chicken and egg situation though as its hard to recruit people unless there are missions and its hard to get missions unless you have the people....
Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 485
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2018, 08:59:02 AM »

Then that is a problem in your ES program in that the squadron/group/Wing ES officers aren't taking the time necessary to go and meet with the sheriffs to discuss CAP's abilities as they should be doing. 
That is not allowed at the local level, MOUs have to be negotiated by NHQ and Wing LOs.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2018, 10:00:54 AM »

Then that is a problem in your ES program in that the squadron/group/Wing ES officers aren't taking the time necessary to go and meet with the sheriffs to discuss CAP's abilities as they should be doing. 
That is not allowed at the local level, MOUs have to be negotiated by NHQ and Wing LOs.

A - This is incorrect.  See CAPR 111-2.  CMAs have to approve the final MOUs, but they don't have to be
the ones to make the contacts, start the process, and certainly they aren't the ones to maintain the relationship(s).
There are also plenty of other instruments of agreement, including a handshake, other then an MOU,
which frankly isn't generally worth the effort. (see just about every other CAP MOU for reference).

B - Making local contacts and agreements for response is not only allowed, it's
literally one of the duties of the operations / ES staff at all levels.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 10:05:33 AM by Eclipse » Logged


OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 485
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2018, 11:23:12 AM »

 Negotiation of such relationships, especially in the form of MOUs, is solely within the authority of the wing commander and he/she may choose to delegate that authority. Those negotiating new or revised MOUs should utilize legal officer services to the greatest extent possible.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 11:28:40 AM by OldGuy » Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2018, 01:03:59 PM »

Negotiation of such relationships, especially in the form of MOUs when an MOU is necessary, is solely within the authority of requires the approval of the wing commander and he/she may choose to delegate that authority. Those negotiating new or revised MOUs should utilize legal officer services to the greatest extent possible.

FTFY.

MOUs are not required for "relationships" with customer agencies, and in fact are usually
more trouble then they are worth.

Yes, when and if an MOU is signed the CMA has to sign it, but the relationship itself, if it's below
the state level, and especially at the county or lower, is the direct responsibility of the unit or Group ESO, not the Wing.

CAPR 20-1, page 29 (Emergency Services Officer):
"Develop agreements with agencies responsible for search, domestic emergencies, and civil defense."

That's not a subjective delegation, that's the job.

My wing has 102 counties (TXWG has 254), and while there is an MOU in place between it and the AFRCC
as required by law, there is no MOU with CAP (state's not interested in the conversation) yet we get more then a little ES work
based solely on local agreements that are fully within the regs (i.e. you need us, call the NOC, we'll be there).

No MOU, no letter, just a handshake.

Most CAP MOUs just recognize the existence of the two parties and "encourage cooperation", they are not
contracts, nor do they guarantee work, the relationship with the local managers and some assurance of
performance are what get CAP work.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 01:10:30 PM by Eclipse » Logged


Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,658

« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2018, 03:21:26 PM »

To refine Eclipse’s point, the best time to have an MOU is when a customer needs it internally guarantee a funding stream when he wants to call CAP. Sometimes it’s easier to get the accounts payable office to pay a bill when there’s an existing piece of paper, rather than the EM manager explaining how he spent $3k on pictures from someone nobody has ever heard of before.

Other than that, probably not a lot of reasons to go through the work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 485
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2018, 08:20:47 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2018, 09:17:03 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.

LO?  You mean on the Wing volunteer staff?  Or CAP-USAF?

The former isn't a "thing", and the latter hasn't been a factor (or existed, for probably 10 years).

BITD State Directors, and before them, Liaison Officers, (at least the better ones) did want to be
involved in initiating and managing outside agency relationships, but sadly their ability to do that effectively
evaporated along with the manpower over the last 15 some years.
Logged


OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 485
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2018, 09:18:54 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.

LO?  You mean on the Wing volunteer staff?  Or CAP-USAF?

The former isn't a "thing", and the latter hasn't been a factor (or existed, for probably 10 years).

BITD State Directors, and before them, Liaison Officers, (at least the better ones) did want to be
involved in initiating and managing outside agency relationships, but sadly their ability to do that effectively
evaporated along with the manpower over the last 15 some years.
LO = Legal Officer.
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,974

« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2018, 09:29:19 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
They have no turf to guard.  As Eclipse pointed out, it is the ES officers job to talk to local officials and there are almost no circumstances where any sort of official agreement is needed (and hasn't been for 10+ years).  Going to sit down with the sherrif and giving him the NOC's number is about all you need to do. 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,270

« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2018, 09:31:35 PM »

Yep.

LO = Legal Officer.

Also, Legal Officer is "JA" not "LO".
Logged


OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 485
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2018, 09:42:33 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
They have no turf to guard.  As Eclipse pointed out, it is the ES officers job to talk to local officials and there are almost no circumstances where any sort of official agreement is needed (and hasn't been for 10+ years).  Going to sit down with the sherrif and giving him the NOC's number is about all you need to do.
OK. But that is not the situation here.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,319

« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2018, 10:20:52 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
They have no turf to guard.  As Eclipse pointed out, it is the ES officers job to talk to local officials and there are almost no circumstances where any sort of official agreement is needed (and hasn't been for 10+ years).  Going to sit down with the sherrif and giving him the NOC's number is about all you need to do.
OK. But that is not the situation here.

And where is "here"?
Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,288
Unit: Worry

« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2018, 02:35:28 AM »

Yep.

LO = Legal Officer.

Also, Legal Officer is "JA" not "LO".

Looks like GC to me...

EDIT: No, that is just what is on the OPR for the doc I was looking at.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 02:39:28 AM by Holding Pattern » Logged
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 932

« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2018, 11:34:38 AM »

this one time......
X Wing complained that the state agency that was responsible for SAR never called them to assist with GSAR operations despite and MOU and having a ready source of manpower.  Fast forward, an exercise was planned at the Wing level, with said agency to overview the scenario and have an actual supervisory level person present to act as the liaison. 

Despite extensive lead time, the turnout was around 16 people.  Most of them were not even GTM3(T), somehow they were led to believe that they could just participate as GES.  If I recall correctly most of the qualified team members were only GTM3.  Overall the teams abilities to accomplish the evaluated tasks was complicated.  They had a fantastic opportunity to prove that previous beliefs about CAP GSAR capability were unfounded; and dropped the ball horrendously.  That relationship is likely broken (still) for a very long time.

Moral of the story:  You cant effectively sell a product on what it might be able to do.  You will never be able to convince an outside SAR agency to use CAP based on the fluff of a capabilities briefing:  If you can only field a 8 man team, dont tell them you have a team of 24.  (tell them 24 team members with an average response capability of 8)  if your team is mostly GTM3's with a couple of GTM1's, dont sell it as a GTM 1 capable team... if thats what you need to sell, train and qualify to a point that its mostly GTM1's instead, then sell it.

MK
Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,974

« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2018, 01:10:14 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
They have no turf to guard.  As Eclipse pointed out, it is the ES officers job to talk to local officials and there are almost no circumstances where any sort of official agreement is needed (and hasn't been for 10+ years).  Going to sit down with the sherrif and giving him the NOC's number is about all you need to do.
OK. But that is not the situation here.

I don't know what "here" you may be at where the nationally-mandated roles and responsibilities of ES officers at squadron, group, and wing levels don't involve working with local officials at the appropriate levels. 
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,473
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2018, 06:27:37 PM »

Based on available info, I'm guessing WAWG. I've seen other discussions of "issues" between CAP and local agencies.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: CAP-SAR & State Laws
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.107 seconds with 25 queries.