Are "saves" really "saves"?

[RiverAux]

After seeing the recent CAP News Online story on the find involving some lost hikers in Rhode Island (how do you get lost in Rhode Island anyway?), I got to wondering about how legitimate our use of the term "save" is in some situations. 

Every once in a while it is indisputable that CAP has saved somebody's life in an ES situation and I don't have any problem with using the term then.  But what about somebody who is just temporarily lost in the woods, is basically capable of taking care of themselves (not an Alzheimer's patient or a 3-year old in other words), when there aren't any major weather issues (not 30 below 0 in a blizzard)?  Most people in these sorts of situations aren't in any real danger of losing their life and while they're undoubedly very happy at being rescued, I think it would be a little bit of a stretch to claim we saved their life. 

Yes, I know that it is the AFRCC that is responsible for granting "save" credit to CAP operations and it is really their call. 

Maybe we need to expand our categories of mission resolution:
Non-distress find = ELTs
Distress find = Target was found but persons did not survive. 
Rescue = People were in an emergency distress situation but were in no immediate danger of losing their life.
Save = People were in immediate danger of losing their life and were found. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

You might have a valid point, although in most cases it will lead to a lot of quibbling.

But, as you pointed out, it isn't our call.  Write the suggestion up to AFRCC.

[RiverAux]

Perhaps we should just use "rescue"? 

[Short Field]

Does that mean more ribbons for the bling hunters?   

[RiverAux]

How do you get that? 

[Short Field]

We use two ribbons now for finds and saves:
Find Ribbon:  Distress or non-distress finds
Lifesaving Ribbon:  Saves - with a silver star if other than blood or organ transport

Not that I have a problem with more ribbons since I did proudly wear the National Defense Service Medal and always liked it when I got a little ribbon that pushed my top medal to a new row.  But if we try to define these more exactly, how do we record them?

CAP ribbons record your achievements and levels of participation and display them for others to see beyond what a CAPF 2A does.  Following what you are saying, then maybe we need the following ribbons:

Non-Distress Find Ribbon = ELTs
Distress Find Ribbon = Founded DOA
Rescue Ribbon = Founded alive
Transport Save = Life saved due to blood or organ transport
Save =  Immediate danger of dying and were saved

Otherwise making a distinction makes no difference except on the CAPF 2A - which I hope most people don't frame and put on their walls.

[pixelwonk]

I didn't get the impression that this thread is about the bling associated with a save.

Anyway... If CAP changes it's vocabulary to "rescue" instead of save, what's really the difference?

As an aside, I'm not one that has to have a defined problem etched in granite before accepting change.  If it benefits the organization, just 'splain it that way.

[Short Field]

I didn't get the impression that this thread is about the bling associated with a save.

There was a big grin behind the bling.   

Seriously, if you differentiate between events, there must be a reason.   Given that there are minimal requirements to maintain CAPF 2As in the squadron records, and those ribbons are only recorded on 2As, then without a more lasting visible indication of the difference (i.e. ribbons),  it becomes a one time presentation at a meeting of a CAPF 2a - hopefully the meeting that had over 50% of the members show up.  That makes it almost irrelevant.  A bit of colored cloth now lasts for ever.  I really was proud of my NDSM when I graduated basic training.  We can't pay our members more - and there is no way we can pay them less - so visible symbols of appreciation are all we can give them.

If this is a proposal for a Rescue Ribbon, I am on board.

[♠SARKID♠]

After seeing the recent CAP News Online story on the find involving some lost hikers in Rhode Island (how do you get lost in Rhode Island anyway?), I got to wondering about how legitimate our use of the term "save" is in some situations. 

You know, when I read that story I asked myself the EXACT same question except I was curious as to how they defined "save" in reference to the "105 saves" on the cap.gov home page pic.

[sardak]

Save credit is not just up to AFRCC. The exact words from CAPR 60-3 (and previous versions of the ES regs and manuals) are:
The determination as to whether or not a SAVE is made rests with the controlling agency (for example, AFRCC for SAR, AFNSEP for DR) based on the recommendation of the appropriate incident commander or participating emergency services element. In the case of a medical evacuation, the attending physician must attest to the SAVE. (Emphasis mine.)

CAPM 50-15 (15 Apr 83) included that exact wording but also included another paragraph:
Although considerable latitude is allowed in determining SAVE credit, some element of jeopardy to the life of the individual must be present either by reason of physical condition or the situation from which rescued, or both.
I don't find this wording in subsequent ES regs or manuals.

Definitions from AFRCC annual reports:
SAVE: Objective was located and in a life-or-death situation
ASSIST: Objective located and in distress, but not a life-or-death situation.

Definitions from the US Coast Guard:
Lives saved are those lives that would have been lost had the rescue action not been taken. This includes actually pulling a person from a position of distress or removing them from a situation that would likely resulted in their death had the action not been taken.
Lives assisted are those persons who are provided assistance that did not meet the criteria for lives saved but did receive some assistance.

It's interesting that the Coast Guard also tracks lives lost, and further separates lives lost into two categories "lives lost before notification" and "lives lost after notification."  USCG publishes these figures and has performance benchmarks but this is off-topic.

Mike

[RiverAux]

Since Flying Pig brought up this very issue in another thread, I thought it might be appropriate to bump this one. 

Oddly enough, CAP really doesn't publisize our "saves" very well.  Considering that we're getting 75-100 a year on average, you'd think we'd have them plastered all over our magazines and publications, but you very rarely see them with information on individual incidents.  About the only save stories I recall seeing lately have involved those extremely rare saves involving airplane crashes, but there is just no way those account for the largest share. 

Based on SARDAK's notes, I would suspect that most CAP Saves would probably fall in the "Assist" category. 

[Flying Pig]

Since Flying Pig brought up this very issue in another thread, I thought it might be appropriate to bump this one. 

Oddly enough, CAP really doesn't publisize our "saves" very well.  Considering that we're getting 75-100 a year on average, you'd think we'd have them plastered all over our magazines and publications, but you very rarely see them with information on individual incidents.  About the only save stories I recall seeing lately have involved those extremely rare saves involving airplane crashes, but there is just no way those account for the largest share. 

Based on SARDAK's notes, I would suspect that most CAP Saves would probably fall in the "Assist" category. 

Thats why we dont see them.

[EMT-83]

After seeing the recent CAP News Online story on the find involving some lost hikers in Rhode Island (how do you get lost in Rhode Island anyway?), I got to wondering about how legitimate our use of the term "save" is in some situations. 

There's actually plenty of woods in Rhode Island. Having "gotten lost in the woods" there, I'm pretty certain of that. While hiking in a Rhode Island state park a few years ago, the trail markings just stopped. Knowing that we were about 3/4 done with the hike, we pushed on, using our map and compass for guidance.

We ended up on an old logging road, and encountered a DEP officer. When we asked directions back to the trailhead, the guy was tripping over himself trying to "save" us! After repeated assurances that we were just fine, he pointed out the most direct route out, and we were on our way.

It was one of those situations that while we weren't lost, we didn't know exactly where we were. We always could have turned around, and walked back the way we came, but there's no fun in that.

Did the DEP officer "save" us? No. Did he "assist" us? Sure. Does he deserve an award? No. My wife refers to this as the time I actually asked someone for directions.