SAREX Planning

[Short Field]

I am just curious about how other units plan their SAREXs. 

Who plans them (Wing or Squadron level) and how much time and effort goes into planning the SAREX?  What level of detail is planned into the SAREX?  Who actually conducts the SAREX - does the mission base staff just run with it or do you have a project officer to provide additional inputs and make changes as events progress?  Do you have a local evaluator to determine problem areas and recommend fixes?

Any and all comments would be helpful.   

[SStradley]

Our SAREXs are planed and operated at the Group Level.  A lot of time goes into the planning. Each SARES will  have a project officer (Planning Section Chief) who works for the Group Commander durring the planning phase.  He gets input from both ground and air (GBD & AOBD).  He prepares a full five paragraph OP-ORDER.  The SAREX is run under the IC system, with a full staff.  We have several qualified ICs in the Group and OSCs and PSCs as well as GBDs and AOBDs.  We schedule a SAREX every other month and have different Squdarons host them.  We use the SAREX to train Mission Base Staff as well as Air Crews and Ground Teams.

[Short Field]

Thanks for the input - I was hoping to see more comments here.

[RiverAux]

The question was so broad as to be difficult to answer since all the options you mention are used depending on the training objective.   

[Eclipse]

Define SAREx.

I have units that run mission training, I run some at the group level, and Wing runs exercises.

generally there is a POC and planning staff tasked with setting up scenarios and getting people involved, and then those same people may or may not be involved in actual operations.

With motivated people you can spin-up a decent-sized exercise in less than a week (as you would in the real world), and if you're planning a wing-level evaluated exercise it could take 6-months+ to plan.

Your best situation is having an "activity" staff which is separate from operational planning.  If the same people planning this as an activity are going to plan the actual mission work, you wind up with lots of circular reporting relationships, high-level directors who know where everything is so they don't get to "play", and getting run into the ground with responsibilities.

If you're able to setup a group of "OPFOR" types who can go and create the scenarios without giving away the secrets so everyone form the IC down can "play", that's the best.

[RiverAux]

There are also what are sometimes known as "Field Training Exercises", usually without any Wing training funds but with an AFAM#, that focus on getting people qualified in specific tasks (usually for ground teams) rather than an actual SAR simulation.  I've seen these done mostly at the squadron level with no outside help. 

[Eclipse]

There are also what are sometimes known as "Field Training Exercises", usually without any Wing training funds but with an AFAM#, that focus on getting people qualified in specific tasks (usually for ground teams) rather than an actual SAR simulation.  I've seen these done mostly at the squadron level with no outside help. 

Just for clarity, FTX's would not be AFAM's - they would be wing training numbers.

I can't speak for other wing's, but mine would still require at least a skeleton ICS staff and full paperwork
for any mission number.

Of course anyone can spend time in the field with an instructor or SET and get tasking and training without mission credit. IN fact we should all be doing more proficiency operations.

[RiverAux]

We get unfunded AFAMS for FTXs all the time.  If the squadron wants to go through the trouble of writing an operations plan, etc. they can get them.  Different places do it different ways.  There isn't any regulation on this issue. 

[jeders]

Alright.

Local SAREX lasting one day with classroom training and field training takes about one day to plan. This includes no funding and no outside support. Typical training for this type of SAREX is just for low level training such as GT and aircrew. Local ES staff runs things off a scenario and gives new surprises to the trainees when they're in the field.

Local SAREX lasting more than one day with in-field training and multiple units attending. This can take as much as a month to plan and coordinate as you're getting multiple units together. Local ES staff runs things just as in the previous example. This can include classroom training, though most training is in the field thus making it more of an FTX.

Group level SAREX with multiple units attending. This is run basically the same as the above SAREXs except that it is planned by group, not squadron level units. This may take a month or more to plan because not only are attendees coming from multiple units, but trainers have to be found from multiple units. Trainers are rarely part of group headquarters and rather come from the squadrons. This often is done with activity staff and trainers knowing all the things going on but most of the mission base staff are operating without knowledge of the actual goings on so that they can "play". This type of SAREX may have AF funding.

Wing level SAREX. Same as group level except that more people are playing and thus it takes longer to plan, up to 2 or 3 months. These SAREXs may have completely separate activity staff and IC staff so that all of the IC staff get to play. These almost always have AF funding.

There are two general types of Wing level SAREXs. One is the DSAREX or distributed SAREX. Here you have an Incident Command Post (ICP) somewhere in the wing and then units that want to participate mey do so as local Staging Areas. The SAs report to the ICP but do there own training locally.

The second is the WAX or Wide Area Exercise. Here you still have a central ICP, but instead of having distributed SAs, if you want to play you go to the ICP. The WAX may have a different name in your wing, that's just one name it has here in TXWG.

Anything where you have operational SAR training is a SAREX, though it may be called something else like FTX. Hope this helps, though to really give you a good answer it would be necessary to know exactly what kind of training you want to do and how many players you want to have.

There are also what are sometimes known as "Field Training Exercises", usually without any Wing training funds but with an AFAM#, that focus on getting people qualified in specific tasks (usually for ground teams) rather than an actual SAR simulation.  I've seen these done mostly at the squadron level with no outside help. 

Just for clarity, FTX's would not be AFAM's - they would be wing training numbers.

I can't speak for other wing's, but mine would still require at least a skeleton ICS staff and full paperwork
for any mission number.

Of course anyone can spend time in the field with an instructor or SET and get tasking and training without mission credit. IN fact we should all be doing more proficiency operations.

A skeleton ICS staff is pretty easy to get. Typically the project officer will also be the IC. The IC is the only ICS staffer necessary for the ICS system.

[Eclipse]

We get unfunded AFAMS for FTXs all the time.  If the squadron wants to go through the trouble of writing an operations plan, etc. they can get them.  Different places do it different ways.  There isn't any regulation on this issue. 

There is a difference between an AFAM and a corporate training mission, both provide credit towards qualifications, however AFAMs provide more benefits to members.

I seriously doubt you are getting AFAM's for unfunded local SAREx's.

[RiverAux]

Yep, sure are.  At least one locally in the past 4-5 months.  Have been doing it for years and years. 

[jeders]

Same here. TXWG finally worked out a simple system to get unfunded AF mission numbers for local training. All you have to do is write up an Ops Plan and give 2 to 6 weeks lead in time, depending on whether or not aircraft are used.

[Eclipse]

A skeleton ICS staff is pretty easy to get. Typically the project officer will also be the IC. The IC is the only ICS staffer necessary for the ICS system.

Correct, however YMMV as to wing's requirments since they will be approving the plan.  Mine strongly encourages a safety officer for everything, and in many cases requires branch directors when multiple teams or multiple aircraft are involved.

In terms of the aircraft the above is a little circular, since its pretty rare to have multiple aircraft on an unfunded exercise, and anything funded requires more staff and scrutiny (at least around these parts).

[Eclipse]

Yep, sure are.  At least one locally in the past 4-5 months.  Have been doing it for years and years. 

Same here. TXWG finally worked out a simple system to get unfunded AF mission numbers for local training. All you have to do is write up an Ops Plan and give 2 to 6 weeks lead in time, depending on whether or not aircraft are used.

Well, I give your people credit for going through the extra effort to make sure the participants have coverage.

[SStradley]

Yep, sure are.  At least one locally in the past 4-5 months.  Have been doing it for years and years. 

Same here. TXWG finally worked out a simple system to get unfunded AF mission numbers for local training. All you have to do is write up an Ops Plan and give 2 to 6 weeks lead in time, depending on whether or not aircraft are used.

Well, I give your people credit for going through the extra effort to make sure the participants have coverage.

As far as I knew there was no other way to do it and get SQTR mission credit.  We have three types of missions here:
1) real missions
2) training missions
3) non-funding training missions

Each mission number looks just the same except for a code that (for OPSEC I won't reveal) identifies them as to the type.  Any type of mission will qualify for a SQTR.  However, while I understand one on one training, for the book requirements, I can't see Joe Mission Pilot and Bubba Scanner-want-to-be paying for the plane out of their pocket and then telling me to approve Bubba's MS because they went flying and looked for stuff.

Now if Joe is the SQ ESO (or the SQ ESO) and puts together a NFT mission meeting those requirements and has it reviewed by the chain of command, then that is fine. Joe and Bubba can pay for the flying and Bubba can get credit for his Scanner Missions.  If I don't see a mission number on the SQTR then I won't approve the rating.

[Eclipse]

^ This may well be the issue.

All missions are not created equal - that letter designator that you mentioned is the key.

One means its an AFAM - meaning you get full benefits, etc., the other is a corporate mission, which means you only get corporate coverage, etc.

I can only speak for my wing, but the majority of AFAMs we see are eval's, ELT's, and the occasional real-world DR, and/or work for 3/4 letter agencies.

Everything else is a corporate training mission, but both types convey the same mission credit towards training and qualification.

As I said, for us its relatively unusual to see an AFAM for unfunded training because there is no reason to involve them (other than the benefit coverage), and not all funded training is an AFAM either.

[jeders]

As I said, for us its relatively unusual to see an AFAM for unfunded training because there is no reason to involve them (other than the benefit coverage), and not all funded training is an AFAM either.

According to the people that put together the policy here, one of the goals of having AFAM numbers for unfunded training is to show the Air Force all the training that local units do and hopefully get more funding in the future. Who knows, hopefully it will lead to more money.

[Short Field]

Good comments.

What prompted my question was the wide disparity I have seen in SAREXs in our wing.  [NOTE:  I really don't want to air what I see as problems in how we do it, I just want to see how others do it)

We are starting to increase the training of Mission Base Staff but nothing I have seen so far supports this to any great degree.    I also call any activation of Mission Base as a SAREX - it could be purely notional activity and sorties, actual sorties, or a combination of both.  All SAREXs are open to area squadrons - composite, senior, and cadet.

The concept of a SAREX planner and SAREX controllers (people who will not play a role in the SAREX) seems like a good idea, especially if they are working at a higher level than the squadrons.

How many sorties (ground & air) does your mission base staff normally work on a SAREX?  How many notional vs actual?  Do you mix notional and actual sorties?

Our wing is pushing to use AFAM if at all possilbe for training because of the difference between AFAM and corporate insurance coverage.

Thanks again.

[RiverAux]

Personally I think of two different types of SAREX -- one where you actually pretend to be doing a real search, often times using someone such as the state director or AF Reservists to play act as the AFRCC or other agencies funnelling clues to the base staff.  The other type is where the base staff is solely there to get ground or air sorties turned around as quickly as possible. 

The first type is good for base staff training, but really slows down how much air or ground time you get in since the staff has to spend a lot of time search planning.  The second time eliminates search planning time in favor of getting more sorties done.  This type of training is more focused on getting the crews qualified rather than the base. 

With a simulated search SAREX we are usually lucky if each airplane gets a morning and an afternoon search sortie (not counting inbound/outbound flights).  Turnaround time takes forever.  With the crew-focused training you can sometimes get 3 search sorties in, maybe 4 if you do one on one of the inbound or outbound flights.  With them you've got a bunch of scenarios all ready to go and when the crew gets back you just hand them the next target, they flightplan, and are back up ASAP.  With simulated search it often takes a lot longer to generate a new target for the crew. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I am in the same Group as SStradley, and we FORMERLY used Wing-level unfunbdedc SAREX mission numbers.  These were usually in connection with Scanner, Observer, or Mission Pilot ground classes, and the emphasis was on giving the crews the air time needed to qualify.

Nothing succeeds like success, though, and since out Group has bounced back from having something like 2 mission pilots (and one was out of town 6 months out of a year) to almost a dozen, plus loads of GT-types, FLM's, and other aircrew, we got more AFAM funded missions than most Groups in our Wing.

We also get guys from other Groups coming in to participate in our training.

We now also have zero problems getting an unfunded mission number from the SD when we need one.  Although unfunded, we are still protected under the Federal laws if we hurt someone or get hurt ourselves.

Speaking of injury, I will now risk a rotator cuff injury patting myself on the back.  I was the one that trained the Group staff to assign a responsible officer as the exercise planner, and trained them to use the 5-paragraph format for mission and exercise planning.  It is now used not only for SAREX's but for cadet activities, and other missions.

I just got an OPORD from a unit that is planning a cadet O-flight and activity day.  I suddenly felt like Yoda. 

May the Force be with you.