Declining Use of Ground Teams

[KatCAP]

All,

With seeing less use of Ground Teams on SARs, especially those involving cadets, how are other squadrons supplementing or changing thier training in order to provide real world experience for thier Ground Teams for both cadets and seniors?  Any thoughs, ideas, comments and suggestions would be more the welcomed.

Please forgive my autocorrect for any misspelling.

- Bernie

[Panzerbjorn]

Provide your ground teams with SARTEC training opportunities.  SARTEC is nationally recognized by EMS agencies and can help expand your capabilities for SAR. Professional SAR agencies know what it means when you're SARTEC qualified.  They don't necessarily know what it means when you're GTM1 qualified.

CERT and POD training will also expand your ground teams' capabilities.

[NC Hokie]

I'm seeing two schools of thought on this in my wing.

For the cadets, ground team training is moving more into the realm of leadership development and skills development using elements of the ranger program from HRMS.  They're not training to become better ground team members (although that is happening), but they're using ground team training to become better leaders and cadets.  The GT qualification is a means to an end, not the end itself.

For the senior members (and the serious cadets), there is a push to become either CERT or SARTECH qualified, which appears to be the qualifications that emergency managers in the state are looking for.  An example of this is that CAP GT members with SARTECH qualifications were immediately deployed on a recent missing person search by the local emergency manager, while those without SARTECH were held in reserve for the following day.

[Spam]

This is a good question, and the answer changes year to year, state to state, so it bears looking at again on occasion.


Arguably, if you train and certify to standards, and exercise regularly (and publicly, on SAREX/DREXs), respond promptly to ALNOTs, execute your mission swiftly ("search is an emergency") and keep the IC happy with frequent and accurate communication and accounting, you will get used. My unit deployed just yesterday on a successful ELT hunt, which admittedly are fewer now than they were in the 80s and 90s (thank you God), so those core missions are still there, firstly. Be proficient and have presence, and you will be used.


Next, I would question the less use of cadets perception. If there is a trend there in your Wing/Region, I'd ask why, and soon. Nondiscrimination in federally funded programs is a serious thing, and while we DO knowingly discriminate when selecting the right people for the task (e.g. run the ORM process) the use of cadets on ground teams for almost all taskings should be a normal thing. I agree with NC Hokie completely on the use of ES as another aspect of cadet leadership development, but as responders I've seen just as many serious cadets gain CERT and NASAR certification as seniors, over the years. One or two of mine have gone on into the USCG to be paid SAR pros, and one cadet went on to win the USCG silver lifesaving medal and has now transferred to USAF (completing PJ school). Hooah. NC Hokie, I like your use of the term "serious"!  I'd extend it to both cadets and seniors though... we have a lot of dilettante adults in our GT training program too.


The next step is to Know Your Customers (State and local, primarily). Before contacting your local EMS and SAR agencies, be honest with yourself and do a self-analysis of your capabilities (suggest using the Resource Typing aids found in the FEMA IS courses... look at your training, your manning, your equipment, all of it). Then, contact and go meet with your potential customers armed with this information and discuss where your unit could augment them in alerts (be sure to keep your Wing Ops shop in the loop). Be very careful about over committing your part time volunteers to joint training schedules (many times during the week, for the paid EMS types), and don't over-sell your abilities. Note down where they want help, and you think you could train to fill their gaps, if only as a part time/surge asset, then go train and equip to it.


Finally, reconsider your mission mix and admit when you lack the technical depth to self-train in areas where your customer is interested in support beyond CERT level. Locally, we have an exercise set up for OCT15 focusing on missing person SAR. Normally, having been through NASAR missing person SAR training, I am very skeptical about the quantity (recurrency/practice), quality, and depth of this training in CAP, having also spoken to many CAP and FD "experts" who think missing person SAR chiefly involves forming up untrained volunteers in line formations and clumping through brush in turnout gear, obscuring sign and scent. However, our Group DOS has done a great job scheduling a local training officer (uniformed Deputy who is the county SAR manager) to provide a full day of training to their standards, with experienced man trackers, with working dogs, etc.  I don't treat this as a check in the box nor a screw around fun day for GES/GTM3*s, but rather as training for GTM2+ and as a step in building a sustainable long term support relationship with our local county EMS units on a mutual aid basis.


I did mention keeping your Wing ES shop in the loop; keep in mind the legalities of support in your state and Wing and consult frequently with Wing, since one of the most demoralizing things possible would be to spend thousands of dollars and man hours to train to support a local/State customer, and to then find that there was no MOU or contract vehicle in place to be reimbursed for expenses.  Gotta work that angle from the start if you want to be a real player, but establishing an initial capability and an ops and training plan that is negotiated and realistic, coupled with a capital improvement and logistics road map is how some of the (non CAP) big volunteer SAR organizations keep a stable funding stream coming in to enable them to procure and replace the expensive SAR gear and vehicles. It all depends on where and how far you and your fellow CAP members want to go.


V/R
Spam

[THRAWN]

This is a good question, and the answer changes year to year, state to state, so it bears looking at again on occasion.


Arguably, if you train and certify to standards, and exercise regularly (and publicly, on SAREX/DREXs), respond promptly to ALNOTs, execute your mission swiftly ("search is an emergency") and keep the IC happy with frequent and accurate communication and accounting, you will get used. My unit deployed just yesterday on a successful ELT hunt, which admittedly are fewer now than they were in the 80s and 90s (thank you God), so those core missions are still there, firstly. Be proficient and have presence, and you will be used.


Next, I would question the less use of cadets perception. If there is a trend there in your Wing/Region, I'd ask why, and soon. Nondiscrimination in federally funded programs is a serious thing, and while we DO knowingly discriminate when selecting the right people for the task (e.g. run the ORM process) the use of cadets on ground teams for almost all taskings should be a normal thing. I agree with NC Hokie completely on the use of ES as another aspect of cadet leadership development, but as responders I've seen just as many serious cadets gain CERT and NASAR certification as seniors, over the years. One or two of mine have gone on into the USCG to be paid SAR pros, and one cadet went on to win the USCG silver lifesaving medal and has now transferred to USAF (completing PJ school). Hooah. NC Hokie, I like your use of the term "serious"!  I'd extend it to both cadets and seniors though... we have a lot of dilettante adults in our GT training program too.


The next step is to Know Your Customers (State and local, primarily). Before contacting your local EMS and SAR agencies, be honest with yourself and do a self-analysis of your capabilities (suggest using the Resource Typing aids found in the FEMA IS courses... look at your training, your manning, your equipment, all of it). Then, contact and go meet with your potential customers armed with this information and discuss where your unit could augment them in alerts (be sure to keep your Wing Ops shop in the loop). Be very careful about over committing your part time volunteers to joint training schedules (many times during the week, for the paid EMS types), and don't over-sell your abilities. Note down where they want help, and you think you could train to fill their gaps, if only as a part time/surge asset, then go train and equip to it.


Finally, reconsider your mission mix and admit when you lack the technical depth to self-train in areas where your customer is interested in support beyond CERT level. Locally, we have an exercise set up for OCT15 focusing on missing person SAR. Normally, having been through NASAR missing person SAR training, I am very skeptical about the quantity (recurrency/practice), quality, and depth of this training in CAP, having also spoken to many CAP and FD "experts" who think missing person SAR chiefly involves forming up untrained volunteers in line formations and clumping through brush in turnout gear, obscuring sign and scent. However, our Group DOS has done a great job scheduling a local training officer (uniformed Deputy who is the county SAR manager) to provide a full day of training to their standards, with experienced man trackers, with working dogs, etc.  I don't treat this as a check in the box nor a screw around fun day for GES/GTM3*s, but rather as training for GTM2+ and as a step in building a sustainable long term support relationship with our local county EMS units on a mutual aid basis.


I did mention keeping your Wing ES shop in the loop; keep in mind the legalities of support in your state and Wing and consult frequently with Wing, since one of the most demoralizing things possible would be to spend thousands of dollars and man hours to train to support a local/State customer, and to then find that there was no MOU or contract vehicle in place to be reimbursed for expenses.  Gotta work that angle from the start if you want to be a real player, but establishing an initial capability and an ops and training plan that is negotiated and realistic, coupled with a capital improvement and logistics road map is how some of the (non CAP) big volunteer SAR organizations keep a stable funding stream coming in to enable them to procure and replace the expensive SAR gear and vehicles. It all depends on where and how far you and your fellow CAP members want to go.


V/R
Spam

Beat me to it. You and I are in 99% agreement on this topic. Glad to see that it's not just an issue in one wing...although not really "glad"...

[TheSkyHornet]

Love Spam's post. Covered virtually every thought I had and then some.

It's really hard in our area to get ground teams to be used even locally. Local and state agencies have taken over the SAR role, and our area isn't really a place where people go missing on the ground for prolonged periods of time unless they intentionally ran off or were kidnapped (unfortunately). It's just not an overly sparse area, and law enforcement seem to prefer that they handle those situations, even though many CAP personnel are adequately trained and equipped. Maybe they feel it's a liability. Dunno really.

I'm not an expert in ground teams, nor am I qualified. But I do see a deterrent in our Wing to even bother getting ground team qualified at some squadrons because they feel that they don't have a purpose anymore. Even squadrons that love to do ground team training don't feel that they're going to ever get called and don't have that "be ready" mentality. They've turned ground SAR into a hobby rather than a preparedness effort.

Makes a lot of people in CAP feel unappreciated at times, and this is something that constantly comes up in informal conversations.

Spam could be on to something

[RiverAux]

Provide your ground teams with SARTEC training opportunities.  SARTEC is nationally recognized by EMS agencies and can help expand your capabilities for SAR. Professional SAR agencies know what it means when you're SARTEC qualified.  They don't necessarily know what it means when you're GTM1 qualified.

Why in the world waste time paying to be tested for qualifications that are only measurably different than ours in regards to activities that we're not going to be allowed to perform anyway? 

CAP is not going to be ground team support to "professional SAR agencies".  We're going to be helping the county sheriff or possibly the local police, most all of whom are not going to know any more about NASAR than they are about CAP.  And even if they have heard of SARTECH it only takes a few minutes to show them CAP's GT training materials and to explain that we can do anything that a SARTECH can do except high angle stuff.

There are a few states that have enough sheriff-based SAR teams that it is unlikely that CAP ground teams are going to be asked to participate.  But those are the exceptions.  I'd say that in most states CAP has more trained ground SAR personnel than all the county SAR teams available combined. 

The best thing that can be done to increase use of ground teams is to develop excellent local relationships with your sheriff and those in surrounding counties (depending on the presence of other CAP units there).  Don't overpromise anything. 

[The Infamous Meerkat]

In our squadron we've been working diligently to reinvent the wheel by reforming our ground team to be a multi-squadron group with it's own training classifications and standards. We use the CAP certification materials but have also added in some physical training and other references from other SAR groups (BCSARA, NASAR and MRA to name a few) so that we would be useful to our county sheriff's in a misper search. Our main issues recently have been:

1. A train of thought at the wing and region level that ground teams should train to be effective, but have no reasonable expectation of ever being called out for an operational mission.
2. Training for Ground SAR should be mostly used as a leadership tool (need I remind anyone that Cadets must reach the age of majority before being able to attain 'leader' status in GT?)
3. Cadet Members pose a significant liability on search missions because mom and dad will sue. (I agree to the possibility, but not the idea that it should cause discrimination. This is not the first, or I'm sure the last time the CAP lawyers have dealt with such an issue.)
4. That critical relationships at the state level have not been kept in good repair by the Wing resulting in what I believe may be retaliatory refusals by those agencies to call CAP For assistance. (Wing will not authorize any contact with state or federal agencies by personnel other than the Commander, CV, or Director of ES of the Wing. Reasonable, if those people did not live at the far corners of the state from the state's capitol. Our squadron and several experienced long time members are here and willing, and are occasionally requested to work with the state agencies,  but the do not contact order stands. We seemingly have to violate orders to talk to base personnel for the base where our squadron resides...)
5. County SAR members here are few and far between, so much the local IMSARU handles a great deal of general search calls. I would be hard pressed to find an IC willing to devote CAP resources to this, and the IC would likely come from a far corner of the state. IC's  in our area have been 'disenfranchised' in that they hold the cert, but have not been used in 5 years or more. IC'S are unwilling to take responsibility for ground units because they believe that it is not CAP'S arena because it doesn't have a propeller...
6. The Wing is poor, it's a fact here. They somehow manage to pull funding for planes out of thin air, but we can't even get the communications money promised to us by National for Constant Watch because our leadership isn't looking out for their subordinates. We can't get funding because of no information being passed down to us, or because it has already been given to an aircraft only exercise or an exercise that is primarily built for planes. I am however, consistently encouraged to pay for it myself if I'd like to do ground team work on their mission numbers... which I have done.

It's not that I don't understand what CAP does, I get that the planes are the main reason for this group to exist. Our leadership however, is not considering that a county sheriff can't call us when they don't know we exist and can't get speedy information from an aircraft if they do get one without a comm/ground team (geography makes it difficult here to get quick comms around the mountains, and unsafe too.).. Ground teams should be the first out to coordinate with the sheriff's offices and provide them real time info from the air, so it may be of some benefit to the 'real searchers'... there is plenty we can be doing, but our leadership crew seems to be more content talking about how we 'serve our communities' while they sit next to a silent telephone twiddling their thumbs. They wait for a call that hardly ever comes because they don't market us to the potential customers... we are a primary group in that state emergency ops plan for SAR, but no one ever calls for anything but ELT activations...

Part of me says to join aircrew, but all of the pilots select each other to be a part of their aircrew, so I know I'll never be used there either. I think I'd just rather move to the local MRA team that actually does SAR on a semi weekly basis.

[LTC Don]

Some very good, and some not so very good comments in this thread.

Ground team usage is declining.  And will continue to decline.

How to correct or reduce the decline?

First and foremost, is to take a look at our reason for existence in the first place:  Federal Law.

10 USC, 9443
(a) Use of Federally Provided Resources.—In its status as a federally chartered nonprofit corporation, the Civil Air Patrol may use equipment, supplies, and other resources, including aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and communications equipment, provided to the Civil Air Patrol by a department or agency of the Federal Government or acquired by or for the Civil Air Patrol with appropriated funds (or with funds of the Civil Air Patrol, but reimbursed from appropriated funds)—
(1)   to provide assistance requested by State or local governmental authorities to perform disaster relief missions and activities, other emergency missions and activities, and nonemergency missions and activities; and

(2)   to fulfill its other purposes set forth in section 40302 of title 36.

36 USC, 40302
The purposes of the corporation are as follows:

(1) To provide an organization to— 
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and 

(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare. 

(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members. 

(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities. 

(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.

(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.


Unlike the Pirate Code, the above are not mere suggestions or guidelines.  Whatever you may have thought you knew about CAP, was probably wrong based on very old Kool-Aid.

Note that SAR is inferred whereas Disaster Relief is specified by name.

If you have never bothered to read our Constitution and Bylaws.  Please do so.  You will find that the above Laws are essentially parroted.

Unfortunately, the reality is this:
CAP was abused for so long, running around the countryside looking for false-alarm ELTs, the organization deluded itself into thinking it was actually doing SAR work. During the 70's, all the way into the '90's, while the Federal Government was creating FEMA, ICS, and NASAR (and other organizations) was coming up with nationally published (and accepted) standards of various sorts, CAP was marching merrily along with AFRCC, snuffing out wayward ELTs all across the heartland.  Bear in mind, back then, CAP leadership was largely Air Force.  I think ultimately, that became a liability since much of the CAP ES culture had no actual managers with public safety experience.

Since that time, will all the various transition that has occurred as the Air Force stepped back, nationally, CAP has been adrift in terms of the 'ground' portion of our ES mission.  DR from a national perspective is nonexistent, even though this is the 'ES' mission specified in the law.
The previous edition of 60-3 had a chapter discussing DR.  In the latest version, it and most mention of anything to do with DR has been removed.  And that was 6 years ago. Ground related ES is pretty much a shambles right now. <Insert your favorite 'Ship adrift in the night' type cliché here>

SAR is an inferred, but very important mission, with regards to our 'identity', even though DR is the mission specified by name. If you want to move into the 'real' SAR field, you must establish relationships with your local SAR organizations and TRAIN to THEIR STANDARDS.  FORGET CAP GROUND TEAM KOOL-AID. If your local SAR team recognizes NASAR SARTECH, then end of discussion.  You and your folks will have to train to that standard. If it's some other standard, so be it.  It would be the rare instance where there is no missing person SAR resource locally, but it's possible.  In that instance, CAP can have a dramatic impact. BUT - It must be realized that our training curriculum is missing aircraft based, not missing person based.  So any training standard must be evaluated closely for relevance, and liability.

IF you don't necessarily want to deal with the SAR hassles.  And there are a lot of reasons not to, you can specialize in DR type programs and be content that the Federal Mandate(s) above are met. There are plenty of canned programs that can be engaged such as ICS, POD, CERT, SkyWarn, and one that would be great for our health care folks, Mass Prophylaxis (also known as Point of Dispensing, another type of POD), typically run through the state and local Public Health departments.

Generally, all it takes is an introduction to the local Emergency Management coordinator/manager. <Which is also a requirement specified in 60-3 and 20-1.

One of the issues, previously mentioned, but is also stated in 60-3, is that squadrons should not 'over-sell' themselves to their local government entity.  And that is correct, but no supporting advice is offered either.  True, unit's should not oversell themselves.  What the local unit should sell is themselves as a gateway to the larger resource, the Wing, and then Region.  Make it clear, and the local EM guy will understand this since there job is to know local resources, is that the local unit's resources will be used up quickly.  Once that happens, additional resources will have to come from the larger pool, the wing. This is definitely the case with something like POD (both kinds), which are very labor-intensive and require lots of people.


So, apparently, the question of ground team usage and decline is an obvious one, the work to correct it is substantial.

The Air Force has no interest in CAP's ground mission.  Big Blue is all about the aviation component.  BUT -- Federal Law is still there so what does that mean?

If there is a disaster, and we deploy x number of aircraft and aircrews, but our non-aviation members sit home even though it is obvious a substantial ground response was needed, did we fulfill the requirements of the law stated above?  In my estimation, we failed. CAP must make a best-effort to deploy all available resources when needed, not just one component. That means all of the various training, relationship, and leadership infrastructure must be in place to be successful in Emergency Services.

[KatCAP]

Some very good, and some not so very good comments in this thread.

Ground team usage is declining.  And will continue to decline.

How to correct or reduce the decline?

First and foremost, is to take a look at our reason for existence in the first place:  Federal Law.

10 USC, 9443
(a) Use of Federally Provided Resources.—In its status as a federally chartered nonprofit corporation, the Civil Air Patrol may use equipment, supplies, and other resources, including aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and communications equipment, provided to the Civil Air Patrol by a department or agency of the Federal Government or acquired by or for the Civil Air Patrol with appropriated funds (or with funds of the Civil Air Patrol, but reimbursed from appropriated funds)—
(1)   to provide assistance requested by State or local governmental authorities to perform disaster relief missions and activities, other emergency missions and activities, and nonemergency missions and activities; and

(2)   to fulfill its other purposes set forth in section 40302 of title 36.

36 USC, 40302
The purposes of the corporation are as follows:

(1) To provide an organization to— 
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and 

(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare. 

(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members. 

(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities. 

(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.

(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.


Unlike the Pirate Code, the above are not mere suggestions or guidelines.  Whatever you may have thought you knew about CAP, was probably wrong based on very old Kool-Aid.

Note that SAR is inferred whereas Disaster Relief is specified by name.

If you have never bothered to read our Constitution and Bylaws.  Please do so.  You will find that the above Laws are essentially parroted.

Unfortunately, the reality is this:
CAP was abused for so long, running around the countryside looking for false-alarm ELTs, the organization deluded itself into thinking it was actually doing SAR work. During the 70's, all the way into the '90's, while the Federal Government was creating FEMA, ICS, and NASAR (and other organizations) was coming up with nationally published (and accepted) standards of various sorts, CAP was marching merrily along with AFRCC, snuffing out wayward ELTs all across the heartland.  Bear in mind, back then, CAP leadership was largely Air Force.  I think ultimately, that became a liability since much of the CAP ES culture had no actual managers with public safety experience.

Since that time, will all the various transition that has occurred as the Air Force stepped back, nationally, CAP has been adrift in terms of the 'ground' portion of our ES mission.  DR from a national perspective is nonexistent, even though this is the 'ES' mission specified in the law.
The previous edition of 60-3 had a chapter discussing DR.  In the latest version, it and most mention of anything to do with DR has been removed.  And that was 6 years ago. Ground related ES is pretty much a shambles right now. <Insert your favorite 'Ship adrift in the night' type cliché here>

SAR is an inferred, but very important mission, with regards to our 'identity', even though DR is the mission specified by name. If you want to move into the 'real' SAR field, you must establish relationships with your local SAR organizations and TRAIN to THEIR STANDARDS.  FORGET CAP GROUND TEAM KOOL-AID. If your local SAR team recognizes NASAR SARTECH, then end of discussion.  You and your folks will have to train to that standard. If it's some other standard, so be it.  It would be the rare instance where there is no missing person SAR resource locally, but it's possible.  In that instance, CAP can have a dramatic impact. BUT - It must be realized that our training curriculum is missing aircraft based, not missing person based.  So any training standard must be evaluated closely for relevance, and liability.

IF you don't necessarily want to deal with the SAR hassles.  And there are a lot of reasons not to, you can specialize in DR type programs and be content that the Federal Mandate(s) above are met. There are plenty of canned programs that can be engaged such as ICS, POD, CERT, SkyWarn, and one that would be great for our health care folks, Mass Prophylaxis (also known as Point of Dispensing, another type of POD), typically run through the state and local Public Health departments.

Generally, all it takes is an introduction to the local Emergency Management coordinator/manager. <Which is also a requirement specified in 60-3 and 20-1.

One of the issues, previously mentioned, but is also stated in 60-3, is that squadrons should not 'over-sell' themselves to their local government entity.  And that is correct, but no supporting advice is offered either.  True, unit's should not oversell themselves.  What the local unit should sell is themselves as a gateway to the larger resource, the Wing, and then Region.  Make it clear, and the local EM guy will understand this since there job is to know local resources, is that the local unit's resources will be used up quickly.  Once that happens, additional resources will have to come from the larger pool, the wing. This is definitely the case with something like POD (both kinds), which are very labor-intensive and require lots of people.


So, apparently, the question of ground team usage and decline is an obvious one, the work to correct it is substantial.

The Air Force has no interest in CAP's ground mission.  Big Blue is all about the aviation component.  BUT -- Federal Law is still there so what does that mean?

If there is a disaster, and we deploy x number of aircraft and aircrews, but our non-aviation members sit home even though it is obvious a substantial ground response was needed, did we fulfill the requirements of the law stated above?  In my estimation, we failed. CAP must make a best-effort to deploy all available resources when needed, not just one component. That means all of the various training, relationship, and leadership infrastructure must be in place to be successful in Emergency Services.

Sir,
That is some great information.  Miscommunication and misunderstanding of our original mission has been lost over the years and we need to get back to the core.  Saying that we will loose some people to these events but if they do leave and go off to other organizations so they can be full SAR I hope and encourage them to remain in CAP as thier skills and new found education would be greatly appreciated and needed.

Another asspect would be to work with a "Ranger" type organization via the local city, county and state.  There's nothing in the regs (that I am aware of) that prevents members (including cadets) from belonging to more then one organization.  It would increase the wealth of knowledge of members in both organizations.

[LTC Don]

Sir, That is some great information.  Miscommunication and misunderstanding of our original mission has been lost over the years and we need to get back to the core.  Saying that we will loose some people to these events but if they do leave and go off to other organizations so they can be full SAR I hope and encourage them to remain in CAP as thier skills and new found education would be greatly appreciated and needed.

Another asspect would be to work with a "Ranger" type organization via the local city, county and state.  There's nothing in the regs (that I am aware of) that prevents members (including cadets) from belonging to more then one organization.  It would increase the wealth of knowledge of members in both organizations.

Yes, you are correct that there are no restrictions on how many organizations a member can belong to.  But, there are some issues there to be wary of.

It is not uncommon for volunteers to belong to multiple agencies.  Unfortunately, this contributes to a concept known as 'Volunteer Shrinkage'.  Basically, people who volunteer for multiple organizations ultimately cause more bad than good when the need comes because you can only work for one boss.  If you have a member who volunteers for the Red Cross, CAP, and say, Salvation Army, and there is an event that requires the response of all three organizations, then the member can only respond with one.  This means two volunteers are unaccounted for now between two different organizations. 

Volunteer shrinkage is a very common issue in many small communities.  In routine instances, it doesn't always cause issues, but for larger events, it can be a major problem because of divided loyalties.

A perfect example would be a CAP member who is a communications operator, but who is also a member of the local ARES group.  If there is a need for both CAP and ARES deployments, who does the member go with?  Who gets left short-staffed as a result?

[Larry Mangum]

There are a lot of good ides on this thread as to why Ground Teams, especially those involving cadets are not used more. The one that has been overlooked though is that in many states, there are laws or policies that prohibit anyone under the age of 18 (in some states the age is 16)  from being used during a search.   In CAP the majority of the ground teams are composed of cadets and a couple of seniors with the average cadet age being 16 or under.

Having said that however, it has been my observation over the almost twenty years I have been in CAP, that the biggest reason that CAP is not utilized is the failure of the wings, groups and squadrons to either introduce themselves to local authorities or a failure to participate in their training exercises.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

That failure is largely at play here, some of our counties have new people in office but most of our leadership is content to sit back and say, 'we've done the legwork six years ago, now wait for the call'. Those people are never going to call us because I'm sure it was the last thing on the previous sheriff's mind when passing the job over, ' Oh, make sure you call those CAP guys if you ever need anything, they did a presentation here once".

They seem to have little interest in the continuous marketing that we need to stay relevant. That, or they don't even have the time to do the job, which can cause a similar effect.  Even in recruiting we've been seeing the effects of this problem and it doesn't spell out good things for us. Lt Col. Don brings up a very good point that reading the constitution and bylaws is important to understanding our mission. Unfortunately Sir, I believe it's become more than kool-aid, it has become doctrine. We use it to drum up recruits, create a large amount of activities, have published training for it, and have deployed far more SAR missions than we have disaster missions. SAR is something we do, whether it's in the laws or not.The AFRCC may have no concern for whether or not we have folks running around the countryside, but they sure funded us with vehicles, radios, Lpers, and other gear that are SAR oriented, all while we haven't done anything to prepare for our lawful disaster missions. It's very curious to me that CAP has become so confused about its purpose, and that the Air Force supports the delusion. I think at this point keeping ourselves relevant to our communities is more important than restrictions on our activities out of principle. We have a role to play in SAR, why not take it by the reigns and do our best?

That or we need to put the train on the tracks, reorient NESA to teach only field comments and urban disaster SAR, and start training on our 'real mission'. I didn't come here purely for ES, but this is definitely something that has me wanting to go elsewhere. The Lack of concern for keeping us relevant to the needs of the 21st century is very distressing to me, because it shows me a trend that could possibly put us out of business. That not what I want for CAP,  regardless of what our ES mission will look like in the future.

[TheSkyHornet]

As many before have suggested, you can't perform a service time and time again, and then just stop and wait around for someone to call. You still need to advocate and promote yourself, or people will cast you aside over time.

Most officials have the county and local levels have no clue about CAP, and that's not just the fault of FEMA, or the Governor; it's the fault of CAP (at any level) for not getting out there and making the connections and building the relationships, and on top of that, keeping those relationships going rather than idle as an expectation.

I think 1st Lt Brizzi makes an excellent point here in his common that CAP has become confused about its purpose. Sure, we all know the missions of CAP. We have the training programs. But some of the management of CAP programs, including promotion, aren't well organized these days. I've said it before that I don't feel CAP has kept up with the 21st Century, and that comes from the top with the support of leadership all the way down to self-governing squadrons.

[Paul_AK]

So, if our Ground Teams are declining, has anyone had any success in some form of cross specialization or teaming with other organizations? We have room for CERT on our 101s, has anyone teamed with Red Cross to augment or even act as their Disaster Action Team (shelter placement and management, food distribution...)? We have a national level MOU but there's always room to play at the local level. Or successfully marketed at the local level and now works and trains closely with other search groups whether it be the fire department, Explorer SAR, or the USCG Aux? Granted each state has it's own needs and obstacles. Even internally, engagement with membership and leadership whose organizational goals or career goals may not include ground teams (i.e., those who only want to fly).

[The Infamous Meerkat]

We have been trying for months to set up a ground team that is separate from the squadron activities but pulls resources and members from the two squadrons in neighboring counties. The purpose is to train to a standard that can be interoperable with the local Mountain Rescue team, so that we may be able to break into their mission callouts as a supporting agency.

Recently we were emailed a document by the Director of ES, a former Wing Commander, that states no Wing level ground teams shall exist without the oversight of the Wing Commander, while squadron level ES programs will be left to the oversight of the Squadron commander. I find it funny that this directive is made, among other very specific directives, that is aimed at the only group that is not keeping the status quo. Apparently, us trying to gain more competence is something the Wing needs to keep a leash on, or that's how it feels...

We are also now forbidden from using anyone less than the age of sixteen on ground teams. This document will be a Wing level OI soon.

So, we tried to become more interoperable with a MRA team like you suggested, and we got a royal smack down for it... we are now forbidden from doing anything because of the pieces and parts that are now disallowed.

[LTC Don]

We have been trying for months to set up a ground team that is separate from the squadron activities but pulls resources and members from the two squadrons in neighboring counties. The purpose is to train to a standard that can be interoperable with the local Mountain Rescue team, so that we may be able to break into their mission callouts as a supporting agency.

Recently we were emailed a document by the Director of ES, a former Wing Commander, that states no Wing level ground teams shall exist without the oversight of the Wing Commander, while squadron level ES programs will be left to the oversight of the Squadron commander. I find it funny that this directive is made, among other very specific directives, that is aimed at the only group that is not keeping the status quo. Apparently, us trying to gain more competence is something the Wing needs to keep a leash on, or that's how it feels...

We are also now forbidden from using anyone less than the age of sixteen on ground teams. This document will be a Wing level OI soon.

So, we tried to become more interoperable with a MRA team like you suggested, and we got a royal smack down for it... we are now forbidden from doing anything because of the pieces and parts that are now disallowed.

You didn't say you were forbidden, just that any organized ES program has to be with Wing oversight.  I don't know what your wing structure is, but if your wing doesn't use groups, I could see where Wing ES might want some involvement.

If the framework for your efforts have not been documented, then this would be the time to do so, with due regard that the program is being conducted In Accordance With (IAW) CAPR 60-3 (and be sure to document as such).  Then, a formal briefing to the Wg CC and DOS outlining the program.  I should think that a well-presented formal plan would be signed off on as long as due regard for ORM and Safety is planned accordingly.

Mountain rescue isn't something to be taken lightly, and often has to deal with very cold, and deadly weather; not to mention the sudden stops. 

In any case.  It sounds like an interesting program.  Good luck.

[Larry Mangum]

There are several issues that have to be addressed before you can integrate CAP resources (Ground Teams, Aircraft, etc...) into the efforts of another search organization.

1. CAPR 60-3 requires that all CAP assets must remain under the control of a CAP IC. So if you are integrating a Ground Team for example into the call out for the Mountain Rescue Team, how will that work.
2. In order to get Air Force insurance coverage, the NOC needs to be contacted and they will contact AFRCC to get the mission approved.
3. If AFAM approval is not requested, you still need to contact the NOC and have them approve the mission as a Corporate mission.

I know someone will jump on the thread and state that a MOU will solve all of these issues, however that is rarely the case. First of all, an MOU, are not that easy to get approved as they have to be approved not only by the legal team of the organization that you want to help but also by the Wing Legal Team, NHQ, and in most cases CAP/USAF and or AFRCC. Secondly MOU's are primarily used to define what services each party will provide and in CAP's case, how CAP's services will be paid for.

[LTC Don]

There are several issues that have to be addressed before you can integrate CAP resources (Ground Teams, Aircraft, etc...) into the efforts of another search organization.

1. CAPR 60-3 requires that all CAP assets must remain under the control of a CAP IC. So if you are integrating a Ground Team for example into the call out for the Mountain Rescue Team, how will that work.
2. In order to get Air Force insurance coverage, the NOC needs to be contacted and they will contact AFRCC to get the mission approved.
3. If AFAM approval is not requested, you still need to contact the NOC and have them approve the mission as a Corporate mission.

I know someone will jump on the thread and state that a MOU will solve all of these issues, however that is rarely the case. First of all, an MOU, are not that easy to get approved as they have to be approved not only by the legal team of the organization that you want to help but also by the Wing Legal Team, NHQ, and in most cases CAP/USAF and or AFRCC. Secondly MOU's are primarily used to define what services each party will provide and in CAP's case, how CAP's services will be paid for.

All good points.  If the MRT is a private not-for-profit, much like CAP, and operates upon request of the local government entity, then CAP would have to work their side (MOU, etc.) with the local government entity, not the MRT, although CAP, once activated through the proper channels, could then work in partnership with the MRT as a force multiplier/strike team.

In such circumstances, CAP acts as an assisting agency so the AFAM number would have the characteristic 'A' at the end for an Assist mission. This is just about always the case with missing person SAR.

We here in the flatlands obviously don't have mountains to contend with, but we do have swamps with lots of nasty wildlife.  Having cadets under sixteen does indeed make me uncomfortable, and even with the sixteen year olds, makes me be much more attentive to what they are doing. On a recent missing person search, we were one of several other agencies involved.  We were the only one there with teenagers.

[Fubar]

So, if our Ground Teams are declining, has anyone had any success in some form of cross specialization or teaming with other organizations?

Why not just join the other organizations that meet your desires for ground SAR? I'm not being sarcastic here, as volunteers we need to ensure our time isn't being wasted and that we enjoy what we do. If CAP is preventing you from doing what you enjoy, vote with your feet. I do understand the idea of "fixing" the organization from within, but at some point, especially with CAP, it becomes a losing battle.

I know a few ground team guys who went and got NASAR certified because they hoped it would lead to more business. All it did was lead to more complaining about being prevented by CAP regulations from doing what they've been training to do.