Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

msar-riders - Re: [MSAR] Re: ICS and SAR group structure

msar-riders@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Mounted search and rescue

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jorene Downs" <Jorene@CEOates.com>
  • To: <msar-riders@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [MSAR] Re: ICS and SAR group structure
  • Date: Wed Feb 5 05:11:00 2003

----- Original Message -----
From: "Una Smith" <una@lanl.gov>
> Jorene Downs <Jorene@ceoates.com> wrote:
> >There are numerous human resources involved in a SAR. And every role is
an
> >important one - IC management, field searchers, the crew preparing meals,
> >etc. - just as all the various skill sets are valued.
>
> Absolutely. And if you're in an area where each SAR group must
> provide a complete ICS structure, then you want all skill sets
> in your group. But if, in your area, each group has a primary
> function, then you're better off in a group that has a specialty.

I'm not sure I understand how you're set up? Or perhaps I need clarification
on what you mean by being specialized?

For every SAR there is an Incident Commander from the moment the incident is
reported. (I'm not talking about per group, but per incident. National
standard ICS procedure.) This starts with (example) the patrol officer
taking the missing person report, then command shifts to the leader of the
Hasty Team, and moves to the Command Post when there are additional
resources called. The person with authority to call out additional
resources would be the IC at that point. According to the needs of the
situation, the IC may initially assume several management roles. As the
situation evolves other personnel may be assigned management roles. And the
IC may hand off command to someone else.

Each response group should have designated leadership. Depending on who is
available to respond, certain roles would be assigned to the personnel as
needed. This would be a mini-ICS structure <g> within the bigger picture. In
some areas trained (hopefully!) volunteers run their own ICP. In other
areas, local law enforcement runs the ICP. Either way, the person in charge
is the Incident Commander, and various other management roles may be
assigned as needed. And in some instances a group may be assigned an area
and run their own satellite mini-CP that reports back to the ICP.

How does NM handle this?

Locally, the Sheriff's Office provides the mobile CP (converted bus) for
communications and Ops, along with SAR management. I'm the only volunteer
with permanent CP assignment, although there might be volunteer resources
available to run errands and perform other tasks. The local Search Dog team
brings their own communications guy who goes mobile if necessary to maintain
direct communications with the field, then can relay. Up in the East Bay
Area, SAR response and management is all volunteer.

> Of course cross-training is very important, but in a specialty
> group (at least in ours), the threshold for participation by a
> new volunteer is competence in that specialty.

Minimal competency should indeed be a threshold. I reckon the real question
is where you draw the line at being called specialized, and what is
considered cross-training. For example, I think a good MSAR team would have
multiple skill sets on the ground and in the saddle, not just be eyes and
ears on broke horses. Obviously, a lot depends on the region and the local
need for various skills. The skills (and gear) you need for remote mountain
backcountry aren't necessary for those who are never further than an easy
terrain mile from an access road. ;)

For a versatile team in the field, locally the management preference would
be to have multiple skill sets on that team. The preferred skills for a
single MSAR team on a remote Wilderness SAR might include mantracking,
technical rescue, EMT / paramedic, packing. This would be in addition to
solid groundpounder SAR skills and MSAR backcountry training. But you'd
want each person to have at least basic training in the other skills in
order to be able to knowledgably assist. So there are also degrees of
cross-training.

My personal preference - we have lots of variety potential for response
locally, and much of the county is remote - is to have at least a basic
competency in a variety of topics. It makes little sense to me to find
someone a day's ride into the backcountry and not be prepared to also
rescue, deal with medical issues, perhaps stay overnight, and transport. If
the subject is down a cliff or badly injured, can your MSAR team handle it
without calling for the chopper that may not be able to respond? Yet levels
of rescue and medical (way beyond Basic First Aid) may be considered by some
as cross-training or specializing ... or even not something needed for local
SAR. For that matter, MSAR in easy access terrain may consider packaging and
mounted transport to not be an issue they need to address. I think it is
safe to say that "normal" MSAR training may be suitable for one area, yet be
considered inadequate for response in a different region.

An aside - one thing I didn't like about Kathy Roberts' MSAR training manual
was that it didn't really address more remote or Wilderness response, where
appropriately trained and equipped MSAR can be invaluable. Also, I suspect
if there is a local disaster all SAR personnel would be asked to respond. So
cross-training in at least basic US&R (like the CERT training) makes good
sense to me unless you figure you'll only want your team assigned to traffic
control. And in a wide area disaster, Wilderness SAR training with more
survival and medical skills included would be particularly beneficial.

> [...] There is a downside
> to being specialized: it can encourage ignorance about other
> kinds of specialized resources.

Yep. Specialization can also limit what kind of assignment the team
receives. I'm obviously a proponent of versatility. ;)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jorene Downs
Tulare Co, CA
SAR, MSAR, Swiftwater Rescue, US&R






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page