My BBDU experiment: after two years, I be done with this nonsense

[Alaric]

I don't think we need a run, but a rather simple timed hike with field gear would do the trick.  I think thats still what is used for wildland firefighting and if its good enough for them, its good enough for me.

Its also what is used for the Naperville Emergency Response Team

[Luis R. Ramos]

Mac-

That was supposed to be a quick response about where the mountains are located in NY, not a geographic lesson about northern NY topography.



There are more mountains than the Addirondacks, Alleghenies, Catskills, Bear Mountain. But we can turn this into a geography lesson about Northern New York if you want to name others...



I do not think that "New York begins in Westchester County."

I think I have traveled extensively over New York in my nearly 14 years of CAP service and other trips. And remember I characterized "North Westchester." Because the topography there is hilly as well. Maybe not as much as I wanted...



Flyer

[sarmed1]

I don't think we need a run, but a rather simple timed hike with field gear would do the trick.  I think thats still what is used for wildland firefighting and if its good enough for them, its good enough for me.

Having talked to folks that take the "pack test" its not a "simple" timed hike.  It takes a little more than the average person to hike 3 miles 45 lb pack in 45 min.  Personally, before the current fitness test USAF Res did 3 mile walk in 45 min (for my 30ish age group) you had to hoof it pretty hard, and that was no pack.

Info on the wildland standards, click on the pack test
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/safety/wct/wct_index.html

For most CAP GT ops I would say that usuing the moderate test standards would be acceptable.

2 mile hike with 25 lb pack in 30 min or less

Its not dependant on weather you are big or not; if you can accomplish the test to standard, who cares what uniform you need to wear....simple measurement or BMI is not the most or only indicator. 

mk

[RogueLeader]

But....who validated those standards?  And will anyone stand behind them other than yourself?

If those standards are self-generated, what's stopping the next guy from saying "3.25 miles with 24 hour gear?"

The Director of ES.

Nothing.

Please note that I am not saying that I will not withhold any SQTR signoff or that I won't train them. PERIOD.

That does not mean that I feel confident that they are physically capable of executing an actual GT mission.  That is my call as a GTL, as part of my ORM assessment.  It is also a concern as a GBD as to the safety for my teams. 

On SAREXs, I'll train anybody that wants to train.  If they complete the task, by the task guide, they get the signoff.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  That being said,  that doesn't mean I will give them a call on an actual.  Where, by regs, do I HAVE to call everyone who is qualified?

No one, which is why you can't apply them.

A unit CC is free to set any standards they want for members within their AOR, however
if you were an SET in my wing and were trying to add "extra", you wouldn't be an SET anymore
since that isn't cricket.

Qualified is qualified, Rascal scooter or not.  NHQ sets the standards, not local SETs.

See above.

So what does "Extended feild operations" mean to you?

[Eclipse]

The Director of ES.

He doesn't have that authority.  In fact no one below NHQ does.
If your wing OPS people feel strongly enough, then they should get it in an approved supplement.

So what does "Extended feild field operations" mean to you?

The same thing it means for everyone else in CAP.

"Long days in the field followed by down time at a mission base or camp."
With the exception of a couple of notable HAAs, and the random bivouac, CAP does not "ruck in", certainly not during real-world missions.

If you're restesting GTMs you don't know during a SAREx or worse a real-world, and the GBD doesn't tell you to "knock it off", there's a real problem there.

For the record, I don't disagree with a 2-mile walk being unreasonable as an expectation for a GTM, and you, personally, are within your rights to
not lead a team you are not comfortable with, but were I the GBD, absent any other evidence or history of non-performance by the member in question,
"your" team is as likely to have a new leader as it is to have one less member.  Though unfortunately in a lot of wings, removing anyone from a given team might mean
there aren't enough people to go at all.

[Mitchell 1969]

But....who validated those standards?  And will anyone stand behind them other than yourself?

The Director of ES.

I can buy that the Director of ES APPROVED the standards. But, who VALIDATED them? And, how?

[RogueLeader]

Again, please note what I said.

I require a 2 mile hike with 24 hour gear so I know what kind of shape they are in.  If they do not "pass," they get counseled about the fact that Ground Team may NOT be the best specialty to train in.  They still get the the qualifications that they complete.  They get their SQTR signed off, and validated.

That said, I will NOT take somebody on an ACTUAL mission that I feel is unsafe for the tasking that we get.  some missions are easier than others, not all are like the Laramie Peak mission where physical conditioning is very important.  Some are more level ground and much less strenuous, to where physical conditioning is not as important.

Would you somebody that has a serious cold or flu on aircrew?  Same thing, if they are not physically able to handle the job, they endanger the mission and crew.  Once they get better, they are welcomed back.  Correct?

[Eclipse]

I require a 2 mile hike with 24 hour gear so I know what kind of shape they are in.  If they do not "pass," they get counseled about the fact that Ground Team may NOT be the best specialty to train in.  They still get the the qualifications that they complete.  They get their SQTR signed off, and validated.

You can't "require" anything that isn't in 60-1.

[RogueLeader]

All it is, is a ORM assessment tool.  What are the hazards, what is the likelihood, what is the severity.  Nobody is being denied a qualification, no ones qualifications are being revoked.  It's my tool for ensuring that the likelihood of a successful mission is the highest it can be.

I've had, on a couple of incidences that I was pressured to take members that I felt were not suited to GT.  So I took them.  Each time my concerns were validated.  Not physically fit for GT.  I'm just glad we only had to drop his gear, and come back for it, because he could NOT physically carry his gear.

If another GTL feels that they are safe, fine, I don;t have any issue with that.  If someone tells me I have to take someone that I'm not comfortable with, I'll go fly, because I won't do it.  I am NOT going to put anybody in a position that they are at high risk of hurting themselves. 

[Walkman]

Rouge, I can personally attest to being out of shape and risking a GT mission. My very first FTX in UTWG as a barely started GTM3 was over Thanksgiving weekend in the Bear River range of the Rockies. We ended up hiking about 4 miles in, and climbed up 1500 ft (and then back down again to our bivy site). I was horribly out of shape and packed too much gear, having been a complete newb to winter camping and mountains in general. If that had been an actual (very common terrain for SAR in the that area), I would have been a detriment, and possibly skunked the sortie.

From that experience, I don't see how assessing a GTM's ability to physically handle a long hike for an actual goes against the regs. Seems like solid ORM to me for the AOR. Now that I'm back in the flat lands of the midwest, it's a different story. The terrain in MIWG (unless you're in da' UP) isn;t nearly as challenging.

[RiverAux]

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting we use the same time standards as the wildland firefighters, just the same basic test structure. 

Frankly, I don't think our folks would even need to wear a pack -- just the basic ground team field gear that they're most likely going to be carrying when they're in the woods.  2 miles in 30 minutes with that seems quite reasonable. 

[Eclipse]

You're both talking about different things - Rogue is saying that when people come to him for training or tasking,
he "requires" them to take a hike first.  You simply can't do that, and anyone who told you "no", or filed a complaint would
be fully justified.  The fact that your wing condones this actually makes it worse.

"Double secret" anything is not allowed and not cricket.  It is regularly indicated as a factor in members who get frustrated and
quit.  This is no different then a check pilot who adds "his own wrinkles" to a Form 5.  BTDT with one who felt that not only the F5 process,
but the general FAA check ride process was sorely lacking and it was "up to CAP to lead the way in this regard".  After
more then a few complaints and difficult conversations, he's not a check pilot any more.

If you're building your own "Expendables", or your Unit CC allows the practice, well, so be it, for those in the respective AOR, otherwise, you're simply not allowed to "require" it.

Mission / sortie ORM are a different animal.  Team leaders and supervisors are well within their rights to make judgement calls about
a person's fitness for a particular duty - those happen all the time for all sorts of reasons, improper or missing equipment, lack of experience
for a complex task, or even perceived fitness for a long hike or steep climb, etc. but that's a 1-off, day-of decision, not a gateway for the qualification.

I know you've already said you don't "not train" or "not qual" people who can't make the hike, but seriously, you think the simple conversation might not
be a virtual gateway, anyway?  The tasks are the tasks - you can't add more because you "know better".

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

You're both talking about different things - Rogue is saying that when people come to him for training or tasking,
he "requires" them to take a hike first.  You simply can't do that, and anyone who told you "no", or filed a complaint would
be fully justified.  The fact that your wing condones this actually makes it worse.

"Double secret" anything is not allowed and not cricket.  It is regularly indicated as a factor in members who get frustrated and
quit.  This is no different then a check pilot who adds "his own wrinkles" to a Form 5.  BTDT with one who felt that not only the F5 process,
but the general FAA check ride process was sorely lacking and it was "up to CAP to lead the way in this regard".  After
more then a few complaints and difficult conversations, he's not a check pilot any more.

If you're building your own "Expendables", or your Unit CC allows the practice, well, so be it, for those in the respective AOR, otherwise, you're simply not allowed to "require" it.

Mission / sortie ORM are a different animal.  Team leaders and supervisors are well within their rights to make judgement calls about
a person's fitness for a particular duty - those happen all the time for all sorts of reasons, improper or missing equipment, lack of experience
for a complex task, or even perceived fitness for a long hike or steep climb, etc. but that's a 1-off, day-of decision, not a gateway for the qualification.

I know you've already said you don't "not train" or "not qual" people who can't make the hike, but seriously, you think the simple conversation might not
be a virtual gateway, anyway?  The tasks are the tasks - you can't add more because you "know better".

This would have been an excellent 20,000th post.

[Майор Хаткевич]

This would have been an excellent 20,000th post.

What if the reason it is taking so long, is because for the past 8 years Eclipse has been writing the mother post of all mother posts, and will publish it (in its own thread, worth at least 100 posts of character limits), and the forum simply ceases to exist?

[RogueLeader]

Is Ground Team taskings relatively physically demanding?
Are the physical capabilities necessary equal all over the US?
Are each member the same?
Are they physically capable?
How do you know?
How do they know?
How do you ensure that they are safe physically?
How do you fix the situation when you are wrong?

My answers:
Yes
Not even remotely
Not in this lifetime
Possibly
Take them for as hike
Take them for a hike
ORM Assessment (Hike is a great tool for this.)
Never had to.  My ORM has thus far saved me from that nightmare.

Do you really think that a 12 year old cadet, whose 24 hr gear was half his weight should really be on a ground team.  By your words, absolutely, since he passes all the other quals.  It doesn't matter that he couldn't carry his gear for more than half a mile.  Yes this has happened to me, and he complained the whole time of how heavy his gear is.

What about the person who complained about her ankles from walking up one flight of stairs (every stinking time,) but thinks she should be on Ground team.  It might work in Illinois, or Indiana, and even in the flattest portions of Wyoming; but it doesn't make sense when you go into the mountains.

[Peeka]

Three more. The anticipation is killing me. What if we hit P20K, the servers overload, and blow up? The whole of the internet will be impacted with improper uniform wear, blue berets, whistles, orange hats, BDU boonies, TPUs, and so many other things...it would be the end of the Internet as we know it.

What if the reason it is taking so long, is because for the past 8 years Eclipse has been writing the mother post of all mother posts, and will publish it (in its own thread, worth at least 100 posts of character limits), and the forum simply ceases to exist?

You are really hoping for that, aren't you?

[Eclipse]

Do you really think that a 12 year old cadet, whose 24 hr gear was half his weight should really be on a ground team.

It doesn't matter why >I< think, or you.  NHQ has already answered this question.

I've already indicated that GTLs have allowance for day-of ORM decisions.  What they can't do is add anything "extra" to the tasking.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Do you really think that a 12 year old cadet, whose 24 hr gear was half his weight...

This was a failure of the trainer and the SET who passed that task. I recall the task for the packs include being able to carry the pack in a comfortable way.

Flyer

[RiverAux]

Interestingly, this is one of the rare threads that has turned from a uniform thread into something a little more meaningful. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

It always happens that way. Non-uniform threads degenerate into uniform posts, so uniform threads degenerate into other stuff...

Flyer