MROs in the field

[UWONGO2]

I've been chatting with a few folks in my wing about the concept deploying comm guys (MROs) with ground teams in the field. We once had a multi-agency exercise where the ground teams were flown into an extremely remote area by Chinooks that had no radio or phone coverage of any kind. We put a highbird overhead who relayed traffic back to the command post (mission base). The ground teams designated a few of their members as being responsible for comm, but that took them from the search.

I proposed the idea for similar future exercises or missions that we deploy MROs with the ground team. I've heard everything from that's not allowed unless the MRO is also GT qualified to that's fine as long as the MRO doesn't participate in any GT tasks and focuses solely on comm tasks (radio relay, setting up a portable repeater, etc).

Has anyone seen any ground response plan that involves sending MROs with ground teams? Is it even allowed?

[Eclipse]

MROs in the field are a bad idea, they are not trained or equipped to be self-sufficient, which means they are a mission liability.
The same goes for this idea that "mom can drive the team", or "we need an adult on the team so Maj Payne is going just to chaperon".

All GTs are required to be able to properly operate a CAP radio, so they are not "removed from the search", they are performing a necessary function
which is part and parcel of GSAR.

[Brad]

Agreed. A good GTM or especially the GTL will have an understanding on how to operate a CAP radio in the field. As far as communications relay, a good mission base MRO would likely ask, "Any Ground Team that copied Ground Team 4's traffic please relay the message to Mission Base, it was unreadable on this end" or something along those lines.

As far as a portable repeater, unless you're up on a hill or whatnot, you're not going to get the most efficient use of your setup. That's what we have Highbirds for, they have the altitude to effectively repeat radio traffic in areas where the primary repeaters have no coverage for whatever reason.

Besides, I don't think you'd want to be lugging this around in addition to your 24/48/72-hour pack:

[ProdigalJim]

Well, by odd happenstance, I just did more or less that very thing today as part of an annual Wing Comms exercise concurrent with Constant Watch. We took a small ground team, plus a GTM-qualified CUL, a VHF rig, some masts and antennae, a tool box and a generator, humped it all a little bit into the woods and jumped on a directed net.

We had enough gas in the generator to have stayed in business many, many hours if asked. And we were able to hit fairly distant repeaters in our network.

It was pretty cool, and a good demonstration of the ability to deploy remote nodes completely off the grid wherever we might need them.

And with the ice and sleet and snow coming tomorrow, probably little interest in a highbird.

[Eclipse]

Well, by odd happenstance, I just did more or less that very thing today as part of an annual Wing Comms exercise concurrent with Constant Watch. We took a small ground team, plus a GTM-qualified CUL, a VHF rig, some masts and antennae, a tool box and a generator, humped it all a little bit into the woods and jumped on a directed net.

That's the key.

That's not a "field-deployed MRO", that another member of the GT with a specific duty, and if things go FUBAR,
he's expected to be self-sufficient for 24 hours.

My impression is the OP is asking about being able to go with a GT and play Army without doing the other field training
or having the proper equipment, in that case that is literally no different then just letting "anyone" hang with the team.

The only advantage is that are the first ones to be eaten.

[JeffDG]

There's an update coming to the comm es quals.

One will be the addition of "Relay Teams" as a qualification, who will be qualified and trained to operate in the field.

That said, I'd not have an issue with some qualified only as an MRO going with a GT and remaining with the vehicle and doing relay from low-power handhelds to the more powerful mobile sets.

[Brad]

Well, by odd happenstance, I just did more or less that very thing today as part of an annual Wing Comms exercise concurrent with Constant Watch. We took a small ground team, plus a GTM-qualified CUL, a VHF rig, some masts and antennae, a tool box and a generator, humped it all a little bit into the woods and jumped on a directed net.

We had enough gas in the generator to have stayed in business many, many hours if asked. And we were able to hit fairly distant repeaters in our network.

It was pretty cool, and a good demonstration of the ability to deploy remote nodes completely off the grid wherever we might need them.

And with the ice and sleet and snow coming tomorrow, probably little interest in a highbird.

Right, and there's certainly a place for that in an ongoing response mission or a disaster relief mission, but a first-out Ground Team likely won't want to bring all that extra stuff just to locate an ELT or a downed plane or such unless they regularly train on it as part of their "routine" response.

[Eclipse]

And what do you do if things go bad and you have to stay in the field?

Who's feeding Radio Ray?

[Combat_Comm]

I'm playing with a similar idea about a team to set up a hilltop comm site. I'm hoping the new standards don't require a full GTM qual. There are many tasks that wouldn't be needed for such a team. We shall see I guess.

[UWONGO2]

My impression is the OP is asking about being able to go with a GT and play Army without doing the other field training or having the proper equipment, in that case that is literally no different then just letting "anyone" hang with the team.

Your impression of me asking to "play army" is incorrect and I don't know how you could come to that conclusion.

Now I understand why I was warned against visiting this site.

[JeffDG]

And what do you do if things go bad and you have to stay in the field?

Who's feeding Radio Ray?

He has a radio, he can call mission base and have someone come and relieve him.

[UWONGO2]

I'm playing with a similar idea about a team to set up a hilltop comm site. I'm hoping the new standards don't require a full GTM qual. There are many tasks that wouldn't be needed for such a team. We shall see I guess.

That would be great. While I'd like to think it's common sense that sending a MRO into the field means appropriately equipped, but earlier postings in this thread clearly demonstrate that common sense isn't as common as it should be and apparently everything needs to be spelled out in regulation.

Missions that involve dropping ground teams off in the middle of nowhere via helicopter are extremely rare around here (in fact, it's only been done during exercises), but we've seen a lot of challenges when we do. With numerous teams from various agencies on the ground, a comm plan that provides the appropriate interoperability in addition to direct communication with our team members while they're all in the middle of nowhere is not a simple task. Having comm experts on the ground would likely help iron out some of the unforseen gremlins that pop-up, but we currently do not have any comm experts on our ground teams (and none are interested in becoming one). It seems silly to require a ground team certification for a MRO who has no plans or desire to serve in a ground team capcity. If we need requirements to include a deployed MRO needs to self-sufficient, then so be it, but again, I go back to the common sense concept.

I'm a huge proponent of comm training that involves the bare minimum of what an end user needs to know to effectively operate the radio and typically that's all you need in a ground team member. That said, when you're running one or two local nets plus the link to the high bird and another for CAP only coordination, you've likely surpassed the skill set of most GT members. There are reasons why police departments will deploy dispatchers in their mobile command posts. Cops use radios everyday and do just fine, but most won't have the skill set to handle dispatcher-type duties.

It's unlikely I'd ever volunteer to leave the comforts of the command post, but the idea of sending comm people into the field as needed seemed like an idea worth discussing.

[JeffDG]

The new comm curriculum that I've seen includes a "3 level" RDO (Radio Operator) qual (MRO will disappear), much like we have GTM3, GTM2 and GTM1.  CUL would also become a 3-level qual, along the lines of the IC qual (with perhaps a dozen or 2 dozen CUL1's nationwide).  Finally, there would be a new "Radio Relay Team" qualification, and my memory is fuzzy, but I think it was a 3-level as well.

For the relay teams, they would be qualified to operate "in the field".  I don't think they need GTM qualification, they can pack food and such in the vehicle that they're operating the relay from, and not have to pack it with them.

[Eclipse]

And what do you do if things go bad and you have to stay in the field?

Who's feeding Radio Ray?

He has a radio, he can call mission base and have someone come and relieve him.

If he's that close, then he's not needed.

Missions that involve dropping ground teams off in the middle of nowhere via helicopter are extremely rare around here (in fact, it's only been done during exercises), but we've seen a lot of challenges when we do. With numerous teams from various agencies on the ground, a comm plan that provides the appropriate interoperability in addition to direct communication with our team members while they're all in the middle of nowhere is not a simple task. Having comm experts on the ground would likely help iron out some of the unforseen gremlins that pop-up, but we currently do not have any comm experts on our ground teams (and none are interested in becoming one).

What's the idea here?  Program radios in the field?

A "comm expert" isn't going to have anything to do day-of if that interoperability hasn't been established well in advance at much higher levels.
If necessary, field expediency is going to mean that one of the agencies hands us a radio, or we hand them one of ours, and we communicate,
or more appropriately the communications are relayed through the ICP, miles away, where robust infrastructure is located.

I'm a huge proponent of comm training that involves the bare minimum of what an end user needs to know to effectively operate the radio and typically that's all you need in a ground team member. That said, when you're running one or two local nets plus the link to the high bird and another for CAP only coordination, you've likely surpassed the skill set of most GT members. There are reasons why police departments will deploy dispatchers in their mobile command posts. Cops use radios everyday and do just fine, but most won't have the skill set to handle dispatcher-type duties.

Local nets?  This isn't a Field day this is a SAR/DR mission.  A ground team is out there for a reason, search or help, nothing else.
The team needs comms for only one thing - command and control.  "Where are you, what are you doing?"

[Eclipse]

For the relay teams, they would be qualified to operate "in the field".  I don't think they need GTM qualification, they can pack food and such in the vehicle that they're operating the relay from, and not have to pack it with them.

That's reasonable, but a different conversation, also doesn't exist today.

[JeffDG]

For the relay teams, they would be qualified to operate "in the field".  I don't think they need GTM qualification, they can pack food and such in the vehicle that they're operating the relay from, and not have to pack it with them.

That's reasonable, but a different conversation, also doesn't exist today.

I'm going off memory of what was presented at the national conference...they had a dial-in/webex type thing for Wing DCs to see the Communication presentation.  It seemed close to release, but then again, the annual National Communications plan is over a year late at this point too.

The slides from that presentation are available, just check with your DC (they're in the DC Documents and Downloads section on the Communications website)...I've asked and been given clearance to share them within my wing (but this is obviously not a "CAP" owned system...)

[Brad]

There are reasons why police departments will deploy dispatchers in their mobile command posts. Cops use radios everyday and do just fine, but most won't have the skill set to handle dispatcher-type duties.

It's unlikely I'd ever volunteer to leave the comforts of the command post, but the idea of sending comm people into the field as needed seemed like an idea worth discussing.

Not sure how they do it in your neck of the woods, but if I'm needed for some mass casualty or other mutual-aid response, if I don't report to my regular dispatch work location then I likely get told to go to the county EMD facility. We have road Troopers come in to pass information directly to us and give us a "tactical mindset" on what to say to the Troopers in the field during large scale incidents, but we don't go out in the field at a mobile command post....mainly because that would leave the phones that the public calls in on unattended.

Plus the IC having to pass a message to the mission base MRO who has to pass it to the MRO operator in the field who has to then pass it to the GTL only increases the likelihood of the message becoming distorted in both meaning and reception. You're adding an unnecessary link. Am I advocating against MCPs? No. In fact we have two FEMA trailers we converted into mobile comms trailers, and I've personally set one up at Encampment before. But my role there was strictly Communications, not that plus deploying out with the ground teams on their SAREX.

In short, Comms needs to worry about Comms, and GT needs to worry about GT. When you add advance comms topics to a front-line GT deployment, then you get the inevitable wave of wireheads who raise their hands eager to show their stuff (for some reason that's a thing with us comms folks...) then they get out there in the sticks and don't know what to do because they're too used to sitting behind a base radio (with a computer these days) or a comfortable awning tent setup at your local ham field day. Ground Team is a different beast, I've participated in a couple of exercises and decided it's not for me. I will happily stick to running the radio from the base or doing the Mission Observer thing.

[Eclipse]

Just like HRO, there's been a fair amount of discussion in my wing about relay stations, and similar.

Typical of CAP, the field has been putting MROs in the right seat on highbird missions for years
(got a few bladder-killers at 10k myself),  by the time someone finally realizes that we need a rating for
this, they get airbone repeaters deployed to the field, essentially negating the need.

[ol'fido]

Unless you need a high bird and the only available aircraft isn't wired for it. BTDT. Recently.

[Eclipse]

Unless you need a high bird and the only available aircraft isn't wired for it. BTDT. Recently.

We're working that.

[UWONGO2]

Missions that involve dropping ground teams off in the middle of nowhere via helicopter are extremely rare around here (in fact, it's only been done during exercises), but we've seen a lot of challenges when we do. With numerous teams from various agencies on the ground, a comm plan that provides the appropriate interoperability in addition to direct communication with our team members while they're all in the middle of nowhere is not a simple task. Having comm experts on the ground would likely help iron out some of the unforseen gremlins that pop-up, but we currently do not have any comm experts on our ground teams (and none are interested in becoming one).

What's the idea here?  Program radios in the field?

Probably not, although certainly doable for long-term deployments to nowhereville. I was thinking more along the lines of multi-agency missions where everyone has different kinds of radios and while in the field something crops up that someone with technical knowledge may be able to develop a "Plan B" onsite easier than someone who's back at the command post, potentially out of comm range (depending on the issue). More like having an onsite COM-L or COM-T onsite, which as I said, probably doesn't make sense unless it's a multi-day deployment to the field.

A "comm expert" isn't going to have anything to do day-of if that interoperability hasn't been established well in advance at much higher levels.
If necessary, field expediency is going to mean that one of the agencies hands us a radio, or we hand them one of ours, and we communicate,
or more appropriately the communications are relayed through the ICP, miles away, where robust infrastructure is located.

This is how I would have expected it to go in other places I've lived but here, that's unfortunately not the case. The agencies we deal with in remote areas have smaller budgets and simply don't have a cache of radios to hand out to the NGOs that they ask to come help. It's a BYOR (bring your own radio) type party.

I'm a huge proponent of comm training that involves the bare minimum of what an end user needs to know to effectively operate the radio and typically that's all you need in a ground team member. That said, when you're running one or two local nets plus the link to the high bird and another for CAP only coordination, you've likely surpassed the skill set of most GT members. There are reasons why police departments will deploy dispatchers in their mobile command posts. Cops use radios everyday and do just fine, but most won't have the skill set to handle dispatcher-type duties.

Local nets?  This isn't a Field day this is a SAR/DR mission.  A ground team is out there for a reason, search or help, nothing else.
The team needs comms for only one thing - command and control.  "Where are you, what are you doing?"

Perhaps using the term "net" was not the greatest idea because it means different things to different people. For example, one frequency for local ground operations of all ground teams on site (remember, multi-agency). Another frequency for CAP airborne repeater so that CAP folks can talk to CAP folks, another frequency for High Bird relay (usually some sort of public safety frequency our airborne repeater doesn't do) from the ground leadership back to the public safety dispatcher who's sitting in a trailer at the command post. Throw in the ISRs for GTL to GTMs and it turns out to be a lot of radio traffic to monitor.

[Brad]

Just look into doing what we do and put a public safety airborne repeater in the CAP plane. We do it as standard response for hurricanes with SCDPS; put a CAP plane up as a backup repeater in case the ground sites get offed. We fly every year as part of the annual multi-agency hurricane drill, in fact I've talked to my squadron ops officer on the other end while at work in my dispatch capacity. Eliminates an extra channel. One to two active channels, plus 10 on standby as needed, with about 15 units on each channel is actually a typical day at work for me. Granted the standby channels are only there if needed, which hopefully they won't be, but again, all of this is covered in a good solid ICS 205 and the associated full comms plan. A forward-deployed in the field comms tech sent out for that purpose, again I feel can best be utilized elsewhere, such as pre-deploying and setting up backup radio assets if it's an anticipated mission such as a hurricane or such, and if it's not, such as a missing plane or whatnot, he or she would be a much better fit at the local EOC passing traffic.

[NM SAR]

I've taken MRO's out on ground teams before...who had their GTM3. I would not take someone without proper gear and training out in the field, it becomes a safety concern.

I have (with my NM SAR hat on, not CAP) taken personnel into the field that aren't typical GT people, but that was to fill a very specific and very highly specialized need. People like coroners, MDs, and LEOs. A bit of baby-sitting, tailored to the person's skillset and gear, takes place. So it's not impossible, it's just that I can't come up with a scenario in which our theoretical MRO can't hand me whatever widget that needs to be operated and give me a ten minute crash course in operating it before I leave the ICP. There's not reason for the non-field-qualified MRO to get his boots muddy. The same cannot be said of a coroner or a LEO.

It's theoretically possible. I just cannot figure out why it would become a good idea.

[Private Investigator]

Has anyone seen any ground response plan that involves sending MROs with ground teams?

What part of PTT and RTL does a GTM not know?

Now I know some MROs who are GTMs too. And I know some MROs who are strictly Base Staff so YMMV   

[arajca]

Has anyone seen any ground response plan that involves sending MROs with ground teams?

What part of PTT and RTL does a GTM not know?

For more than a few, both.

Many times, I have had GTLs come into the radio room and ask us to set their radio since they didn't know how. The whole concept of changing channels is foreign to them. Then there are the teams that leave range of one repeater and don't bother to change channels so they are out of comm range until the GBD calls the GTL's cell phone. And, of course, it's comm's fault for not having a repeater with enough range.

[Eclipse]

Seen that myself - that's why we now require a full comm briefing before launching a sortie, air or ground.

The result?

Heh - not much different.  Still have MOs who can't work the radios, and GTs talking to no one, but at
least we feel better that we tried.

[Brad]

Many times, I have had GTLs come into the radio room and ask us to set their radio since they didn't know how. The whole concept of changing channels is foreign to them. Then there are the teams that leave range of one repeater and don't bother to change channels so they are out of comm range until the GBD calls the GTL's cell phone. And, of course, it's comm's fault for not having a repeater with enough range.

That's why I'm a fan of the EF Johnson 5100 FireSAFE package it offers for its latest handhelds. One radio is designated as the IC radio and the others are the ordinary radios. When fireground mode is turned on, all the radios are locked on a specific channel and volume, and turning the channel selector does nothing, even turning the volume knob completely off does nothing. This assures that everyone remains on the correct channel and that they have it turned up. Couple it with a P25 "heartbeat" module that attaches to the antenna, which alerts if you're going out of range of the IC's radio (likely could be adapted to work with a repeater) and it is a rather awesome system. I got to try it out at a fire convention one year, really impressed.

http://www.efjohnson.com/resources/dyn/files/326152zf1213cb8/_fn/FIRESAFE+-+10.12.10.pdf

[Eclipse]

That's pretty sweet - is that compatible with our existing 5100s?

I'm all for "Set and forget".

[Brad]

That's pretty sweet - is that compatible with our existing 5100s?

I'm all for "Set and forget".

Should be as far as I know, likely would need a software upgrade though. They offer a VHF model that covers our bandsplit same as the regular 5100s. I'll dig through the sheets and ask around to see if they're compliant.

[Private Investigator]

That would be a good start, having everyone on the same channel.   

[N7MOG]

I'm in favor of a MRO qualified person on each ground team.  They can suggest a best position for the vehicle to park for comms, know how to operate the radios in the vehicle, provide relay from fielded ground teams w/ISRs or 5100's back to Mission base. They might be GT qualified already and have their gear.  There sometimes is a cadet or senior member that can operate from the vehicle but not be ambulatory enough to do the field stuff, due to injuries or something else.  Every person is a valuable resource and should be used in the best capacity possible. 

[Eclipse]

I'm in favor of a MRO qualified person on each ground team.  They can suggest a best position for the vehicle to park for comms, know how to operate the radios in the vehicle, provide relay from fielded ground teams w/ISRs or 5100's back to Mission base.

Every GTM who's qual'ed should already have that knowledge based on existing tasks.

[ol'fido]

I  would not be adverse to having a non-GT senior member function as a MTO or "Mission Transportation Officer" who would have a CAP DL, MRO, and UDF qualifications who would operate the van as a "chauffeur" for the GT on missions when we have trouble scraping together the bare minimum four bodies for the GT. I like the idea of having someone remain with the vehicle for emergencies, radio relay, and to move to pick up the team if their egress point from and search area is different than their entry point. Ex. GT begins trail search at point A which is the parking lot of a trailhead. During the search one of the team members injures a leg. The team is 4-5 miles from point A but there is secondary trailhead 1/4 mile away. GT contacts the vehicle and has themselves picked up at the secondary trailhead.

This would also mean that the GTL can focus on navigation, communication, and last minute details while the MTO concentrates on getting the team to its search area safely.

During extreme weather, having a vehicle that is already warm or cool as the case may be is a great morale booster to a team that is slogging back to it when it is sleeting or the heat index is hovering just under "black flag".

Granted there is nothing here that cannot be handled by a trained GT member and if you have the extra bodies available to do that, I have no problem with keeping it to GT qualified members only. This solution would only come in to play if you have only the bare minimum four bodies available for the GT.

I do not see a problem with someone in this position who is not GT qualified but has the quals stated above being able to take care of themselves in the field. At least not in my AO which is mostly rural as it is.

[Eclipse]

I do not see a problem with someone in this position who is not GT qualified but has the quals stated above being able to take care of themselves in the field. At least not in my AO which is mostly rural as it is.

Who feeds and shelters this guy when things go fubar? 

Or is he the food source.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

I guess the members proposing the MRO drive the ground team van will shelter in the van if something goes FUBAR.



Maybe for this reason we should also push to have the MRO changed to include a 24-hour and 72-hour bags for the MRO. 

[Sarcasm]

Flyer

[ol'fido]

I do not see a problem with someone in this position who is not GT qualified but has the quals stated above being able to take care of themselves in the field. At least not in my AO which is mostly rural as it is.

Who feeds and shelters this guy when things go fubar? 

Or is he the food source.

I find your line of reasoning quite odd. Are you trying to say that an adult member of CAP who can otherwise function as a driver, MRO, and UDF member cannot possibly fathom the needs for staying in a van over the course of a ground team sortie and prepare accordingly? Even if said sortie lasts overnight? I find that bizarre. Most of the CAP members I know of would find this less than daunting. Most would have little or no problem with it. It isn't rocket science.  Common sense and camping skills must be rare things where you live.

[Eclipse]

We're not talking about "common sense anything".

CAP accepts the liability for the actions of members who are trained and qualified in a standardized way for specific duties.

GTs, such that they are, train and equip with the assumption that they are self-sufficient in the field, and in an emergency can
shelter in place, in relative "comfort", should the need arise.  Meaning essentially they will not starve, or die of dehydration, etc.
Neither UDF nor MRO train for these scenarios, do not carry that equipment, and are not expected to work under field conditions,
and CAP would be well within it's reasonable rights to disavow protections if people ignore the rules or choose to
make up their own and deploy people in the field who aren't at least minimally qualified at a CAP GTM.

Putting other CAP members into the field, without this training and equipment means they become a mission limiting factor
and a liability to the rest of the team should that emergency present itself.  In terms of what they have shown they can do to the
satisfaction of CAP, they are unable to navigate, setup a shelter, perform search functions, or any of the other field skills a GT
is supposed to do.  What they have shown they can do is operate a radio.  Period, and CAP GTs are already capable of doing that.

As soon as you suggest they carry that equipment, you're turning them into GTs, which is what they should be anyway.

The fact that a given CAP member might be capable or prepared is irrelevant in the paradigm of our training and
qualification.  If you are short-handed on qualified people, you don't make up new titles to skirt the regs, you
train up to have people properly qualified.

[ol'fido]

You're right.

You're not talking about common sense anything.


"CAP accepts the liability for the actions of members who are trained and qualified in a standardized way for specific duties."

And I suggested specific training and duties. I did not suggest some ad hoc let's forget the rules solution. MTO would be a qual just as GTM or GTL. It could be a "stand alone" qual for older or less mobile members or a "gateway" qual for GT. No one is suggesting that this person would work in the field with the GT other than in the narrow confines I suggested when I put forth the idea. If they exceeded the bounds of their lane, CAP would be right to refuse indemnification just as if the same said GT exceeded their authority such as when securing a crash site.

Navigating, setting up shelter, and digging a slit trench are the only real tasks required of GTs that would technically fall under what I would call "field skills". We aren't exactly stretching the boundaries of "campcraft and survival skills" with those tasks. If there were more to it, your point might be valid. As it is, most GTs are little more prepared to survive in the wilderness than the guy you send to get donuts for mission base.


"As soon as you suggest they carry that equipment, you're turning them into GTs, which is what they should be anyway."

So if this is really all that separates a GT from anyone else, then let's make 24 and 72 hour packs mandatory for all personnel. That way we could eliminate the argument altogether.

"The fact that a given CAP member might be capable or prepared is irrelevant in the paradigm of our training and
qualification."

The fact that a given CAP member might be capable or prepared OUGHT TO BE the paradigm of our training and qualification.

I'm not suggesting we skirt the regs. I am suggesting a change to the regs.  Training people up needs to be encouraged as well.

[Eclipse]

The fact that a given CAP member might be capable or prepared is irrelevant in the paradigm of our training and
qualification.

Chuck Yeager can't fly a 182 on a mission unless he's 5'd and 91'ed.
That's how it works.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

We also need to take into account that National appreciates our concerns here, and for some time has been working on a new type of qualification to replace the MRO. That qual will be called an RDO and will have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd levels of capability, and the CUL quals will also have three levels. This was released at the national Conference, but since then has had no forward motion taken on it, which is a bit disappointing. I'm not sure of exactly what will be in the qualification SQTR, but from my understanding they will be equipped and able to deploy out to locations and set up a deployed base station to act as a mission base or relay station...

[SarDragon]

We also need to take into account that National appreciates our concerns here, and for some time has been working on a new type of qualification to replace the MRO. That qual will be called an RDO and will have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd levels of capability, and the CUL quals will also have three levels. This was released at the national Conference, but since then has had no forward motion taken on it, which is a bit disappointing. I'm not sure of exactly what will be in the qualification SQTR, but from my understanding they will be equipped and able to deploy out to locations and set up a deployed base station to act as a mission base or relay station...

For some time = about eight (ten) years

New quals - don't hold your breath; see above. This has been promised for far too long.

[a2capt]

So has 39-1, and the NCO program.

[MacGruff]

Aaaaahhhh, but 39-1 is out now...

[RogueLeader]

Aaaaahhhh, but 39-1 is out now...

Not quite, its still in draft stage.

[SarDragon]

Aaaaahhhh, but 39-1 is out now...

Not quite, its still in draft stage.

Rough, "Not Ready for Prime Time" draft, so it appears.

[Larry Mangum]

We also need to take into account that National appreciates our concerns here, and for some time has been working on a new type of qualification to replace the MRO. That qual will be called an RDO and will have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd levels of capability, and the CUL quals will also have three levels. This was released at the national Conference, but since then has had no forward motion taken on it, which is a bit disappointing. I'm not sure of exactly what will be in the qualification SQTR, but from my understanding they will be equipped and able to deploy out to locations and set up a deployed base station to act as a mission base or relay station...

The plan is to field test this at NESA this year.

[Spaceman3750]

I personally like ol'fido's idea. Having someone who can stay with the vehicle, move it where I need it, and relay from my handheld would be a huge help, especially in the scenarios where I can't hit the highbird or repeater, which happens a lot when you only TX at 5W.

I don't think they need to have much training or qualification. It doesn't take much to stay with the vehicle. You could always include the existing personal safety tasks in the new qual if it makes the lawyers feel better. It wouldn't be great for Katrina or Sandy, but it would be for a lot of the other stuff we do where sheltering isn't an issue because you're  sleeping at the local hotel home mission base and the FUBAR plan is "shelter in the vehicle until adverse weather passes".

When's the last time a GT has had to shelter in the field because traditional shelter or ARC/Salvation Army/other group shelter wasn't available anyways? I can't think of anything in my wing since I've been a member, at least outside of a training environment that was little more than camping in the local campground.

[Eclipse]

So, can you provide a schedule when an emergency will take place?

That would be really handy.

[Spaceman3750]

So, can you provide a schedule when an emergency will take place?

That would be really handy.

What kind of emergency are we talking about here that would impact the driver on a CAP mission that they wouldn't face and be capable of dealing with on any other drive in the country? Furthermore, is that type of emergency something that we train GTMs to handle but not the theoretical van drivers, and where does it fall in terms of likelihood and severity on the ORM matrix? If we look at this from an analytical perspective I think we can fix the problems instead of just saying "nope, can't be done".

I don't think GTM3 is hugely onerous to complete anyways, but it does have a full week dedicated to it at our national SAR school and I've seen members in the field take a year or more to complete it based on resource availability. Something lower that would allow someone to be a huge help to GTs in the field is something worth pursuing in my opinion.

[Eclipse]

Is the goal "more GTs"?   I didn't see that anywhere, nor do I see much, if anything, in the GTM curriculum that is inappropriate to the expected tasks,
namely being able to work autonomously in the field with an expectation of self-sufficiency.

Weather, run out of fuel, getting lost, getting injured, or even extension of the mission overnight to, I don't know, try and help someone.

For starters, there's no need for this - GTs know how to operate the radios - we don't have field communications
issues which would be alleviated by an MRO.

"GT1 this is base. We're talking about pushing you further forward tomorrow and could save a lot
of time if you can camp for the night, is that doable?"

"It would be, but the guy who drove the van didn't even bring a jacket..."

You don't build-up a team of people expected to be self-suffient by adding people without that self-sufficiency.
If you want to be in the field, do the fairly simply work of qualifying to be a GTM. If that's too much, it's going to be too much.

If we look at this from an analytical perspective I think we can fix the problems instead of just saying "nope, can't be done".

If we look at it from an analytical perspective, the question is "Why would we bother?"

For years we had Mission Scanners taking photographs from the aircraft with no issues, but the are aircrew first and
mission specialists second.

If the push is to make some sort of "Field Comm Specialist" who is a GT first, well whatever, but the last thing we need is
more unqualified people in the field.   We have enough issues already with people making up their own rules as it is
with "drivers" and "chaperons" and other silliness because they can't field properly composed teams.

[ol'fido]

Nobody is suggesting an "ad hoc" off the books solution. I am suggesting a fully approved qual with the title of Mission Transportation Officer to be added to the ranks.

Yes, GT members can work the radio. Nobody said they couldn't. But you need to have someone remain with the vehicle who can also drive it if need be. Otherwise, you end up like the situation at the wing eval a couple of years ago where the aircraft had spotted a target and had to orbit for half an hour while two of the GT members walked back to the van and then went to pick the rest of the team up. Having someone at the van already would have meant about a five minute wait. The radio relay would be a secondary function and not the primary one. Primary would be operating the vehicle. Also, this solution would only be used when only the minimum amount of GT trained members(4) is available and no one would be left with the vehicle otherwise.

The idea that this person would go into the field without equipment and without a clue is yours and you can't seem to unwrap your brain from it. This person would be required to have all the equipment they would need to spend the night in the field BUT IN THE VAN. Unless we are going to go motocross with a Ford Van, the MTO is not going anywhere that the average American commuter could not survive and function. No one is suggesting that the MTO would be doing anything that requires them to leave the pavement(other than to utilize the woodline occasionally).

As to the supposed qualification of the GT members themselves to survive in the field, the ES curriculum provides a bare minimum of equipment and barely more training than the average den mother would get before taking the Cub Scouts to the back yard. If they are truly self sufficient in the field it is because they have trained above and beyond the CAP approved curriculum in campcraft and survival.

[Eclipse]

Denigrating the CAP GTM curriculum to make the point is pretty counterproductive.  It's comprehensive for the
assumed duty and as comprehensive then anything similar organizations require.  Like anything else if you check the boxes
and only do the minimums, then that's what get back.

I'm not sure what more you need - if you do what you're supposed to, you can navigate, shelter, and otherwise be relatively safe in
the field.  If you want to start going "Dual Survival" well that's not needed.

Yes, GT members can work the radio. Nobody said they couldn't. But you need to have someone remain with the vehicle who can also drive it if need be.

Otherwise, you end up like the situation at the wing eval a couple of years ago where the aircraft had spotted a target and had to orbit for half an hour while two of the GT members walked back to the van and then went to pick the rest of the team up. Having someone at the van already would have meant about a five minute wait. The radio relay would be a secondary function and not the primary one. Primary would be operating the vehicle. Also, this solution would only be used when only the minimum amount of GT trained members(4) is available and no one would be left with the vehicle otherwise.

No you don't - this has never been an issue in any mission I've seen.  If it was a wing eval, it was more then a couple of years ago.

Are you suggesting this drive leave the team to go chase the airplane?

What's the obsession with leaving someone with the vehicle?  Lock the doors and work the mission.


There's also another option.  Recruit and train enough people to actually be able to put more then one team in a given AO.
Then GTs don't have to go with only 4.

The idea that this person would go into the field without equipment and without a clue is yours and you can't seem to unwrap your brain from it.

No, it's reality - if we're talking about making up a new rating from whole cloth, that's a different conversation.

The OP is asking about taking the existing MRO and putting him in the field to "help" where no "help" is needed.

But taking the MTO idea - who in their right mind is going to want to equip themselves like a GT and then sit in a van all day?
They might as just well be a GT.

Call a spade a spade - this is nothing more then MROs who don't want to do the field craft work who want to
get outside and are looking for an excuse. 

Another solution with no problem to fix.

[ol'fido]

This is exactly the situation that happened at the wing eval in Aug 2011. I know. I watched it happen from the aircraft. I have an obsession with leaving someone at the van because it is good fieldcraft for a ground team for just the reasons I have pointed out in several replies on this thread and that experience. It was a good idea for the 20 years I did GT work as well. Your obsession and denigration of every idea along these lines is just as counter productive as anything I have said. Most GTs can sustain themselves in the field, but not because of the GT training as mandated by CAP. They can do it just because they are intelligent, engaged, and experienced members who have common sense. These qualities are not restricted to those members who have GT checked off on their 101. I would love for us to have plenty of qualified GT members to make this a moot point, but at this time we don't. I am making a suggestion to try to solve the problem until we do. I don't sit around bemoaning the fact that we don't have more GT members and engaging in "not invented here" thinking. I am willing to try anything within regs or get the regs changed to something that will work. I am not going to sit around pooh-poohing other ideas and coming up with new and creative ways to say no to anything that might work.

[Eclipse]

I would love for us to have plenty of qualified GT members to make this a moot point, but at this time we don't.

Then it's time to start recruiting instead of making thing up to accommodate poor manning.

This isn't about "not invented here" this is about a typical response to a CAP problem.

Not enough people?  Don't waste time getting more people, just relax standard so we can pretend the real problem doesn't exist.  Funny how this conversation evolved from MROs to "guy who can dive" because the reason is the same.

Also unnecessary and dangerous.

[lordmonar]

Not very often that I agree with Eclipse.....but....really  Ground Teams don't need MROs......heck IMHO mission bases don't need MRO's....but that's another argument.

If the mission traffic to the GT is so intense that you need a full time MRO.....then you are doing it wrong.

As for leaving someone with the van.....I have in the past argued that you could have a driver who is not GT qualified transport the team to the side of the road, drop off the team and wait......and I still stand by that position.   

But the only reason why I would do that is because I had no qualified GT drivers....and that is it.  There is no need to keep someone with the van....if it takes you an hour to redeploy/reposition due to inputs from the aircraft or base.....it takes you an hour.    If that is not soon enough....like Eclipse said.....man, train and equip more teams.

[sarmed1]

I have to say: in my many years of doing CAP missions (and other emergency services operations:  Fire, EMS, SWAT, SAR etc) never have individual units (ie single resources) communications required a comm specialist.  Usually its a single resource member designated as the POC (usually the team leader) but every team member is trained to operate the radios the team is expected to use.

If you want a designated MRO for GT ops, then it should be a GT qualified member cross trained as an MRO.  (obviously MRO cross trained as GTM is acceptable too)
Why?:  Because you are more likely to need them to be doing GT tasks more frequently than they would be doing MRO tasks..... (more than: you this is me, ops check? me, ops normal, roger out....q 30 minutes)

If GTM's cant figure out how to change bands, banks, channels etc etc...thats a training issue; not something that you need an entire specialist just to take over radio ops.

mk

[ol'fido]

I did not migrate from MRO to "someone to drive the van". This was my primary argument all the time. The need for that person to be able to operate the radios was all I wanted. GT members can operate the radio just as well as an MRO can. What you get with the MTO is someone who is manning a radio that is more powerful, longer lasting, and with a better antenna than the average brick that GT packs. If you are in an area like the Chicago area that has several repeaters, this becomes less critical than being in an area where there is not the same coverage like down here.

If you want to recruit, recruit. I said that if we had enough people we wouldn't need it. But this wing is constantly scrounging for bodies on GTs. I am trying to do what I can to get more GT members in my AO.

I am advocating exactly what you say lordmonar. That is exactly what I envision an MTO doing.

Dangerous? Your assumption of complete and total incompetence on the part of our membership is getting old.

[Brad]

I have to say: in my many years of doing CAP missions (and other emergency services operations:  Fire, EMS, SWAT, SAR etc) never have individual units (ie single resources) communications required a comm specialist.  Usually its a single resource member designated as the POC (usually the team leader) but every team member is trained to operate the radios the team is expected to use.

If you want a designated MRO for GT ops, then it should be a GT qualified member cross trained as an MRO.  (obviously MRO cross trained as GTM is acceptable too)
Why?:  Because you are more likely to need them to be doing GT tasks more frequently than they would be doing MRO tasks..... (more than: you this is me, ops check? me, ops normal, roger out....q 30 minutes)

If GTM's cant figure out how to change bands, banks, channels etc etc...thats a training issue; not something that you need an entire specialist just to take over radio ops.

mk

Nailed it. MRO-specific issues and moreso CUL issues such as which repeater to use, comms failure actions, etc., should have been covered ahead of time as a part of pre-planning or the comms plan prepared by the CUL in coordination with his/her MRO(s). If the ground team is having issues with a radio and how to use it, that is what remedial training is for.

If it is in the middle of a mission, then any capable MRO would hopefully be able to give step-by-step instructions on how to tell the GT to change channels to contact the aircraft, for example. If there's a comms failure between the GT and the MRO due to radio use knowledge, then hopefully the MRO would have the phone contact of at least the GTL as part of the comms plan the CUL drew up. A quick phone call and a "Hey what zone and channel are you on?" would get it resolved, hopefully.

If they're out of cell phone range...well then it falls on the GT to follow standard procedure and relocate to a better spot comms-wise, or RTB if communications still cannot be re-established.

[Luis R. Ramos]

If the problem was that "two GT had to walk back to the van" the solution is not to change the requirements or add a new specialty.



The solution is to retrain that driver and ground team leader to have the foresight to leave whomever drove the ground team to stay with the van next time!



Flyer

[ol'fido]

I feel like I am going round and round on this. I post stuff and people respond to what they think I've written and not what I actually said.

Flyer- The GT was sent out with the absolute minimum four members. There was no one to leave at the van.

The Mission Transportation Officer qual that I am proposing is not a way to "sneak" an unqualified individual on a ground team. It is a way to make sure that a GT can go to the field with the minimum number of qualified individuals and still leave someone at the van who can relay comms if needed but whose primary job is to operate the van and relocate it as needed to pick up the team at a different location if that is what is needed. This person would not leave the pavement. They would not search with the team. They would simply drive the team to the area and wait in the van till they return. For instance, if the team is assigned to search a trail that ends several miles away. The MTO drops the team off at the trailhead. Waits for a short while until the team gets to the half way point and then drives around to pick the team up at the end of the trail. Otherwise, the GT must backtrail those miles back to their vehicle.

The MTO would bring items such as a coat or rain gear, a sleeping bag( to sleep in the van if needed) and food and water for a reasonable amount of time.

Again, if the team has sufficient personnel to handle this on their own, they would and the MTO's would be used for other duties.

What other duties? Going to pick up chow and supplies for mission base. Taking aircrews to the flight line in those instances where the ramp is not right outside of mission base or it is on the other side of the field. They would fill the same jobs as any other van driver at a mission with the added ability to chauffeur the GT to the field if needed.

Again, I am not suggesting that the MTO would be "searching" with the GT. He would basically be "aircrew" for the van and would not go humping down the trail. They would also have the equipment needed to shelter and survive in the van for overnight if needed.

[N7MOG]

Randy, I like your way of thinking.  Even if a non GT qualed person was @ a mission, but had a license, this would work.  I know of Seniors that physically can't take much of a hike, but are capable of driving a team.  I remember when (for example) the Isrealies put handicapped people in positions that didn't require full capabilities...meaning there is a job for everyone if we think it through.
Bill

[Eclipse]

Yes, there >is< something for everyone, but certain things simply aren't.

You're seriously suggesting putting someone with mobility issues and no field training into a DR?

Talk about mission liability.

Lowing the bar for the sake of inclusion doesn't lower the hazards they may encounter.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree with Eclipse. Someone with mobility limitations has no place on a ground team. The risks exceed the potential benefits. Better to stay at mission base and contribute to the success of the mission from there.

[Private Investigator]

I agree with Eclipse.

The only person in the entire Wing that can do this task is mobility impared? Step back and reevaluate the situation.