MROs in the field

[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.