Basic Ground Team School - Feedback Requested

[winterg]

[Capt Thompson]

Ideally, if we could have a standard set of gear, packed the same way between all team members like the military would do it, but still have them take it home and maintain it themselves, we would have the best of both worlds.

What happens though, when they go for GTM2 and 1? Do we issue a 72 hour pack, tent/shelter half, sleeping bag etc to maintain uniformity, or leave them to come up with a solution they can integrate their issued 24 hour pack into? How much money should be the Squadron's responsibility, and how much should the team member be responsible for? Some Squadrons would never be able to pull this off, while others could take care of it with a single fundraiser.

Although it will never happen, I would love to have CAP come up with a single 24 hour and 72 hour pack solution, and be completely uniform. Unfortunately, they'd hand it to VG, quality would be low and prices would be astronomical.

[winterg]

The ones who have the drive to participate will find a way to acquire the items. And if a squadron can afford to maintain 72 hour kits as well, bully for them. But i think we all know how many could or would actually do that.

But I still think we can find a way to include those members who have the basic quaifications but who can't afford to maintain the full 24 hour kit.

[Capt Thompson]

Agreed....financial situation should never keep someone from participating. There should always be a way to figure out how to include them.

[Spam]

Agreed....financial situation should never keep someone from participating. There should always be a way to figure out how to include them.

If by that you mean members should be free to go raise funds and save their money, sure, I agree and I'm totally with you sir. If you believe we should raise dues or impose Wing or unit dues to provide handouts, I'm dead opposed (and I vote that way).  I am completely amazed at how CAP, apparently following American society, has slid into the entitlement mentality that all of us are "entitled" to rights and benefits never set forth in the Constitution, nor in smaller scale in CAP bylaws.  For example, see the back and forth about free uniform programs... hello, they're FREE, smile and say thanks graciously for the gift.

I stridently believe that self reliance is a virtue that needs to be emphasized throughout CAPs training programs. Perhaps I'm exhibiting a knee jerk reaction to your phrasing, which in my mind echoes that of some of our current politicians who are pushing bigger government solutions rather than individual responsibility and local teamwork... if so, my apologies for the rant!

*Says the guy who, as a cadet 30+ years ago, mowed lawns and did odd jobs to buy his boots and gear, and turned in his squadron issue to be issued to new guys, and who has spent countless hours since fund raising.

V/R
Spam

[Eaker Guy]

Ideally, if we could have a standard set of gear, packed the same way between all team members like the military would do it, but still have them take it home and maintain it themselves, we would have the best of both worlds.

What happens though, when they go for GTM2 and 1? Do we issue a 72 hour pack, tent/shelter half, sleeping bag etc to maintain uniformity, or leave them to come up with a solution they can integrate their issued 24 hour pack into? How much money should be the Squadron's responsibility, and how much should the team member be responsible for? Some Squadrons would never be able to pull this off, while others could take care of it with a single fundraiser.

Although it will never happen, I would love to have CAP come up with a single 24 hour and 72 hour pack solution, and be completely uniform. Unfortunately, they'd hand it to VG, quality would be low and prices would be astronomical.

Pleas don't include VG and quality in the same sentence. It sends chills down my spine.

In all seriousness, I concur. Uniformity is good. It would also speed up the training process. Instead of letting the cadet figure it out, he/she would already have a packing list and standardized placement of items so packing/unpacking becomes more efficient. Also good for when cadets need to set up other cadets' gear.

[Spam]

Why in the world would you set someone else's gear up for them, as opposed to teaching them to do it for themselves - to the standard?  "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, etc etc"?


Our end goal (in my opinion, and I am one with my officers on this) isn't spoon fed pussy cats, it is self reliant young tigers of Americans who can think for themselves, are motivated to learn and achieve and innovate and prevail, and to adapt and weld themselves in with the team. Working to earn your gear, learning to rig and 4R it yourself is all part of that, and it leads to successful life skills.  ES is, for cadets, optional, but it is one of the most vital applied leadership labs possible. From that perspective, I can see the logical point of having "Team" rigs set up like a volunteer fire squad and prepositioned in a unit HQ, but equally from my perspective of using ES as a Lead Lab function I wouldn't do it.  There are plenty of other really good units in my Wing that don't "do" ES, or are perpetually interested in it but are noncommittal, so being up front with our recruits about the degree of commitment and involvement my unit expects acts as a certain selective and filtering factor for success in the field in and of itself.


I do see the attractiveness in a row of rigged gear, much like turnout gear for VFDs. Here's my units training aid: http://www.ga045.org/documents/CAP_Std_Gear_List.pdf and trainee gear http://www.ga045.org/documents/GTTraineeEquipmentChecklist.pdf, and our Powerpoint module on gear which is part of our Basic Flight training for cadets: http://www.ga045.org/documents/Field_Skills_I_v2011.pdf. That last is entering a revision cycle now, as I'd posted elsewhere... I want to realign our stuff to better fit with Great Start.  Quite frankly, I wanted to see how GS was working out with real units... and my feedback as a recent DCP is that most new cadets don't open the material, and most units around here haven't (a) read the material or (b) implemented it as a formal program - so I want to adhere to the intent and spirit of Great Start by folding it into what I know does work well locally.


Also, in my 29 AUG post, I mentioned that we're revising but will keep the prep and fam task briefs for new cadets which logically support safe ops at non-ES events (airshows, encampment, etc). That legacy brief is here: http://www.ga045.org/documents/Field_Skills_IV_v2011.pdf since you asked. (Warning: its a bit graphic).


Again, I really do like that locally derived GT3 school outline, Winter.

V/R,
Spam

[winterg]

Spam, I am right there with you in being very against the entitlement mentality that seems to be the norm in society lately.  Nobody has a "right" to be in ES.  They need to be willing to put in the work to meet the standards.  I get a lot of cadets and seniors that come to the squadron ES training and think they can show up, stand around, not participate, and get signed off on a task.  It is my job to work to keep them engaged and make them want to participate.  But at the end of the day, the motivation must ultimately want to come from within.  If we accept that CAP is a somewhat representative cross-section of society, then most will not be willing to go that far outside of their comfort zone to participate in Emergency Services.  The ones that do want to be part of ES, go out of their way to find a way.  We stay up late staying updated in practices and mission reports.  Creating lesson plans and continually tweaking our kits.  But we try to get as many members involved in ES as possible.  We expose cadets to it often and dangle a shiny GTM badge in front of them in the hopes they will take a liking to it and become the next generation of SAR professionals.  But in reality, a very few will actually catch the SAR bug.

I think I see where Lt. Thompson was going with the comment about cost not prohibiting a member from participating.  Some members, cadets and seniors, have a volunteer spirit but limited resources.  If they want to be involved we should, as mentors, help them to find a way.  Not give them everything they need, rather, assist them to make it happen.  I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility for a squadron and dedicated members to fund-raise or beg for the funds to setup four 24 hour packs that belong to the squadron.  Allowing the squadron to train up multiple people as ground team members and giving multiple people the opportunity to get experience on actual missions. 

Members are obviously encouraged to set up their own gear in a manner that works best for them within the Task Guide requirements.  But standardized squadron kits would mean that, theoretically, any members trained on them could effectively utilize any of them at any time.

Thank you to all for the compliments and the feedback.  The update currently being worked on combines the Basic Ground School Curriculum and the GTM3 training guide into a single file with a hyper linked table of contents and page numbers.

[Spam]

I can see how nice it would be to have that on an iPad, and to be able to pull it out of my BDU leg pocket to do signoffs.  Currently I'm on my eighth or ninth weather beaten green book (which has been covered with black and yellow striped tape to hold it together).  Of course, there's a well known physical law: radio/laptop battery power varies inversely with distance from mission base, so I'll probably always keep an analog hard copy on hand (grin).

At work, we're engaged in a project for Air Mobility Command to take 400 lbs of paper pubs (Dash 1, EPs, etc) for the KC-135 series tanker and convert them into an indexed, searchable, crosslinked tool on the USAF issue iPads.  This is a result of the 2013 Shell 77 tanker inflight Class A, where the MIB found that pubs were a crucial factor. Would love to see your stuff work like that.

V/R,
Spam

[winterg]

Spam,

I was looking at the training PDFs you posted and those are very helpful.  They give me some ideas to update the presentation I had made for the equipment training.

Here is mine:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2CzkgrZ6hyMMk1rcE1BWVVDVzA/view?usp=sharing

EDIT: Ignore any sound icons. I am experimenting with adding sound overlays of the presentation and saving the PPT as a video that we can put on our webpage.  And it is also a work in progress with several more pictures of my equipment that I need to take and add to the presentation.

[Eaker Guy]

Why in the world would you set someone else's gear up for them, as opposed to teaching them to do it for themselves - to the standard?  "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, etc etc"?


Our end goal (in my opinion, and I am one with my officers on this) isn't spoon fed pussy cats, it is self reliant young tigers of Americans who can think for themselves, are motivated to learn and achieve and innovate and prevail, and to adapt and weld themselves in with the team. Working to earn your gear, learning to rig and 4R it yourself is all part of that, and it leads to successful life skills.  ES is, for cadets, optional, but it is one of the most vital applied leadership labs possible. From that perspective, I can see the logical point of having "Team" rigs set up like a volunteer fire squad and prepositioned in a unit HQ, but equally from my perspective of using ES as a Lead Lab function I wouldn't do it.  There are plenty of other really good units in my Wing that don't "do" ES, or are perpetually interested in it but are noncommittal, so being up front with our recruits about the degree of commitment and involvement my unit expects acts as a certain selective and filtering factor for success in the field in and of itself.


I do see the attractiveness in a row of rigged gear, much like turnout gear for VFDs. Here's my units training aid: http://www.ga045.org/documents/CAP_Std_Gear_List.pdf and trainee gear http://www.ga045.org/documents/GTTraineeEquipmentChecklist.pdf, and our Powerpoint module on gear which is part of our Basic Flight training for cadets: http://www.ga045.org/documents/Field_Skills_I_v2011.pdf. That last is entering a revision cycle now, as I'd posted elsewhere... I want to realign our stuff to better fit with Great Start.  Quite frankly, I wanted to see how GS was working out with real units... and my feedback as a recent DCP is that most new cadets don't open the material, and most units around here haven't (a) read the material or (b) implemented it as a formal program - so I want to adhere to the intent and spirit of Great Start by folding it into what I know does work well locally.


Also, in my 29 AUG post, I mentioned that we're revising but will keep the prep and fam task briefs for new cadets which logically support safe ops at non-ES events (airshows, encampment, etc). That legacy brief is here: http://www.ga045.org/documents/Field_Skills_IV_v2011.pdf since you asked. (Warning: its a bit graphic).


Again, I really do like that locally derived GT3 school outline, Winter.

V/R,
Spam

Just trying to cover all scenarios. Forgive me if I created a senario not applicable to reality. I'm new to ground team.

[Spam]

No sweat, MAJ Kiss - welcome to it, and I love reading your comments (your Vanguard one cracked me up)!  Those basic leadership principles inherent are why some of us have kept pushing Cadets in ES for decades, with success. Small unit leadership training just takes on another set of dimensions when you add that hands on field training aspect.

If we were all active duty, and if this were a life support shop, then we'd want a small team of professional NCOs to keep all the pilots ALSS gear (helmets, O2 masks, vests, etc.) properly rigged. If this were a VFD, we could have guys assigned to 4R all the departments (funded!) turnout gear and air bottles charged and ready.  Most CAP units aren't set up like that though, and its complicated when we introduce the cadet leadership factor.

V/R,
Spam

[Spam]

Winter, I really like those slides.  You've a great deal more detail in them than our current slides do, yet we have ours sized to fit within our two month training rotation, so as I update, I have to watch the size and length.

Interestingly, we seem to have arrived at almost identical team gear configurations. Convergent evolution?

V/R,
Spam

[Holding Pattern]

Spam,

I was looking at the training PDFs you posted and those are very helpful.  They give me some ideas to update the presentation I had made for the equipment training.

Here is mine:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2CzkgrZ6hyMMk1rcE1BWVVDVzA/view?usp=sharing

EDIT: Ignore any sound icons. I am experimenting with adding sound overlays of the presentation and saving the PPT as a video that we can put on our webpage.  And it is also a work in progress with several more pictures of my equipment that I need to take and add to the presentation.

Nice work!

One typo I noted:

Slide 3: "suite" should be "suit"

[winterg]

Nice work!
One typo I noted:
Slide 3: "suite" should be "suit"

Thanks for the catch.  It's the little things that always slip through. 

I'm planning to go through my PPT presentations and redo them so they are not the run of the mill slide after slide of bullet points.  A good read is:

http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/powerpoint-doesnt-suck-you-do/

[Spam]

10-20-30 rule for using Phewerpoint that I try to adhere to:

- 10 is the optimal number of slides for a given topic.

- 20 is the number of minutes needed to present the 10 slides. Then, take a break, changing teaching methods to hands on or practical, and reset to next topic.

- 30 point font only. Eye charts are worse than meaningless, they destroy your credibility. I tend to try to crowd my sides too much, and I'm not alone there.


The 10-20-30 guidelines came from Guy Kawasaki... there's a good constructive critique with even more good suggestions here: http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/10-20-30-rule-guy-kawasaki-powerpoint/


V/R,
Spam

[Spaceman3750]

10-20-30 rule for using Phewerpoint that I try to adhere to:

- 10 is the optimal number of slides for a given topic.

- 20 is the number of minutes needed to present the 10 slides. Then, take a break, changing teaching methods to hands on or practical, and reset to next topic.

- 30 point font only. Eye charts are worse than meaningless, they destroy your credibility. I tend to try to crowd my sides too much, and I'm not alone there.


The 10-20-30 guidelines came from Guy Kawasaki... there's a good constructive critique with even more good suggestions here: http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/10-20-30-rule-guy-kawasaki-powerpoint/


V/R,
Spam

To avoid crowding, I was taught 6x6 - 6 bullet points, 6 words each.

[winterg]

10-20-30 rule for using Phewerpoint that I try to adhere to:
- 10 is the optimal number of slides for a given topic.
- 20 is the number of minutes needed to present the 10 slides. Then, take a break, changing teaching methods to hands on or practical, and reset to next topic.
- 30 point font only. Eye charts are worse than meaningless, they destroy your credibility. I tend to try to crowd my sides too much, and I'm not alone there.
The 10-20-30 guidelines came from Guy Kawasaki... there's a good constructive critique with even more good suggestions here: http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/10-20-30-rule-guy-kawasaki-powerpoint/
V/R,
Spam

To avoid crowding, I was taught 6x6 - 6 bullet points, 6 words each.

This is my point exactly.  I am sure all of us have become so used to powerpoint presentations being slides of bullet points that this is what we expect.  And we even come up with rules to make them "better".  But this is a huge waste of powerpoint's potential.

[Spam]

I break the rules constantly, but generally, a design should be split into functionally related chunks to fit the intended topic, be aimed at the intended audience with just enough text at the right reading level (and watch the acronyms), and be shaped/sized for the presentation venue (long conference hall vs. small room at the local unit).

So many "briefs" are not at all brief. I try to combat this by analysis before I start writing - information chunked into separate briefs allows for presentation - hands on practice - discussion/Q&A - break - repeat.

The best slide deck I ever did was ten slides with non animated graphics only, with the only words on the title slide and the security markings on each slide. It was the hit of the event... a pics worth a thousand words, and you should know your topic enough to be able to present it with NOTHING, in the first place, or, you shouldn't be the one to present it.  Of course, when we assemble topical classes intended to be presented by other personnel, we need to ensure that the right qualified people are the ones assigned to teach with those slides. I have walked in to audit and quality check our modules, to find the assigned instructor diverted and an unqualified person struggling to simply read the slides, which is a vast disservice to students who can read the things themselves.


There should be no shame in telling a member (cadet, senior, or active duty) that they might be qualified in a certain area, they might even be a check pilot or SET qualified evaluator, but that we need the best available INSTRUCTOR.

V/R,
Spam

[Capt Thompson]

Wow I'm off here for a few days and miss a lot.

Spam, my point wasn't one of entitlement, but in line with what winter said, if a Cadet really wants to participate, but doesn't have the means to do so, it's our job as leaders to help them troubleshoot and find a way.

Our Squadron runs several successful fundraisers throughout the year, which are almost entirely run by the Cadets. Some of the money raised by the Cadets goes toward scholarships the Cadets can apply for, to put towards Encampments, NCSA's and other activities.

If a Cadet doesn't have the means to attend an activity, the Squadron has a way they can earn it. No free handouts, but a Cadet that works hard to raise funds deserves to have an Encampment or some field gear paid for if needed.