Why do we have three GTM levels?

[lordmonar]

This is a side note from the other GTM3 training thread.

Why do really have three GTM levels?

For all intents and purposes GTM1 is in fact a GTL who is not yet 18.
Most of the GTM2 tasks are map and compass tasks that I would teach when I am teaching GTM3.

Do we really need three levels?

Why not just have UDF, GTM (combined GTM3 and GTM2) and GLT?

[LSThiker]

This is a side note from the other GTM3 training thread.

Why do really have three GTM levels?

For all intents and purposes GTM1 is in fact a GTL who is not yet 18.
Most of the GTM2 tasks are map and compass tasks that I would teach when I am teaching GTM3.

Do we really need three levels?

Why not just have UDF, GTM (combined GTM3 and GTM2) and GLT?

Because the original concept when it was released back in 2002-2003 was:

GTM3-- <24 hrs in the field doing basic field work
GTM2-- <48 hrs in the field doing intermediate field work
GTM1-- 72 hrs in the field doing "advanced" field work

It was thought that a wing could have pyramid of GTMs.  That is a bunch of GTM3 with less GTM2s and a small group of GTM1.  The underlining principle was to get personnel quickly trained on GTM3 while those that wanted more could work on GTM1.  Those that only wanted to achieve GTM3 would not have to worry about purchasing the 72 hr gear. 

Of course that has all now changed.  For why we have not eliminated it?  Probably because the person that helped push its creation at the National Level is still the person "in charge" of it. 

[RiverAux]

Always thought it was nuts how they had very similar tasks broken up into three different phases.  IIRC, you've got some map and compass work in all the levels -- wouldn't it more effective to teach it all at one time? 

The three levels based on field time never really made sense -- its just not how we operate when we actually do GT work. 

[A.Member]

Good question.  This is an opportunity to bring value to the organization by reducing unnecessary complexity.

We really only need two levels: GTM and GTL

[sarmed1]

In/around 1998 there was just GTM and GTL.  There were no actual perfermance standards; just topics that you covered.  NHQ finally after years of non standardazation produced actual tasks for individuals to complete to meet the qualification standard (and added UDF)  Imagine all of the GTM 3, 2 and 1 tasks as 1 qualification standard.  Folks were complaining that it took long to get someone trained and qualified as a GTM.  The levels were split off into the 3 of today, they added the 24, 48 and 72 hours capability to legitimize it, but everyone I talked to at the time said it was about getting people qualified and operational at the time.

mk

[Storm Chaser]

I think it's crazy that someone can go from GTM3 to GTL, while skipping GTM2 and 1. More so than having three GTM levels.

I've heard discussions about a restructuring of the ground team qualifications that would reduce them to three levels: basic, advanced and team leader, requiring GTLs to have all three. I think that makes more sense. Then again, who knows if that's really going to happen. At this point, I would settle just to finally see a revision to the Task Guide and SQTRs.

[Capt Thompson]

I was a Cadet in the '90's when there was only GTM and GTL. My Squadron didn't have any trained ES personnel, so all of my training had to be done at Wing SAREX's and events at other Squadrons. It took me a few years to get everything accomplished and get GTM.

The new structure allows CAP to get useable assets into the field more quickly. Squadrons with limited resources, but interested personnel, can arrange for their training outside of the unit and get them taken care of more quickly, getting another qualified (hopefully) body out into the field to help fulfill CAP's missions.

The other thought process, is that in some Wings, missions requiring GTM2 or up don't happen often, if ever. Michigan Wing has been called out 12 times this year, and in 0 instances did they have to spend a night in the woods. For our Wing, it makes more sense to have the three tiers, as most members will never crack open a tent or sleeping bag on an actual mission. Likewise, GTL's leading these missions don't necessarily have to be GTM1 to lead a 4 hour daylight mission.

I could see in a Wing with mountains or a lot of dense wilderness, but then if it's an issue, the Wing CC could always make a Wing directive that active GTM's within the Wing have to be GTM2 or GTM1.

[RiverAux]

Is the linkage between level and mission length actually in the regs somewhere?  I forget...

[Capt Thompson]

Not that I've seen, I was referring to the fact that almost all of the missions we've had in the Wing this year were found in 2-4 hours, and only a couple were at night. GTM1 isn't absolutely necessary most of the time in our Wing, but might be needed every time in others.

[coudano]

The current guide is 2004, I think, that has gtm123, gtl, and udf broken out.

I agree that before that (1999???) Task guide, gt training was awful.  Pretty much useless actually unless you went to one of the reputed schools (rangers, pathfinders, etc).  NESA started with the es curriculum project ESCP that turned on the guide that we know and love now.

Prior to 2004, there was just gtm and gtl (can't remember if we had udft then).  But it used the same style task guide and the training was good.

It was something like 54 tasks to get gtm, and the task set had a lot more outdoors craft in it (survival, knots, shelter, etc).  A whole bunch of that is removed now.  Think of it as gtm 1, 2, and 3 all in one qual, and with some extra tasks.

Gtl was maybe an additional 30 or so tasks that were mostly team management stuff.  Since gtm was prerequisite for gtl, gtl didn't need to replicate the gtm and 2 tasks.

I think breaking gtm3 out probably made qualification more accessible.  You can knock out a whole gtm3 qual training in one weekend trainex, if you don't doddle.  The previous 54 task gtm, no way...

I don't mind losing the outdoors stuff.  It is fun but it really doesn't have any bearing on actually doing the job in a cap gsar context.  If you are actually exercising outdoors craft on a cap ground team, something has gone very, very wrong, and multiple layers of people have made a chain of poor orm decisions.

We obviously don't USE three tiers of ground team, and additionally you go with your lowest common denominator, so of you have a van full of gtm1s, but there is a gtm3 aboard, then your team is technically a gtm3 level team...

[sarmed1]

If you are actually exercising outdoors craft on a cap ground team, something has gone very, very wrong, and multiple layers of people have made a chain of poor orm decisions.

Relative-I was with a SAR team that routinely did remain overnight with non injured SAR victims.  The operated in some farily rough/mountainous terrains, most of their missing person searches were at night;  ill prepared day hikers got lost (nice daytime temps, shorts and tshirts, cold night time temps no equipment) , when they didnt return home after 2200, then SAR went out.  @0300 in the dark with a cold amateur hiker, low level hypothermia and dehydrated it is easier and safer to put them in a jacket and pants, set up a tent, build a fire and cook them something hot and wait until daylight than try to hike them/carry them out.

So if CAP teams were part of that SAR scenario, they would what:

a-Not operate after dark
b-Leave them until the morning
c-Try and hike them out in the dark over rough and unfamiliar terrain
d-Try and wing it since they don't train on outdoor craft

ORM says option a.  Which is the time frame of most of CAP search requests, ELT or otherwise (at least most of the ones that I had been on), that is unfortunately not being very responsive to the customer needs.

MK

[lordmonar]

Is the linkage between level and mission length actually in the regs somewhere?  I forget...

1-17 Ground Operations.
Ground teams may be used in virtually all phases of a mission.  Ground operations are governed by state and local laws as well as by CAP regulations and policies.
a. Missions are frequently initiated during periods of adverse weather or other inopportune moments when air operations may be precluded or limited, for example, immediately following a storm or in the middle of the night.  Ground teams can often be dispatched to gather information, search suspected high probability areas, search for missing persons, locate ELT transmissions, verify airborne sightings, etc.
b. The ground branch director is responsible for ensuring the safety of all ground operations.  Team capabilities and limitations must be carefully reviewed to verify their suitability for mission assignments.
(1) Team vehicles and equipment must be appropriate for the mission (VHF direction finding [DF], VHF FM communications, first aid/rescue equipment, etc.).
(2) Team training and experience must be appropriate for the mission (proficiency in DF use, ground rescue knowledge, concentrated area search procedures, missing person search, etc.).
Ground Team Members – Level 1 should be prepared to conduct ground team operations within their limits of training up to 72 hours. 
Ground Team Members – Level 2 should be prepared to conduct ground team operations within their limits of training for up to 48 hours. 
Ground Team Members – Level 3 should be prepared to conduct ground team operations within their limits of training for up to 24 hours.
(a)A ground team may only conduct operations within the limits of training of its lowest qualified member.  A member qualified at one level, and having supervised trainee status for a higher level may be used operationally at the higher level if the trainee is properly
equipped and supervised.
(b)Team assignments must be carefully matched with team member qualifications before releasing a ground team on a sortie.
(3)Composition of the ground team, urban DF team, or Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) will vary depending upon the assignment.  Ground teams will not be released with out a qualified ground team leader and at least three qualified ground team members or supervised trainees.  Urban DF teams will not be released with less than two personnel and CERTs will not be dispatched with less than three personnel.  There is not a separate qualification for members and leaders on Urban Direction Finding Teams and CERTs, but one member will be placed in charge.  All ground operations must still meet the requirements for cadet protection and vehicle usage.  Ground resources will not self-
dispatch; they must be properly released, even remotely via phone or other means if necessary, and noted appropriately on mission ocuments.  Signatures are not required on the CAPF 109, Ground Team Clearance, but the CAPF 109 must note who briefed and released the crew accordingly.
(4) Teams in the field should establish communications with the base of operations (directly or through a relay) at regular intervals.
(5) Ground teams should document interviews/interrogations conducted in the field using the CAPF 106, Ground Interrogation Form.
(6) Only members qualified in accordance with CAPR 77-1, Operation and Maintenance of Civil Air Patrol Vehicles, may operate CAP vehicles.  All personnel operating vehicles will have a valid state driver's license and will operate all vehicles in accordance with applicable state and local laws.
c. Ground teams must follow proper procedures upon locating a search objective.
(1) Assess and secure the scene.
(2) Render aid to survivors and prepare survivors for evacuation.
(3) Do not disturb anything at the site except as necessary to render aid to survivors.
(4)Verify the identity of the aircraft, person, etc.
(5) Advise the IC of the situation and request appropriate authorities be notified.
(6) Retain aircraft or other resources in the area until certain they are not needed.
Note: Additional information is available in the Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Task Guide.

So...it is in the regs....but it is not in the SQTR (other then not requiring GTM3 trainees to actually have a 72 hour kit).

But there is nothing in the GTM2 about a 24 hour kit and nothing in GTM1 about having a 72 hour kit.
The GTM2 and GTM1 skills that the SQTR requires does not really prepare the member to operate for longer periods of time.

Like I said before.   GTM1 is really just all the GTL tasks so it is really redundant.   I guess it is a way of making an under 18 cadet a GTL with out saying it that way but there you go.

GTM2's tasks are "build a shelter", "Do a Ramp Search" and "use a map and compass together"

So....I would like to see UDF as the entry to Ground Teams.   
Just one Ground Team Member rating.
And one Ground Team Leader rating.
I would lower the age for GTL to 16....but would put language in 60-3 that there must be a senior member GTL on all sortied teams.

[Spam]

You can knock out a whole gtm3 qual training in one weekend trainex, if you don't doddle. 

I respectfully but completely disagree. There is no way you can complete the first aid training, the communications training, plus all the other modules AND complete the required evals to task/condition/standard in one weekend, and provide anything beyond a surface level, sketchy coverage of the material which would constitute "pencil whipping" for all but former SAR professionals and those already experienced personnel who require recurrency training.

If I were to do this for ab initio (new) trainees, retention and deep comprehension would be a huge factor.  This is Not Recommended, since we're not just checking boxes here, but training to instill learned behavior beyond the short term memory "I just heard this and am parroting it back to pass the SQTR test".

LTC Long of NESA, I believe, would agree (he may be on the forum?); he commented to me when visiting our unit a year or two ago that the NESA GSAR curriculum was strained to adequately cover the required training in proper depth in a week. (BTW, my current cadet commander was their GSAR honor grad this summer, which meets my expectations - we expect more, not the minimum, when saving a life is the criteria).



Now, on your comment about making GTM3 more accessible, I could not agree MORE with you; as I've commented elsewhere on this site, I think the technical aspects of GTM3 (navigation, DF work, etc.) should be shifted to GTM2, making GTM3 an easier to qualify "basic grunt" level of strike team member, GTM2 the journeyman technician level, and GTM1 the tactician who is learning team management (and who can have vehicle and gear inspections delegated to him while the GTL is planning the sortie), and GTL the graduate level with the team leadership/management items. 


Lowering the training load for GTM3s while ensuring they get the necessary thresholds to operate safely in a basic field role would be a Good Thing. I need GTM3s to carry team gear/grunt work, and understand field discipline enough to know when to shut up, when to SPEAK up, to be safe, and to employ basic search techniques... the rest is graduated levels of capability.


DoD specifies, develops, and procures combat CAPABILITIES.  The DoD training method specifies the required KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities) required for personnel to perform defined tasks with defined gear under defined conditions. If we do this right, we specify the necessary conditions of employment for GTM3s (e.g. "we will not require GTM3s to perform navigation or technical SAR work", "we expect GTM3s to understand how to recognize and report heat and cold injuries") and rebuild a curriculum based on graduated standards. 


To lump all GTM members in two proficiency bands (member and leader) again will mean two things:  continued pencil whipping and cheating producing the fake "GTMs" that most of us experienced people know are marginally useful and potentially dangerous, and/or even worse qual numbers as many people give up in the face of daunting qual sheets.


V/R,
Spam

[lordmonar]

It will not be two levels (GTM and GTL) but three (UDF GTM and GTL). 

Maybe change UDF to GTB and GTM to GTA (ground team basic/ground team advanced) just to keep the language the same and make changes to 60-3 to reflect how they are used and how they are controlled.

Also don't use the training requirements as a QC for bad training or pencil whipping.   

If this is a true issue then we need to instill a better quality control and over sight not change the training standards. 

[Spam]

Well, as Dr. Phil might say, "hows that workin' out for ya"?


If the standards are too complex, with too many "gray areas" as we keep discussing here, we will continue to have well meaning commanders and ESOs pencil whip to the loop holes and absolute minimums (and in some cases, below them if they're not explicit). Explicit standards and procedures, with as little "gray" as possible, are a virtual mandate for good training standards, so tightening up is a good idea, yes?


Happy Saturday,
Spam

[lordmonar]

No sorry.  Not how pencil whipping works.  Lack of oversight and lack of consequences is what drives pencil whipping.    Gray areas lead to gray areas not pencil whipping. 

[sardak]

I was on the Emergency Services Curriculum Project (ESCP) during its lifetime from 1997 to 2004, considered by many to be a wretched hive of scum and villainy. My background was, and is, ground SAR, being a member of a Mountain Rescue Association team long before the project, and still active on one.  I have the Excel and Word files from that time, some of which I've attached as PDFs, the only changes being that I added the date of the original document in the upper right hand corner of each.

1. CAP_Ground_Team_Rating_Development_1998-2003 - this is a compilation of five documents, a 1998 "master matrix" of tasks, a 2003 table of ground crew types (based on the NIMS typing documents which wouldn't be published until 2004), a cover letter explaining the first cut "checklists" of how to divide ground teams into the divisions we have now, and the checklists, one blank, one filled in. Notice the thumbnail description of each was changed between checklists. Although UDF is a ground task, it was never intended to be a level of ground team.

2. The 2003 letter from John Desmarais to the ESCP, stating that levels should be developed in IC and ground teams, based on inputs received on the checklists.

3. The 2004 official release letter from NHQ for the newly revised 60-3 replacing the 2001 version, with among other things, the three levels for IC, GT and AL.

4. Ground-UDF_Team_Tasks_Matrix_History_1999-2012 - a comparison of the GT and UDF task changes from 1999 to 2012. I checked this last year, I believe, and there had been no changes since 2012. If I missed any, let me know and I'll update the history.

I also have emails and summary reports which describe some of the discussions the group had, but I don't think they add substance to the discussion, so I didn't include them.

One big change between then and now. The names and contact info for all the members of the group were published by NHQ so that anyone could provide input directly to us. Now CAP seems to operate working groups in secrecy, to keep the torch and pitchfork mobs away I guess.

Mike

[ZigZag911]

This is an excellent idea!

Someone should gather some real world CAP statistics:  how often do we have ground teams stay out overnight, and for how long at a clip?

I would suspect, based on reading reports of actual missions here and in other places, that any overnight activity is a rarity. It might well be enough to have UDF (no staying overnight, no off the beaten track search), GTM (come to a consensus on 24 or 48 hour RON capability -- anything longer than that is almost certainly going to be done by agencies other than CAP) and GTL.

I'd keep the UDF term, simply to make very clear the limitations on these personnel.

[coudano]

You can knock out a whole gtm3 qual training in one weekend trainex, if you don't doddle. 

I respectfully but completely disagree. There is no way you can complete the first aid training, the communications training, plus all the other modules AND complete the required evals to task/condition/standard in one weekend, and provide anything beyond a surface level, sketchy coverage of the material which would constitute "pencil whipping" for all but former SAR professionals and those already experienced personnel who require recurrency training.

Meh.
15 years of producing qualified working ground teams doesn't deceive (much).
And these guys did some actual real world stuff over that time (not just sarexes).

I will go ahead and concede to caveat that we did both first aid and and bcut as separate weekend activities outside of GTM3 weekend (as ends to themselves, but also incidentally box checkers for gtm3).  The comm skills check for radio operation at my gtm wkd was basically "push here to talk", "don't pick your nose with the antenna on the ISR", "don't say Over and Out".  But most people either already had some basic radio skills before the weekend, or they got them shortly thereafter.

I will also go ahead and concede to caveat that I was just talking about the sqtr task training.  That was NOT inclusive of the 2x SAREXes that you need to go on to actually practice/demonstrate some skills in actual scenarios on a mission number.  We used training events to TRAIN/evaluate, and mission numbered sarex events to PRACTICE (little to no 'training' at the actual sarex, apart from brief/debrief) (pretty much none whatsoever, out on the actual).

LTC Long of NESA, I believe, would agree (he may be on the forum?); he commented to me when visiting our unit a year or two ago that the NESA GSAR curriculum was strained to adequately cover the required training in proper depth in a week. (BTW, my current cadet commander was their GSAR honor grad this summer, which meets my expectations - we expect more, not the minimum, when saving a life is the criteria).

I think the NESA dudes would also concede to you that the original 54 task GTM was taught in one five day week, including 2x fieldexes that they called the two "missions", I do not believe it included first aid (iirc that was a prerequisite to even attend)(they offered it at a pre-course weekend, right?), and it did not include "BCUT" but it did have a very basic gtm radio operator quickie (as in...  like... conduct the half hour check-in without stuttering over yourself, while walking around in 2-B on the compass course).  Then again NESA give out the GTM basic badge to graduates...   which even my 3-weekend wing "home version" did not, and certainly my "long weekend gtm3 trainex" did not, either.  It was well pre-2004 when I was staffing NESA, so i'm sure things have changed since then.

I was never quite clear on what they did with all their extra time, when they dropped from 54 to like... 38 tasks...  many of which were quite time consuming to teach, practice, and evaluate (knots in particular, I recall).  The length of the BGSAR course didn't drop by 30%, when the task load dropped by that much.  To me that just doesn't compute   Seems like lots more time for shenanigans???

I also believe that NESA would be forced to concede that they teach to the recognition/regurgitation level, particularly on the knowledge tasks.  And I would go ahead and challenge you to go find average joe who just graduated NESA for the first time this past summer, and quiz them on the missing person search clues (etc).  See if they can still spit them out cold, five months later, without studying first.  Doubt it.

That's not a 'mastery' level it's a 'basic qualification' level.
My "master level" guys were my SET's (experienced cadet GTM's).  They had been through GTM training weekend (repeating those tasks) multiple times, and even /teaching/ those tasks, as well as evaluating them (a dozen trainees at a time), again and again, to the point where they are stuck with them, probably even to this day, long since they've left CAP, i'd be willing to bet.  They, incidentally, were also NCO's and Officers in my cadet program, and would use Task O-0007 (or whatever) as hip pocket trainers on any given tuesday(/saturday) when there was 7 minutes to kill.  More repetition, good stuff.

Same goes for basic DF operation.  You can teach someone how to turn the thing on, and spin around and look at the indicator.  They might even find their target using it, in that manner.   That's a "basic qualified" level.  It takes a lot more time and experience to /understand/ what is happening and _HOW_ that machine works, beyond the basic beeps and squeeks of just turning it on and operating it by following a checklist.  It's at this point that they don't even need a DF rig anymore...   My master level guys could de-tune a tait handheld radio off the training frequency by 0.125 and body block to a find and deactivation, on an airport full of metal hangars, within about 10 minutes of stepping foot out of the van at the airfield.  No way last summer's joe average NESA grad is doing that, five months later (nor joe average graduate of my gtm3 training weekend).



So to me, the split is sort of a "BMC" or "BQ" that advances to more like a "CMR" or "Experienced" (steps on the path toward instructor/evaluator) type level.  The list of sqtr tasks (the basic list of jobs a 'gtm does') between those two doesn't change from one designation to the other.  The quality and consistency of knowledge and execution is what changes, and along with that the level of 'trust' that we sort of have to take someone out and let them execute, vs moreso watching them like a hawk until they've gained a little more experience.

[husker]

Guys, I just saw this.  Give me until tomorrow to put together a proper reply.  All of this is germane to the current working group's efforts, which i am leading (Lt Col Bos on the forum is a key manager as well).  I assume I should start to get ready for the pitchforks. 

All of us on the team are very familiar with the problems and task progression issues in its current form - all of use on the group have been working and training with this current revisions since 2004.  We are working diligently to fix those issues.

Again, I try to get as much of a coherent answer (as much as I can right now) tomorrow.