Ground Team Members Handbook. Required?

[RogueLeader]

As a GTL, that is the FIRST thing I ask to see.

That is the first thing you ask to see? And people wonder why the ES community tends to not put a lot of faith in the abilities of CAP....smdh...

Sorry, That didn't come across as intended, due to a lack of information.

During the first gear inspection of a brand new GTM3 trainee, it is the first thing I ask to see.  As it is on the required list.  After that, all inspections are the Essential gear that they need.  Do I really care if they have 1 less band-aid than what the list calls for, no.  Do I care if they have no way of carrying water or no food, you darn betcha I care.

[jdh]

The task states: The student must lay out gear, on top of the 8'x10' shelter material. Items will be laid out in the order listed on the list, in rows from left to right (except for the uniform that the member is wearing). All items will be inspected for presence and serviceability. After initial inspection, the items will be returned to the packs. Field gear will be worn and inspected for proper fit and balance.

So I will have everyone lay out their equipment and then come through and inspect them all. The same way I used to do PCIs in the Army, and in my Firefighter/Tech Rescue days.

[JayCraswell]

I'm sorry for the very long delay between posting my idea and coming back to talk about the manual project.   I did a run of GTMs at OfficeMax?  or Office Depot?  and had them mass print 100.   Using my old Laser printer I made up half a dozen to show people or generate some interest in ground pounding.    BTW It works.  It's nice to lighten the load and it fits better in the BDU pockets.   I've learned how to bind books *Or in this case glue the back and add a slightly larger stock piece of cardboard for the front / back.  I got some insane bright orange paper (Like our reflective Vests) to add something different.   The only problem is....   


1) You need to cut each piece of paper in half.
2) You have to fold them (The right way)
3) You have to stack them in order.

This sounds easy but it consumes huge amounts of time.  Fortunately we have more then 50 cadets who are active so as a leadership project I've handed over all the sheets and they will do the cutting and folding (in order) and I'll glue them up and add the covers.

If you wish to print a couple copies all you have to do is look at the first 8 pages (On one sheet of paper) and print them in an order that makes them correct when cut and folded

Front  page          Back  page
___________      __________
          |                          |
pg 4  |  pg 1        pg 2  | pg 3
_____|_____      _____|_____  <- Cut
          |                          |
pg 8  |  pg 5        pg 6  | pg 7
_____|_____      _____|_____

In printer options you select print 4 pages per sheet then when you print the GTM and select the order.   For example if you were
to print top to bottom - left to right  the order would be 4,1,8,5    This prints your front side.  Then its just a matter of putting that sheet back into the printer so its printing the next page on the backside.   The order for that page would be 2,3,6,7
Then you cut the paper (once) and fold the two pieces and you have your pages in order.

Of course that a lot of work and its better to print 8 or 9 Front pages then flip them and print the rear pages.   *Printers jam up so don't try this with the entire manual.

Just one addition.   The Ground Team Leader reference text can be added to make one book that is still very reasonable in size.  Not enough people are familiar with that and its great material.

Its a little hard to explain how you make the book cover but let me at least explain how you glue the book.   You need a paint brush like maybe 1/2 inch wide.  Saw two small boards about the same size but a touch higher then the book.   Tape up the two boards with clear packing tape (White glue won't stick to the boards now) Then even the back pages.  *Pounding the stack on a flat surface will even them out nicely.  Then clamp the book between the two pieces of wood and use two C-Clamps to squish the pages together.   The next step is to dip the paint brush in water and you "Paint" the back (Get the back of your book 100% wet but not soaking wet) then glue the back.  Let it dry with the glue side up.  Then do another layer of glue.   The wet paper sucks up some of the glue giving you a fairly good back.   If you have access to an industrial strength / length stapler you can go that way *But pages tend to rip out fairly easy.

I know having a copy is part of a ground teams 24 hour stuff but I have found it to be extra handy to have on hand.   Setting up an helo landing zone.  Sure you studied that and passed the exam but when you hear someone tell you they are on the way expected time of arrival 5 minutes its a huge relief to flip to that page while you mutter the astronaut's Prayer, "Please GOD don't let me F*** up!"   You might know your stuff but there are just things we don't do often.   Sometimes I think of it as a Pilot sees his checklist.   

Second I got some great words of Wisdom from an Army Guard guy who asked to join us on a missing persons mission.  When we got to one of those "sit and wait" moments he asked me, "Sir aren't we supposed to be training if we aren't doing anything?"  *Who has the green book?   I gave mine to him, He complimented whoever wrote it.  And I thought how many times I had sat in a VAN bored out of my skull when I could be working on SQTRs with someone and getting a refresher at the same time!

[JayCraswell]

Sorry the formating came out so bad in my previous message.   Hopefully its understandable. 

Is there some way to select mono spaced fonts?

[Spam]

He complimented whoever wrote it. 

It was a group of experienced members, and was based on the Maryland Wing Ground Team standards book (yellow cover, same size, a little shorter - I still have mine) which was in turn based on the Army's Manual of Common Tasks. The Maryland team leads for that original book (written in the 90s) were John Kilgallon and Kevin Redmond, and a few of the rest of us chipped in. I still have the original cut and paste sections that I helped write. John was an AD Major at the time, I think, and later went on to be MDWG/CC.

Time to get crackin on a refresh, I would say.

V/R,
Spam

[The Infamous Meerkat]

PLEASE DO!!!!  It needs it badly.

Still has good information,  but an expansion and correction for outdated knowledge would be greatly appreciated. My Wing is saying ground team is losing relevance in the real world because of our old standards that don't adhere to ASTM standards and  aren't seen as equal to other standard qualifications available.

[Ed Bos]

The task guide update was completed earlier this year. It's release pending an update for the PowerPoint materials and review. If anyone wants to volunteer with a portion that remains to be done, please let me know.

[Spam]

Sir:  very interested indeed. CAPID 115934 for my quals.


A/ Where can I review the draft update,


B/ What remains to be done?


C/ Whats the scope - is this merely an internal edit of some modules, or is the overall structure being refreshed?  I had not seen anything about this in the Ops Support section, which I frequent.


D/ May I suggest that a realignment of the modules might profit us, aside from a refresh.  My unit has 7 or so long-service GTLs/GBDs. In specific, we did an ops analysis of the existing modules and found that with simply shifting the GTM3/2/1 modules around, we could improve the qual rates and decrease the training drop out rates for GTM3.  By simply realigning GTM3 as a basic field skills rating (i.e. trained to be a safe deployable asset able to fetch/carry and execute basic strike team skills in a non-technical environment), shifting technical modules to GTM2 (e.g. the communications, DF, and technically advanced skills, which map better to a journeyman level of skill set), and by concentrating the team management/leadership tasks in GTM1 (which serves as a natural bridge to GTL) we believe that we can more than triple qualification rates for GTM3 while improving comprehension by concentrating the technical tasks in one block.

Standing by for PM or post, if interested, Ed.


V/R,
Spam

[Ed Bos]

PM sent. Cheers!

[Luis R. Ramos]

In other words, your realignment makes it harder to attain GTL.

Presently members do not have to attain GT2 or GT1 to attain GTL. Under your proposed realignment, will any member be able to go from GTM3 to GTL directly...?

[PHall]

In other words, your realignment makes it harder to attain GTL.

Presently members do not have to attain GT2 or GT1 to attain GTL. Under your proposed realignment, will any member be able to go from GTM3 to GTL directly...?

Why would they need to???   GT3 is a initial "get your foot in the door" rating.    GT3 to GTL would be like going from Student Teacher to Principal in one step.

[Luis R. Ramos]

PHall, did you read the message I asked that question from?

Spam is suggesting a realignment, that involves changing tasks.

That is, If I understand what Spam is suggesting, the GTM3 of his will not be the same GTM3 that now can go to GTL, because the tasks they passed will be different.

For instance, Spam is proposing that the GTM3 Communications and Direction Finding tasks be now done by the GTM2.

I quote from Spam:

By simply realigning GTM3 as a basic field skills rating (i.e. trained to be a safe deployable asset able to fetch/carry and execute basic strike team skills in a non-technical environment), shifting technical modules to GTM2 (e.g. the communications, DF, and technically advanced skills...

And such with the GTM1.

So again I ask, if his realignment is approved, will it still be possible for Spam's GTM3 to apply as a GTL?

Please let Spam answer, since he is making the suggestion. Your answering for him specially if you did not read his message, only muddles the question.

Unless you want to support and present the view that it will not matter what tasks Spam's GTM3 may be able to do, it still will be/should be allowed to qualify as GTL without the need for GTM2 or GTM1.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Sorry Hall, did not finish reading your response before replying.

If that is to be done, why have GTM3, GTM2, and GTM1 at all?

Then lets go back to the 1980's.

Back then you would be approved as GTM. Then you had GTL. No intermediate steps.

[Spam]

I'd say, in other words, I think we can simply provide a better, more rationally thought out training pipeline for all specialties that uses a cohesive building block learning approach from basic skills, to tech skills, to analysis/management/leadership skills. At the moment, those seem fairly sprinkled throughout the GSAR pipeline, and a straight GTM3 to GTL* currently bypasses some potentially useful items. GTM3 is also a massive wall to jump over for an initial qual, while GTM2 and 1 are exceptionally easy by comparison... There were reasons for the current structure, but that's another topic.


Took me a bit to mull this over in my memory, but I believe that every GTL that I've signed off as new qual over the past 15 years or so since the new criteria came in has been a 3/2/1 full qual first, before completing GTL. The above comes with a correspondingly significant amount of field skills evaluation above and beyond the "2 mission" minimum. Your mileage may vary, but if you want me to sign you off, I'm asking to see the full upgrade package, not the shake and bake GTL minimum (again, that's just me, you don't have to seek me out).

If members only need to do a UDF level of activity, that's why CAP created that rating.

If members local situation doesn't require certain emphasis items, the minimum "may" be appropriate for GTL. I wouldn't, but I can't rule out that some AOs might go with the "low" end of the "high/low" force mix.  When it comes down to actual employment, though, we'd know from exercising together which team/leader to fit to the right task.

Example: as an IC(T) on a search (missing helo) on Catoctin Mtn, MD, I had three GTs out and a hangar full of instrument mission pilots drinking coffee and waiting for the ceiling to lift. My 3 deployed GTs were highly qualified by training and fitness. I had a fourth team arrive and offer to help, all older adults with minimum equipment with a GTL who had the minimum training (and all his team were minimum skill set GTM3s). I asked him if he felt his team could help do a ridgeline contour search along the instrument approach localizer by the middle marker - and got the scared looks all around. An open, honest back brief between us "CRM-style" all revealed that they didn't feel they were prepared for that tasking on either a training or a physical fitness basis, which I appreciated and accepted with much thanks (I was a 29 year old brand new LTC, so I could see how the age/social factor could have interfered there in their willingness to admit their limitations). I found a meaningful role for them to do (ELT cuts from high points on the ridge roads, as I recall) and they served with honor in the mission, which we wrapped up with a FIND by noon due to GTs before the aircrew were able to launch.

There's a role for everyone in CAP who is willing to help; we need to be able to flexibly employ a spectrum of skill sets. I'm just interested in the most efficient and effective training pipeline and materials to enable that at a minimum of frustration and time/money invested.


V/R
Spam

PS, I got my initial GTM/L and aircrew quals in the 80s. What we have now is a VAST improvement, regardless.

[jdh]

The way I have looked at the GTM3/2/1 layout was that personnel with GTM3 could be used for single sortie/ single day type situations. GTM2 would be the team you send out for a weekend or overnight mission while GTM1 level teams would be extended deployment teams. I would not want to send someone out on a mission that could become a liability should something go wrong because all they were taught were the most basic of skills. Lets say we have a GTM3 that was not trained in communication and the one guy on the team that has the comms training (the GTL) becomes injured who is going to be able to take over that task and request medivac? Before we send anyone out we need to make sure that we reduce the risk of them becoming a liability as much as we can.

[Spam]

jdh,

That's an interesting deployment based GTM/L concept, but I don't see how that's supported by the module mixes between the ratings. GTM3 has the bulk of the overnight/field skills modules, GTM2 only has "set up shelter", and GTM1 has no long term deployment training at all.

The fragmentation of topics between the four GSAR ratings doesn't make a lot of sense, either. Land nav for example. Why teach a GTM3* how to use a compass without the accompanying GTM2 SQTR map and pace counting skills necessary to make it useful, and when in signing him off early and out of context, he may field with a false and dangerous sense of superiority that he now knows how to navigate? ("Hey, I'm separated from the team, but never mind the STOP/hug a tree process, I gots a compass, I can self-rescue"). It doesn't match the crawl-walk-run paradigm that the military tries to use.

The Achilles heel to the concept as it exists, jdh, is that the odds that you'll end up with a GTM3 that spat back rote memory to get qualified is pretty high, given that the GTM3 qual list is the biggest, toughest and most unbalanced of all the GTM lists.  There's a huge wall to get over, and some incentive to cheat.


Case in point:
We still have people trying to do Git R Dun "shake and bake" GTM classes, which, when I hear about them, reduce my faith in taking out people whom I do not know to have been trained under a knowledgeable trainer USING THE STANDARDS in more rigor, not less. See for example, the below recent NHQ press release for a complete GTM3 rating in one weekend. I don't know the folks at all, but can I be blamed if I'm skeptical?  I see two of the guys mentioned have SQTRs showing in eServices that they hit every new qual GTL task (including two sorties on the same T mission number) signed off on 15AUG2015? Digging deeper, how does one complete ICUT, Basic First Aid, and get two sorties for GTM3 on one day (15AUG), polish off all the FEMA courses the next day, then get two sorties each for GTM1 and GTL on TUE the 19th and then submit for approval? Per Ops Quals, the one guy's GTL application was denied because they couldn't find the T mission number in the system... hmm. Well, I cant either, but it looks like their WG/HQ went and approved a bunch of ratings that listed that mission. Now, someone who knows these folks may argue prior training (one individuals CAP photo in eServices shows him in an Army uniform with seven lines of ribbons and a maroon beret in front of a barracks - God knows who approved that) but in my mind that means he and they should know better how to follow process discipline. Kudos to them for effort though.

So, to summarize I think there's a bit of a structural problem, a bit of process discipline problem (the cited SAREX example), and a bit of a lack of ops analysis to look at how the ratings should/could flow, coupled with some regulatory language which could be clearer (e.g. the section on sortie credit). It is a frustrating system, especially for those without the tolerance for regulatory and military/government style paperwork, and I think it could be made easier.

V/R
Spam


http://www.capvolunteernow.com/news/?texas_wing_members_devote_weekend_to_ground_team_3_training&show=news&newsID=20858
"Normally Civil Air Patrol members who achieve GTM3 qualification participate in several search and rescue exercises and training activities. The activity Rather set up, though, enabled participants to become mission-qualified in only three days.  In addition to the 21 students who earned GTM3 qualification, five completed all the required tasks to earn the Ground Team Leader rating".

[Garibaldi]

Sorry Hall, did not finish reading your response before replying.

If that is to be done, why have GTM3, GTM2, and GTM1 at all?

Then lets go back to the 1980's.

Back then you would be approved as GTM. Then you had GTL. No intermediate steps.

I did it the old-skool way. Got my GTM3, then saw the wisdom of going 2 and 1, THEN GTL. I saw all kinds of inherent problems with being a GTM3/L without "knowing" the steps for 2 and 1 (having grown up in an environment where each and every FTX I went on WAS a navigation/shelter building test, I say "knowing" since I learned the hard way, but others don't). It's hard to lead someone who knows more than you do. However, if you have team members who are 2 and 1 qualified, it makes it less difficult. Kind of like a fire team. Everyone has their own training levels, their own responsibilities in the squad, and everyone leans on everyone else to an extent.

I, too, see the problems inherent in the system. I think there should be a realignment of the quals, but deferring to my betters (better knowledgeable, better educated, better experienced) I don't feel I have the experience to make the choices of what goes where, what stays, what goes, what new items go in. Every time in the past I've said "This don't work, why can't we do it like this?" I was met with "Welllllll...ya see..." and a lot of either BS or knowledgeable information.

I've gone from the whole pencil-whip to the extreme attention to detail methods with regards to getting GTM3 knocked out for my cadets and seniors. They learn better out in the field, hands-on, than sitting in a class listening to me drone on and on about natural hazards. Actually seeing them makes it easier to relate.

[Spam]

It's hard to lead someone who knows thinks they know more than you do. 

FTFY!

V/R,
Spam

[Garibaldi]

It's hard to lead someone who knows thinks they know more than you do. 

FTFY!

V/R,
Spam

Dad rat it. I keep forgetting who I work with/for/around.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I AM one of these mystical GTM3 leaders... and I don't much like it. Personally, having led some missions where I could have seriously benefitted from extra experience and time on the job, I would advocate for the 4 level progression. The only reason I got it was so that I could get our teams out in the field, because no one else was able and willing to be on the ground.

Colonel Bos:
If you would use my help on the GTM reform, I would gladly assist. However, I have studied more than my qualifications let on (no one available to work with me on quale in my Wing, the last one just quit some time ago)  CAPID 514419.