GTM1

[cap235629]

well I would read that to mean that you can't use trainees unless you have 3.  No where does it say the maximum ratio is 1-3

     

[davidsinn]

well I would read that to mean that you can't use trainees unless you have 3.  No where does it say the maximum ratio is 1-3

That is so poorly written it's not even funny. Are they saying you must have three supervisors for every trainee or you can have up to 3 trainees for every supervisor? It seems to be that since it says 1 to 3 of supervisors to trainees that I can take a team of my self and three nugget GTM(t) into the field.

[N Harmon]

well I would read that to mean that you can't use trainees unless you have 3.  No where does it say the maximum ratio is 1-3

It isn't a maximum ratio. It is a minimum. And it is supervisors to trainees, not qualified members to trainees.

[RiverAux]

A minimum of a 1:3 ratio?  That means that you could have 1 supervisor and 10 trainees.  I think they meant a maximum 1:3 ratio. 

And in any case 1 GTL could supervise 3 GTM1T or 3GTM2T or 3 GTL trainees without breaking that ratio. 

[N Harmon]

A minimum of a 1:3 ratio?  That means that you could have 1 supervisor and 10 trainees.  I think they meant a maximum 1:3 ratio.

1/10  <  1/3

[Eclipse]

For those scoring at home...

You must have a minimum of 1 (one)  qualified supervisor for every three (3) trainees.

10 trainees would require 3.33 supervisors. Since it is currently illegal in CONUS to make 1/3 a person, that would be 4.

[cap235629]

For those scoring at home...

You must have a minimum of 1 (one)  qualified supervisor for every three (3) trainees.

10 trainees would require 3.33 supervisors. Since it is currently illegal in CONUS to make 1/3 a person, that would be 4.

The reg is poorly written and grammatically incorrect.  The letter of the law so to speak supports my reading.

[N Harmon]

There will be at a minimum a 1-to-3 ratio of supervisors to trainees when trainees are utilized.

The minimum ratio is 1:3. This does not mean you have to have 3 trainees. This means that the ratio must be greater than or equal to 1:3. So if you have a UDF team with one supervisor and one trainee, the ratio is 1:1. And 1:1 is greater than 1:3. The regulation could also read, "There will be at maximum a 3:1 ratio of trainees to supervisors when trainees are utilized", and it would mean the same thing.

I am not sure what is grammatically incorrect about it, except that "1-to-3" should be either "one-to-three" or "1 to 3". Though "1:3" would be preferable.

[JC004]

I concur with the above two posts, I think the multi-tiered rating was a misguided attempt at retention n and getting people their badge quicker.

All it has done is confuse people without adding mission advantage.

This.

Despite the fact that the SQTR would probably be about 3 pages long, I really hope at some point there is a push at higher levels to go back to a single level of GTM and get rid of all this 1,2,3 madness. FW, JC, you listening?

This issue has been added to the list of issues that need to be addressed.  There is quite a lot being discussed that would impact the ES program and, if executed properly/fully, make CAP a serious national leader in our operational areas.

What do people think about reducing to two levels of GTM and adding some additional standards that would increase capabilities?  (I'm exploring specifics)

Has anyone ever come up with a reasonable explanation linking GTM level with number of nights deployed?

Not really, no.

[Eclipse]

What do people think about reducing to two levels of GTM and adding some additional standards that would increase capabilities?  (I'm exploring specifics)

Assuming that means "leader" and "member" or something like that, yes please.  I think the "member" qual should be based on a single set of criteria for all.  I would also do away with the NESA provision.  Just do or do not, all the same.

Give those existing 3's and 2's a year to catch up, stop anyone new from entering as a "3", and we can all get back to something that makes sense and limits confusion.

[JC004]

I guess that you could say that NASAR has two "GTM" quals (SARTECH III and II) and the "GTL" qual (SARTECH I).  This was suggested as a possibility and a better approach than 3 levels.

What about adding a mantracking qualification, like NASAR has?  I am not against the push by some to just adopt NASAR but the problem is the cost and getting people signed off (depends how we'd arrange that).

[davidsinn]

I guess that you could say that NASAR has two "GTM" quals (SARTECH III and II) and the "GTL" qual (SARTECH I).  This was suggested as a possibility and a better approach than 3 levels.

What about adding a mantracking qualification, like NASAR has?  I am not against the push by some to just adopt NASAR but the problem is the cost and getting people signed off (depends how we'd arrange that).

If you want to add mantracker it should be added as an endorsement to the basic qual like AP is an addon to MS.

[davidsinn]

Yesterday I spent some time making up a matrix showing all of the GT quals and how they overlap between UDF, GT3-1 and GTL. I also put together a plan to reduce to just three levels. UDF would be the entry level and would be a prereq for GTM and then GTL would be a follow on the GTM. For the most part I merged GT1 with GTL and merged GT2 with GT3 which basically only added navigation to GT3. UDF picked up the first aid requirement from GT3 because I feel that anyone going out of mission base should be able to help themselves and their team until EMS arrives.

[lordmonar]

Yesterday I spent some time making up a matrix showing all of the GT quals and how they overlap between UDF, GT3-1 and GTL. I also put together a plan to reduce to just three levels. UDF would be the entry level and would be a prereq for GTM and then GTL would be a follow on the GTM. For the most part I merged GT1 with GTL and merged GT2 with GT3 which basically only added navigation to GT3. UDF picked up the first aid requirement from GT3 because I feel that anyone going out of mission base should be able to help themselves and their team until EMS arrives.

Okay.....looking at the your matrix right now.
O-0217 (orient a map to north) has got to be a UDF task.
O-1101 (condcut witness interview) has got to be a UDF task....as part or ramp checking.

And as has been stated before....we could use add on qualificaitons such at mantracking, medium-low angle resuce (rope work).

Use the UDF rating as the inital entry training kind of like the MS is for the aircraft side of ES.

[davidsinn]

Yesterday I spent some time making up a matrix showing all of the GT quals and how they overlap between UDF, GT3-1 and GTL. I also put together a plan to reduce to just three levels. UDF would be the entry level and would be a prereq for GTM and then GTL would be a follow on the GTM. For the most part I merged GT1 with GTL and merged GT2 with GT3 which basically only added navigation to GT3. UDF picked up the first aid requirement from GT3 because I feel that anyone going out of mission base should be able to help themselves and their team until EMS arrives.

Okay.....looking at the your matrix right now.
O-0217 (orient a map to north) has got to be a UDF task.
O-1101 (condcut witness interview) has got to be a UDF task....as part or ramp checking.

And as has been stated before....we could use add on qualificaitons such at mantracking, medium-low angle resuce (rope work).

Use the UDF rating as the inital entry training kind of like the MS is for the aircraft side of ES.

Done. I won't repost though. I'm thinking about sending this up the pipe to see if we can get this fixed at the national level.

[N Harmon]

Wasn't the UDF qualification put into place to increase the number of available people for simple ELT missions? Is that even a major need any more?

[sardak]

The UDF rating first appeared in the June 1999 task guide, which was prepared for an upcoming major rewrite of the ES regs, but it was never officially published. The reason for the rating, as correctly speculated above, was so that non-ground team rated persons could DF a signal at the local airport or in an urban area. Ground teams in some areas were getting burned out doing all the DF missions and there were other members who wanted to help. There was no need to send full-blown ground teams to find the "in-town" beacons, and some wings had already created different types of ground teams and ICs to work these.

The new reg, CAPR 60-3, and task guide came out in May 2001 and contained the UDF rating in addition to GTL and GTM, but no types/levels yet.

Typing/levels was first discussed for the next revision of CAPR 60-3 in early 2003. Changes in emergency services in all sectors were occurring as a result of 9/11 and the Shuttle Columbia breakup had just occurred. The one-eyed NIMS which replaced the two-eyed NIIMS was still a year away. In preparation for it, FEMA/DHS started talking about typing of resources. So did CAP.

A preliminary matrix with five types (levels) of CAP ground teams was floated, following the wildland fire concept of typing. UDF was a type 5 ground team. It was agreed that UDF should remain separate and not be a ground team rating for the reasons stated above.

This was pared down to UDF plus three levels of ground team and GTL. What knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) each needed was taking a long time to hash out. It was clear that the work wouldn't be done in time to for approval of the revised CAPR 60-3 at the 2003 summer boards, and it was withdrawn for approval by the NB. To expedite the process, rather arbitrary divisions of the tasks identified in 1999 were made for the three proposed levels of GTM. 

The IC rating was also divided during this time. The original intent was for IC3 to be for "in-town" ELT searches, IC2 for simple incidents using limited resources such as a couple of ground teams and/or a plane or two, and IC1 for full blown missing aircraft searches. This was never settled before the next deadline and is why the differences between each level is simply 2 missions, without any formal description of incident complexity.

This next version of CAPR 60-3 containing the GT and IC divisions was approved and released with a date of 26 May 2004. The one-eyed NIMS was released by DHS on 1 March 2004.

I've attached a matrix comparing the ground team/UDF tasks of each version from 1999 to the current ones which haven't changed since 2004. This comparison was made, or updated, in 2007. The original is very similar to David Sinn's matrix he posted several messages ago.

As mentioned, one can go from GTM3 to GTL without being a GTM2 and 1, because the complete task set (except for one, an oversight) of ground and UDF tasks is covered by GTM3 and GTL. Completing GTM3, 2, 1 provides the same skill set as a GTL, but without the need to be 18 years old, as required for GTL. That is the only reason for having the divisions as they currently are.

As for the 24, 48, 72 hour division, that is what was proposed in the April 2003 GT typing matrix. FEMA resource typing uses these same times for Type3-4, 2 and 1 Wilderness SAR Teams.

Mike

[RiverAux]

Yesterday I spent some time making up a matrix showing all of the GT quals and how they overlap between UDF, GT3-1 and GTL. I also put together a plan to reduce to just three levels. UDF would be the entry level and would be a prereq for GTM and then GTL would be a follow on the GTM. For the most part I merged GT1 with GTL and merged GT2 with GT3 which basically only added navigation to GT3. UDF picked up the first aid requirement from GT3 because I feel that anyone going out of mission base should be able to help themselves and their team until EMS arrives.

Not sure why the CAP grid task is a GTL task.  Seems like that should be lumped in with basic nav stuff for GTM. 

sardaks chart reminds me of that time period where UDF was basically a GTL-light.  It was actually harder to get people qualified to be UDF than GTM for a while.

[JC004]

The UDF rating first appeared in the June 1999 task guide, which was prepared for an upcoming major rewrite of the ES regs, but it was never officially published. The reason for the rating, as correctly speculated above, was so that non-ground team rated persons could DF a signal at the local airport or in an urban area. Ground teams in some areas were getting burned out doing all the DF missions and there were other members who wanted to help. There was no need to send full-blown ground teams to find the "in-town" beacons, and some wings had already created different types of ground teams and ICs to work these.
...

Well done here.  Don't get too far. 

[ol'fido]

As far as the UDF thing, I could never figure out why one of the tasks was to "navigate with a map using terrain association" but they didn't require "be able to identify symbols on a map". How exactly are you supposed to do the former if you can't do the latter?