GTM2 Training

[TheGooseLover]

So another ES question. I finished GTM3 yesterday, and have 14/19 tasks for GTM2, including all Fam/Prep Tasks, including the commanders approval. Yet, I'm still not in GTM2 Training. Why not? Thanks!

[lordmonar]

You have to be formally entered into training.     

[kwe1009]

No matter how many tasks that you may have signed off, you have to be put into training status by your unit's ES officer to Commander.

[Storm Chaser]

GTM3 is a prerequisite for GTM2. If you just completed GTM3 requirements and the qualification hasn't been approved by your wing, then you can't be a GTM2 trainee until it does. If your GTM3 has been approved and it's showing as Active, you have commander approval for prerequisites, all Fam & Prep tasks, and commander approval for Fam & Prep, then you should be showing as a GTM2 trainee. As long as all the mentioned requirements are completed, there is no "special" way to enter you in trainee status other that the commander or designee approving the commander approval for Fam & Prep. That said, all other requirements must be met first.

As a side note, any GTM2 Fam & Prep task accomplished prior to completing all prerequisites, to include commander approval, is not valid and must be re-accomplished. The same goes for advanced tasks completed prior to being in trainee status. The only exception is for overlapping tasks completed as part of another specialty rating. For more information, see CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.

[lordmonar]

Storm,

While the system assumes you get the Preqs and approval before getting signed off on tasks before doing them.   I don't think there is a need to wait for said approval and preqs before getting signed off on those tasks.

BUT

You cannot operate on a training or real mission as a trainee until said preqs, Fam training and approvals are completed.

This is a little hair splitting.....but from a stand point of training.....if you got a trainer doing map and compass class......I don't see the value added on making GTM3 students re-accomplish those tasks once they have been demonstrated and signed off.

It is a matter of efficiency.

YMMV.

[TheGooseLover]

Thanks all. I'm now GTM2 Qualified and almost GTM1 training!

[Storm Chaser]

Storm,

While the system assumes you get the Preqs and approval before getting signed off on tasks before doing them.   I don't think there is a need to wait for said approval and preqs before getting signed off on those tasks.

BUT

You cannot operate on a training or real mission as a trainee until said preqs, Fam training and approvals are completed.

This is a little hair splitting.....but from a stand point of training.....if you got a trainer doing map and compass class......I don't see the value added on making GTM3 students re-accomplish those tasks once they have been demonstrated and signed off.

It is a matter of efficiency.

YMMV.

Two issues. Just because a prerequisite qual is completed and sent to wing for approval doesn't mean it will be approved. To illustrate this, I had a member last year who completed MS qualification and was just pending wing approval. The MO skills evaluator took him up and signed him off on a couple of MO sorties just to find out wing disapproved the MS prerequisite because the AGH was expired (it was still showing green in the SQTR due to a bug in Ops Quals). Since the AGH test reset the completion of the MS qual, needless to say the two MO sorties and tasks didn't count.

Second, CAPR 60-3 is clear that Fam & Prep cannot be done without the prerequisites completed and approved, advanced tasks cannot be done without Fam & Prep completed and approved, and unqualified members cannot participate in missions unless they're in trainee status, which requires both prerequisites and Fam & Prep completed and approved. This is not splitting hairs; it's black and white. And if you're in a group and wing like mine, which enforces regulations, trying to be "efficient" by bending or breaking the rules is not going to fly. More than efficiency, it's a matter of integrity.

[Garibaldi]

trying to be "efficient" by bending or breaking the rules is not going to fly. More than efficiency, it's a matter of integrity.

I wanna be perfectly clear on something here. As a GTL, I will never, not once ever, tolerate bending or breaking rules in the name of safety, regardless of whether it is a small discrepancy on a van, or a lazy pilot. One of the main reasons I will not fly in a CAP aircraft is that I have seen and been around people who do the pre-flight by memory. The best, and only pilot, I ever flew with to get my MO rating back in the 90s would pre-flight the plane from top to bottom using the checklist, regardless of if it was the first time or fourth time he flew that particular aircraft that day. His reasoning was that anything could have gone wrong between the first time he pre-flighted and when he landed, he didn't trust anyone else to have done it right and he didn't want himself, or his passengers and/or crew to become a statistic. In fact, I outright refused to fly with one pilot who ran an abbreviated memory checklist. I ain't trusting no one with my life in a lil bitty plane what don't follow them kosherized rules. I aim to misbehave, but not at the cost of my life.

[Spam]

Thanks all. I'm now GTM2 Qualified and almost GTM1 training!

I feel that a more pertinent question might be, how did you go from GTM3 approved on SUN8NOV15, to GTM2 approved on THU12NOV15, in four days - which were weekdays by my calendar - with a requirement to demonstrate adequate specialty track performance on two missions - which are normally training missions held on weekends?  If you were not GTM2* (with commanders approval to sortie for GTM2 credit) until Monday, how did you manage to go to two missions in three days, and get approved?


Were I auditing your units records, that would seem to be more eyebrow-raising to me - that your unit/Wing is approving sorties before the member is legally allowed to sortie - than to have had someone sign you off on a mere compass class ahead of a Commanders Approval.


Were I auditing your Wing, I would consider this grounds for a freeze action on all quals, to investigate your Wings review and approval process... and that is just what CAP-USAF is doing.


Good job on the determination to train and advance. Concern here, though, on if you are meeting the actual requirements or just pencil whipping.  This is why I only trust people in the field whom I know to have been signed off by trusted agent SETs, and don't care if people accuse me of being elitist in that regard. I've seen too many people signed off illegally for specialties without having spent a night in the field or on even one mission (just like I've found cadet officers who've never had to do an SDA, and found a C/CMSGT this summer who didn't know his Cadet Oath).

Trust. Its important. Trust, but Verify.


V/R
Spam

[Spam]

Separate issue, Caponly101,

You stated last month (here:http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19760.0 ) that you are a Cadet Senior Airman in your unit.

You need to modify your signature, which currently states that you are your units ES officer. You are not. Cadets may not serve in that duty position, although you could serve as a Cadet ES NCO, hypothetically:

Vocatio Ad Servitium, OK-113
Wright Bros. #31742
ES Officer (SWR-OK-113)
GTM2,MRO Qualified
CUL,MSA,UDF Trainee


I respect you for trying - A for effort. Now, get with the program and do this right, cadet.


V/R,
Spam

[TheGooseLover]

Thanks all. I'm now GTM2 Qualified and almost GTM1 training!

I feel that a more pertinent question might be, how did you go from GTM3 approved on SUN8NOV15, to GTM2 approved on THU12NOV15, in four days - which were weekdays by my calendar - with a requirement to demonstrate adequate specialty track performance on two missions - which are normally training missions held on weekends?  If you were not GTM2* (with commanders approval to sortie for GTM2 credit) until Monday, how did you manage to go to two missions in three days, and get approved?


Were I auditing your units records, that would seem to be more eyebrow-raising to me - that your unit/Wing is approving sorties before the member is legally allowed to sortie - than to have had someone sign you off on a mere compass class ahead of a Commanders Approval.


Were I auditing your Wing, I would consider this grounds for a freeze action on all quals, to investigate your Wings review and approval process... and that is just what CAP-USAF is doing.


Good job on the determination to train and advance. Concern here, though, on if you are meeting the actual requirements or just pencil whipping.  This is why I only trust people in the field whom I know to have been signed off by trusted agent SETs, and don't care if people accuse me of being elitist in that regard. I've seen too many people signed off illegally for specialties without having spent a night in the field or on even one mission (just like I've found cadet officers who've never had to do an SDA, and found a C/CMSGT this summer who didn't know his Cadet Oath).

Trust. Its important. Trust, but Verify.


V/R
Spam

Separate issue, Caponly101,

You stated last month (here:http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19760.0 ) that you are a Cadet Senior Airman in your unit.

You need to modify your signature, which currently states that you are your units ES officer. You are not. Cadets may not serve in that duty position, although you could serve as a Cadet ES NCO, hypothetically:

Vocatio Ad Servitium, OK-113
Wright Bros. #31742
ES Officer (SWR-OK-113)
GTM2,MRO Qualified
CUL,MSA,UDF Trainee


I respect you for trying - A for effort. Now, get with the program and do this right, cadet.


V/R,
Spam

Sir, I attended a SAR missing person mission with 2 sorties, of which I used on GTM2, I also went on a squadron SAREX Saturday that gave me my training Quals

And about the quote. My squadron appointed me to the position of squadron Cadet ES NCO as stated, I need to change it. And I am with the program...

[Spam]

So, perhaps I'm not getting it straight...

The SAREX last Saturday was for GTM3, correct?

Then, this missing person mission was an actual mission singular, not missions plural as in two, and this mission for GTM2 quals was sometime this week between Sunday and yesterday?

[TheGooseLover]

Missing Person - October 3rd-4th - 1 mission, 2 sorties
Squadron SAREX - November 7th - GTM2 Training Mission

[Spam]

Thought it would be something like that.


Both of those missions were creditable towards GTM3, and I would have cheerfully signed you off on a valid GTM3, assuming you'd met the other requirements (congratulations, by the way, you should be proud of that).


If, as you say, you "finished GTM3 yesterday" (and that would be SUN8NOV), neither of them are legally creditable towards GTM2, since you weren't approved as GTM3, much less GTM2*.  You, based only on your statements here, don't appear to me to be legally qualified as GTM2.


1. You can't retroactively claim training credit for missions prior to issuance of approval to train in a specialty, which can only come AFTER the prerequisite specialty is complete.

2. Sortie count means nothing in the terms you're using it. Sortie count is used in determining hours worked creditable towards other ribbons, etc. For training credit, when we say "two missions", that means two different missions, not morning and afternoon on the same SAREX.

V/R, Spam

[TheGooseLover]

But I am, according to my group, wing and squadron. And I study the manual for Ground Team almost daily. I'm pretty sure I know how to do it. For example, although I'm not in GTM1*, I studied for 2 hours last night on Air/Ground signals and vice versa

[Spam]

That's admirable that you study. I don't want to minimize the effort you've putting in, NOR do I want you to quit. I just want you to conform to the real system, and do it correctly, to the Task, Condition, and Standard.

"Desire" and "Effort" are not qualifying standards:  if I study really hard how to be a doctor, should I be treated as one and hired as one, even if I haven't gone to med school or done a residency (practical training/demonstration)?



According to what you've said, if those are the only two actual or training missions you've been to, you certainly are NOT qualified as GTM2, and of your Squadron, Group, and Oklahoma Wing have approved your GTM2 rating, somethings rotten in the system, given again that your timeline and claims are verifiable.

Once again, good effort and I don't want you to give up, but... no. Not qualified, in my book. You need to have a serious talk with your unit commander on playing by the actual regulations, if this is all true.

Anyone else on this? Am I completely off base?


V/R,
Spam

[TheGooseLover]

I've done 2 prior mission exercises and I have a wing SAREX in 2 weeks that I should be either the MRO or CUL Trainee For.

[Storm Chaser]

In all fairness, the issue doesn't seem to be with this cadet, but with his organization's leadership.

[TheSkyHornet]

In all fairness, the issue doesn't seem to be with this cadet, but with his organization's leadership.

Now where have we heard that before...?   

It's likely that if most squadrons' leaders would know the regs themselves and be able to implement adequate training programs, you wouldn't see some of the questions you see on here.

[Garibaldi]

I sense a disturbance in the force, myself. Not to take anything away from this cadet, but I have to wonder about some things. We held an FTX t with another unit to sign off on some much needed top-half requirements for them. Come to find out there was a cadet who had all his sign offs, to include commander's auth, AND 2 missions, on the same day. Heads were scratched, the CC of the unit shrugged, I shrugged, Spam shrugged, laughed and said "No." Come to find out that this kid wasn't being fraudulent, but the former CC had pencil-whipped this kid through for some reason. We sat him down and 'splained things to him, and got him signed off on everything LEGALLY the following training FTX weekend. No biggee, the kid was agreeable, the current CC was agreeable, wanted to do things the right way. Spam could tell it better than I, honestly.

I really feel a better job should be done at the Wing level to standardize the sign off procedures. I know, it's in writing that x has to be done before y, and z can't be done prior to y, but people have their own interpretation. In fact, I've been in 2 wings and 3 squadrons in the last 4 years (moving around, and so on), and you can get 12 interpretations on how to teach and sign off the tasks. GAWG does it different than ARWG, who does it different than WIWG, and so on. CAWG is a different animal altogether from what I'm understanding. It's not a standard practice across the board anymore, which is why this particular situation raises alarm bells. I'm guilty of it myself, "that's the way I've always done it", but as I've heard in a saying somewhere, "That's great sonny, but this here's the Fleet."

Trust, but verify.

[TheSkyHornet]

I sense a disturbance in the force, myself. Not to take anything away from this cadet, but I have to wonder about some things. We held an FTX t with another unit to sign off on some much needed top-half requirements for them. Come to find out there was a cadet who had all his sign offs, to include commander's auth, AND 2 missions, on the same day. Heads were scratched, the CC of the unit shrugged, I shrugged, Spam shrugged, laughed and said "No." Come to find out that this kid wasn't being fraudulent, but the former CC had pencil-whipped this kid through for some reason. We sat him down and 'splained things to him, and got him signed off on everything LEGALLY the following training FTX weekend. No biggee, the kid was agreeable, the current CC was agreeable, wanted to do things the right way. Spam could tell it better than I, honestly.

I really feel a better job should be done at the Wing level to standardize the sign off procedures. I know, it's in writing that x has to be done before y, and z can't be done prior to y, but people have their own interpretation. In fact, I've been in 2 wings and 3 squadrons in the last 4 years (moving around, and so on), and you can get 12 interpretations on how to teach and sign off the tasks. GAWG does it different than ARWG, who does it different than WIWG, and so on. CAWG is a different animal altogether from what I'm understanding. It's not a standard practice across the board anymore, which is why this particular situation raises alarm bells. I'm guilty of it myself, "that's the way I've always done it", but as I've heard in a saying somewhere, "That's great sonny, but this here's the Fleet."

Trust, but verify.

This is where checklists and written SOPs come in ever so handy

[TheGooseLover]

I belong to OKWG and I personally believe the leadership is amazing. Y'all should stop critiquing when you not know the whole situation... There's more to it than that, I get advice, or even opinion, but full out critiquing is kinda silly.

[TheGooseLover]

I can message anyone who wants it my GTM3 and GTM2 SQTRs. Really, this argument is silly. Any further arguments should just be messages to me, this topic is crazy...

[Garibaldi]

I belong to OKWG and I personally believe the leadership is amazing. Y'all should stop critiquing when you not know the whole situation... There's more to it than that, I get advice, or even opinion, but full out critiquing is kinda silly.

Read what I wrote and you will understand. Every wing has a different approach, and since we are all spread across the country, you're going to get a LOT of "that ain't the way it's done, it should be done like this" and "Oh, no it doesn't work that way, National says...." and "We do it like this...."

Don't get all verklempt over this. This is CAPTalk, people get butt-hurt because there are 56,485 different opinions from our 56,485 members. OKWG is right next door to ARWG, where I was for many years. We held a region SAREX near Norman, OK one year and our ES officer specifically told us not to let anyone other than our GTLs sign tasks off, and if they learned anything from OKWG personnel, to verify that it was done to our standards. That was not a slight against OKWG, but their standards of training were different from ARWG.

[TheGooseLover]

Yes, and I love that about CAP! But not everyone gets that even every Sqdrn is different! I've met reg nazis and Sqdrns that could care less about regs... Crazy

[TheSkyHornet]

Yes, and I love that about CAP! But not everyone gets that even every Sqdrn is different! I've met reg nazis and Sqdrns that could care less about regs... Crazy

You have people that are very by the book.
You have people that think they are by the book but don't actually understand the book.
You have people who just do as they feel because they think their way is better.
You have people who don't know the regulations and do what they can to get by, even with the best intentions.
You have people who don't know the regulations and don't care to learn them.
You have people who don't know something and come on CAP Talk and don't like the answer(s) they get told.
You have people who don't know something and come on CAP Talk and appreciate the help.
You have people who take what they hear on CAP Talk back to their unit and nobody there wants to hear about proposed changes.

It's a very diverse community. You need to be adaptive and do what you can to succeed, and when you can't do it yourself, find ways to not just better yourself but to better your unit so that you mitigate the problem in the future.

A difference of opinion doesn't necessarily mean anyone is wrong.

[Storm Chaser]

Yes, and I love that about CAP! But not everyone gets that even every Sqdrn is different! I've met reg nazis and Sqdrns that could care less about regs... Crazy

Every squadron and wing may be different, but the regulations and qualification standards are the same.

[TheSkyHornet]

Yes, and I love that about CAP! But not everyone gets that even every Sqdrn is different! I've met reg nazis and Sqdrns that could care less about regs... Crazy

Every squadron and wing may be different, but the regulations and qualification standards are the same.

...and must be enforced. There are different ways to go about enforcing them and tracking them (squadron checklists, squadron forms, just winging it, whatever works for you), but the regs need to be adhered to.

I got told by a senior member recently, and I'm going to directly quote this, "If you look at any other organization, you will see that all organizations don't follow regulations word for word."

That comment put me into instant pissed off mode.

[Spam]

Heads were scratched, the CC of the unit shrugged, I shrugged, Spam shrugged, laughed and said "No." Come to find out that this kid wasn't being fraudulent, but the former CC had pencil-whipped this kid through for some reason. We sat him down and 'splained things to him, and got him signed off on everything LEGALLY the following training FTX weekend. No biggee, the kid was agreeable, the current CC was agreeable, wanted to do things the right way. Spam could tell it better than I, honestly.

Actually, IIRC for that person we re-did a raft of the SQTR evals, spot checked others, and at last check, he still needed one more numbered mission (training or actual). An un-numbered FTX would just get him rejected (again).

A for effort there again.

V/R,
Spam

[sarmed1]

A little devils advocate time:

...
Second, CAPR 60-3 is clear that Fam & Prep cannot be done without the prerequisites completed and approved, advanced tasks cannot be done without Fam & Prep completed and approved, and unqualified members cannot participate in missions unless they're in trainee status, which requires both prerequisites and Fam & Prep completed and approved. This is not splitting hairs; it's black and white. And if you're in a group and wing like mine, which enforces regulations, trying to be "efficient" by bending or breaking the rules is not going to fly. More than efficiency, it's a matter of integrity.

Actually it does look a little grey.

b. Once trainees have met the prerequisites, they will be required to complete familiarization and preparatory training for the specialty before serving in that position on actual or training missions under supervision

No argument there.

c. Finally, after completing familiarization and preparatory training, supervised trainees must complete advanced training and participate satisfactorily in two missions before a CAPF 101 is approved and a member is considered "Qualified."

Here is where the grey starts-It seems that it is in order, f&p, advanced training and 2 missions; before considered qualified.   But, further down that block:

These tasks do not have to be completed in a mission setting though. It is acceptable for these tasks to be accomplished with similar familiarization and preparatory tasks during routine unit training or in a formal school like the National Emergency Services Academy.

So that seems to say its ok to do fam and prep and advanced training at the same time rather than in sequence, as long as you are not participating as a supervised trainee on a mission or practice mission w/o the fam and prep completed.

I would agree (initially) that you must have a GTM3 in hand to start training for GTM2....until you read the SQTR's

From the GTM3

Unit Certification and Recommendation
The above listed member has completed the requirements for the ground team member – level 3 specialty qualification and is authorized to serve in that specialty on training or actual missions.

From the GTM2 PreReq's

Complete requirements for GTM 3

It doesnt say have a 101 for GTM3, it only says completed the requirements, and that is the done according to the last line of the GTM 3 SQTR; I would say looking at that if it is signed off, you are good to go for starting GTM2.

If I was inspecting it, I would look at what it says you MUST do.  No where does it say you MUST have a 101Q (prior to GTM2) nor does it say you MUST complete Fam and Prep before completing any advance training, the only thing I would gig on is if someone was on a sarex/mission as a GTM3 trainee and the fam an prep was dated after the sarex date.  (again it even says there is an exception for that-I assume that is for say NESA or similar schools that just put all of the dates for GTM3 as the end of course date/testing date vs do them as they go.  ie your SAREX may occur during the course, but all of the skills are tested at the end of the week)

MK

[Spam]

How about if he has zero creditable missions for the specialty?  Is that a gray area?  (grin)

Cheers
Spam

[TheGooseLover]

"Sigh". Why did I start such a monstrosity?!

[sarmed1]

How about if he has zero creditable missions for the specialty?  Is that a gray area?  (grin)

Cheers
Spam

That would be an issue is if the GTM 3 was not signed off with credible mission participation and then he began GTM2 advanced training.  Technically that would be a reason to not validate the GTM2 tasks. 

mk

[lordmonar]

I go back to my original statement.

Why can't I learn GTM2 tasks while I'm still a GTM3 Trainee?

If I a person can learn task L-0001 (basic comm) as a MSA trainee (before he has commander sign off for GTM3) he does not have to re-accomplish that task when he started GTM3.  But if while a GTM3 trainee he participates in a compass and map course.....he has to re-do those tasks after he starts GTM2.

That makes little sense to me.

It wastes the member time.  It wastes the trainer's time.

Yep....I get the "integrity" issue.    But where is the value added?   Is there a reason to NOT start "advanced training" before GTM3 is complete?   Do you really have to do those two sorties before you start learning to build a shelter or reading a map?

If a unit does a lot of training prior to a SAREX......and gets all the GTM3 and GTM2 tasks signed off and then lets the trainee do his GTM3 sorties on Saturday and then his/her GTM2 sorties on Sunday.....is that really wrong?

[TheGooseLover]

That's another thing, I completed most training for GTM2 prior to completing GTM3 sorties. But, I did the PROPER THING and waited to input those until my Fam/Prep was completed

[Spam]

Reply to lordmonar:

I actually do agree with you. If you're studying hard, like our young C/NCO here, and can meet the Task/Condition/Standard for modules all the way up, I see nothing wrong with demonstrating that set of knowledge, skills, and abilities to standard, and getting signed off for it.  That's not the current program of record, but... I agree with you.  That said, separate issue on demonstrating overall maturity and suitability for the tasks in a field environment in the context of actual taskings, which is what the two mission check ride is all about.

Reply to OP (Caponly101):

You just made yet another interesting and possibly leading statement.  You say that you completed the "training"; training is different from a signoff evaluation.  At what point did you have a SET qualified evaluator take you aside, individually, and run you through the task/condition/standard for each module, asking you the questions written in the GT 'green book' and watching you run through tasks?

In specific:
Do you have a SET qualified trainer who is GTM2 or higher working with you on GTM2?
Did he/she have you demonstrate as stated?
When did you demonstrate the GTM2 tasks (if you did)?
When you say that you "waited to input those", did you input those GTM2 tasks yourself earlier this week?
Did someone in your unit then approve them on line?


Please tell me that you didn't just study hard, do some "training", then enter all the tasks on line, and someone approved you off as qualified. If so, that's grounds for command intervention, in any Wing.


These aren't woodworking merit badges or soccer "he showed up" trophies; pencil whipping the sign offs can cost time and lives.


Cheers,
Spam

[Storm Chaser]

That's another thing, I completed most training for GTM2 prior to completing GTM3 sorties. But, I did the PROPER THING and waited to input those until my Fam/Prep was completed

If you read CAPR 60-3 you'll see that it wasn't the "proper thing" to do. This is not just an opinion. As a group commander and IC, this would not fly in my AOR. And if you or your skill evaluator dated these tasks after completion of prerequisites and Fam & Prep in order to get the SQTR approved, then that shows lack of integrity. Not only would I disapprove the qualification, but I would remove the skills evaluator appointment from your evaluator for this.

[Capt Thompson]

Lack of integrity, and based on some of his responses in this thread, a serious lack of maturity on the part of our young NCO, which would make me question whether or not I'd want him on a team with me in a serious situation.

As a side note, when my Squadron started GTM training last Spring, our ES Officer decided to do a few of the tasks out of order. On days where we had limited time, he would cover a couple of the easier advanced tasks, rather than an F&P that required more time (compass for example). He keyed them on the date they were completed, so no lack of integrity, just a lack of knowing the regs.

A few weeks later, I received an email from our Wing ES Officer, who had decided to spot check some of the SQTR's. As a result, a few members had to do some tasks over again, and a few couldn't get mission credit as a result.

I understand the concept of efficiency in training, but everyone is correct, that's not how the regs go. It's F&P, Advanced and 2 missions, then commander approval, then Wing approval, then when you are active you can start training in the next level. Any GTM2 tasks you completed prior to becoming an active GTM3 are not valid, and must be done over. Likewise, if you just became an active GTM3 this week Monday, and missions completed prior to Monday can't be used for GTM2. It sucks, but that's how it is. Reading is fundamental.

[Spam]

(Virtual high five, again, Chaser)


LT T,

What I've done in the past is to TEACH all the nav related topics in a block, which when presented in context, sequentially, conveys the material in a building block approach that ties it all together. (As Ive said before on CT, it makes no sense to have "use a compass" out of context in GTM3 F&P, and is potentially dangerous in that a newbie could have a false sense of security that they could competently navigate, ignoring the "actions on lost" task).

Concur though that under the present system, your ESO was correct to require a reverification.  If and when there is some degree of rationalization of tasks to functionally group them in capability-based blocks, we'd move to a better capability-based system to train, verify, and certify tasks linked to -3, -2, and -1 (and GTL).


Good comments.
- Spam


PS, No, I would not take the OP on my team on an actual - yet.  I WOULD however want to have him in my unit. His enthusiasm and willingness to train are positive indicators of great raw material, and his situation seems no fault of his own.  I'm only a fan of zero defect mentality with nuclear weapons security and abusers; don't forget that Halsey ran his ship aground as a JO, and Cadet Patton was on report many times.  This could be a very positive experience, depending on how he takes all this.

[TheGooseLover]

Reply to lordmonar:

I actually do agree with you. If you're studying hard, like our young C/NCO here, and can meet the Task/Condition/Standard for modules all the way up, I see nothing wrong with demonstrating that set of knowledge, skills, and abilities to standard, and getting signed off for it.  That's not the current program of record, but... I agree with you.  That said, separate issue on demonstrating overall maturity and suitability for the tasks in a field environment in the context of actual taskings, which is what the two mission check ride is all about.

Reply to OP (Caponly101):

You just made yet another interesting and possibly leading statement.  You say that you completed the "training"; training is different from a signoff evaluation.  At what point did you have a SET qualified evaluator take you aside, individually, and run you through the task/condition/standard for each module, asking you the questions written in the GT 'green book' and watching you run through tasks?

In specific:
Do you have a SET qualified trainer who is GTM2 or higher working with you on GTM2?
Did he/she have you demonstrate as stated?
When did you demonstrate the GTM2 tasks (if you did)?
When you say that you "waited to input those", did you input those GTM2 tasks yourself earlier this week?
Did someone in your unit then approve them on line?


Please tell me that you didn't just study hard, do some "training", then enter all the tasks on line, and someone approved you off as qualified. If so, that's grounds for command intervention, in any Wing.


These aren't woodworking merit badges or soccer "he showed up" trophies; pencil whipping the sign offs can cost time and lives.


Cheers,
Spam

No no no, I had a SET for GTL, GTM3 and GTM2 there and he made me display my skills before he signed off

[TheGooseLover]

(Virtual high five, again, Chaser)


LT T,

What I've done in the past is to TEACH all the nav related topics in a block, which when presented in context, sequentially, conveys the material in a building block approach that ties it all together. (As Ive said before on CT, it makes no sense to have "use a compass" out of context in GTM3 F&P, and is potentially dangerous in that a newbie could have a false sense of security that they could competently navigate, ignoring the "actions on lost" task).

Concur though that under the present system, your ESO was correct to require a reverification.  If and when there is some degree of rationalization of tasks to functionally group them in capability-based blocks, we'd move to a better capability-based system to train, verify, and certify tasks linked to -3, -2, and -1 (and GTL).


Good comments.
- Spam


PS, No, I would not take the OP on my team on an actual - yet.  I WOULD however want to have him in my unit. His enthusiasm and willingness to train are positive indicators of great raw material, and his situation seems no fault of his own.  I'm only a fan of zero defect mentality with nuclear weapons security and abusers; don't forget that Halsey ran his ship aground as a JO, and Cadet Patton was on report many times.  This could be a very positive experience, depending on how he takes all this.

Thank You Sir

Lack of integrity, and based on some of his responses in this thread, a serious lack of maturity on the part of our young NCO, which would make me question whether or not I'd want him on a team with me in a serious situation

Sir, how can you base someone's maturity and skill on a post on some forum? With no emotion, no speech patterns to justify your statement... Just words that I've printed. If you'd said something along the line of "slightly immature" I'd be fine. And personally, telling me I have a lack of integrity is pretty demoralizing. So really, maybe I'd do better off with no quals, and being demoted back to C/Amn. But I'm here now, and I've worked to be here. So I'll stay here.

P.S. I have worked in a real world scenario on a team with a Ranger 2nd class and a blue beret. None of them seemed to think those things...

[sarmed1]

....

I understand the concept of efficiency in training, but everyone is correct, that's not how the regs go. It's F&P, Advanced and 2 missions, then commander approval, then Wing approval, then when you are active you can start training in the next level. Any GTM2 tasks you completed prior to becoming an active GTM3 are not valid, and must be done over. Likewise, if you just became an active GTM3 this week Monday, and missions completed prior to Monday can't be used for GTM2. It sucks, but that's how it is. Reading is fundamental.

Actual no, thats not what the reg says- as a quoted above:  it says you can combine them for efficiency of training, only you cant be a mission trainee (and get mission participation credit) until you complete the fam and prep, nor do you have to wait to do the two missions (mission sorties) until you have all of the advanced tasks completed, that can be done anytime once you are completed with the fam and prep and thats signed off)

...These tasks do not have to be completed in a mission setting though. It is acceptable for these tasks to be accomplished with similar familiarization and preparatory tasks during routine unit training or in a formal school like the National Emergency Services Academy.

I would concur that you can only use mission credit for missions after you became a GTM3, the point is supposed to be you are operating as a GTM2 trainee, which in theory has a different skill set from a GTM3, so your eval should be based on that status not the former.

In regarding skills out of order:  how does that work with auto populating from computer entry.  The last time I put things in the computer it would put similar tasks in whichever specialty had that task it it. (I am assuming it still does)  i.e.  Complete Task O-0204 Locate a point on a Map using Latitude and Longitude.  It is an advanced training skill for both GTL and mission scanner.  If I am MS qualified, and decide that I want to become a GTL, but havent done GTM3 yet, do I have to do that task over again (assuming it is within 2 years of the original task), because according to the logic here, because I didnt do GTM3 fam and prep first my skill demonstration means nothing since it was accomplished prior to that date.  If I do in fact have to duplicate the performance, does it change the original date in the system?  (ie will my MS task date now show completed after I became qualified) or what happens if I am training for MS and GTMs at the same time?  According to some you would deny my qualification for one or the other outright because of date mismatch?

mk