GTM2 Training

[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