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.

[husker]

The poster early in this thread was correct about the original intent of the GTM levels; through the intent was good, the "real world" proved to be much different.  In my opinion (and my opinion only), these "levels" provide no added benefit in real world CAP operations, and simply make more "hoops" for our members to jump through.  In addition, the task progression, when viewed from certain perspectives, does not make as much sense as it did early on.

I was a cadet in the late 1980s and early 1990s prior to any standardized curriculum.  I rejoined as a senior just prior to the start of the ESCP, and followed it closely through its various iterations (it does help that I am based at Maxwell).  Though the curriculum in both its original and 2004 revision is not perfect, it is far and away better than anything we had previously.  I am thankful for all the members of the working groups over the years who have put time and effort into getting us where we are at.

Over the past few years, the staffing at NHQ has been cut to a point whereby they must rely more and more on volunteers to do things paid staff would normally do.  This is especially true when it comes to the ES curriculum.  One poster earlier in this thread mused that "Probably because the person that helped push its creation at the National Level is still the person "in charge" of it."   Though that is an easy answer, it isn't true.  NHQ must rely now on working groups of volunteers for many things.  Unfortunately, volunteer groups oftentimes work more slowly than government.

I have been leading a team for the past two years looking at all of these issues, with the goal of creating a new task guide, training materials, and reference text.  We have made good progress at times, but have been slowed in others.  Though I don't want to say too much on a public forum (as everything must be approved by NHQ and the regions), our main goal is threefold:

1)   Simplify the ratings progression – BGTM, AGTM, GTL.  At the same time, fix the task progression issues – ensure that each rating only has a defined set of tasks associated with it.
2)   Update each task to reflect more modern ES operations.  This has included creating additional tasks, and deleted others.
3)   Update the slidesets and reference text.

In my opinion, this would create a more modern GT curriculum, remove a few of the needless barriers, and generally provide better trained personnel.  However, I do know that no curriculum meets every need or will make every happy.  Thus, I should be fully prepared to be excoriated here by the passionate Captalkers.     It certainly won't be there first time I've heard that "LTC Long has no idea what he is doing."   As I said, however, this is still in progress, and nothing has been presented for approval.

I have staffed NESA in the GSAR program since 1999, and have run a Wing based ES training program (ALWG WESS – wess.alwg.us) since 1997.  WESS was the first "test bed" for the ESCP, so I've seen almost everything possible in the realm of ES training based on these curriculums.  I don't think it is possible to qualify someone in GTM3 over one weekend, though there are many variables in play (experience of students, age of students, training areas, logistics, etc.)  At NESA, we really struggle to get everyone through GTM3 in one week, even though I have really passionate, hard working folks there.  At WESS, I take 5 weekends to do the same tasks.  At both events, we have around 50 Basic students who are very inexperienced, and we do accomplish both First Aid and ICUT.  At both events, we also do quite a bit of team and individual based skill practice.  If someone has a very small group of students and is only accomplishing the evaluation criteria for those tasks, perhaps it is possible.  I am not saying it is impossible; it, however, has not been my experience based on the activities that I am responsible for.

At NESA, when the curriculum changed in 2004, we added a school.  We moved to Basic (GTM3), Advanced (GTM 2/1) and GTL courses.  The additional time provided us more training time for certain modules, and we added First Aid to the Basic course.  There is no time for "shenanigans."

Most ES training programs are predicated on turning out what coudano refers to as the "Basic Qualification" level, and I agree.  This is why our organization requires members to requalify every three years.    I imagine if LTC Bos grabbed a task guide and quizzed me on the salient points of the operations and warning orders (P-0202), I would probably have to review my task guide.  I guess I am an "average joe," even though I've been continuously qualified as a GTL for 18 years or so.    I make that point each year to every GSAR student at NESA – graduation from GSAR does not make anyone an expert at anything – it is simply a "license to learn."  It is vitally important for all of us as CAP members to continually train, practice skills, and learn new ones.  Especially us "old timers."

(Edits for spelling and grammar)

[coudano]

I was a cadet in the late 1980s and early 1990s prior to any standardized curriculum... it is far and away better than anything we had previously.

FACT!

NHQ must rely now on working groups of volunteers for many things.

Actually this is the way it should always have been, in my opinion...    /offtopic

BGTM, AGTM, GTL

I guess my only question here is the one that has already been raised...
What is the real difference between the three?
You've already  mentioned that they are separate and discrete task sets.
So you get kind of what spam mentioned "ok you can come out on the van with us and you probably won't die" followed by "ok you actually know how to do some skills that we employ to accomplish our mission"
and then the GTL becomes the team management stuff...

That makes enough sense to me.
Although, what is the basic member doing while the advanced guys are executing?
Probably (?) just standing there, watching, right?

That reminds me an awful lot of "going on a ground team" pre-1999, when 8 of us would pile into the back of the squadorn van and drool back there for hours, while the two guys in the front seats did everything.

"shenanigans."

I was mostly just joking, i'm sure the quality of instruction probably went up, along with (i hope) the number of "reps" students get.  Also, as you said, doing first aid and cut as part of the course soaks up some of that time.

That said, even with the old 54 task version, there was still a reasonable amount of 'off task' time for having a little fun.  That only sometimes translated into "trouble" ehhhhh.

[sardak]

NHQ must rely now on working groups of volunteers for many things.

Actually this is the way it should always have been, in my opinion...    /offtopic

The ESCP consisted of members who volunteered for seven years.

Mike

[coudano]

I was speaking of CAP in general (thus the /offtopic)

[LSThiker]

Over the past few years, the staffing at NHQ has been cut to a point whereby they must rely more and more on volunteers to do things paid staff would normally do.  This is especially true when it comes to the ES curriculum.  One poster earlier in this thread mused that "Probably because the person that helped push its creation at the National Level is still the person "in charge" of it."   Though that is an easy answer, it isn't true.  NHQ must rely now on working groups of volunteers for many things.  Unfortunately, volunteer groups oftentimes work more slowly than government.

Husker, thank you for the detailed reply.  I agree that the "old" method of qualifying Ground Team was horrible.  I remember getting my GTM back then and it was really just worthless, especially if you get a few of the "rambo" team members that want to do all the "cool" work and leave the trainees doing just the mundane work (log sheets).  Sure you could get those 2 missions but that person may never have touched an ELPR or even gotten out of the van to do a ground search. 

As you quoted, let me explain.  I understand that volunteer groups work slowly at times.  I truly do understand that.  However, considering how important ES operations are for CAP, taking 11+ years to update the task guides is a bit unacceptable.  Even then, the vast majority of the tasks were written from the 2001 publication date with only a handful being updated in 2004.  I remember when the original GT task guides were published.  A lot of the material during the original publication referenced the unpublished "Ground Team Reference Guide".  I forget how long after the publication of the GT task guides when the reference texts were published, but do remember it being quite a bit after.  After the publication of CAPM 39-1 in June 2014, it took until Jan 2015 to finally publish the criteria of the aircrew badge.  CAPP2 has even been updated since 15 Oct 1991.  The ES Specialty has not been even updated since 15 Feb 1998.

In that same time, how many changes, modifications, updates, and new training opportunities have become available for Cadet Programs and AE?  I understand there are differences between all three directorates.   

The levels for the GTMs has not even matched how CAP actually operates since its creation.  Although, I will state that the creation of the UDF specialty was needed as it does at times match how we operate.  But we still want to keep pushing different levels for the specialty ratings.  How many "See Note 4" marks are in the current CAPR 60-3?  Even as you state, the levels really provided no benefit to the organization.  So why has it taken nearly 15 years to eliminate them?  Was there any tangible benefit from creating those levels 15 years ago that has justified keeping them for the last 10 years?

My interactions with John Desmarais over the years (which have been brief, I will admit) have been less than impressive.  SARSAT stopped monitoring 121.5 mHz since 2009 (if I recall correctly) and it was not like it happened overnight.  What is the strategic direction for CAP's ES mission?  Does NHQ have an ES direction since ELT missions have/are drying up?  What should the primary focus of GTs?  DR work?  Need task and standards for that.  Missing person?  What should wings be really advertising for aircrews? 

From the interactions with other personnel in my wing, they get the feeling that NHQ has been trying to keep its head in the sand regarding the ELT missions. 

I understand a lot does depend on what the current State, County, and City Government needs and resources are.  And that Wings do need to take the initiative for their own state ES needs.  Nevertheless, guidance is needed from NHQ to set the tone and direction for future SAR work in our organization.

The last I have heard, which please update me if there is current information, was from 2012 Strategic Plan.  Even then it was rather weak.  Priority 2 objectives were
1)  "Border Reconnaissance"--only applies to a few states
2)  "RPA Training"--again only applies to a  handful of personnel
3)  Explore opportunities resulting from AF's downsizing--What?  What opportunities?  What has since been achieved from this objective?
4)  "Establish a methodology for identifying and validating new mission areas"--Umm, this plan was 2013-2014 year.  This should have been completed in 2008.

From the lack of strategic direction to our problems with image (a lack of professional image) to the amount of overhead it takes to get a mission approved to the ever increasing other SAR teams, CAP no longer holds that special seat at the table like we once did.

[Ed Bos]

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.

Careful, we don't have enough cloaks or daggers to give everybody who wants to be on one of the super secret cabals committees.

[umpirecali]

I want offer my $0.02 on this almost dead topic.  The way I explain the three levels to people new to ES is as follows:
GTM3 we teach you how to not get lost or die when we go out into the woods, and if you get lost, how to attract attention
GTM2 we teach you how to navigate and communicate
GTM1 you are starting to become a very useful searcher

Now that is a bit tongue in cheek, but the three levels are somewhat but not full proof way to gauge training experience or commitment.  So, on a training exercise I will ask who has GES, GTM3, 2, and 1, as a first step in distributing the teams.   Yes, you could be a person with just GES who is a wiz at maps and SAR, and you could be a tool of GTM1, but in general this helps.  There are a few senior GTM3s that I would trust over some 15 year old GTM1 any day.  Since GTLs are often in short supply, field promotions are frequent.  I too was taught the 24 hour, 48 hour, 72 hour thing and realize that in our state it is a near impossibility to have overnight tasks on missions. Even though we are rarely called upon for night ops here (I have been on a few, but not with CAP), I think the three tiered approach is good.  If someone is a GTM3, I know they are generally either inexperienced or have not gone through the effort of the additional training.  FWIW, our state agency VDEM has an extensive 50 hour GSAR academy conducted over 2 weekends where CAP and other SAR groups receive the same training.  At the end of the 2nd week which has proficiency exams on knots, gear, land nav, and clue awareness, which is followed by written exam, the CAP members receive credit for GTM 3, 2, and 1, even though VDEM does not cover all the CAP specific things (ELT, securing a site, etc).  For those who don't go to the GSAR academy, we train one task a time on weekend training exercises (ie: I used a Geocaching weekend to cover pace counts, and identifying map features, and a few other compass tasks).

[Spam]

FWIW, our state agency VDEM has an extensive 50 hour GSAR academy conducted over 2 weekends where CAP and other SAR groups receive the same training.  ...

the CAP members receive credit for GTM 3, 2, and 1, even though VDEM does not cover all the CAP specific things (ELT, securing a site, etc). 

Thanks for that data point. I'll keep that in mind when working with or receiving transfer members who were rated GTM in VAWG.


Sincerely,
Spam

[Capt Thompson]

FWIW, our state agency VDEM has an extensive 50 hour GSAR academy conducted over 2 weekends where CAP and other SAR groups receive the same training.  ...

the CAP members receive credit for GTM 3, 2, and 1, even though VDEM does not cover all the CAP specific things (ELT, securing a site, etc). 

So in two weekends, they are able to complete six separate missions, receive adequate training and prove proficiency in more than 80 tasks? Michigan Wing has a SAR Academy that runs for more than a week, day and night, that only gets the student to GTM3. That must be some hardcore training in VAWG.

[winterg]

(Snip) FWIW, our state agency VDEM has an extensive 50 hour GSAR academy conducted over 2 weekends where CAP and other SAR groups receive the same training.  At the end of the 2nd week which has proficiency exams on knots, gear, land nav, and clue awareness, which is followed by written exam, the CAP members receive credit for GTM 3, 2, and 1, even though VDEM does not cover all the CAP specific things (ELT, securing a site, etc).  (Snip)

1. A course that covers 2 weekends would not be what I would call "extensive."

2. As an SET for GTM 1, 2, 3, & GTL I would be very interested in seeing what the curriculum is for this 50 hour course that your Wing is using to sign off on GTM 3-1. Do you have a link?

3. Knowingly signing of on tasks by using an outside course which you admit does not cover the required material for the specialty seems wrong to me. But rather than jump to concusions, I wouldn't mind a little clarification. 

[Storm Chaser]

It takes five weekends at WESS in ALWG to qualify a GTM3. NESA does it in one week with very long training days. While I've seen members complete this qualification in one or two weekends, the quality of their training (or lack of) is very evident when they have to perform.

Two sorties/exercise participation is the bare minimum. Most members will need much more than that to have the minimum level of proficiency required to be effective and useful in the field.

[umpirecali]

I should also mention that most folks, especially in other SAR groups get trained by their local groups to be COQ, which means Call Out Qualified; which is about the equivalent to CAP's GTM3.  Being a COQ means one can respond to a state mission but only with a trainer.  Many people show up to the VDEM GSAR being already COQ, so it isn't like everyone arrives thinking "how does this compass thing work".   I mentioned the absence of some tasks but the course includes things that CAP doesn't cover like the legal aspects of SAR, treat a patient, trespass laws, and a lot more rope and anchor practice.

The days are long, as are the nights as the academy includes night searches and a night carryout (schedule attached). 

Attached are also two powerpoints which cover the lecture portion of the two weekends.  The lectures have incorporated proficiencies built in. So, for instance they don't just talk about map features. Every students has a map and has to demonstrate to the one of many roaming instructors that they understand and can perform the tasks, such as plotting points, determining azimuths, declination, distance, etc. This demonstration of skills was also part of the final test.  The instructor to student ratio is good (about 5:1).  The lectures cover about 40-50% of the time. The rest is done in the field with GTL and instructors watching the GTLs.

Then after all the fieldwork there are written tests and more proficiency tests.  Then this course plus first aid, IS100, IS700, IS800, IS809b, National Parks Service Basic Search and Rescue Course, and Aviation safety 101 modules, one can be certified by VDEM to be a STM (Search Team Member).

[umpirecali]

I am trying to upload the curriculum, but the file size is too large.

<edit>
I had to upload them to a google drive

Week 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Ij2v6RvVGiTEl5VFYydmhHTDA/view?usp=sharing
Week 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Ij2v6RvVGiQUNmUnA0YlZMem8/view?usp=sharing

[sarmed1]

I should also mention that most folks, especially in other SAR groups get trained by their local groups to be COQ, which means Call Out Qualified; which is about the equivalent to CAP's GTM3.  Being a COQ means one can respond to a state mission but only with a trainer.  Many people show up to the VDEM GSAR being already COQ, so it isn't like everyone arrives thinking "how does this compass thing work".   I mentioned the absence of some tasks but the course includes things that CAP doesn't cover like the legal aspects of SAR, treat a patient, trespass laws, and a lot more rope and anchor practice.

The days are long, as are the nights as the academy includes night searches and a night carryout (schedule attached). 

Attached are also two powerpoints which cover the lecture portion of the two weekends.  The lectures have incorporated proficiencies built in. So, for instance they don't just talk about map features. Every students has a map and has to demonstrate to the one of many roaming instructors that they understand and can perform the tasks, such as plotting points, determining azimuths, declination, distance, etc. This demonstration of skills was also part of the final test.  The instructor to student ratio is good (about 5:1).  The lectures cover about 40-50% of the time. The rest is done in the field with GTL and instructors watching the GTLs.

Then after all the fieldwork there are written tests and more proficiency tests.  Then this course plus first aid, IS100, IS700, IS800, IS809b, National Parks Service Basic Search and Rescue Course, and Aviation safety 101 modules, one can be certified by VDEM to be a STM (Search Team Member).

So is wing saying you meet the GTM 3-1 intent for just the basic course on the outline or for: 

"Then this course plus first aid, IS100, IS700, IS800, IS809b, National Parks Service Basic Search and Rescue Course, and Aviation safety 101 modules, one can be certified by VDEM to be a STM"

The latter I would have an easier time believing.

MK

[umpirecali]

Well first aid, IS100, and IS700 are CAP requirements too but going through the course and passing the test = GTM1.  The extras are required for VDEM STM certification.

[Holding Pattern]

Over the past few years, the staffing at NHQ has been cut to a point whereby they must rely more and more on volunteers to do things paid staff would normally do.  This is especially true when it comes to the ES curriculum.  One poster earlier in this thread mused that "Probably because the person that helped push its creation at the National Level is still the person "in charge" of it."   Though that is an easy answer, it isn't true.  NHQ must rely now on working groups of volunteers for many things.  Unfortunately, volunteer groups oftentimes work more slowly than government.

Make accessing the rulemaking process more open to the point where greater numbers of people can contribute towards its completion.

I have been leading a team for the past two years looking at all of these issues, with the goal of creating a new task guide, training materials, and reference text.  We have made good progress at times, but have been slowed in others.  Though I don't want to say too much on a public forum (as everything must be approved by NHQ and the regions), our main goal is threefold:

1)   Simplify the ratings progression – BGTM, AGTM, GTL.  At the same time, fix the task progression issues – ensure that each rating only has a defined set of tasks associated with it.
2)   Update each task to reflect more modern ES operations.  This has included creating additional tasks, and deleted others.
3)   Update the slidesets and reference text.

Please look at adding one more line item:
4)    Making the CAP accreditation system for SAR a nationally recognized and accepted program. Do this by finding out what is needed by each state for their special circumstances and find a way to make reciprocal agreements, either by us adding to the curriculum or them adding exceptions to their process.

It's hard to put weight on the curriculum CAP has when it doesn't qualify them in their state for SAR work.

[sarmed1]

...
Please look at adding one more line item:
4)    Making the CAP accreditation system for SAR a nationally recognized and accepted program. Do this by finding out what is needed by each state for their special circumstances and find a way to make reciprocal agreements, either by us adding to the curriculum or them adding exceptions to their process.

It's hard to put weight on the curriculum CAP has when it doesn't qualify them in their state for SAR work.

Unfortunately I dont see that as workable.  Even NASAR isnt universally accepted in every state.  I think that matching CAP standard to NASAR standard would be a good start, each Wing would still have to make an agreement with their respective state.  Much like EMS certifications, even though there are National minimum standards, each state may meet the minimums, but can choose to have more, and even though each state meets that minimum they are under no obligation to honor the next states certifications. 

mk

[umpirecali]

I see the national standard of tasks as a negative because every state has different needs.  If you live on Long Island you will never be asked to secure a crash site.  If you live in Wyoming, might be a distinct possibility. I know a lot of you live by the book and live tasks and regs, so this notion will likely give you mild to moderate aneurysm, but I think the certification should be determined by the evaluator as the person being able to perform the jobs tasked in your area.

If you live in the suburbs and the nearest wilderness is hours away, you better be pretty skilled at UDF.  If you are often called in wooded or mountains, you ought to be a world class land nav-er.

[sarmed1]

I see the national standard of tasks as a negative because every state has different needs.  If you live on Long Island you will never be asked to secure a crash site.  If you live in Wyoming, might be a distinct possibility. I know a lot of you live by the book and live tasks and regs, so this notion will likely give you mild to moderate aneurysm, but I think the certification should be determined by the evaluator as the person being able to perform the jobs tasked in your area.

If you live in the suburbs and the nearest wilderness is hours away, you better be pretty skilled at UDF.  If you are often called in wooded or mountains, you ought to be a world class land nav-er.

Agree in theory:  There still needs to be a national task list:  It represents the core tasks that every CAP GTM needs to be able to perform.  It is important to remember that CAP is a national organization and in theory depending on the incident, geographic borders are not applicable-If there is a large enough incident CAP units from other wings may be coming in to handle those tasks either in support of or in place of local units-they all need to be able to play off the same sheet of music. CAP is a federal asset/USAF asset first, and a local asset second, so again every GTM needs to be on the same sheet of music so planners at those level can use them based on expected performance standards and not have to adjust based on lack of qualifications because XYZ doesnt use that skill but ABC needs it.

mk

[lordmonar]

+1

And then each wing/group/squadron should be getting with their local EMS to see what they require for us to play with them.

If they are happy with just CAP certs...then we are golden.   If they require some local training or NASAR or some other cert then we do that training ON TOP of our training.

[Pace]

New topic about NASAR split into separate thread.
-Pace