Why do we have three GTM levels?

[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.