Are you ready for Ground Team fitness standards?

[jimmydeanno]

True story...

At a SAREX recently, we had a lost group of hikers scenario.  One of our ground teams was assigned the task of being the "victims."  They were supposed to hike up a 4,100 foot mountain and cross the ridge to another peak (4,400 feet).  In all it was supposed to be a distance of approximately 5 miles in each direction.

This team was then supposed to camp out overnight (they assumed it would take some time to be found), then the next morning do an aerial search of the area.

I was the GTL for the team that was supposed to do interrogations and find clues that would indicate where they were, do the search, etc. 

The first team left to get lost.  My team waited for 4 hours for deployment so they could have an adequate head start.  When we started it was around noon, the other team had a 4 hour head start.  We went around the area they were thought to have been last seen, did about 10 different interrogations (hiker's visitor center, AMC volunteers, forestry service guys, etc).  We had a random hiker that happened to have completed the loop they were on note they thought they might have seen them earlier that day, about 0900.

So, we drove to the trailhead this hiker reported seeing them on.  As we pulled up, we got a radio call from the "lost team" citing that they had a non-emergency medical issue.  I responded that we were en route and asked for their location.  The GTL noted they were about 1.5 hours up the trail (to me that means about 3 miles). 

In 10 minutes we reached the team, no more than 2/10s of a mile up the trail.  The GTL simply couldn't go any further because he was out of shape.  He noted that his legs were burning, he was sweating profusely and was already exhausted.

So, our team ended up hiking the mountain to the location they were supposed to camp at, stayed overnight and became the targets for the aircrew the next morning.

Had this been an actual mission, our ground team would have failed our organization and the victims they were intended to rescue.  Someone's personal assessment of their physical fitness level obviously didn't meet what the demands of the job were.

It's not that I don't want people to play, but when it comes to actual GT work, a level of physical fitness is required - especially in my area.  If you are 100% disabled, overweight or just don't feel like keeping yourself in shape you are going to be of no use to a team that needs to do ground team stuff.

If you are assigned to a team, get dispatched and when you get to an area that exceeds your physical limitations because you might actually have to walk, what is the rest of the team supposed to do?  Have you sit in the van and keep the seat warm?  Now you leave your team without another person to help carry that litter, render aid, etc. 

A ground team can not just start slicing off skill sets along the way.  They can't lose their L-PER guy because he can't walk through the woods.  They can't lose the guy that knows how to work with the dog teams because they aren't fit enough to go where the dog team goes.

In my wing, of the 12 or so GTLs we have I would honestly say that only 2 are physically capable of actually performing the physical aspect of GT.  Yes, they are technically proficient in the rest of the areas, but when it comes down to it, they would not be able to do the job in an actual emergency.

I am all for physical standards for GTM-3, GTM-2, GTM-1 and GTL.  I think the integrity of the teams depends on it.  I think the lives of our victims depend on it.  I think the safety of our own teams depend on it.

Many areas of the country are fine with UDF qualifications.  Get in the van, drive to the airport, walk to the ramp, shut off the ELT.  But, for what the GT qualifications are designed for (areas like mine, with mountains, hills, woods, ravines, weather, etc) you need a certain level of fitness greater than "be able to walk without having a heart attack."

just sayin'

[Levi]

Good points, all. And well put.

[Pingree1492]

I am all for physical standards for GTM-3, GTM-2, GTM-1 and GTL.  I think the integrity of the teams depends on it.  I think the lives of our victims depend on it.  I think the safety of our own teams depend on it.

Many areas of the country are fine with UDF qualifications.  Get in the van, drive to the airport, walk to the ramp, shut off the ELT.  But, for what the GT qualifications are designed for (areas like mine, with mountains, hills, woods, ravines, weather, etc) you need a certain level of fitness greater than "be able to walk without having a heart attack."

I also have "horror stories" of folks not physically able to hike in the mountains out on Ground Teams.  They all end badly, especially for the person out of shape.  You don't have to be a track star, but if you're not in shape to be going up into the mountains and through treacherous terrain, then you have no business being on a ground team.  In my experience, these people are worse than being a little short handed, as they actually detract from mission performance.

I would love to try to accommodate any requirement. But I am nearly 60 years old, and rated at 100% permanent and total by the VA due to line-of-duty injuries years ago. I can walk and see, and I believe that I could be useful in some way to a ground team in many search and rescue situations. I would like to train and participate if I can. I believe that I know enough about my own restrictions to take myself out of service if that is warranted.

While my above comments may seem harsh, there is certainly a place for people like you sir in Ground Operations.  While I would never take you into the woods with a team, I would certainly welcome any skills and experiences you would bring to the table in an Urban DF Setting.  For us in CO, this is almost everything east of the Front Range.  In other wings, it's practically everything in the entire state.

Also, people that can't meet a physical fitness standard to go out on full-up ground teams can still provide incredibly valuable services to those ground teams.  I was on a mission last year where we had a GTL/GBD that knew he couldn't go out and perform on a field team in the terrain we were searching, so he acted as a driver for teams, as well as acting as a communications relay between us in the field, and the people at the Incident Command Post.  Serving in this function was incredibly valuable to us in the field, and allowed us to actually do our jobs searching, instead of struggling to maintain comm all day.

[Eclipse]

Random horror stories do not indict a system, or validate it.

We can all tell tall tales of ground and aircrews who performed below expectations, and conversely
people who look like they are on deaths door who run rings around cadets.

Any standards adopted need to focus on the actual missions CAP performs, not some blue-sky ranger missions we may or may not get. 

If some wings get more rugged missions, so be it, they can have additional requirements but for the majority of us, a brisk with a hip sack is about as rugged as we ever get.  Our staple missions these days is far from wilderness SAR in the mountains.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think as far as cadets are concerned there should be a standard. All of the Ranger grades have a physical requirement. I mean as usual I think exceptions should be made for certain people but overall I think its a good idea.

Please enlighten me as to what a Ranger grade is. Is that something the U.S. Army Rangers have?

[Hawk200]

Please enlighten me as to what a Ranger grade is. Is that something the U.S. Army Rangers have?

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm

[RiverAux]

jimmy, to tell the  truth I am pretty impressed that your wing even attempted that good of a ground team scenario -- congrats on that even though it didn't work out. 

Random horror stories do not indict a system, or validate it.

That story was random, but along with it was his assessment of the actual capabilities of the GTLs in his wing. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Please enlighten me as to what a Ranger grade is. Is that something the U.S. Army Rangers have?

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm

[PHall]

True story...

At a SAREX recently, we had a lost group of hikers scenario.  One of our ground teams was assigned the task of being the "victims."  They were supposed to hike up a 4,100 foot mountain and cross the ridge to another peak (4,400 feet).  In all it was supposed to be a distance of approximately 5 miles in each direction.

This team was then supposed to camp out overnight (they assumed it would take some time to be found), then the next morning do an aerial search of the area.

I was the GTL for the team that was supposed to do interrogations and find clues that would indicate where they were, do the search, etc. 

The first team left to get lost.  My team waited for 4 hours for deployment so they could have an adequate head start.  When we started it was around noon, the other team had a 4 hour head start.  We went around the area they were thought to have been last seen, did about 10 different interrogations (hiker's visitor center, AMC volunteers, forestry service guys, etc).  We had a random hiker that happened to have completed the loop they were on note they thought they might have seen them earlier that day, about 0900.

So, we drove to the trailhead this hiker reported seeing them on.  As we pulled up, we got a radio call from the "lost team" citing that they had a non-emergency medical issue.  I responded that we were en route and asked for their location.  The GTL noted they were about 1.5 hours up the trail (to me that means about 3 miles). 

In 10 minutes we reached the team, no more than 2/10s of a mile up the trail.  The GTL simply couldn't go any further because he was out of shape.  He noted that his legs were burning, he was sweating profusely and was already exhausted.

So, our team ended up hiking the mountain to the location they were supposed to camp at, stayed overnight and became the targets for the aircrew the next morning.

Had this been an actual mission, our ground team would have failed our organization and the victims they were intended to rescue.  Someone's personal assessment of their physical fitness level obviously didn't meet what the demands of the job were.

It's not that I don't want people to play, but when it comes to actual GT work, a level of physical fitness is required - especially in my area.  If you are 100% disabled, overweight or just don't feel like keeping yourself in shape you are going to be of no use to a team that needs to do ground team stuff.

If you are assigned to a team, get dispatched and when you get to an area that exceeds your physical limitations because you might actually have to walk, what is the rest of the team supposed to do?  Have you sit in the van and keep the seat warm?  Now you leave your team without another person to help carry that litter, render aid, etc. 

A ground team can not just start slicing off skill sets along the way.  They can't lose their L-PER guy because he can't walk through the woods.  They can't lose the guy that knows how to work with the dog teams because they aren't fit enough to go where the dog team goes.

In my wing, of the 12 or so GTLs we have I would honestly say that only 2 are physically capable of actually performing the physical aspect of GT.  Yes, they are technically proficient in the rest of the areas, but when it comes down to it, they would not be able to do the job in an actual emergency.

I am all for physical standards for GTM-3, GTM-2, GTM-1 and GTL.  I think the integrity of the teams depends on it.  I think the lives of our victims depend on it.  I think the safety of our own teams depend on it.

Many areas of the country are fine with UDF qualifications.  Get in the van, drive to the airport, walk to the ramp, shut off the ELT.  But, for what the GT qualifications are designed for (areas like mine, with mountains, hills, woods, ravines, weather, etc) you need a certain level of fitness greater than "be able to walk without having a heart attack."

just sayin'

And when was the last time your Wing had an actual mission  that required a Ground Team to hike in to the search area?

This stuff is nice to do, but, are we really training for the missions we actually do these days?

[RiverAux]

And when was the last time your Wing had an actual mission  that required a Ground Team to hike in to the search area?

So, all your aircraft search missions end with the ground team driving right up to them in their van?  Keep in mind that we're talking about ground teams, not DF teams...

[jimmydeanno]

And when was the last time your Wing had an actual mission  that required a Ground Team to hike in to the search area?

This stuff is nice to do, but, are we really training for the missions we actually do these days?

Missing hikers, hunters, are pretty common in these parts.  I can point to probably 18 missing people in the last year.  CAP doesn't get called for all of them, but there have been a few in the last few years that we've assisted with.  So yes, we do train for things that we actually do or could get called for.

Most of our state is covered in trees and mountains. The entire state population is only 1.3 million with 80% of those living in 5 cities. Heck, nearly half the state is protected national/state forest.  Chances are, you're going into the woods for any CAP related mission - unless the target is sitting at the airport.  If you want a good DF reading, you're going to have to climb a hill.

My point is that CAP has UDF and GT qualifications separated for a reason.  If you live in an urban area where a credit card and a cell phone are all you need, then you should have the UDF rating.  If you live in a rural area with mountains, etc - chances are that if you get called out you're going to have to do something in that sort of terrain.

As a GTL, I would expect that someone showing up with a GTM-X qualification would be physically capable of doing the mission, not just someone who decided it would be cool to have the qual and get the badge.  I know that I can hike for 20+ miles with my gear.  I know that the cadets that are GTM-X qualified in my unit can hike for miles with their gear.  I don't know what the physical capabilities of some random person that gets assigned to my GT is.  Are we going to have to turn around 1/10 of a mile from the van?  At least a standard fitness level would help in determining that.

[tribalelder]

A small number of our brother-members are focused on the trappings of CAP-the cards, the titles, the snazzy blue suit, etc.  instead of CAP's  missions.  I've seen a GTL with handicap parking placard-his, not his spouse's. mother's or childs.  I've had a one-eyed observer (who was never to my knowledge current) complain to wing and region when I wouldn't  get him added to the CN list-he really wanted that card. 

Fitness standards are a great idea, but legitimate, honest self-assessment would be better.  There are 2 things that caused me to let my GTL lapse, and the biggest one was a fitness-for-duty issue - a bad shoulder.  I can walk several miles, I routinely cycle ten, but I have no business taking on an assignment that could include an extended litter carry. I didn't feel it was appropriate to stay 'on the list' when I knew I wasn't up to one of the reasonably possible physical demands. 

[davedove]

Gee, I thought the reason we let cadets on ground teams was so we seniors could stay in the van with the doughnuts.

[Rodriguez]

Please enlighten me as to what a Ranger grade is. Is that something the U.S. Army Rangers have?

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

[arajca]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

Quite likely. After all, it you aren't in PAWG, and maybe FLWG, there generally aren't any. The few that may be around outside of those areas are an insignificant number.

[NCRblues]

^ Plus many uh "rangers" are more or less ignored because of the attitude that seems to come from the "ranger" schools, but i wont start down that long road....

[Rodriguez]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

Quite likely. After all, it you aren't in PAWG, and maybe FLWG, there generally aren't any. The few that may be around outside of those areas are an insignificant number.

True, cant argue with that. Which is pretty unfortunate but that's a whole other story. As for the "Attitude" of a ranger or what comes out of the schools, Unfortunately its a subject that honestly cant be touched upon on any forum. And yea, I'm not gonna go there either.

But overall I think we could all benefit from a little fitness standards. And I'm not suggesting some ridiculous number or anything. Actually what would be nice is maybe a simple Physical that any local physician can administer. Just to make sure no ones gonna have a stroke or something avoidable like that.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

I actually know what CAP Rangers are - wish I haven't since around 2003. My comment was somewhat of a tongue in cheek.  CAP Rangers is NOT what I want CAP GTM to be based on, ever. That's also why Pawger is a noun where I come from. 

^ Plus many uh "rangers" are more or less ignored because of the attitude that seems to come from the "ranger" schools, but i wont start down that long road....

^^^ We may be not traveling down the same road, eh?

[N Harmon]

CAP Rangers is NOT what I want CAP GTM to be based on, ever.

Too late. Our SQTR system more or less came from the ranger system.

[Eclipse]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade.

There is no such grade within the CAP program.

What you are likely referring to is an NCSA run in (I believe but am not sure) the Poconos that does some SAR training and the like.  Its a pretty good adventure camp, but doesn't confer any special CAP ratings.

A graduate of that program is no more (or less) qualified to perform CAP ES missions than any other GTM in the program.