New SQTR ideas

[lordmonar]

I was refering to the instructor/evaluator cost issue. And yes it is much easier to become an evaluator than it used to.  The problem I see comes in that it would become difficult to have suffecient CAP specific NASAR evaluators available to ensure an adequate availablility to keep up the flow of qualified members.  I am ok with the NASAR certification fee.

mk

I highly disagree.
Next summer (2016) have NESA hold an evaluator course for at least 100 people.   Task each wing to send at least one GTL to the course and you got at lease 50 extra slots open.

Do that for at least three years....you could have the entire force transferred over to SARTECH ratings by the begging of 2020.

We already have a lot of members who are both GT and SARTECH qualified.   A lot of them would continue to get their evaluator rateings on their own if it was worth their while (i.e. they could use it in CAP).

[lordmonar]

Not for nothing, but isn't that what got us where we are currently? I seem to remember back in the early 2000s (yeesh, but does that sound like a long time ago!) we started adopting NASAR standards with regards to equipment and training, so we would be on the same level as other SAR agencies. That's why we have the canine team training for GTM1. We sent people to FUNSAR courses and SARTECH II courses and now what...we have still very limited functionality in a lot of places due to politics and whatnot. We will still be the JV when it comes to ground search because of lack of coordination and MOUs and internal/external politics.

The problem is credibility.

We may be just as good at NASAR.....which I do think we are.  But NASAR is the National Standard.   Sure there are other routes to this training but everyone knows and trusts NASAR.   

Kind of like PADI vs NAUI vs SEI vs SSI.   They are all good schools...but PADI has the name brand recognition and you will not get any cross eyed stairs from dive shops.

And maybe....we can split the difference.

GTM 3= CAP organic training aimed at low cost, UDF, pre SARTEC III level training.  (UDF and high manpower low brain power, don't touch the snakes sort of training).
GTM 2=SARTECH III
GTM 1= SARTECH II
GTL=SARTECH I

[usafcap1]

^ "don't touch the snake"

[LTC Don]

That there is just this little amount of disagreement on the NASAR thing as there continues to be over this GTM vs SARTECH issue just continues to prove that CAP is effectively out of the SAR industry. Doing business with and actually having to pay NASAR might not be optimal, but NASAR is, as already stated the recognized industry standard. Until the leadership stands up and says CAP needs to be performing actual SAR work and be accepted into the SAR community at large, those that are paying good money to be members (dues/uniforms/gear) are being done a disservice. Those members should perhaps consider going elsewhere to get their SAR itch scratched because they are being fed well spoiled Kool-Aid.


Plans to overhaul the whole SQTR system with regards to ground operations should have been in the works well before the SARSAT system changed over to 406 back in 2009, six years ago.

[JeffDG]

CAP qualification ability shouldnt be tied to someone else's check book.

It already is, in the form of requiring first aid training.  In fact, CAPR 60-3 specifically states that there is no national program to get this training for free.

We have hashed this one out a few times I believe.  That is not universal.  There are some places that can get it for free or for minimal cost.  There is no way around the NASAR fee.  Everyone who wants their card has to pay.

mk

One squadron I've been in has had good luck with the airport fire department putting on first aid classes for them at no cost.

[JeffDG]

Kill all GTM/GTL related SQTRs in their current form and formally accept NASAR SARTECH standards and designations for Search and Rescue deployment.  You know, if we actually want to empower our dues paying membership to actually have genuine industry-standard credentials to get out and do some actual Search and Rescue stuff.

Create new ground operations modules/SQTRs relevant to air search such as electronic search, crash site issues, crashed aircraft-specific safety issues, etc.

Easy Peasy... 

Not sure I want to adopt out of whole cloth another organization's standards, but certainly good place to look. 

I'd like to see GT quals align with ICS Typed Teams.

Why not?   Change GTM 3...to read Get GES, Get SARTECH III trained.
IIRC SARTECH III and II reoughly equate to our GTM 1 while SARTEC I is close to our GTL

No reason why CAP can't teach the NASAR stuff.  We come up with a cost sharing agreement with NASAR and we are golden.   
Why reinvent the wheel?
As the industry leader....NASAR keeps the training up to date...we just ride their coat tails.

NASAR is not ICS typed team.  There's no team type of SARTECH.

[lordmonar]

Neither is CAP.

[JeffDG]

Neither is CAP.

Not saying we are.  I'm saying that ICS Typed Teams is a nice, vendor agnostic, target to shoot for.

I'm not a huge fan of sole-sourcing things, be they Vanguard or training.

[sardak]

The most recent update of FEMA resource types and position qualifications, dated 6/2/2014, states the following:

A Wilderness Search and/or Rescue Technician is a member of a Wilderness SAR Team who searches for and rescues those in trouble in urban/suburban as well as other environments. Note: A Technician credentialed only in the Search aspects is a Wilderness Search Technician. A Technician credentialed only in the Rescue aspects is a Wilderness Rescue Technician. A Technician credentialed in both SAR aspects is a Wilderness SAR Technician.

The long list of requirements to be a Wilderness Search Technician (which is a position qualification) includes (in order):
Fulfillment of requirement(s) as stated in the following standard(s):
1. MRA 105 Operational Level; or ASTM F-2209 or NASAR SAR Tech II; or equivalent
2. NFPA 472 HazMat Awareness and/or OSHA 1910.120(Q)(6)(i), HazMat Awareness Training or equivalent basic instruction on responding to and operating in a CBRNE incident
3. Bloodborne/Airborne Pathogens per OSHA
4. DOI AM B-3 or equivalent
5. OSHA 1910.120 and/or 1910.134(f) Respiratory Protection
and 30 more numbered requirements.

Wilderness SAR "unit leaders" and "managers" include in their requirements SAR Tech I and the course "Managing Lost Person Incidents" or equivalent.

Most of the SAR types and position qualifications include this statement, printed in red:
This resource type is currently under revision and will be updated. The current version may not be applicable to some agencies and organizations.

FEMA resource typing will be a [continuing] topic of discussion at the state SAR coordinators meeting in June.

Mike

[LTC Don]

The discussion on CAPTalk from five years ago:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9737.0


ASTM F2209-14:
http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2209.htm

F2209 in the old thread was version 10 (10 being the year of adoption).

Regardless, #1 clearly states "or equivalent".  CAP GTM is not equivalent on any level since there isn't any serious missing person content. If anyone has the actual copy of F2209, it would be worth a look to see how close F2209 and SARTECH II are.

'MRA 105 Operational Level' is Mountain Rescue Association and Operational Level is the individual level of response capability meaning, "Can respond and act at a minimal level, such as first responder with general knowledge and basic abilities." (Say, CAP GTM3/2.) Mountain SAR Technician would be CAP GTM1/GTL.

Oh, and apparently, AFRCC is listed as a founding member of the MRA.   

"OR EQUIVALENT" can go both ways.  To keep the discussion on topic, it would be easy peasy to again, kill the existing GTM/GTL SQTRs in current form, and create a new, modular system whereby, after much knashing of teeth, SARTECH II OR ASTM F2209, OR MRA Operational Level are accepted as the baseline ground team member eligible for SAR deployment and simply add 'modules' (tasks) as endorsements relevant to the type of SAR being performed be it aircraft SAR or missing person SAR.

Hate it, Love it, Curse it; NASAR SARTECH II is a nationally recognized set of credentials.  CAP GTM credentials are not.  Our members pay good money, spend a ridiculous amount of time training, then don't get deployed. The system needs to be overhauled and the process should have started over six years ago BEFORE the 121.5 system was turned off 'cuz, you know, running around looking for non-distress ELT's is such a great use of time and resources. 

[sardak]

F2209 in the old thread was version 10 (10 being the year of adoption).

Regardless, #1 clearly states "or equivalent".  CAP GTM is not equivalent on any level since there isn't any serious missing person content. If anyone has the actual copy of F2209, it would be worth a look to see how close F2209 and SAR TECH II are.

I'll answer as the ASTM F-32 Committee on SAR technical POC for F2209 up to the 2014 version, and the former NASAR-ASTM Standards Liaison (both were volunteer positions).  In theory, ASTM F2209 and the search component of SAR TECH II are a 100% match. In reality, they're "very close." Changes are supposed to be made to both in lock-step, but there is always some difference because they belong to two different organizations and the processes for change are different. ASTM SAR standards also split search and rescue into two separate disciplines but that's a fuzzy line in SAR TECH. F2209 is "Standard Guide for Training of A Land Search Team Member." There are no rescue skills included or required.

The key to F2209 and equivalency is included in para. 4.8 of the scope:"[T]he guide can be used to evaluate an existing training program to see if it meets the requirements of this guide." So CAP could take its GT program, compare it to F2209 and adjust the program accordingly. CAP could then make the statement that its ground team training program "complies with ASTM F2209," the same as SAR TECH II. This was suggested during the revamping of CAP ES which created CAPR 60-3 and the SQTR system.

One comment regarding ASTM standards. ASTM doesn't write standards, it provides the administrative support for standards development. Standards are written by task groups within committees, which are made of up members of the industry, and committee membership is open to anyone. One doesn't even have to join a committee to work on a task group, only to vote on new or revised standards.

For an historical perspective, NASAR asked ASTM in 1987 to create a SAR standards committee. It wanted its products recognized as industry accepted consensus standards, not self-proclaimed standards.  This opened up the process to those outside NASAR. SAR TECH was "reverse engineered" into an ASTM standard. Not everyone in NASAR was happy with this approach and there is still grumbling about it today.

Mike

[Storm Chaser]

National has been working on new or revised SQTRs and Task Guide for a while. I wonder if they have something to add to this discussion.