Ground Team Leaders in Training

[Spam]

Mike, I bow to the awesomeness of your "Reg-Fu"!

Seriously, you nailed that requirements chain and caught my mistakes, insofar as my memory and my incomplete archive of obsolete CAP regs will support it. (Note, you've got to agree to join my aircraft design team as a senior Systems Engineer - your understanding of how to do a chained/nested requirements trace is superb).

Now, where nested/chained requirements may be a necessary evil for advanced stealth fighters, WHY do we require this sort of thing for amateur SAR/DR volunteers to have to painfully piece together? WHY do we have to have a cadet PT manual written with undergrad level physio material, when it all should be written at a 9th grade reading level, in one coordinated, short, package?

"Excellence in All We Do", forsooth. Is anyone at NHQ reading this, to make this an action item for the publications project?

Bueller? Bueller?

V/r
Spam

[sardak]

(Note, you've got to agree to join my aircraft design team as a senior Systems Engineer - your understanding of how to do a chained/nested requirements trace is superb).

Sorry, Spam, BTDT. I learned that as a structures engineer in your LockMart cousin that flew big things that didn't have wings.

Mike

[Spam]

(Note, you've got to agree to join my aircraft design team as a senior Systems Engineer - your understanding of how to do a chained/nested requirements trace is superb).

Sorry, Spam, BTDT. I learned that as a structures engineer in your LockMart cousin that flew big things that didn't have wings.

Mike

Hah! I sensed a kindred engineer there! You worked across the base at the Ministry of Massive Machines (C-5) didn't you?

[sardak]

You worked across the base at the Ministry of Massive Machines (C-5) didn't you?

Negative, but we did use the services of C-5s.

cousin that flew big things that didn't have wings.

Mike

[Storm Chaser]

Also (and I was waiting until I could dig this up), per this PDF on the NHQ Ops site, GBDs can remotely supervise trainees remotely. However, I strongly advise this capability be used with discretion. This is better to do when the GTL trainee has all tasks and one sortie done, just needs a second sortie, and is otherwise proven safe and semi-effective in the field. I would not do this with a green GTL trainee with few tasks and no prior sorties, if for no other reason than someone's going to ask a lot of hard questions if something bad happens. It's way easier to justify with a near-finished trainee than a brand new one.

https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/QUALIFIED_SUPERVISOR_CHART_887FF22488458.pdf

I'm not sure if that's an oversight or what, but as an IC1, I would never send a GTL trainee to the field without another qualified GTL on the team. It doesn't make any sense, not even for renewals. Especially now, that a GBD doesn't even have to be a qualified or expired GTL, but only UDF (something else that makes no sense).

If we want to be taken seriously as an organization with ES capabilities, we need to train to the highest standards possible and not try to find shortcuts. Our SQTRs and Task Guides are simple enough, yet we can't even follow them when we train and sign people off. We have way to many folks that can barely do the job as it is. Let's make sure we're training them well and providing adequate supervision.

[sardak]

Here's the exact wording from the chart.
ICs, Section Chiefs, Branch Directors, and Communications Unit Leaders are allowed to serve as supervisors of remote personnel for documentation of qualifications, but should not do so unless they can verify that tasks were actually accomplished.

But the supervisor has to consider this:
CAPR 60-3 para. 1-17(b)(3) Ground teams will not be released without a qualified ground team leader and at least three qualified ground team members or supervised trainees.

Mike

[Spam]

That chart isn't promulgated by a current, signed CAPR or -M, so I'm afraid I'm not obligated to observe it (nor will I accept it).

Makes no sense: I won't accept "documentation of qualification" (whatever that means) from some one that may or may not have been SET qualified for the referenced specialty, and wasn't there to observe them perform the referenced task to the require task/condition/standard.

Makes even less sense: I won't qualify someone as GBD without ever having done the tasks that they now will be called on to direct teams upon. This leaves us open to liability based on negligent qualification and appointment of inexperienced staff to leadership and management operational positions.


V/r
Spam