Wy are Mission Pilots better trained at airfield ELT searches than GT or UDF?

RiverAux · April 25, 2009, 01:51:14 AM

A lot of people still don't know that Mission Pilots are required to be able to locate an ELT on the ground. I had never looked very closely at that particular task O-2007, but I was surprised to find that the Mission Pilots are better trained at finding an ELT on an airport than our Ground Team or UDF members.

Compare:
GT/UDF Task 302 is to find a distress beacon from at least 200 meters. It could be in the woods or in an urban environment, but thats all the guidance they provide.

Mission pilot Task 2007 is to locate a beacon in an aircraft inside a hanger. The task brief goes into quite a bit of detail specifically about ELTs and specifically talks about where on the aircraft you can find them and goes into more depth about short-range ELT searching than the GT task.

Interestinly, there are some discrepancies between what we tell the GT/UDF folks to report to AFRCC and what we tell the pilots to report.

Shouldn't we be teaching and testing everybody the same way for this task?

es_g0d · April 25, 2009, 01:55:07 AM

Yes, of course we should. I think we'd all agree on the reasons (which I detailed earlier today in another thread).

There is an unfortunate chasm between air and ground training, and even within air training itself. We're at about year 12 or 13 of the "new" ES curriculum project, and probably need an audit for several reasons. Foremost of these is compliance with Federal law and directives, and second to ensure uniformity amongst ourselves.

The only real questions are "who" and "how."

sardak · April 25, 2009, 04:08:07 AM

The revisions to the original ESCP are right around the corner. In fact, the first revision to the as yet unpublished new 60-3 is in the "Publications for Comment" section on the national website.

Mike

RiverAux · April 25, 2009, 12:46:12 PM

Are they going to put the task guides out for comment?

es_g0d · April 25, 2009, 06:06:27 PM

More importantly, WHO, specifically, is THEY?

ol'fido · April 25, 2009, 06:55:20 PM

Does the UDF task guide still require that you be able to navigate by terrain association but not require that you be able to identify symbols and features on the map like the one I saw several years ago? Much logic with that.

sardak · April 27, 2009, 05:09:52 AM

^^^^
Yes, the old UDF tasks include
O-0218 Locate Own Position On A Map Using Terrain Association
but NOT
O-0209 Identify The Major Terrain Features On A Map
O-0210 Identify Topographic Symbols On A Map
O-0211 Determine Elevation On Map $:-\$
As for the new ones...

QuoteAre they going to put the task guides out for comment?
More importantly, WHO, specifically, is THEY?

Don't know about the task guides since I'm not one of the chosen ones, but I sure hope so. As for "THEM," at least one is a CAPTalk member - his signature line says so.

Mike

es_g0d · April 27, 2009, 07:46:27 AM

I'm sincerely concerned about the identity of these 'government top men' .... (shameless Indiana Jones reference)

maverik · April 27, 2009, 11:42:48 PM

really it's the NESA people who develop the curriculum as far as SQTRs etc.

sardak · April 28, 2009, 12:12:09 AM

NESA has been used as a test facility for SQTRs and such, and provides feedback. The actual development of SQTRs and the rest of the ES program is not done by the staff of NESA. Plenty of members very experienced in ES have never been to NESA.

It would be nice to know who is on the current development team. That information was published when the current ES program was developed, but hasn't been with the current rewrite.

Mike

ol'fido · April 28, 2009, 12:48:00 AM

I had a friend who is currently a KC-135 IP, a Spaatz recipient, and the former cadet chief of SERE training at the USAFA review the survival portion of the Ground Team TG. He said that the best use that could be made of that section was to use the pages as tinder to start your fire. Other than that, he felt it was pretty much useless.

RiverAux · April 28, 2009, 02:52:22 AM

It is good enough for our purposes. About the worst our GT have to train for is being accidentally stranded in the woods overnight. The training we have is adequate for that.

JayT · April 28, 2009, 02:59:24 AM

Quote from: olefido on April 28, 2009, 12:48:00 AM
I had a friend who is currently a KC-135 IP, a Spaatz recipient, and the former cadet chief of SERE training at the USAFA review the survival portion of the Ground Team TG. He said that the best use that could be made of that section was to use the pages as tinder to start your fire. Other than that, he felt it was pretty much useless.

Yeah, but how often will the average CAP ground team be stranded? Air crews are another matter, but how much survival training do civilian pilots recieve?