Ground Team Leaders in Training

My squadron does not have a qualified GTL yet. Can we deploy with a GTL in training though?

"Composition of the ground team, urban DF team, or Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) will vary depending upon the assignment. Ground teams will not be
released without a qualified ground team leader and at least three qualified ground team
members or supervised trainees. "   -From 60-3

How about a loophole to this?

Thank you

No.  You must have a fully qualified GTL on the sortie.  The GTL Trainee may be in charge, but there has to be someone to supervise the Trainee.

You can have GTM Trainees under the supervision of a GTL, which is what your cite means.

You must have a GTL, either trainee or fully qualified. If a trainee, the GTL must be supervised by a qualified GTL, preferably a SET who can also sign them off.

Incidentally, if getting a qualified person to supervise locally is an issue, NESA has a ground team leader school week 2 of the academy. It is a great way to get exposure to a variety of concepts and searches in a relatively short period of time. Check out nesa.cap.gov for more.

You must have a GTL, either trainee or fully qualified. If a trainee, the GTL must be supervised by a qualified GTL, preferably a SET who can also sign them off.

Don't miss that last part - if you're in "learnin' mode", fine, but if you don't have a GTL in the unit and have to go shopping anyway,
don't miss the opportunity to have the person challenge the tasks.  More then once this issue has come up and everyone gets the sad face.

A couple other things - if you're building local capabilities, in all but the most extreme exceptions, your new GTL won't be able to sign anyone off
for at least a year after he's qualified.

And there is a 1-3 trainee ratio for SETs, which would include the other members of the team.  In a perfect world you'd prefer to
not have a trainee GTL along with a bunch of trainee GTMs - just makes everyone's life harder, but regardless you can't exceed 1-3.

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 agree 100% - honestly, I have no idea how yo can ascertain is someone should be leading
a team looking to save a life via phone.

^ I agree 100% - honestly, I have no idea how yo can ascertain is someone should be leading
a team looking to save a life via phone.

It's more useful for renewals than trainees but it's there and I've been the beneficiary of it before.

My squadron does not have a qualified GTL yet. Can we deploy with a GTL in training though?

"Composition of the ground team, urban DF team, or Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) will vary depending upon the assignment. Ground teams will not be
released without a qualified ground team leader and at least three qualified ground team
members or supervised trainees. "   -From 60-3

How about a loophole to this?

Thank you

The fact that you're looking for a loophole makes me automatically say negative on that. Now, you won't like to hear this, but you need to, because I'd love to see you do it right, because lives and safety could depend on it:

From a holistic standpoint, if your entire unit is in building mode for fully mission qualified personnel, you need to step back and first evaluate your priorities. If you truly want to embrace our core values (including "Excellence in All We Do", you'll accept that you need to stop aiming for the lowest bar, and stop looking for loopholes in obviously clearly stated regulations.  Right from the start, your unit needs to take the time to Do It Right The First Time, or you'll perpetuate the trend towards accepting crappy performance in CAP (this isn't finding easier ways to do the job - you're specifically looking for ways to skip out on the work). Sorry, but you need to hear that push back.

Which means accepting some of the very positive suggestions offered here, from (a) sending your GTL* to NESA or to one of the other fine in-residence schools, to (b) forming a partnering relationship with the best available SET-Qualified GTLs/GBDs around there to team up with them as their padawan learners.

To stay with the weak Star Wars analogy, don't try to be Anakin Skywalker, rushing the training and looking for a way around the regs and trick the system, which is based on many many years of trial and painful error in training Jedi Masters.  Because safety of life and limb could be at risk (and necause many of us have seen the halfass GTLs make dangerous calls), good Squadron/Group/Wing DOSs will not send or approve weak qual packages - and yes, as such in the past I have actually taken the time to look up the cited AFAM numbers, check the sign in logs in WMIRS, and call the listed mission staff to verbally check and confirm the claimed levels of supervision, tasking, and competence cited. Often with embarrassing results for the unit, submitting commander, and the individual. So: do it right - first time quality.

Speaking as a GBD/GTL SET, and former WG/DOS.

V/r
Spam

^ I agree 100% - honestly, I have no idea how yo can ascertain is someone should be leading
a team looking to save a life via phone.

It's more useful for renewals than trainees but it's there and I've been the beneficiary of it before.

Ah, that chart... thanks for posting this. I'd forgotten about that chart (which is non regulatory as far as I can tell?). It bothers me from a couple of standpoints.

First, it "covers" (insofar as it isn't directive in nature) only supervision, not SET-qualified endorsement, so it is inadmissible as far as I can see for the purposes of claiming training credit for a sortie ("hey, why wont the DO accept my mission sortie on 17M1234 under the non-GTL/SET qualified GBD?").

Second, it makes confusing statements about "supervision", conflating supervision to training in some respects without clearly reinforcing the SET qualification requirement. In the first asterisk'd note, it states: "For example, a ground team member level two can supervise a ground team member level three or two, but not a ground team member level one". So, why in the world would I care, were I the GTL of such a team? A fully qualified GTM1 should be able to blow his own nose without supervision - this is a stupid statement, unless the author thinks that his table here is setting forth requirements for a GTL to EVALUATE FOR (RE)QUALIFICATION, vice simply supervising a member for safety.

Bottom line: nowhere does it even mention the approved process requiring SET qualified evaluation - NOT "SUPERVISION". Thus, the purpose and validity of this standalone table are, to me, blown. I don't see it as a loophole, as it isn't apparently an approved directive in any series.


(Yes, before y'all start, I know where it came from... twenty or thirty years ago, an earlier version of this table used to be printed in the back of the old CAPM 50-15 operations training manual, when 50-15 was ops training, 50-16 was cadet training, and 50-17 was senior training). It made for a simpler lookup table for simpler times, but now it is just "simplistic", and inaccurate and misleading w.r.t. the approved process).

V/r
Spam

My squadron does not have a qualified GTL yet. Can we deploy with a GTL in training though?

"Composition of the ground team, urban DF team, or Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) will vary depending upon the assignment. Ground teams will not be
released without a qualified ground team leader and at least three qualified ground team
members or supervised trainees. "   -From 60-3

How about a loophole to this?

Thank you

The fact that you're looking for a loophole makes me automatically say negative on that. Now, you won't like to hear this, but you need to, because I'd love to see you do it right, because lives and safety could depend on it:

From a holistic standpoint, if your entire unit is in building mode for fully mission qualified personnel, you need to step back and first evaluate your priorities. If you truly want to embrace our core values (including "Excellence in All We Do", you'll accept that you need to stop aiming for the lowest bar, and stop looking for loopholes in obviously clearly stated regulations.  Right from the start, your unit needs to take the time to Do It Right The First Time, or you'll perpetuate the trend towards accepting crappy performance in CAP (this isn't finding easier ways to do the job - you're specifically looking for ways to skip out on the work). Sorry, but you need to hear that push back.

Which means accepting some of the very positive suggestions offered here, from (a) sending your GTL* to NESA or to one of the other fine in-residence schools, to (b) forming a partnering relationship with the best available SET-Qualified GTLs/GBDs around there to team up with them as their padawan learners.

To stay with the weak Star Wars analogy, don't try to be Anakin Skywalker, rushing the training and looking for a way around the regs and trick the system, which is based on many many years of trial and painful error in training Jedi Masters.  Because safety of life and limb could be at risk (and necause many of us have seen the halfass GTLs make dangerous calls), good Squadron/Group/Wing DOSs will not send or approve weak qual packages - and yes, as such in the past I have actually taken the time to look up the cited AFAM numbers, check the sign in logs in WMIRS, and call the listed mission staff to verbally check and confirm the claimed levels of supervision, tasking, and competence cited. Often with embarrassing results for the unit, submitting commander, and the individual. So: do it right - first time quality.

Speaking as a GBD/GTL SET, and former WG/DOS.

V/r
Spam

Yes, I agree totally. Soon we already plan on sending the senior member for GTL training BUT, in the meantime if a mission rolls out, how can we respond? I guess for know we will find another GTL. Thank you.

If I knew you were near us, I'd love to have y'all train with us (and with our local partner units).

Suggest practically that you start swapping alert info with other local units, and pre-authorize selected member deployments in the case of alerts. Not all trainees are ready to deploy on every actual. Not every partner unit GTL (or MP) will feel comfortable with assuming responsibility for trainees on actuals.

But, starting that conversation now with them would preclude a bunch of problems and disappointment some evening in the future.

Best regards and good luck,
Spam

Yes, I agree totally. Soon we already plan on sending the senior member for GTL training BUT, in the meantime if a mission rolls out, how can we respond? I guess for know we will find another GTL. Thank you.

Is your unit being alerted or tasked directly with mission work?

A lot of wings just alert generally and people report in, or call up via reports from Ops Quals.  It would be fairly unusual
for a Wing to contact a unit for resources they don't have.

If I knew you were near us, I'd love to have y'all train with us (and with our local partner units).

Suggest practically that you start swapping alert info with other local units, and pre-authorize selected member deployments in the case of alerts. Not all trainees are ready to deploy on every actual. Not every partner unit GTL (or MP) will feel comfortable with assuming responsibility for trainees on actuals.

But, starting that conversation now with them would preclude a bunch of problems and disappointment some evening in the future.

Best regards and good luck,
Spam

I wish I was too.  Unfortunately im in Alaska wing and as you know, produces problems.
Im currently the SAR instructor and ill have 8 GTM3 but no leader, so.....

[fixed quote]

My squadron does not have a qualified GTL yet. Can we deploy with a GTL in training though?

"Composition of the ground team, urban DF team, or Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) will vary depending upon the assignment. Ground teams will not be
released without a qualified ground team leader and at least three qualified ground team
members or supervised trainees. "   -From 60-3

How about a loophole to this?

Thank you

The fact that you're looking for a loophole makes me automatically say negative on that. Now, you won't like to hear this, but you need to, because I'd love to see you do it right, because lives and safety could depend on it:

From a holistic standpoint, if your entire unit is in building mode for fully mission qualified personnel, you need to step back and first evaluate your priorities. If you truly want to embrace our core values (including "Excellence in All We Do", you'll accept that you need to stop aiming for the lowest bar, and stop looking for loopholes in obviously clearly stated regulations.  Right from the start, your unit needs to take the time to Do It Right The First Time, or you'll perpetuate the trend towards accepting crappy performance in CAP (this isn't finding easier ways to do the job - you're specifically looking for ways to skip out on the work). Sorry, but you need to hear that push back.

Which means accepting some of the very positive suggestions offered here, from (a) sending your GTL* to NESA or to one of the other fine in-residence schools, to (b) forming a partnering relationship with the best available SET-Qualified GTLs/GBDs around there to team up with them as their padawan learners.

To stay with the weak Star Wars analogy, don't try to be Anakin Skywalker, rushing the training and looking for a way around the regs and trick the system, which is based on many many years of trial and painful error in training Jedi Masters.  Because safety of life and limb could be at risk (and necause many of us have seen the halfass GTLs make dangerous calls), good Squadron/Group/Wing DOSs will not send or approve weak qual packages - and yes, as such in the past I have actually taken the time to look up the cited AFAM numbers, check the sign in logs in WMIRS, and call the listed mission staff to verbally check and confirm the claimed levels of supervision, tasking, and competence cited. Often with embarrassing results for the unit, submitting commander, and the individual. So: do it right - first time quality.

Speaking as a GBD/GTL SET, and former WG/DOS.

V/r
Spam

Yes, I agree totally. Soon we already plan on sending the senior member for GTL training BUT, in the meantime if a mission rolls out, how can we respond? I guess for know we will find another GTL. Thank you.

Do you have seniors who are UDF qualified? Depending on the tasking they can be sent out. 

I'm not 100% sure but can't a UDF team deploy without a GTL?

From 60-3:

(3) Composition of the ground team, urban DF team, or Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) will vary depending upon the assignment. Ground teams will not be released without a qualified ground team leader and at least three qualified ground team members or supervised trainees. Urban DF teams will not be released with less than two personnel and CERTs will not be dispatched with less than three personnel. There is not a separate qualification for members and leaders on Urban Direction Finding Teams and CERTs, but one member will be placed in charge. All ground operations must still meet the requirements for cadet protection and vehicle usage. Ground resources will not self-dispatch; they must be properly released, even remotely via phone or other means if necessary, and noted appropriately on mission documents. Signatures are not required on the CAPF 109, Ground Team Clearance, but the CAPF 109 must note who briefed and released the crew accordingly.

Continuing from my post above, in theory you could deploy two UDF members without a GTL, keeping in mind they are not trained for wooded penetration. Depends on the mission.

I'm not 100% sure but can't a UDF team deploy without a GTL?

Correct, UDF is a separate qual and not related to GT / GTL.

If you're looking for an aircraft in an urban area, UDF is always a valid choice, but as you say, you may wind up
with a "all stop" if the path leads off the tarmac.

And of course for a missing person they are of no value unless that person happens to be wearing a tracker.

Ah, that chart... thanks for posting this. I'd forgotten about that chart (which is non regulatory as far as I can tell?). It bothers me from a couple of standpoints.

Here’s where it’s regulatory/directive authority comes from. The chart was in the 2001 and 2004 editions of CAPR 60-3. The 2004 version was superseded by the 2009 version which includes this in the Summary of Changes “This revised regulation is 14 pages shorter than the previous version. To accomplish that, some of the sections from the previous CAPR 60-3 are now posted online on the NHQ CAP/DOS website.” The chart was one of the items moved to the website and the text of the reg, including the current 2012 version, in several places refers the reader to the website, where the stand-alone chart resides. Knowledgebase Answer ID: 1839 concerning evaluation and supervision also refers to the sections of 60-3 which reference the website.

First, it "covers" (insofar as it isn't directive in nature) only supervision, not SET-qualified endorsement, so it is inadmissible as far as I can see for the purposes of claiming training credit for a sortie ("hey, why wont the DO accept my mission sortie on 17M1234 under the non-GTL/SET qualified GBD?").

Your interpretation is correct. It only shows who can supervise who, and doesn’t address evaluation/credit because supervision and evaluation are two separate functions. 60-3 para. 2.2.b. states “Trainees can still participate in training or actual missions as allowed on their CAPF 101 if working under qualified supervisors as outlined on the NHQ CAP/DOS website. If the supervisor does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2-2a [SET qualification], the trainee WILL NOT receive credit for training towards qualification. This is not meant to prevent experienced people, members or not, from teaching and educating members, only that formal task completion must be certified by qualified evaluators to receive credit.”

(Yes, before y'all start, I know where it came from... twenty or thirty years ago, an earlier version of this table used to be printed in the back of the old CAPM 50-15 operations training manual, when 50-15 was ops training, 50-16 was cadet training, and 50-17 was senior training). It made for a simpler lookup table for simpler times, but now it is just "simplistic", and inaccurate and misleading w.r.t. the approved process).

The table from 50-15, 1 Feb 96, is titled “Interchangeability of Specialty Qualification Ratings.” It only shows what specialties a member can perform in if qualified in another. For example it shows that a GTL can also perform as a radio operator, GTM, or GES. It doesn't mention supervision or evaluation of others.

Mike

Ah, that chart... thanks for posting this. I'd forgotten about that chart (which is non regulatory as far as I can tell?). It bothers me from a couple of standpoints.

Here’s where it’s regulatory/directive authority comes from. The chart was in the 2001 and 2004 editions of CAPR 60-3. The 2004 version was superseded by the 2009 version which includes this in the Summary of Changes “This revised regulation is 14 pages shorter than the previous version. To accomplish that, some of the sections from the previous CAPR 60-3 are now posted online on the NHQ CAP/DOS website.” The chart was one of the items moved to the website and the text of the reg, including the current 2012 version, in several places refers the reader to the website, where the stand-alone chart resides. Knowledgebase Answer ID: 1839 concerning evaluation and supervision also refers to the sections of 60-3 which reference the website.

The issue with the above is that the allowance for external references to be updated separate from a regulation was removed with the recent inexplicable changes to 10-2 (now 1-2).

If anyone can explain why the governing documents of what is ultimately a relatively simple organizaiton have to be read like
a non-linear murder mystery, I'd be open to that conversation. We all know what the intent here is / was, yet time and again the failure to
coordinate regulation updates causes unintended consequences or makes the simple complex.

And why do you take pages out of one electronic document, thus creating a second electronic document, to make the first one shorter? What was the intent (shorter is not a valid reason) and what was accomplished?

Mike

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

(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

(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?

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

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.

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

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