New SQTR ideas

[usafcap1]

If you could come up with new SQTRs, what would you come up with?

Thank you

[lordmonar]

Do you mean....a new form, a new set of tasks for an existing rating, or do you mean a new rating all together?

[Spam]

For GTM ratings:


Since we now have more than a decade of training GTMs under the current SQTRs, I feel we need to re-look at the required Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) required for the three tiers of Ground Team mission capability. I think we need to llower some barriers to entry for GTM3s, and improve the standards for GTM2/1/GTL by reserving prep/fam tasks for those tasks which are ORM/safety related, by functionally grouping task blocks,  and by shifting technical training to advanced training. Rationale: we need to keep the prep/fam item list SHORT, to encourage progress, and focused on signing people off with complete awareness of field risks, from cold and hot weather injuries to O-601 actions on being lost (aka hug a tree), etc.


1. Lower barriers to initial qualification and improve risk prevention for GTM3*s:
Revise GTM3 top half to concentrate on true safety related tasks, excluding any requiring evaluations on field or overnight activities (i.e. modify the current Field Sanitation task, which mandates observation on an FTX). Convert any such tasks to classroom training only. Rationale:  enables top half completion of all safety related prep/fam tasks BEFORE exposing the trainee to a risk environment in the field, as an ORM best practice. Move O-201 to GTM2; the O-201 use a compass task makes no sense up front, before the trainee is exposed to map reading or any other land nav principles, and more importantly, providing the use a compass task right next to the actions when lost task could confuse some of our trainees to believe they can self-navigate themselves out of a situation when lost (when we really want them to sit their asses down safely, be visible/audible, and await contact).  (Re; *actual missing cadet mission in MDWG, years ago, where he wandered off a compass course on an FTX).




2. Realign GTM 3/2/1 tasks into functionally grouped training blocks to support fielded tiers of capabilities, as an improvement over the current mix: 
GTM3 - basic strike team membership, with basic subsistence and logistics skills
GTM2 - all advanced technical training, including land nav, radio, DF, missing person, and canine SAR work.
GTM1 - all team management and leadership training.

Rationale: first, require/assume that all teams will be led by GTLs that have demonstrated mastery of nav, comm, and team management.  As such, the massive GTM3 basic team member SQTR could be cut down to focus training on basic field subsistence, logistics, and safety and basic non electronic strike team skills (i.e. grunt labor, litter carry etc.). GTM2 should be the block to add full technical SAR/DR skills to include all the ICUT and radio tasks, electronic search, land nav, working with dog teams and helos, missing person clues, etc. and GTM1 should focus only on team planning and leadership tasks as trainees naturally progress towards team leader roles (move 401 dog teams and 703 to GTM2, for example, and move 102 recall roster as a team alerting task up to GTM1, and actually move 104 Setup Shelter down to GTM3 as a basic logistics task).

Examples of functionally grouped tasks needed at the GTM3, 2, and 1 level, would be to remove the current scatter shot presentation of certain topics. For example, (to tail onto the previous example), an integrated Land Navigation block for GTM2 should first present the map reading series (O209 and subsequent) currently in the GTM2 block, then add the O-201 Use a Compass, which makes no sense in its current GTM3 prep/fam block. I believe that all Communications items should be centered in GTM2, inclusive of both ICUT and tactical comm tasks. I believe that the 301 and 302 tasks (ELT search) also need to be moved as a block to GTM2 technical training



3. Improve GTL training prerequisites.
Having seen some really piss-poor GTL* knowledge, skills and abilities over the past decade, I believe our current GTL standard prerequisite of GTM3 is too low. Coupled with the above task block restructuring, I would want to see GTM2 (full technical training) as the prerequisite, then have GTL*s progress with a reduced AT block which functionally mirrors the GTM1 block. I've seen far too many GTL*s on exercises who had only two practice missions as GTM3* and are paddling too hard to stay afloat since they went into their GTL training cycle with an incomplete initial skills set, and their lack of ability slows down team sorties/progress.



4. As for new tasks for these SQTRs, I believe we do have a hole for training clue conscious searching. I'm going to be working this month to correct what sounded like bad training at the AL/GA joint SAREX fiasco last weekend where some of my people were directed to tramp through the fields in a line search for a missing person right off the bat, obscuring sign and scent (with no discussion of containing the search area, segmentation/Mattson consensus, dog team use, etc.). But, I've seen VFDs and paid fire and police/EMS do the same stupid things...  I also think we should look at DR-specific tasks, as our missions shift away from electronic SAR towards those types of missions. For example, ground photo marking/xmit to mirror the AP tasks.



Just some initial thoughts on lunch time. Eventually I'd thought to come up with a matrix of suggested coverage for tasks. Would like to be in the mix again for any national level review.


V/R,
Spam

[JeffDG]

directed to tramp through the fields in a line search for a missing person right off the bat, obscuring sign and scent (with no discussion of containing the search area, segmentation/Mattson consensus, dog team use, etc.).

I would disagree wholly with this comment.

GTM/GTL really don't need to be involved in "Search Theory" type things (containment, Mattson consensus, segmentation, etc.)  That's a planner/staff role to determine what they need the team to do to maximize PoS, particularly on an exercise.  It could well be that that the exercise scenario had determined those factors and decided that the best use of resources was a line search.  That determination is, at the lowest level, one for the GBD, and more likely for the planning section, to determine, not the team on the ground.

[usafcap1]

Do you mean....a new form, a new set of tasks for an existing rating, or do you mean a new rating all together?

Brand new

[LTC Don]

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... 

[lordmonar]

Brand new......

Tactical Air Liaison. 

A GTM type rating but aimed more at imbedding a CAP member with other SAR/DR/LE teams help coordinate air to ground operations with CAP assets.

On the GTM front.

I would go the other direction.    Only have one GTM rating.   One GTL and One GOBD.

I would beef up the Fam skills and remove all the leadership skills from the GTM rating.
I would use UDF as the entry prereq for GTM....and use the UDF as the prereq for the PSC ground skill.

[JeffDG]

I would use UDF as the entry prereq for GTM....and use the UDF as the prereq for the PSC ground skill.

UDF is already permitted for PSC prereq (I know, I used it!).

If it became a prereq for GTM, then it would pretty much become SOP.

[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.

[JeffDG]

Brand new......

Tactical Air Liaison. 

A GTM type rating but aimed more at imbedding a CAP member with other SAR/DR/LE teams help coordinate air to ground operations with CAP assets.

I like that idea a lot.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Spam]

directed to tramp through the fields in a line search for a missing person right off the bat, obscuring sign and scent (with no discussion of containing the search area, segmentation/Mattson consensus, dog team use, etc.).

I would disagree wholly with this comment.

GTM/GTL really don't need to be involved in "Search Theory" type things (containment, Mattson consensus, segmentation, etc.)  That's a planner/staff role to determine what they need the team to do to maximize PoS, particularly on an exercise.  It could well be that that the exercise scenario had determined those factors and decided that the best use of resources was a line search.  That determination is, at the lowest level, one for the GBD, and more likely for the planning section, to determine, not the team on the ground.

I do not disagree with your disagreement (grin)!   Good comment, Jeff.

I should have qualified that remark, certainly. I have low certainty that any such planning took place for that referenced mission, given other info I have. As a GBD, I would have given such background info as part of a tasking brief, which didn't happen there, because I do believe that poorly planned and executed threat laydowns like this "just go walk through the field" scenario lead to false senses of security, i.e. "We are masters of the missing person mission" blind spots.  The great bulk of our core business is that niche capability for missing aircraft air/ground coordination and (decreasingly) electronic SAR. Perhaps we need to either ramp up our SQTRs for GBD (and maybe GTL) to ensure that we are fielding proper resource typed teams, or stop pretending like we know so much about missing person searches?


Moving to a SARTECH based curriculum could help address that, and I really do like Lordmonars liason idea a great deal. As I say, A/G coordination is a core mission capability, so adding that on top of a SARTECH based GTM would be akin to adding an AP rating onto an MO rating.


Good thread, actually. I like the ideas y'all come up with.

V/R,
Spam

[usafcap1]

Thank You Spam! I've been debating on posting this thread for a pretty long time. Thank you I do appreciate the good feedback from everyone.

What about something like Loadmaster I've heard this one multiple times around. Since we have Cessna 206s and GA8 Airvans we could support more transport missions during disasters. With the proper training this could happen especially during a disaster and areas in need of supplies and resources.

This would be a great idea and possibly even training members to  perform light loadmaster duties or in the air force, as an assistant or something.

[sarmed1]

Brand new......

Tactical Air Liaison. 

A GTM type rating but aimed more at imbedding a CAP member with other SAR/DR/LE teams help coordinate air to ground operations with CAP assets.

...

You (and I ) have thrown this one out in the past..... I yet agree

Equally, in the past as well, I have urged to re-eval for a Field Disaster quaification.

As as NASAR SARTECH, I support and disagree with the idea at the same time.  Even though it has become easier to become and evaluator, it still looks to be in part about putting money into the instructor/evaluators pocket.  CAP qualification ability shouldnt be tied to someone else's check book.  If there is a better agreement between NASAR and CAP, I wouldnt have such a hard feeling about that one.

mk

[NC Hokie]

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.

[lordmonar]

CAP qualification ability shouldn't be tied to someone else's check book.  If there is a better agreement between NASAR and CAP, I wouldnt have such a hard feeling about that one.

mk

Hence the point about cost sharing with NASAR.    We find out how much they want for each class taught and then we pay it.  With out the evaluator getting compensated.   

I can be done.

[sardak]

NASAR only charges a fixed certification fee which is clearly posted on their website. Stated on the same page is this:

NASAR charges a published certification fee for courses and certifications.  All NASAR instructors and evaluators are independent contractors, and may charge additional fees for courses and examinations.

The above is nothing new. There is no requirement to take a course from NASAR to take the certification exam, and the cost of the exam includes one retest. The cost of the exam is the only fee NASAR requires. That's how it's worked for years.

You don't like putting money in someone else's checkbook? Two choices - negotiate with the instructor or become an instructor and don't charge your students. The system for becoming an instructor was changed several years ago to make it easier. You can't argue over the certification fee, but a national organization might be able to negotiate.

CAP signed a new MOU with NASAR in November, 2013. Unfortunately, the heads of both organizations at the time have since left. Rumor is that CAP wants to (re)begin work with NASAR  to have something more than just two pieces of paper.

Just by coincidence, NASAR announced today a new organization which separates education and certification.
----------------------------
There have recently been two driving forces that NASAR has used as agents of reorganization.  The first is that ASTM recently released F3069-14, which is "The Standard Guide For Requirements For Bodies That Operate Certification Programs In The Field Of Search And Rescue."  This guide implies the separation between education and certification, and the new NASAR organization splits those education and certification between two director level positions.

Second, NASAR is positioning itself for efficiency, increased product quality and continued professional development.  With the Education and Certification positions focused on growth and efficiency, the new Director level Professional Standards position will be working on the quality of our programs, instructors and evaluators as well as the professional development of those positions.
------------------------
It might behoove CAP to look at that ASTM standard, too.

Since it's much easier and fun on CAP Talk to wonder/discuss/complain why something is the way it is (and this NASAR discussion comes up at least once a year) rather than simply look it up directly or use Google, here's the link: http://www.nasar.org/education

Mike

[sarmed1]

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

[sarmed1]

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

[Garibaldi]

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.