Last night we worked on ground-to-air signaling. I opened the GT Task Guide and used the page of signals to build a bunch of scenarios. The ground pounders were teamed up and told to figure out what would be the best signal to use for each scenario and create it on the floor with their gear. Then the Scanner trainees would circle the signal and tell me what they would radio in.
Here's what I noticed: some of the line signals from the GT Task Guide are different from the GT Reference Text and the Air Crew task guide. The GT Ref & Aircrew text match each other though. Also there's no mention in either GT manual of Paulin signals, which are in the Aircrew texts.
First, has anyone noticed this before? Also, what's the best way to correct this within our unit so we can make sure we work well together? And what would be the proper way to notify the powers that be and see about a fix?
(http://www.eurekaville.com/yay_images/signals.gif)
You just did.
Things that make you say, "Hmmmmm..." ???
Left hand meet Right hand. Play nice.
Meh, I'm not sure how useful the signals are in any event.
WIWAC, I can't tell you the number of times I made the "double chevron/double V" signal in various SAR exercises, and never once received the required arms and ammunition. >:(
Quote from: Ned on January 11, 2012, 05:37:58 PM
Meh, I'm not sure how useful the signals are in any event.
True. I'm not sure how often these signals are ever used, but there's the "just-in-case" factor.
Quote from: Ned
WIWAC, I can't tell you the number of times I made the "double chevron/double V" signal in various SAR exercises, and never once received the required arms and ammunition. >:(
LOL!
That seems pretty significant to me. In my opinion it would be worth an email through the chain to Lt. Col. Desmarais, NHQ/DO. Your wing might have someone sitting on the curriculum working group, mine does. It might be worth asking around about.
All that aside, I (since I'm the only one I speak for) usually don't work with aircraft I can't talk to over the radio, YMMV but I would say their chances of needing them are slim.
The only ones I stress in my training are the distress and "survival" markings.
The "I" for require medical assitance.
The "Y" and "N" for answering questions if you have RX only.
The "arrow" to mark what direction you are traveling.
The rest are prettly useless IMHO.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 11, 2012, 06:08:56 PM
That seems pretty significant to me. In my opinion it would be worth an email through the chain to Lt. Col. Desmarais, NHQ/DO. Your wing might have someone sitting on the curriculum working group, mine does. It might be worth asking around about.
All that aside, I (since I'm the only one I speak for) usually don't work with aircraft I can't talk to over the radio, YMMV but I would say their chances of needing them are slim.
Lt Col Desmarais was notified, he is aware of it and it will be addressed in the next revisions.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 11, 2012, 06:43:26 PM
Lt Col Desmarais was notified, he is aware of it and it will be addressed in the next revisions.
Cool! Do you happen to know what the projected date for those revisions is? I'm not too worried about it, as it is something that's not going on frequently. My bigger hope for the next rounds of revisions would be that the GT Reference Text matches more closely to the Task Guide in the way the MART & Aircrew Task Guide does.
Quote from: Walkman on January 11, 2012, 06:58:19 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 11, 2012, 06:43:26 PM
Lt Col Desmarais was notified, he is aware of it and it will be addressed in the next revisions.
Cool! Do you happen to know what the projected date for those revisions is? I'm not too worried about it, as it is something that's not going on frequently. My bigger hope for the next rounds of revisions would be that the GT Reference Text matches more closely to the Task Guide in the way the MART & Aircrew Task Guide does.
I do not, when John and I traded emails on the issue this morning, he did not give a time line.
For the record, the signals shown in the GT Task Guide are current, correct and the only signals shown in the International Aeronautical and Maritime SAR (IAMSAR) Manual, which the US adopted by convention.
The ones from the Aircrew Guide are old ones. But since the old ones are floating around everywhere (do a Google search), they need to be shown for reference. The Aircrew Guide needs to be updated to show the current meaning for X and to add the V.
As for their usefulness, or lack thereof, you never know when we're going to look for a plane from some developing country that somehow managed to crash in the US, and the survivors only know the international symbols. ::)
Mike
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 11, 2012, 06:59:35 PM
I do not, when John and I traded emails on the issue this morning, he did not give a time line.
Thanks for shooting that message to him to quickly!
Quote from: sardak on January 11, 2012, 07:01:30 PM
For the record, the signals shown in the GT Task Guide are current, correct and the only signals shown in the International Aeronautical and Maritime SAR (IAMSAR) Manual, which the US adopted by convention.
The ones from the Aircrew Guide are old ones. But since the old ones are floating around everywhere (do a Google search), they need to be shown for reference. The Aircrew Guide needs to be updated to show the current meaning for X and to add the V.
Good info to know. I'll pass it along to the class. Thanks!
This has been known in the NESA circles for some time, but I'm not sure why it hasn't been addressed yet.
IIRC, the G-to-A signals in the Aircrew reference text are from old (outdated) FAA training materials, while the GSAR training materials used the IAMSAR standards. I believe that is where the discrepency stems from