Ground Team Handbook vs. Task Guide

[C/2d Lt]

Is the Ground Team Members handbook the same as the Task Guide?

[arajca]

No. The Task Book lists the tasks that and scoring criteria for each task on the GT SQTRs (GTM3, 2, 1, GTL, UDF). The Handbook has the detailed information needed for each task.

OR

The Taskbook is the test, while the Handbook is the textbook.

[C/2d Lt]

Where can I find the handbook online?

[Eclipse]

http://www.nesa.cap.gov/gsarcurr.htm#

There are two separate, related documents.

Ground Team and Urban Direction Finding Team Tasks. http://www.nesa.cap.gov/curriculum_material/GSAR/G&UDFTG.pdf
This is the one required to be carried on your person, and contains the detailed taskings and the SQTRs.  In most cases the
information contained in this document is enough to complete the training.  It contains primarily bullet-point-type information.

Ground Team Member & Leader Reference Text: http://www.nesa.cap.gov/curriculum_material/GSAR/GTRT.pdf
(Which includes, at no extra charge, a woefully outdated, improperly scaled and and terribly pixelated insignia on the cover.)
This contains much more detail and generalized information about the topics covered in GTM & UDF training.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

While the taskbook has pretty much what you need to pass the tasks, I wouldn't think of it as an end all be all for the task. There is much more information that you need, much finer points of training that should not be passed up. You really need an instructor, someone who really knows what they are doing and can really give collected answers. There is a LOT more to search clued for a missing person.

[ol'fido]

Yes, you should carry the Task Guide on your person during a search. If for some reason you need to start a fire, the pages make good tinder. Be sure you keep it dry.

[huey]

By the way, how can a person qualified for a GTM 3? Can do it at the unit or have to go to NESA?

[Eclipse]

By the way, how can a person qualified for a GTM 3? Can do it at the unit or have to go to NESA?

By demonstrating the skills required by the SQTR tasks to the satisfaction of a qualified SET and participating
in two SET-supervised missions, training or actual.

NESA participation is not a requirement, nor a guarantee of completion.

[ol'fido]

By the way, how can a person qualified for a GTM 3? Can do it at the unit or have to go to NESA?

By demonstrating the skills required by the SQTR tasks to the satisfaction of a qualified SET and participating
in two SET-supervised missions, training or actual.

NESA participation is not a requirement, nor a guarantee of completion.

"NESA participation is not a requirement, nor a guarantee of completion."

Nor a guarantee of any competence whatsoever.

[LGM30GMCC]

Unfortunately, until CAP takes how we handle our evaluations much more seriously no school, training, sign-offs or anything will be a guarantee of any competence. I think we do a horrible job screening/training instructors and evaluators. What the answer is I'm not exactly sure but I suspect it would include a lot more top-down oversight of some kind.

[capes]

By the way, how can a person qualified for a GTM 3? Can do it at the unit or have to go to NESA?

By demonstrating the skills required by the SQTR tasks to the satisfaction of a qualified SET and participating
in two SET-supervised missions, training or actual.

NESA participation is not a requirement, nor a guarantee of completion.

"NESA participation is not a requirement, nor a guarantee of completion."

Nor a guarantee of any competence whatsoever.

I you think NESA is incompetant, why don't you go over there and help?  I know Col Long and the other Commandants would be happy to have the help.....

[SarDragon]

By the way, how can a person qualified for a GTM 3? Can do it at the unit or have to go to NESA?

By demonstrating the skills required by the SQTR tasks to the satisfaction of a qualified SET and participating
in two SET-supervised missions, training or actual.

NESA participation is not a requirement, nor a guarantee of completion.

"NESA participation is not a requirement, nor a guarantee of completion."

Nor a guarantee of any competence whatsoever.

I you think NESA is incompetant, why don't you go over there and help?  I know Col Long and the other Commandants would be happy to have the help.....

He said nothing of the kind. He is saying that a member can attend NESA, and still leave without passing the course, due to his own inadequacies. Kind of like leading a horse to water, but he won't drink.

[Eclipse]

He said nothing of the kind. He is saying that a member can attend NESA, and still leave without passing the course, due to his own inadequacies. Kind of like leading a horse to water, but he won't drink.

Knowing Randy, I don't think that was what he was saying.

[Luis R. Ramos]

SarDragon-

It is a matter of reading.

I also interpreted ol'Fido's message as Capes did. And I am sure many more would have interpreted it the same way.

I hope that not many do. Although I have not attended, I am pretty sure the staff is very dedicated and believe in what they do. And take good care in teaching the necessary skills.

Unfortunately that is a problem with the written media. Sometimes one does not intend a message be interpreted in a certain way but it is. There are some other cues missing such as tone of voice, visual cues, and other stuff that I am sure you all know about, that do not come through in this type of communication...

Flyer

[SarDragon]

Here's the post again, my emphasis:

"NESA participation is not a requirement, nor a guarantee of completion."

Nor a guarantee of any competence whatsoever.

Just because some one attends, there is no guarantee that they will leave with the intended skills and knowledge. I think the statement is pretty clear. There is no allusion at all to the competence of the school staff.

[Luis R. Ramos]

After reading both SarDragon's and Eclipse's messages, Ol'Fido's quote can also be interpreted as "even if they participate and attain the required qualifications, there are no guarantees of trainee's ability to carry out the job." But I agree there was no jibe intended at NESA's staff competence.

Flyer

[husker]

I you think NESA is incompetant, why don't you go over there and help?  I know Col Long and the other Commandants would be happy to have the help.....

I always have a chronic shortage of good, qualified senior members to help out in the NESA GSAR program.  It is not an easy staff billet - the hours are long, the days are stressful, and there is very little free time for either staff of students during the sessions.  It is, however, one of the most rewarding activities out there.  If anyone is interesting in coming this summer and working, please do let me know.

As an aside, NESA applications will be done through E-Services this year, vice the separate application system used in the past.  NHQ is working on getting the applications up now. 

[ol'fido]

Well, since I'm the one that made the original "controversial" statement, then I should be the one to explain my post. Thanks, Dave, for the support.

1. I did not intend to disparage the staff at NESA. Having worked at summer encampment for the 14 of the last 15 years, I know the work that it takes to put on a week or longer activity. Kudos to the folks that go there year after year and are dedicated to teaching the students the right way.

2. Having said that, I have my problems with the current ES curriculum which I have stated many times on this forum. I believe that the current format for training encourages a "minimalist" attitude when it comes to training. You cannot do the absolute minimum to get GT3 or any other ES qualification and then say "Got it! Done". Just because one has graduated from NESA, NBB, PJOC, or HMRS does not mean that one is the be all end all. I have 30 some odd years of doing this and I don't know it all or pretend to. If you go to an ES school and think there is nothing more to learn after you graduate, then you have learned nothing whatsoever. I have run into graduates of all the previous mentioned schools that had that attitude. Qualified does NOT equal competent.

3. We as an organization need to take a top to bottom look at what we are teaching every few years. My favorite for instance is on the UDF curriculum where we require that a UDF trainee be able to navigate by terrain association but don't require them to be able to identify symbols on a map which is a requirement for GT. Kind of have to be able to do one to do the other there, folks. I would like to see a curriculum which includes much more information on every subject area especially fieldcraft and survival. I would also like the testing and qualification to be a combination of the current program and the amateur radio licensing program where you have a "pool" of tasks that you may be tested on for each level of the GTM/GTL progression. This would eliminate the "I got the minimum done. I can forget all this stuff now that I'm qualified. I'm done training." attitude.

I hope this clarifies my previous post for most of you.