I understand there's a lot of disrespect for CAP Rangers and Hawk Mountain in general. I get it. I've received the full blast of elitist Ranger Staff when I attended Summer Hawk. Hear me out on this one.
As a Ground Team Leader, with a quick glance I would personally take someone with a Ranger Tape over a Ground Team badge. I would do this simply because I know the cadet or senior with the Ranger Tape has been through very tough training whereas a Ground Team Member may have sat in an AC room for a few minutes repeating material just to get the rating. Ground Team training exercises vary greatly in strictness, difficulty, realism, etc. "Ranger Sanctioned" activities have very high standards and especially for something like Summer Hawk is very mentally demanding as well. I know for a fact a cadet or senior with a Ranger Tape has proved that he or she can function in high stress situations.
Yes, it can lead to an elitist attitude. But it is the job of a leader to get rid of such an unhealthy attitude for the sake of said elitist cadet. All I am saying is that a CAP Ranger, despite the reputation of the Mountain, knows what he or she is doing. Someone with a GT badge may or may not know the material or may have gone through very easy training to get such a qualification.
Thanks for reading.
That's quite an opening shot at the rest of the world, isn't it.
As an experienced GBD and former MC/IC, I would want to review your mastery of CAP ground ops, to question where you got your assumption that rated GTMs are so rated on the basis of sitting in an air conditioned room for "a few minutes repeating material".
If you truly are as much of a high speed GTL as you seem to think you are, then you'll realize on reflection that you've painted a very dismissive and inaccurate picture of the national process of verifying not just knowledge based but performance based compliance to Task/Condition/Standard, and with a very broad and nasty brush stroke, at that. No GTM may be rated without field skills demonstration, despite your impressions to the contrary.
"Elitist", indeed! And you wonder where the lack of respect is bred? In comments like yours.
- Spam
The extra tasks that it takes to get R3 are not that difficult (some PT, tie a few knots, 2 mile hike). I'm not sure how completing these makes a person more qualified to do a ground mission. I'm not knocking the Ranger program and I am a CAP Ranger myself but I don't see a huge value when it comes to real missions. I have only been part of 3 actual missions and it seemed like the non-Rangers performed better than the Rangers.
Quote from: therealfirstsergeant on December 12, 2017, 04:10:16 PM
...All I am saying is that a CAP Ranger, despite the reputation of the Mountain, knows what he or she is doing.
Like the PAWG Ranger I had with me on a mission years ago who literally stopped an entire search operation to check out a cool snake in the middle of the road? Yeah, no thanks. As a GTL and GBD, your Ranger tab means only one thing to me; you have completed an NCSA. I will not take a PAWG Ranger over another member of equal real qualifications just because they are a ranger.
Posts like yours which show such a disregard for national standards and your fellow CAP members is why everyone hates PAWG Rangers. If you had just been a silent professional, you might have earned more respect, but now you've likely lost it all in the eyes of everyone here.
I've been waiting for one of these posts for a while. Seems past due. My opinion of CAP Rangers on real world missions outside of PAWG is poor, but this may be sampling bias also. My experience with them during my time in PA unfortunately is limited since I only went on one sortie with a group of CAP Rangers. They seemed on par with most of GTMs I've met over the years. More spirit for running through the woods, but knowledge and skills were virtually equal, not superior.
Next...
Quote from: Pace on December 12, 2017, 05:40:36 PM
I've been waiting for one of these posts for a while.
+1 Expect more with Christmas vacation looming.
This isn't a defense of Ranger tapes, but a shot across the bow at Ground Team members.
Quote from: Pace on December 12, 2017, 05:40:36 PM
I've been waiting for one of these posts for a while. Seems past due. My opinion of CAP Rangers on real world missions outside of PAWG is poor, but this may be sampling bias also. My experience with them during my time in PA unfortunately is limited since I only went on one sortie with a group of CAP Rangers. They seemed on par with most of GTMs I've met over the years. More spirit for running through the woods, but knowledge and skills were virtually equal, not superior.
Next...
Even inside of PAWG... ;D
Although I've enjoyed my times at Hawk Mt., there isn't any practical difference in performance between those that have(forgive my philly speak) "wit or witout"... as far as real mission skills are concerned. Hawk teaches "extra" skills that, I seriously doubt, will be needed in today's environment.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on December 12, 2017, 06:22:38 PM
This isn't a defense of Ranger tapes, but a shot across the bow at Ground Team members.
A shot across the bow that chipped the paint on the railing.
I must've come across in the wrong way. Apologies!
All I am saying is very generally across the board, a CAP Ranger is more likely to have difficult field experience than a Ground Team Member. If you know a GTM guy in your squadron is better at SAR than a Ranger in your squadron, then by all means pick the GTM guy. I'm just saying very generally that if you need to quickly get a group of good GSAR cadets or seniors together, than it may be a better option to take a Ranger qualified cadet/senior than a GTM.
Quote from: therealfirstsergeant on December 12, 2017, 08:08:17 PM
I must've come across in the wrong way. Apologies!
All I am saying is very generally across the board, a CAP Ranger is more likely to have difficult field experience than a Ground Team Member. If you know a GTM guy in your squadron is better at SAR than a Ranger in your squadron, then by all means pick the GTM guy. I'm just saying very generally that if you need to quickly get a group of good GSAR cadets or seniors together, than it may be a better option to take a Ranger qualified cadet/senior than a GTM.
No, No, and NO... Generalizations aside, most MC's, and Ground Ops Directors know who their best qualified personnel are. Just pick them and prosecute the mission. ;)
Quote from: therealfirstsergeant on December 12, 2017, 08:08:17 PM
I must've come across in the wrong way. Apologies!
All I am saying is very generally across the board, a CAP Ranger is more likely to have difficult field experience than a Ground Team Member. If you know a GTM guy in your squadron is better at SAR than a Ranger in your squadron, then by all means pick the GTM guy. I'm just saying very generally that if you need to quickly get a group of good GSAR cadets or seniors together, than it may be a better option to take a Ranger qualified cadet/senior than a GTM.
Still no. I haven't seen any real difference between the performance of a GTM versus a CAP Ranger. I generally see less of an attitude from the GTM which makes the whole team function better. The last thing I want on a mission is a person (cadet or SM) running around telling everyone how they are better qualified because they are a Ranger. Knowing how to tie knots, build a fire, etc. are great skills but they rarely help in finding a missing person or ELT.
Quote from: therealfirstsergeant on December 12, 2017, 08:08:17 PM
I must've come across in the wrong way. Apologies!
All I am saying is very generally across the board, a CAP Ranger is more likely to have difficult field experience than a Ground Team Member. If you know a GTM guy in your squadron is better at SAR than a Ranger in your squadron, then by all means pick the GTM guy. I'm just saying very generally that if you need to quickly get a group of good GSAR cadets or seniors together, than it may be a better option to take a Ranger qualified cadet/senior than a GTM.
Not on its own, not really. You need to have a broader picture of someone's experience and training. I'm going to use my son as an example because it both illustrates the point and I'm awfully proud of him. My son is a NESA grad, a Hawk Mountain grad, a PJOC grad, SARTEC II qualified, working on his Expert Ranger, and actively teaches his fellow cadets GTM skills. He's had a good balanced perspective and carries the confidence that training has provided but without the elitist attitude that so many Rangers are known for. He doesnt look down his nose at others with less training, he uses it as an opportunity to teach and share his experience.
It's all about attitude and being a team player in ES. The training just backs up that confidence. It's his maturity that he builds off of so that he's teaching his fellow cadets what he knows instead of snorting in derision at anyone who doesn't have a ranger strip above their pocket. His NESA background gave him a standardized experiencethat all his other Ground experience and training is built off. His Hawk experience gives another perspective and adds a few more tools into the toolbox. His PJOC experience has given him the physically challenging experience that Hawk can only dream about providing. It's also given him the long term motivation to keep himself very physically fit. His SARTEC training has given him standardozed training for ES missions that outside agencies can understand when they dont know what a GTM3 means.
That's the kind of person you want on your ground team. Not because he has an Advanced Ranger strip above his pocket. Rather, because he has a wide spectrum of training, integrates himself into a team as a team player, and wants to help others bring their experience and training up to the same level. Every NCSA out there brings its own set of experiences to the table. Anyone who thinks that you should go to one and avoid the others is full of hooey. Go to as many as possible and bring the best attributes from each into your ES toolbox and be the most well-rounded Ground member you can be.
As a separate point, you're actually going to be better off with a ground team member that also has aircrew qualifications rather than just a ranger strip. Having someone in your grount team that can speak pilot language, understand what SAR operations look like from the air, and knows exactly how to coordinate with aircraft will be infinitely more valuable to you than someone who has a Ranger 3rd Class qualification. Ditto for any aircrew member with cross training in ground ops.
Glad to see CAPtalk still handles opinions that differ from their groupthink well. Can't imagine a world where everyone thinks for themselves.
What OP is trying to assert is that a ranger tab shows that this person at a bare minimum has had some field experience. There's no way to know whether someone with GTM3 on their 101 Card has actually demonstrated capability on the tasks needed, or if their SQTR was signed off because they happened to be found in a room that had a ground team class going on. Having graduated HMRS at least guarantees that they have participated in something resembling CAP field ops.
Yes, regulations require task demonstration, but not everyone follows regulations. You may be lucky enough or oblivious enough to have never noticed a GTM mercilessly pencil whipped through their quals and set up for failure, but others of us have not been as fortunate.
The true question is which is worse: dealing with a "certified" GTM who should be placed nowhere near a mission, or dealing with the infinite wisdom and humility of a HMRS grad.
What "field experience" does a Ranger tab indicate?
Quote from: waukwiz on December 13, 2017, 12:00:44 AM
The true question is which is worse: dealing with a "certified" GTM who should be placed nowhere near a mission, or dealing with the infinite wisdom and humility of a HMRS grad.
What you're seeing is most certainly not group think, but other opinions based on experience with HMRS grads with horrible attitudes. I can say that if you made me pick between those two options blindly without taking into consideration other factors like age, maturity, grade, etc; my answer is easily the pencil-whipped, non-ranger GTM. Here's why: they follow instructions. Period. I don't have to argue with them to follow orders. I don't have to worry if they're agreeing to my face then doing what they think is best behind my back. Been there. Done that. Been burned. I can teach knowledge or a skill a lot more easily than I can break a bad attitude. I know the program is getting better with the attitudes. As long as anyone comes out of Hawk thinking themselves superior to non-Hawk GTMs, this problem and stigma will exist. The training is clearly consistent, which is the real point, but the attitude is more of a burden than the skills are worth.
Quote from: kwe1009 on December 13, 2017, 12:14:12 AM
What "field experience" does a Ranger tab indicate?
Quotehands-on experience in navigation, team mobility, search operations, crash site procedures and survival skills. Students will also have an opportunity to rappel on our 60+ foot tower. The students then will take part in a 3-day mission to have the skills learned evaluated. In this search exercise, the schools culminating event, the students will take part in real world scenarios and perform realistic rescues. Students will train through the Ranger 3rd Class and into Ranger 2nd Class skills. Ground Team Member Level 3 & 2 skills will also be evaluated.
https://www.capranger.org/basic-ranger-course
Quote from: waukwiz on December 13, 2017, 12:00:44 AM
Glad to see CAPtalk still handles opinions that differ from their groupthink well. Can't imagine a world where everyone thinks for themselves.
What OP is trying to assert is that a ranger tab shows that this person at a bare minimum has had some field experience. There's no way to know whether someone with GTM3 on their 101 Card has actually demonstrated capability on the tasks needed, or if their SQTR was signed off because they happened to be found in a room that had a ground team class going on. Having graduated HMRS at least guarantees that they have participated in something resembling CAP field ops.
Yes, regulations require task demonstration, but not everyone follows regulations. You may be lucky enough or oblivious enough to have never noticed a GTM mercilessly pencil whipped through their quals and set up for failure, but others of us have not been as fortunate.
The true question is which is worse: dealing with a "certified" GTM who should be placed nowhere near a mission, or dealing with the infinite wisdom and humility of a HMRS grad.
Your kidding right? This is a form of satire prose????
OP, I'm gonna be as nice as I possibly can. You know nothing.... And a great example on why I choose to not have anything to do with ES in any aspect and do not advocate it.
There is nothing taught at HMRS that will make anyone who attends it better at GT or CAP in general. I can tell you that if I had a choice between you and someone else, I'll take someone else who has a some grounding and a good head on their shoulders. Most people who talk the talk end up not walking the walk. There is no level of "field experience" that will make you better period. The only thing I have seen ever to come out of HMRS is unauthorized bling and elitist attitudes.
This is the type of attitude that also tells outside players we are not worth using for missions. I know that it I were a Sheriff somewhere and CAP wanted to play and demonstrated this type of attitude it would not only a no but "Hell no".
There is no defense or excuse for this type of attitude.
Quote from: waukwiz on December 13, 2017, 12:00:44 AM
Glad to see CAPtalk still handles opinions that differ from their groupthink well. Can't imagine a world where everyone thinks for themselves.
What OP is trying to assert is that a ranger tab shows that this person at a bare minimum has had some field experience. There's no way to know whether someone with GTM3 on their 101 Card has actually demonstrated capability on the tasks needed, or if their SQTR was signed off because they happened to be found in a room that had a ground team class going on. Having graduated HMRS at least guarantees that they have participated in something resembling CAP field ops.
Yes, regulations require task demonstration, but not everyone follows regulations. You may be lucky enough or oblivious enough to have never noticed a GTM mercilessly pencil whipped through their quals and set up for failure, but others of us have not been as fortunate.
The true question is which is worse: dealing with a "certified" GTM who should be placed nowhere near a mission, or dealing with the infinite wisdom and humility of a HMRS grad.
"groupthink"? good word. LOL
As a former Pa Wing Commander, who sat through the process of "rewriting" the book on the HMRS program, I think I can make an opinion of what the caliber of training is,and its practical application. The OP's statement is not based in reality. "Field experience" is a relative term. I am not criticizing the experience of the Hawk Mt. Schools. In fact I enjoyed the experience, and think the members who participate get some good knowledge. Practical experience, however is something else. I have found, from experience, that members trained in other venues may be as good or better during a real mission.
Thank you, Colonel.
I think that about covers the tower fly-by.
Click.