Ranger teams

[commando1]

Lately I have heard of several "Ranger" teams starting up in surrounding units. What exactly is the difference between a ground team and a "Ranger" team? Would it not only create elitism within a unit? Please, someone enlighten me about this phenomenon! 

[EMT-83]

There is no such thing as a "Ranger Team" in CAP.

Not ever.

[stillamarine]

FLWG has ranger teams....If I recall correctly they are organized as rapid response teams to natural disasters, such as hurricanes and the like.

[commando1]

 EMT-83 Perhaps not officially... ...stillamarine...I believe that would fall under the duties of a Ground Team... 

[♠SARKID♠]

Lately I have heard of several "Ranger" teams starting up in surrounding units. What exactly is the difference between a ground team and a "Ranger" team? Would it not only create elitism within a unit? Please, someone enlighten me about this phenomenon! 

Its a morale title, nothing more.

[FlyTiger77]

Lately I have heard of several "Ranger" teams starting up in surrounding units. What exactly is the difference between a ground team and a "Ranger" team? Would it not only create elitism within a unit? Please, someone enlighten me about this phenomenon! 

Its a morale title, nothing more.

Hmmmmmmm....Then perhaps "Thunderbird Teams" might be more appropriate. At least they would then be drawing their boosted morale from something based in the Air Force.

[JC004]

Hasn't this crap been discussed here a million times?  I'm sure there are more than enough search results on this.   

[DakRadz]

Hasn't this crap been discussed here a million times?  I'm sure there are more than enough search results on this.   

Smiley officially stolen, sir.

Ranger teams? Seriously?
The very nature of such teams of any name of this type is the antithesis of what they are named after.

Ever heard of the "quiet professional"? Well, that's been my experience with both SpecOps-types and regular 4-year PFC "did my time proud and got out" vets. Announcing themselves as Rangers or vets (to me, who is a 3 time cadet and plans to join- and knows them pretty well) doesn't happen much. And not in such a blatant way.

PAWG Hawk Mountain have the potential to actually reflect this attitude in their graduates- I've witnessed that quiet professional a few times. Due to the facilities and resources at Hawk Mt. I give them this credit- the quiet professional graduate of Hawk could do a lot of good.

Others are (generally) merely wanting to-
Bling themselves well up, chaps, I say.

[fyrfitrmedic]

 I find myself wondering if there shouldn't be a Captalk version of Godwin's Law somewhere...

[a2capt]

In keeping with the theme of things .. it should be called Goddard's Law ...

[♠SARKID♠]

Others are (generally) merely wanting to-
Bling themselves well up, chaps, I say.

Isn't it though.

[stillamarine]

EMT-83 Perhaps not officially... ...stillamarine...I believe that would fall under the duties of a Ground Team... 

Sigh.

Yes I understand Ground Teams.

FLWG at least for awhile had preformed ground teams set up for rapid response. I'm pretty sure they were called Ranger teams. These ground teams were designed to be able to deploy together within a specific amount of time and they deployed as a team.

How often are you able to get the same group of members together in a short amount of time? Not to mention the same ones all the time?

[sarmed1]

Florida has "Recon Teams" and it used to have Disaster Response and Ground Teams that were Special Operations capable.  They are/were to handle the State OEM recon mission (damage assessment); 4 person team, 72 hours self sustainig sheltered in place in the impact area to provide visual recon of the damage, and transmit back to the EOC accurate and hopefully photo supported data of the severity of damage to local infrastructure.

PAWG's Ranger Program teaches the Ranger Team Concept: and it is reflected in their draft ES supplement (and I say draft, since it isnt an approved supplement at this time, even though its how most units structure themselves)
So the theory goes:
A ranger team is a 12 person SAR/DR team capable of self sustaining operations for 72 hours.  Capable of performing ELT/DF search, aircraft crash operations, missing person search & rescue, emergency first aid, radio communications,  and low angle rescue.  There is something about any terrain and any season in there too I think.  It spells out specific assignemnts for team members as well, also breaks teams down into specific capabilites based on the level of training of the team members.....both in  skill sets and equipment needs. (like the whole NIMS level I, II & III teams)

I would say unless you are in PA where it is pretty much the rule of the land, anything else is just going for elite sounding name. (unless your wing has chosen to hop on the band wagon and has an actual "Ranger" program)

mk

[JC004]

First, a statement of facts to address the issue of those who seem to think the term is something made up recently to create elite units.  When the idea of CAP ground teams was first coming to be, PAWG established Ranger Teams, set up training, published a manual - all that stuff.  The name pre-dates the national concept of ground teams, so it's wasn't something made up to make elite units on top of ground teams.  It has been used nationwide in different programs, most of which have been closed over the decades. 

Second, to give credit where credit is due - I used to have a copy (maybe still do) of the first ranger manual published by PAWG.  It, for decades, was the first comprehensive SAR training materials in CAP (and quite good - I got it as a kid before I was in CAP and learned a lot about outdoors things) that I've been able to find in any of my CAP history digging.  I didn't dig for this specifically, but it seems to be the case from what I've seen. 

Lastly, think what you will about it, but I just wanted to mention what is actually the history here.  There are, in all likelihood, units starting up "Ranger Teams" for elite-sounded purposes, but I think that even if you're going to hate something, you should know the history and facts.  I don't care to be in the debate over what it should be called today or any of that crap, but I think that people should be informed.  I really don't care - I think we have bigger fish to fry.  I think the PAWG Ranger people do too, since they have to work on what their program will mean in a contemporary CAP since its original advantages were taken from it by NHQ when NHQ adopted many of the concepts like actual sign-off sheets instead of something like the old 101T card with just a number of missions, proficiency testing/renewal of qualifications, a tiered structure of qualifications, etc.  When I joined, we had a CRAP ES program with crap training and crap a sign-off system.  I used the ranger qualifications in my unit to train my people to a standard since CAP didn't have one.  After CAP adapted real standards and training materials, we didn't really use that program anymore and used the National program, but that is how we and our unit CC decided to do things.

[stillamarine]

Florida has "Recon Teams" and it used to have Disaster Response and Ground Teams that were Special Operations capable.  They are/were to handle the State OEM recon mission (damage assessment); 4 person team, 72 hours self sustainig sheltered in place in the impact area to provide visual recon of the damage, and transmit back to the EOC accurate and hopefully photo supported data of the severity of damage to local infrastructure.

PAWG's Ranger Program teaches the Ranger Team Concept: and it is reflected in their draft ES supplement (and I say draft, since it isnt an approved supplement at this time, even though its how most units structure themselves)
So the theory goes:
A ranger team is a 12 person SAR/DR team capable of self sustaining operations for 72 hours.  Capable of performing ELT/DF search, aircraft crash operations, missing person search & rescue, emergency first aid, radio communications,  and low angle rescue.  There is something about any terrain and any season in there too I think.  It spells out specific assignemnts for team members as well, also breaks teams down into specific capabilites based on the level of training of the team members.....both in  skill sets and equipment needs. (like the whole NIMS level I, II & III teams)

I would say unless you are in PA where it is pretty much the rule of the land, anything else is just going for elite sounding name. (unless your wing has chosen to hop on the band wagon and has an actual "Ranger" program)

mk

THank you. Recon teams is the name. I stated in my first post that I thought they were called ranger teams but I was wrong. Let me say this, if so many people get upset at them being called Ranger teams than why don't people get upset with them being called Recon Teams? As an old 0321, I don't find it offensive myself.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If it doesn't offend actual Army Rangers that we have in CAP, then why make a stink of it anyways? Even if it does offend actual Army Rangers why the stink isn't a CAP term of Ranger different than an Army term of Ranger? If you were to call (not saying it should be or would be justified) regular Ground Teams Infantry, I know I wouldn't be offended, Even if I were in CAP the term Infantry would mean a different thing than the Army term of Infantry. Simple as that. If CAP has a history of the use of the term Ranger then I think we should get back to it to preserve the history and tradition. Progress for the sake of progress isn't always a good thing, sometimes you lose what is dear to some. I love history and tradition and think as much as possible should be kept.

[arajca]

The problem with CAP Ranger teams comes from Hawk Mountain and the mostly negative experiences the members have had with it's graduates.

If you want to talk history, you need to take the good AND the bad. When members come back from Hawk, NBB, etc and decide (or have been told) they're special or elite simply because of that training and refuse to work with anyone who hasn't had the same training, you have a problem. BTDT.

If Hawk rangers were the 'quiet professionals' they proclaim to be, these problems wouldn't occur. But they aren't - at least not in my experiences with them. I know folks will defend Hawk, NBB, etc to their dying breath that they tell the students how to behave, but given the results I have seen, it doesn't work.

[JC004]

What sort of people do you play with?  None of the people I've known who went to NBB behave like this.  Being located in PAWG, I know enough people who did the Hawk program to have a pretty diverse view of them and they do as people do - behave in different ways according to their personality.  Some are my friends.  Some are not.  Various people from there got my unit and me situated when I started putting together an ES program.  I was not in their program and they worked with me.  Neither was anyone else in the unit at the time.  So I didn't see them refusing the work with the outsiders.  Some, however, would according to their personalities.  The program has also been different over the years with different staff people.

I'm not involved with that program.  Even when I taught classes there and things, I didn't really do the grade thing (except as an starting-out cadet since there wasn't another program).  So I'm not pushing it and I don't care to play with the constant arguments here that NEVER CHANGE but people repeat over and over and over and over in new and different threads.  Perhaps, though, people should find solutions instead of doing the same old arguments of either "they're evil," or "they're good."

[FlyTiger77]

If it doesn't offend actual Army Rangers that we have in CAP, then why make a stink of it anyways? Even if it does offend actual Army Rangers why the stink isn't a CAP term of Ranger different than an Army term of Ranger? If you were to call (not saying it should be or would be justified) regular Ground Teams Infantry, I know I wouldn't be offended, Even if I were in CAP the term Infantry would mean a different thing than the Army term of Infantry. Simple as that. If CAP has a history of the use of the term Ranger then I think we should get back to it to preserve the history and tradition. Progress for the sake of progress isn't always a good thing, sometimes you lose what is dear to some. I love history and tradition and think as much as possible should be kept.

From my perspective, words have meaning. Calling a cow a duck won't make it quack. I don't think CAP's use of the term 'Ranger' is as much offensive as it is just a bit silly, in my opinion. Obviously, every one is entitled to their own opinion and this one is merely mine.

[arajca]

Hosetly, I can't say if they've changed in the past few years since everytime I see one headed my way, I leave. My experience is they aren't worth talking to, so I don't. YMMV.

[EMT-83]

Sorry, but my experience is the same.

It's really too bad, because Hawk could be a great experience for cadets. I'm just tired of the constant BS with bling, ranger rolls and orange tee shirts.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If a GT calls themselves Rangers, does it really affect you? I couldn't imagine how it would, it may have and effect on your ears, but oh well, are they going against any regulations? So long as no one really puts that "Ranger Tab" on their uniform some of you keep talking about (which I have never even seen a picture of one let alone one in person) let alone wearing a real Ranger Tab above their wing or squadron patch then no real harm done except to someones ego.

So long as they aren't going against regulations by wearing a tab or anything just let it go.

Just walking away from someone because you have a stereotype of someone with certain training just makes you look like a jerk.

[SarDragon]

I was in NJWG WIWAC, not too long after Hawk Mountain started up. On those occasions where there was interaction between the two wings, even back then there was friction because of poor attitudes on the part of Hawk graduates.

The problem has little to do with the Ranger name, and much to do with attitudes. Remember that, attitudes.

[commando1]

 That is exactly the point, attitude. The cadets that really want a "Ranger" team are all GT qualified. They want a cooler title and perhaps some "specialized" PT. All it does IMHO, is promote an elite unit within a squadron, group or wing.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If wanting to use the term Ranger makes them want to train harder cool. It will just do that, cause them to want to train harder and be better at the job.

[arajca]

All it does IMHO, is promote an elite unit within a squadron, group or wing.

That is EXACTLY the problem. When you start having 'elite' teams, they don't want to work with 'non-elite' teams, or will do reluctantly while constantly complaining about not being able to show off their 'eliteness'.

You'll wind up with a team that either gets all the calls so other 'non-elite' teams do not get called or a team that is such a pain in the backside that they never get called. Either way, the notion of CAP as a team fails.

[sarmed1]

You'll wind up with a team that either gets all the calls so other 'non-elite' teams do not get called.....

You had me right there with you until that statement.   I am going to have to disagree a bit there.  We are talking Emergency Services here; ie life and death, this is not some sort of let everyone have a turn, get a pat on the back feel good about yourself excercise.  If there is a team out there, CAP, fire, EMS LE etc etc, that does the job, better, faster or brings better skills and equipment to the table I am going to call them over other mediocre teams..... its about accomplishig the mission and doing to the best interest of the patient, (or whatever setting we are talking) not about making someone feel better about themselves. 
I was once in a squadron that we had that kind of reputation; neighboring wings would call for assistance from our wing and ask for us specifically over other units.  Why? Because we proved that we could do the job, do it better than the next guy and do it consistantly.  It had nothing with being elite, wearing berets, being Rangers or whatever..... we knew our job, were good at it and were respected for it.

mk

[arajca]

I was once in a squadron that we had that kind of reputation; neighboring wings would call for assistance from our wing and ask for us specifically over other units.  Why? Because we proved that we could do the job, do it better than the next guy and do it consistantly.  It had nothing with being elite, wearing berets, being Rangers or whatever..... we knew our job, were good at it and were respected for it.

mk

So, what incentive did other units have to improve to your level since they knew they would never be called upon as long as you were around?

[a2capt]

Bingo. .. when the IC calls on specific teams even, from a specific unit, two things happen. They get burned out eventually, and everyone else nearly, will just say screw it. Why bother, because if you do get "accepted" to their mission, you are usually harshed on, over the air. Questioned, and doubted when you give bearings, intel, etc, back to the IC.

...and yes, another tick for the "I've had to deal with past 'ranger' school attendees thinking they were something that the rest of us were not", and it's not fun.

We've got a lot of interest in ES from the cadets all of a sudden, and I'm going to see about taking advantage of it, at least for training interests sake, for SAREX participation. As for actual missions, it's darn hard to deploy cadets unless their parent/s is/are involved too. Between school (comes first) and having to be "in" earlier in the evening than the rest of us, it does present a challenge.  It's not the 1950s anymore where they would send a cadet ground team up a freezing mountain to a wreck and the school would let them go do it.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Hosetly, I can't say if they've changed in the past few years since everytime I see one headed my way, I leave. My experience is they aren't worth talking to, so I don't. YMMV.

This comes off as unprofessional and a bit petty, and I'm not sure that's how you meant to come off.

[arajca]

Hosetly, I can't say if they've changed in the past few years since everytime I see one headed my way, I leave. My experience is they aren't worth talking to, so I don't. YMMV.

This comes off as unprofessional and a bit petty, and I'm not sure that's how you meant to come off.

If all of your experience with a particular group has been that they are egostical jerks, do you (provided you have the option) keep dealing with them or do you, at some point, decide enough is enough?

[JC004]

Hosetly, I can't say if they've changed in the past few years since everytime I see one headed my way, I leave. My experience is they aren't worth talking to, so I don't. YMMV.

This comes off as unprofessional and a bit petty, and I'm not sure that's how you meant to come off.

If all of your experience with a particular group has been that they are egostical jerks, do you (provided you have the option) keep dealing with them or do you, at some point, decide enough is enough?

How many of these jerks have there been?

[RADIOMAN015]

We've got a lot of interest in ES from the cadets all of a sudden, and I'm going to see about taking advantage of it, at least for training interests sake, for SAREX participation. As for actual missions, it's darn hard to deploy cadets unless their parent/s is/are involved too. Between school (comes first) and having to be "in" earlier in the evening than the rest of us, it does present a challenge.  It's not the 1950s anymore where they would send a cadet ground team up a freezing mountain to a wreck and the school would let them go do it.

All of this "ranger" and ES ground team training is really nothing more than a cadet membership retention tool.  At least here in the NER, the parents of cadets that get involved in this can spend $200+ to equip the cadet to meet all these CAP requirements when it is unlikely the cadets will ever be called out.
My view is to be right up front with the parents & tell them that this is strictly training and it is VERY unlikely (at least in our wing) of ever being called out.  HOWEVER, who knows even 5-10 years down the road a situation may come up where this training may save a life.

It is interesting as to the number of cadets (and of course cadets parents) that are supportive in this training.   

I would agree that at least some individuals that are graduates of "ranger training schools" and even NESA seem to think that they know it all, and that can be dangerous in training as well as any actual missions.
RM

[IceNine]

We've seen this sort of elitist crap in the past.

  The issue isn't with them training together or focusing solely on thier training.  The issue is that when they start to feel "special" they think either the rules don't apply to them, or that they are trained to do it differently.

  What you wind up with is a group of people who have been led to believe they can perform functions outside the scope.  They start to believe that they are medical teams or whatever.  And who's to check them?  They won't let anyone else in, and they aren't going to talk...

If you want to be "elite" train anyone that wants to learn better, faster, harder and help them earn the trust of the staff and commander's that surround them.

[cap235629]

We've got a lot of interest in ES from the cadets all of a sudden, and I'm going to see about taking advantage of it, at least for training interests sake, for SAREX participation. As for actual missions, it's darn hard to deploy cadets unless their parent/s is/are involved too. Between school (comes first) and having to be "in" earlier in the evening than the rest of us, it does present a challenge.  It's not the 1950s anymore where they would send a cadet ground team up a freezing mountain to a wreck and the school would let them go do it.

All of this "ranger" and ES ground team training is really nothing more than a cadet membership retention tool.  At least here in the NER, the parents of cadets that get involved in this can spend $200+ to equip the cadet to meet all these CAP requirements when it is unlikely the cadets will ever be called out.
My view is to be right up front with the parents & tell them that this is strictly training and it is VERY unlikely (at least in our wing) of ever being called out.  HOWEVER, who knows even 5-10 years down the road a situation may come up where this training may save a life.

It is interesting as to the number of cadets (and of course cadets parents) that are supportive in this training.   

I would agree that at least some individuals that are graduates of "ranger training schools" and even NESA seem to think that they know it all, and that can be dangerous in training as well as any actual missions.
RM

Massachusetts is a VERY UNIQUE place in everything.  In this wing, Ground Teams are used just as much as Air Crews.  Our Ground Teams are probably a 50/50 mix statewide.

I moved away from Massachusetts for a reason and every time I read one of your posts it becomes abundantly clear as to what it is...........

[a2capt]

I didn't cite anything about MA, and I hope striking while the iron is hot isn't something 'bad', as .. thats all I was conveying.

[arajca]

How many of these jerks have there been?

10-15. That's the total that I've met.

I know it's a smal percentage, but none I've met have proven otherwise.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Hosetly, I can't say if they've changed in the past few years since everytime I see one headed my way, I leave. My experience is they aren't worth talking to, so I don't. YMMV.

This comes off as unprofessional and a bit petty, and I'm not sure that's how you meant to come off.

If all of your experience with a particular group has been that they are egostical jerks, do you (provided you have the option) keep dealing with them or do you, at some point, decide enough is enough?

If I were to follow such an example, I might as well just live in a hut as a hermit and associate with nobody at all; there are jerks in all walks of life - millions of 'em out there, in fact.

[DakRadz]

Hosetly, I can't say if they've changed in the past few years since everytime I see one headed my way, I leave. My experience is they aren't worth talking to, so I don't. YMMV.

This comes off as unprofessional and a bit petty, and I'm not sure that's how you meant to come off.

If all of your experience with a particular group has been that they are egostical jerks, do you (provided you have the option) keep dealing with them or do you, at some point, decide enough is enough?

If I were to follow such an example, I might as well just live in a hut as a hermit and associate with nobody at all; there are jerks in all walks of life - millions of 'em out there, in fact.

There was this medic I met one time...

The problem is the older ones who allow/encourage these negative attitudes in younger cadets; a new cadet is moldable, and they will conform to standards that are sound, valid, and desirable with a bit of work.

They'll conform to Rambo with the smallest bit of leeway. And it all starts with the cadets.

P.S. I love Firefox- it saved this text even though I accidentally the page.

[HGjunkie]

P.S. I love Firefox- it saved this text even though I accidentally the page.

I see what you did there. 

[DakRadz]

P.S. I love Firefox- it saved this text even though I accidentally the page.

I see what you did there. 

Designed with you in mind- really!

[HGjunkie]

Designed with you in mind- really!

I feel special.... 

[ol'fido]

I was once in a squadron that we had that kind of reputation; neighboring wings would call for assistance from our wing and ask for us specifically over other units.  Why? Because we proved that we could do the job, do it better than the next guy and do it consistantly.  It had nothing with being elite, wearing berets, being Rangers or whatever..... we knew our job, were good at it and were respected for it.

mk

So, what incentive did other units have to improve to your level since they knew they would never be called upon as long as you were around?

I guess I am confused here... It sounds like you are saying there is something wrong with being the best at what you do???

[arajca]

I was once in a squadron that we had that kind of reputation; neighboring wings would call for assistance from our wing and ask for us specifically over other units.  Why? Because we proved that we could do the job, do it better than the next guy and do it consistantly.  It had nothing with being elite, wearing berets, being Rangers or whatever..... we knew our job, were good at it and were respected for it.

mk

So, what incentive did other units have to improve to your level since they knew they would never be called upon as long as you were around?

I guess I am confused here... It sounds like you are saying there is something wrong with being the best at what you do???

No. I'm saying they were being selfish since nothing indicated they were willing share their knowledge/expertise. It comes down to the disincentive that other units may have had since they knew they would be passed over to call out this one special, uber-experienced team. Even when that team was from another wing.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

You know what? You and your team should strive to be that team that gets called to other wings because you are that good at what you do. You should want to be the team that gets asked to train other teams because you are such a good team. That is how you improve your team, by striving to be better than the other teams. You should strive to be that team so that you know that the standard is set high for CAP ES teams everywhere. No, don't be a snob or a donkey about it, be the team who sets the example and the standard and teach the standard. Don't hate others for being that team that are so good that they get called by another wing, be the team that takes that teams spot, then train the team that you beat and train the other teams around you too.

[arajca]

You should want to be the team that gets asked to train other teams because you are such a good team. ... then train the team that you beat and train the other teams around you too.

That is the part that is missing from sarmed1's post. Without it, it demonstrates an elitist attitude that dampens the potential for other units/teams to develop fully.

[commando1]

 My turn to toot my own horn  . I was asked to travel to another squadron to train their ES qualified cadets. They were within my group and knew my team by how hard we trained. None of my cadets have ever attended any NCSA but we have always strived to be the best. We don't wear the Ranger tab...we don't wear orange shirts. We simply train harder and more often than anyone around us.  Our problem is that we have certain cadets who want to be "Rangers" all of a sudden. They want to be called by that name because it implies a higher level of training or just general toughness. Some of the cadets began training for GT2 and that's when the whole ranger mess began. 

[EMT-83]

So they begin training in the second of four levels for ground teams and they're suddenly big, bad rangers?

They couldn't wait until completing, say, half the program?

[HGjunkie]

So they begin training in the second of four levels for ground teams and they're suddenly big, bad rangers?

They couldn't wait until completing, say, half the program?

I smell a debate concerning PII cadets coming....

[ol'fido]

I was once in a squadron that we had that kind of reputation; neighboring wings would call for assistance from our wing and ask for us specifically over other units.  Why? Because we proved that we could do the job, do it better than the next guy and do it consistantly.  It had nothing with being elite, wearing berets, being Rangers or whatever..... we knew our job, were good at it and were respected for it.

mk

So, what incentive did other units have to improve to your level since they knew they would never be called upon as long as you were around?

I guess I am confused here... It sounds like you are saying there is something wrong with being the best at what you do???

No. I'm saying they were being selfish since nothing indicated they were willing share their knowledge/expertise. It comes down to the disincentive that other units may have had since they knew they would be passed over to call out this one special, uber-experienced team. Even when that team was from another wing.

OTOH, nothing indicated that they weren't willing to share either.

[arajca]

I was once in a squadron that we had that kind of reputation; neighboring wings would call for assistance from our wing and ask for us specifically over other units.  Why? Because we proved that we could do the job, do it better than the next guy and do it consistantly.  It had nothing with being elite, wearing berets, being Rangers or whatever..... we knew our job, were good at it and were respected for it.

mk

So, what incentive did other units have to improve to your level since they knew they would never be called upon as long as you were around?

I guess I am confused here... It sounds like you are saying there is something wrong with being the best at what you do???

No. I'm saying they were being selfish since nothing indicated they were willing share their knowledge/expertise. It comes down to the disincentive that other units may have had since they knew they would be passed over to call out this one special, uber-experienced team. Even when that team was from another wing.

OTOH, nothing indicated that they weren't willing to share either.

True, but given the discussion and the attitude many of us have seen from so-called special, ranger, or 'elite' units (you're not one of us, so we don't want to have anything to do with you), most posters would have mentioned that to at least blunt some critism.

[sarmed1]

thanks for putting words in my mouth....... and for the record it doesnt matter what one posts, nothing blunts the critism of some people here, especial on certain key word topics....so why try......you usually just get accused of being part of the cover-ups that run rampant in Civil Air Patrol amongs certain groups.....

but if you must know I didnt get into the relationship details because it wastn relevant to my post at the time.  The only point I was trying to make is that it's not nescesary to say you are an elite or special unit; that is proven by your actions, people see your skills and abilities and use you for them, not because you have a flashy hat or title. 
It might suprise you to know that even though it was a PAWG squadron, we wore no Ranger bling, used no Ranger ratings (it was part of our qualification training plan, but thats because this was in the days of no specific criteria set forth by NHQ for GTM training and qulification)  And as equally suprising we DID train and train with other units, every training weekend was open to all squadrons in our group as well as the neighboring groups, we held a winter and fall specific training weekend with other groups and organized and participated in a ground team competition (not the one run by HMRS either)  Other ES specific training and operations included working with the county EMA for disaster excercise, the airport authority (we were the county SAR resource) as well as other civilian SAR teams (one even had our squadron do their initial training when they were getting up and running)

mk