Hawk vs NESA

[LGM30GMCC]

It's the person's first post...no need for anyone to unload a full clip.

[davidsinn]

as a staff member at hawk you need to look at the ranger grade sheets and you will see that they are in line with the sqtrs with additional items.  any and all  staff signoff on the sqtrs as well as the ranger sheets. you as a student are responsible to have the sheets and get the signoffs during the school.
the sqtrs and ranger grades are entered into e-services at the school. if any person commenting on a school and have not been there themself or have not been there in the last 5 years to see how things are being done should hold there comments.  i am sure that all schools have had good and bad reports so be your own judge and take to people who give you the correct information on a school not just rumors and hear say.

go to the school and see for your self.

I don't have to have attended to comment. I've seen the sheets on the website. They don't even come close to being a full GTM SQTR. Also ranger grades are not in eServices.

[Spaceman3750]

It's the person's first post...no need for anyone to unload a full clip.

When someone comes in and on their first post throws up something like that (and $10 says that it's someone who already has another account), they're kind of asking for it. I'm not saying that Hawk is good or bad, I'm just saying that when someone comes in with the attitude of "If you've never been there you aren't entitled to an opinion/STFU" they're going to get what's coming to them.

[davidsinn]

It's the person's first post...no need for anyone to unload a full clip.

When someone comes in and on their first post throws up something like that (and $10 says that it's someone who already has another account), they're kind of asking for it. I'm not saying that Hawk is good or bad, I'm just saying that when someone comes in with the attitude of "If you've never been there you aren't entitled to an opinion/STFU" they're going to get what's coming to them.

That's the last refuge of someone who's argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. While I don't agree with him, at least Sarmed can make a case for his viewpoint, unlike pretty much everyone else that defends the mountain.

[rebowman]

Coming home and not being GTM3 is just not right....

[ol'fido]

Going to jump into this as someone who has never been to HMRS, NESA, NBB, PJOC, or any other NCSA so I have no axe to grind for or against any of these schools. I also don't plan on attending them in the future so what you get or don't get there does not matter to me. I have met people who attended each and thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread and I have met people who thinks that most country boys know more than they teach at them. Having said all that....

Long ago, there were no standards for GT training. Everybody had a good idea what was required but there were no set down, "this is what you must know" standards. So different people put together different programs. The various "Ranger" programs around the country, Missouri's Pathfinder School, NBB, and the "johnny come lately", NESA. Nobody could really say these weren't GT training programs as the requirements were SUBJECTIVE to a large degree.

Then low and behold somebody put together a "task guide" that had standards and an OBJECTIVE baseline of what was considered proper GT training. Well, a lot of people already had "their" training program all set up. They didn't want to change it just because somebody somewhere else said it wasn't what constituted GT training anymore. Many of these programs went away because they didn't adapt to the new standard. Some(NESA) did. HMRS  didn't but it still survives because of dedicated people, a dynamic program, and strong support from some higher ups.

Also, unlike some of the other NCSAs(JSUPTFC, PJOC, CCTOC) that relate to AF/NASA etc, NESA, NBB, and HMRS teach a curriculum that is specific to the needs of CAP. But they are still in many cases despite the "National" CSA moniker mainly localized programs run by local personnel or have evolved from such. We won't solve any of these arguments until CAP as an organization takes a stand and says we are going to have a ESA in each region that will teach the same things and will be the AC, MBS, GT training authority. NBB and HMRS will need to find an identity and purpose in that structure. Basically, CAP needs it's own training command to certify and guide these local/regional programs. If we do that we may lose some of the "identity" or "esprit" of some of these programs but we get something that benefits and is a credit to the "whole" organization and ends some of this parochial squabbling.

[sarmed1]

Many of these programs went away because they didn't adapt to the new standard. Some(NESA) did. HMRS  didn't

there's a two part answer here.... first they didnt have to change that much; a good number fo the original GTM tasks (before it was split into thirds) and by default the subdivided qualification standards came from HMRS ranger grade tasks, secondly they have changed in a number of ways from the pre-101 task book days.  Most of the tasks (and their testing standards) have been put in line (ie identical) to the GTM tasks.  Some of the levels were expanded to meet the additional trainig requirements (R/3 used to be just a sign off to participate shhet) and GTM3 is a requirement for the R/1 (I personally think this should be GTM 2 or 1....but thats just me); GTL for R/Adv and GBD for R/Expert.

Coming home and not being GTM3 is just not right....

despite the adage of a failure of the student to learn is a failure of the teacher to teach...... showing up and paying your activity fee does not mean an automatic pass...... if you cant meet the/a standard; then you come home with nothing.  We had two students not complete the requirements for completion of the medic course, they went home with a medical bag (they paid for it in theory) but no cards...... (a third technically dropped out and went home the 2nd day...but that was another issue entirely)

[Eclipse]

We had two students not complete the requirements for completion of the medic course, they went home with a medical bag

There's so much wrong with that sentence, at least in a CAP context, I don't know where to start...

[sarmed1]

Let me clarify:  they failed the re-test on the written exam for ESCI Advanced Wilderness first aid, a requirement for course completion. 
The went home with a bag full of first aid supplies because they paid for it. (nothing in there that you coundnt buy in a local CVS)

Regardless of your approval or disaproval of the use of the word medic for a CAP course or your thoughts on the idea of cadet health services personnel or any CAP health services personnel, thats the course they have, thats the name for the course and the HMRS qualification that goes along with it.  (if you dont like it, again, take it up with NHQ I am sure if they disapproved they would tell HMRS to stop offering the course or change its name to not cause some kind of misrepresentaiton)

Regardless of you personal experience with stethescope toting "cadet medics" I know for a fact that HMRS students are instructed on the particular restrictions on medical care wihtin CAP, the specific roles that health services personel play in commander's health/safety  responsibilities and basically what is and what is not within thier scope of practice both in training environemnts and on operational missions..... anyone else's personnel are not mine nor HMRS's fault/problem.

mk

[Eclipse]

Let me clarify:  they failed the re-test on the written exam for ESCI Advanced Wilderness first aid, a requirement for course completion. 
The went home with a bag full of first aid supplies because they paid for it. (nothing in there that you coundnt buy in a local CVS)

Ok, fair enough, but that isn't what you said, and it is things like "medic bags" where the fun starts.

Regardless of you personal experience with stethescope toting "cadet medics" I know for a fact that HMRS students are instructed on the particular restrictions on medical care wihtin CAP, the specific roles that health services personel play in commander's health/safety  responsibilities and basically what is and what is not within thier scope of practice both in training environemnts and on operational missions..... anyone else's personnel are not mine nor HMRS's fault/problem.

The problem of "Cadet medics" is not unique to HMRS, only more prevalent because of the specificity of training, and I agree that much of the issue
is the lack of a 3000 PSI stare on the part of unit and activity commanders for returning participants.  Considering the small number of participants, and
that only a subset of those cause issues, one has to wonder how badly we failed with those cadets (and seniors), where so few a number can still cause
enough of an issue to be so well known across the whole of the organization.

And with all of that said, I also agree this needs to be addressed by NHQ as another thing on the list.

How do we have every reg and fiber of CAP basically disavowing anyone who provides medical treatment, yet have a national, high-visibility activity which purports to train medics.   Talk about encapsulating CAP's operational schizophrenia...

[Spaceman3750]

Well, 60-3 allows for emergency care up to the provider's level of training, which is what the bulk of what W/RFA is - emergency care.

NESA has a similar program that uses the ECSI satndards as well. They used to even teach first responder to NREMT/DOT standards but stopped because FR licensing is such a pain or impossible depending on where you're at.

[fyrfitrmedic]

 While this current thread is pretty civil, I wonder sometimes why such threads even exist on here.

Between frothmouthed adolescent zealots, some not-so-adolescent folks whose positive/negative fixation of various NCSAs goes a bit beyond unwholesomeness, and a couple of posters who have made me wonder if there's a version of Serdar Argic programmed to parse "HMRS" or "Hawk Mountain", what has honestly been accomplished?

I can see where attitudes and behaviors can be off-putting. At various times over the years I'd considered checking out NESA, but I have to say that my posts of various NESA partisans on here have pretty strongly dissuaded me from going that route any time soon. I can certainly see where folks can say the same about the antics of various HMRS partisans as well.

[sarmed1]

.....How do we have every reg and fiber of CAP basically disavowing anyone who provides medical treatment, yet have a national, high-visibility activity which purports to train medics.   Talk about encapsulating CAP's operational schizophrenia...

My personal opinion is they blind eye it (and not just HMRS) becasue they really want to have the capability without having to pay for it and yet keep thier corporate butts out of the potential liability if something goes wrong all at the same time.

They keep the regs "grey"....we all (maybe naively) show up toting med gear and certification cards/license; commanders utilize those folks as emergency first aiders.....people get (hopefully) good first response care CAP looks like the hero.....if something goes wrong  CAP can fall back on the not a paramedic agancy clause and disavow any responsability to cover those folks care "....beyond emergency first aid......"

mk

[Nathan]

.....How do we have every reg and fiber of CAP basically disavowing anyone who provides medical treatment, yet have a national, high-visibility activity which purports to train medics.   Talk about encapsulating CAP's operational schizophrenia...

My personal opinion is they blind eye it (and not just HMRS) becasue they really want to have the capability without having to pay for it and yet keep thier corporate butts out of the potential liability if something goes wrong all at the same time.

They keep the regs "grey"....we all (maybe naively) show up toting med gear and certification cards/license; commanders utilize those folks as emergency first aiders.....people get (hopefully) good first response care CAP looks like the hero.....if something goes wrong  CAP can fall back on the not a paramedic agancy clause and disavow any responsability to cover those folks care "....beyond emergency first aid......"

mk

That's all well and fine if the only people who are being labeled as "medics" are consenting adults. You, for instance, fully understand the situation CAP is placing you in, and realize that if you decide to do medic stuff, you're doing so at your own risk. You're well aware that if you screw up (or even if you don't, and fate just conspires against you), then you are legally going to be on your own.

Cadets, on the other hand, CANNOT be held to be giving that same sort of informal consent to be scapegoats if they screw up. That's completely irresponsible. Even if the 12-17 year old cadet is a well-trained "medic", adult leaders cannot assume that they are actually accepting the same risk as the adults when they whip out the trauma kit. When they do it, they think they're just being the uber ninja medics that Hawk taught them to be. It's unlikely they're going to be contemplating exactly what kind of a risk they're taking, and what sort of predicament they (and their parents) will be facing if the procedure turns out badly.

No, the "blind eye" argument doesn't work when cadets are involved, and since this argument mainly applies to how cadets are trained and utilized after attending Hawk, then that's really what's going to matter if we dig around enough in the issue.

[Spaceman3750]

If the provider is trained/certified, acting within the scope of their training, and are not being paid or otherwise do not have a duty to act then the provider should be covered under an appropriate Good Samaritan act, regardless of age. While good Sam laws vary this fact should be constant across all of them.

[Eclipse]

Excellent response Nathan!

Considering that a lot of cadets are the ones thinking they are medics and would be the first to want to jump in where angels (and seniors) would fear to tread, it's likely mom and pops' house on the line when something goes bad.  As leaders and guardians (per se) of these cadets, we should not be setting them (or anyone else) up for that risk.

It goes double in situations where a cadet would treat another cadet, in which case neither side of the coin can consent to anything.

There is a lot of assumption that CAP Legal is aware and complicit in this situation.  Maybe, maybe not, or maybe no one with standing has ever actually
asked the question directly, but regardless, I would hazard that "blind eye" would not stand up as a defense in court.

I was back to that BSA evening activity a couple more times this week, and I saw something that really wrecked my night.  It's been in the high '90's all week with heat indices in the 110+ range.  I saw someone leaning over another person with a stethoscope, which was what got my attention.

Eventually I saw that it was a young Scout with a bandanna over his head who looked like he'd had a "long day".  He had a BP cuff on and was in the shade on a cot.  He was laying there at least 15 minutes after I noticed him, and when my group passed by the area I overheard the Scout Leader
bragging that "We got his temp down to ninety (garbled) from (garbled). 

There was a woman with him and from her demeanor and dress I would guess she might be a nurse by profession.  From best I could tell the Scout eventually went home no worse for the wear.

Now, I don't know who this guy was, what his role was, and for all I know he is a military trauma surgeon in real life, fully capable of treating the Scout
properly.  But I do know that there were uniformed local EMS on site at the park, and they were never involved.  This is a city park in a good-sized subur, so this was not a "survival medicine" situation.

I also know that were this one of my sons, I'd appreciate someone on BSA staff identifying he was in heat stress, but I would not want them treating my child.  I would want EMS called and have him transported to the hospital for care.   It's one thing if he trips on an arrow and is bleeding out on the grass, and fully another if he's been too much of a goober to drink enough water and has heat stroke.   At the point they identified something serious enough to "treat" mom and dad should have been notified and / or he be transported, not released back to the activity.  I've read more than one article this summer about kids dropping over hours later because of unknown heart conditions after experiencing heat-related stress.

We see a fair amount of this in teaching people to ride motorcycles, it's usually hot, the asphalt and hot bikes don't help that, and people are already stressed learning a new skill.  We have any number of medical professionals who are also instructors - PD, FD, EMT's, Docs, etc.   The protocol is
you contact EMS and let disinterested third parties handle the situation.

That way there is no risk of "soldiering up" a student who drops over later because they should have left but wanted to finish the course (or encampment, or NCSA, or whatever).  That's the other thing people forget in these situations - the "medics" are incentivized to downplay the
severity of a situation so that the member doesn't "miss out", or because "mom and dad live really far away".

[Eclipse]

If the provider is trained/certified, acting within the scope of their training, and are not being paid or otherwise do not have a duty to act then the provider should be covered under an appropriate Good Samaritan act, regardless of age. While good Sam laws vary this fact should be constant across all of them.

In this case, CAP, Inc., provided the training and the little patch leading the person to believe they are a "medic".  How could CAP possibly
disavow liability if the treatment goes wrong, when they provided the training in the first place.

Either we (CAP) train medics or we don't, and if we do, it should be consistent across the organization, with an expectation of being able to use those skills, otherwise we should knock it off, because if they aren't allowed to use those "medic" skills within CAP, where else can they use them?

And if they do use them with another organization, and fubar a patient, who's going to be on the hook then?  Hint:  Either CAP, Inc., or worse, the instructor who signed off the member could be liable personally.

As to "good sam laws"?  Just like "blind eye", that's not how a professionalized service organization scales capabilities and protects its members.
That's how a defense lawyer gets people off the hook.  There's a difference.

[sarmed1]

as we drift away from the original topic...I'll add another spin then.
 

Cadets, on the other hand, CANNOT be held to be giving that same sort of informal consent to be scapegoats if they screw up. That's completely irresponsible. Even if the 12-17 year old cadet is a well-trained "medic", adult leaders cannot assume that they are actually accepting the same risk as the adults when they whip out the trauma kit. When they do it, they think they're just being the uber ninja medics that Hawk taught them to be. It's unlikely they're going to be contemplating exactly what kind of a risk they're taking, and what sort of predicament they (and their parents) will be facing if the procedure turns out badly

Why does CAP allow cadets to do anything in a "ES" realm.  They are either supervised or not supervised.....Who is liable if a cadet destroys evidence on a search?  If a cadet loads a piece of equipment wrong on the van/trailer etc and it falls off and causes an injury?  Fails to pass on a piece of information recieved by phone/radio/runner critical to the mission?  They can either be trusted to do the job or they cant...it shouldnt matter what that job is.....the consequences of "screwing up" can be just as bad as a poor medical decision.......

If adult leaders are responsible for the actions of cadets then you as a leader are assuming the responsability for the actions of any "cadet medics" on your team, regardless if their certification excedes yours or not.   It would be a bad plan for any leader (ES or otherwise) to accept any "medic" at face value (cadet or senior) in that sort of role without a)doing a certification/credentials check, b) verifying competency c)making sure they understand their roles/responsabilites and limitations by CAP regulation.  I will hop on the HMRS soap box on this one; unlike most other "medical operations" I have run into or heard of this is one thing Hawk does with their program and their people. (at least for activities on the mountain)...they dont just hand out a carte blanche to anyone that shows up and claims uber ninja medic status........

mk

[sarmed1]

Eclipse, I was going to go down the same path there (again in quasi agreement....)
I as a proffesional (or volunteer if you want to make such a distinction) medical provider would never put my trust in the Good Sammaritan Laws if I am doing anything more than stopping along the side of the road to help sort of deal.....

I'd wager that if you show up wearing a uniform because someone was lost/hurt, you had a badge (or a duty status....HSO, Nurse officer, medical officer etc etc.....) that says EMT/RN/MD (CAP trained or not) and whipped out your hopital in a bag....someone (or a good lawyer) would say there was some kind of expectation of a duty to act on CAP's part

mk

[Eclipse]

^ You make a fair argument, though we shouldn't make this too much about cadets, since there are plenty of seniors wearing tabs as well, they just don't tend to be the "problems" (usually).

The adults are always in charge, in supervision, and ultimately responsible.  That's the challenge - cadets want to and are allowed to be involved in all facets of ES ops, but they are never independent resources, so your ability to use them is limited.