I looked up 60-3 for the requirements for first aid courses for ES ratings, and it's pretty vague.
Are Heartsaver First Aid courses deemed acceptable for CAP use? The last class I took was an ARC CPR/1st aid/AED but expired recently.
I can't recall right this second where .. but when I was trying to figure this out "once and for all", I recall finding a curriculum listed and had to go and figure that if those sections were covered, then we're done. Because no where does it say who.
..and your sign off people have to buy it.
Did it meet the OSHA requirements for First Aid as indicated in 60-3?
If it was just CPR / AED, then the answer is "no".
Neither meets the standard or is required.
Quote from: a2capt on August 16, 2013, 10:25:16 PM
..and your sign off people have to buy it.
Apparently that's the hard part... I've been told on numerous occasions that FLWG will reject an SQTR if it doesn't pass muster, for whatever reason.
Here's what the class covers:
(http://i.imgur.com/ZQ1Anzf.png)
OK, but it either meets the standard or it doesn't, and the're no way to tell from a topic list.
Heartsaver should be able to tell you that.
ALCON-
The Heartsaver First Aid class is the only First Aid class the American Heart Association gives. This class can be given with or without CPR AED.
Eclipse, Heartsaver cannot say anything on it as Heartsaver is not a company, an agency, or institution.
Heartsaver is an AHA classification for their job-related curriculum of First Aid and CPR classes for the non-medical responder. Just like the AHA classifies the CPR classes for the healthcare provider BLS for the Healthcare Provider.[/i]
You do not need CPR for CAP.
The card will say Heartsaver First Aid if only First Aid was taken, Heartsaver First Aid CPR/AED if both First Aid and CPR were taken, and Heartsaver CPR AED if only CPR was taken. We already know CPR alone is not accepted. All are part of the AHA curriculum.
The ultimate test is if once you submit it, it gets rejected by the SET crew.
I can tell you it is ok, but upload a copy of your card and see if it is approved. And then tell us.
Or are you asking because you are looking for a class to take? If so, I submitted mine and it was accepted. As a matter of fact, New York SARTAC offers it just because it is a GTM3 requirement.
Flyer
I would, but I'm lacking the disposable income to test the waters for a first aid class... right now it's either $90 for an ARC course or $30 for this.
I wish this was spelled out a little better. Maybe I should just ask FLWG/ES if they'll reject it or not.
What is the mystery? The regs have to be the way they are to take care of the way these classes change. When I started taking these classes and becoming instructor for them, the American Red Cross taught Multimedia First Aid, Standard First Aid, and another more advanced First Aid class.
Multimedia First Aid was like a basic First Aid class, yet would go in far more detail than the current First Aid classes offered by either ARC or AHA. But the content changed, since now we have EMT and Paramedics that can arrive well before the skills taught by those classes are needed. MMFA also covered splinting and litter carry. Not covered by AHA First Aid.
CPR? I have taken and taught CPR in three distinct periods. In 1980 we taught the ABC, or Airway, Breathing, and Compression. We taught to open the airway by 1) one hand under the neck, the other on the forehead, 2) to listen, look, feel for breaths. If witnessing a heart attack, to thump the chest before compressions. We taught that you deliver four breaths before starting compressions, and after starting compressions, you give two breaths after I believe at that time were 18 compressions. Do not recall exactly as it was almost thirty years ago. Obstructed airway? We taught and practiced what to do in case of the responsive and unresponsive adult and infant. We turned the adult and slapped him in the back!
CPR in the 1990s we taught ABC, but no more lifting the neck, just pulling the chin up. We still had one hand on the forehead... No more precordial thump...
CPR in the 2010 is taught by following CAB sequence. No more practicing the obstructed adult, and no more turning an unresponsive adult over to give backslaps. Now we teach to do 30 compressions, 2 breaths, we do not look, listen, feel for breath but only look, etc.
If our regs become more precise in this, it causes the same problems the NRA badge is causing:misinterpretation.
Go ahead and take the Heartsaver First Aid class. As long as it is one in which you do practice with an instructor some skills. There are classes offered online, but these are spelled out as not acceptable in our regs.
Flyer
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 16, 2013, 11:17:48 PMI wish this was spelled out a little better. Maybe I should just ask FLWG/ES if they'll reject it or not.
Flaying about in the road is much more productive.
Calling wing and asking, and/or calling the ARC and asking them if it meets the OSHA standard closes the discussion in 1-2 phone calls.
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 16, 2013, 11:17:48 PM
I would, but I'm lacking the disposable income to test the waters for a first aid class... right now it's either $90 for an ARC course or $30 for this.
I wish this was spelled out a little better. Maybe I should just ask FLWG/ES if they'll reject it or not.
Then have your squadron ES officer call the wing ES officer and get a rulling.
This is not rocket science.....if FLWG is strict....then FLWG should have a way of communicating to their people what First Aid Courses count toward the SQTR requirement.
In a roundabout way, the CAP standards do require CPR training as well. If you read the NGFATOS document cited, some of the topics required as core elements are Airway and Circulation training, which typically comes from a CPR training course instead of a First Aid training course.
The key elements to look for in a course to determine if it meets the standards or not are:
1) Is there an element to the course which an instructor validates (or provides remedial training if they cannot validate) that the student understands the material? This can be accomplished through practical exercises, written examination, oral quiz, etc.
2) Does the course cover the following key topics:
-Safety
-Legal & Ethical Issues
-Moving & Positioning Victims
-Assessing a victim
-Airways
-Circulation
-Medical Emergencies/Sudden Illness
-Bleeding, Shock, and Tissue Damage
-Injuries to Bones & Muscles
If the answer is yes to both of those, the course meets the standard.
A lot of online First Aid/CPR training sites have popped up online, but have no instructor to personally validate that somebody learned something. They are not necessarily subject to the scrutiny and medical review that many of the major providers subject themselves to.
As a general rule, the big 3 that are generally accepted are American Heart Association, American Red Cross, and the National Safety Council. When it comes to CPR, AHA is certainly the gold standard, but I don't know a ton about their First Aid course. From what was posted earlier as quick bullet points, I would say that it probably does meet the standard.
I know that ARC and NSC (I teach First Aid & CPR for NSC) are now offering online versions of their courses as well, but their online model still requires an authorized skills tester to administer an in person test following the online training. This would still meet the standard CAP requires.
This might answer a lot of questions. If your Wing places stricter standards they need to delineate what those standards are.
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1309/kw/First%20aid/session/L3RpbWUvMTM3Njc4ODk4MC9zaWQvdGU0LXkxeWw%3D (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1309/kw/First%20aid/session/L3RpbWUvMTM3Njc4ODk4MC9zaWQvdGU0LXkxeWw%3D)
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 16, 2013, 11:17:48 PM
I would, but I'm lacking the disposable income to test the waters for a first aid class... right now it's either $90 for an ARC course or $30 for this.
I wish this was spelled out a little better. Maybe I should just ask FLWG/ES if they'll reject it or not.
The Heartsaver(R) First Aid course from the American Heart Association (AHA) does meet the criteria and will be accepted in FLWG. The difference in cost between this course and the American Red Cross (ARC) one is that the latter includes CPR (ARC doesn't offer First Aid only anymore), while the former (AHA) doesn't.
First Aid courses are accepted for ES qualifications as long as they meet the National Guidelines for First Aid in Occupational Settings or the Standard Guide for Defining the Performance of First Aid Providers in Occupational Settings. Normally, courses offered by AHA, ARC and ASHI are acceptable. One thing to keep in mind is that for the First Aid course to be accepted, it can't be a purely online course; it must have a hands-on, practical skills training.
Florida Wing has completely gone rogue with respect to many ES training and qualification requirements. As for the question of First Aid training, FLWG has unilaterally implemented its own requirement that one must have an unexpired first aid card. The second sentence of CAPR 60-3 states: Practices, procedures, and standards prescribed in this regulation are mandatory and may not be supplemented or changed locally without the prior approval of NHQ CAP/DO. Nowhere in 60-3 nor in the SQTRs for the specialties requiring first aid training does it state or imply that one's training must be "unexpired" or have any recurrency requirement (other than the requirement to renew the specialty itself). The task is simply to Complete Basic First Aid Training or Equivalent. By imposing an expiration date requirement, FLWG is changing the procedures specified in 60-3, and thus is clearly out of line.
But it gets worse.
The person responsible for approving OpsQual tasks at wing level has no knowledge of the field of emergency medicine and its many training modalities. As a result, he rejects anything that doesn't sound familiar to him or have convincing artwork or wording on the card. When the gatekeeper for approving first aid training doesn't know what ACLS or PALS is, I call that a problem. To add insult to injury, there is no published list of acceptable agencies that will definitively please this whimsical creature. So you run the risk of wasting money and time by taking a top-notch course that might give you CEUs for your professional license, yet it won't tick the box on CAP's mickey-mouse SQTR because Mr. Man hasn't heard of it.
You might want to spend a little more time reading that reg you cite before calling people out in public.
In this case, it isn't the only document which is relevent.
1. It is not "First Aid or equivalent". It is First Aid to a specific standard as indicated, specifically NGFATOS
a link to which can be found in 60-3. Not all training meets this. For example, the AED classes provided by
many school health classes and corporations do not, in and of themselves, meet the standard.
2. NGFATOS clearly indicates that retraining is at the discretion of the certifying agency, and that the
min/max must take into consideration a number of factors, including laws and the types of assumed
duties.
3. Just like a driver's license, when your card expires, you are no longer certified per whatever agency
or organization provided your training. Ergo, you no longer possess any means to substantiate that
you have the required skill.
As a point of information NHQ has indicated to me and others that FA training not being an expiring item
has always been considered an "issue", and will likely be corrected on the SQTRs in the near future (60-3
is being revised as we speak). Until then, members are expected to act "on their honor" in this regard.
As a reminder, assuming you are a member, you took an oath to follow the directives of those above you,
and abide by decisions they make, including ones you don't agree with. In this case, if the training you are
referring to demonstrably meets the NGFATOS standard, and the wing won't accept it, then you have the
grounds for what would likely be a rather simple complaint. Otherwise, whether it's "top-notch" or not is
irrelevent, since the standard is crystal clear. And for the record, there is no shortage of organizations
which can provide that training if you are inclined to seek it out.
Your wing's ESO does not need a medical board of review for every completion card loaded in eservices,
either, since again, the standard is clear, and the training either meets it or it doesn't. Usually
a Google search or a phone call can clear that up quickly.
One thing is certain, though, being derogatory about your wing staff, or CAP in general, isn't going to fix the problem.
ACLS and PALS, in and of themselves, clearly don't meet the standard, both by their definition and by common sense.
ACLS is designed for healthcare professionals who either direct or participate in the management of cardiopulmonary arrest and other cardiovascular emergencies. This includes personnel in emergency response, emergency medicine, intensive care and critical care units.
PALS:
The PALS Course is for healthcare providers who respond to emergencies in infants and children. These include personnel in emergency response, emergency medicine, intensive care and critical care units such as physicians, nurses, paramedics and others who need a PALS course completion card for job or other requirements.
In other words, if you qualify for this training, some other license or ID card already in your wallet would more then fulfill
the first aid requirement.
Not to mention that ACLS and PALS are not first aid equivalents.
If you can justify for any ALS type course to me in a CAP context, then I am all ears.
In all practicality and legality, you will not ever be pushing epinephrine and manually cardioverting someone while wearing a CAP uniform.
Sounds like someone tired to pull one over on their ESO and failed.
I am an American Heart Association instructor.
The only class that AHA offers that covers the standard is the Heartsaver First Aid. This class can be taught with or without the CPR AED module.
The AHA Heartsaver CPR AED class can also be taught without a First Aid module, but Heartsaver CPR AED module alone will not satisfy the referenced requirement as it would lack First Aid.
In other words, if the card says Heartsaver First Aid CPR AED or Heartsaver First Aid the requirement is covered. If it says Heartsaver CPR AED, it is not covered.
I am not a certified ACLS or PALS instructor yet I teach BLS for the Healthcare Provider and Heartsaver classes. Several times as I teach a BLS for the Healthcare Provider class, the students are also registered for ACLS or PALS.
In other words, by themselves ACLS and PALS are nothing. You still have to take the Basic Life Support class.
And tell me, PALS is Pediatric Advanced Life Support. How many of our cadets are infants? So even if CPR would still be required, PALS would still not be helpful as it does not address personnel we would be working with.
Flyer
You guys are missing my point about ACLS/PALS. I brought them up as an example of this person's ignorance of some of the most widely recognized healthcare certifications. I know full well that neither course would qualify as a first aid course under the NGFATOS requirements, and I have not attempted to pass them off as such.
As for the issue of expiration dates, many agencies now avoid using the terms "certification" and "expiration", preferring instead to use terms like "documentation of training" and "recommended date" for retraining. So in these cases, the (dis)approver's argument that one's first aid card is "expired" would be incorrect and not valid grounds for disapproving the task. Furthermore, certificates of training that do not have expiration/retraining dates at all have been rejected by FLWG.
Quote from: RTFB on September 04, 2013, 05:18:50 AM
As for the issue of expiration dates, many agencies now avoid using the terms "certification" and "expiration", preferring instead to use terms like "documentation of training" and "recommended date" for retraining. So in these cases, the (dis)approver's argument that one's first aid card is "expired" would be incorrect and not valid grounds for disapproving the task. Furthermore, certificates of training that do not have expiration/retraining dates at all have been rejected by FLWG.
Of course they are rejected, since a First Aid card without an expiration date doesn't meet the standard.
What certifying body was submitted that was rejected? Because there aren't any that are compliant that don't have expiration dates.
@RTFB
Why would a wing ES officer need to be familiar with healthcare certifications that don't meet the standards or requirements for CAP qualifications? CAP is not a healthcare provider and while some certifications may be useful to the members, they have no bearing in CAP.
RTFB-
The examples you gave are not the most widely recognized out of the healthcare world!
:(
You have to be a) a nurse employed in a cardiac life support; b) a Paramedic providing entubation and medications; c) employed in a neo-nate pediatric support.
???
Most people will never hear or know about these special classes which deal with medications, electrocardiograms, and invasive medical procedures such as intubating a patient, and using oxygen.
None of these procedures are allowed in CAP by our regulations!
Flyer
I just checked OPSQuals today and found my GTM3 was approved! So, yes, AHA First Aid does qualify.
I am an ACLS/PALS/PHTLS Instructor and have been for quite some time. The issue that I think RTFB is trying to imply is that ultimately any "certifying" agency is saying is that you've met the basic minimum standard at that time. I've seen "EXPIRED" replaced with "RECOMMENDED RENEWAL DATE". As far as the certifying agencies care, even if you are issued the card with their name on it and the ink isn't even dry yet, you still can't practice under that training agency, you still provide the level of care that your agency allows.
For Example, I'm a State Certified Emergency Medical Technician - Paramedic, although I have the nifty whiz bang card that says I can do all of these cool Advanced Life Support Techniques (My Favorite is the IO Drill) However, I can't do any of these things unless my agency says that I can. (READ:CAP) However, the opposite is also true....If My PALS certification expires...my agency doesn't give a darn, as long as my Paramedic is current, MY CPR, ACLS, PALS can all be expired, I'm still legal to practice to my level. It's my agency that will have to explain in my malpractice suit why I haven't maintained these commonly accepted standards.
Ultimately, it's the agency's decision what level you can practice. While I'm sure Florida Wing is well intentioned in requiring a current card, I'm betting there is no Florida State Specific requirement (Law, Administrative Code, etc.) that says an individual can't provide First Aid without a Valid unexpired First Aid Card...I think ultimately there just happy that someone saved the life.
That being said, Civil Air Patrol is another matter, if your Wing says you have to be first aid current to go on missions... that's it. The same situation with the Safety Currency. If the Rules say it for Florida Wing that's on them.
It would not surprise me if Florida State law does say something to that effect, and any such requirement was not made up the FL Wing.
New York State laws state regarding summer camps:
NY Public Health Law, Sect. 225, [/b]Subsects. 2.2 M states that First Aid shall be valid as specified by provider but shall not exceed three years... 2.2 N states that CPR shall be valid as specified by provider but shall not exceed one year...
Elsewhere the law states the camp director of health care should be certified in both, that in overnight camps, someone must remain overnight as well certified in CPR although aquatic staff certified in CPR can be counted.
I was looking the law regarding CPR certification but I am a little bit out of time. I am sure it does state similar regarding EMTs/Paramedics...
Edited to add: CPR certification is governed by a policy letter adopted by the Bureau of EMS. Bureau of Emergency Services Policy Statement 11-07 states that before being admitted to testing, all EMT and CFR students must pass a test following the 2010 Guidelines on CPR and ECC on CPR to include obstructed airways on adults and infants. Although this policy statement does not say anything about an expiration date, it states to reason that to be admitted to re-certification testing you have to be current as well.
These guidelines basically requires retraining every two years... Read http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/18_suppl_3/S920.full (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/18_suppl_3/S920.full)
Flyer
^^Here in South Dakota it is a requirement to send in a copy of a valid and current BLS for Healthcare Provider (CPR/AED, obstructed airway, BVM) when renewing your EMS certifications every two years.
The hours used for the BLS refresher are also not counted toward our continuing education requirements either (which is the norm I believe).
Additionally, at the hospital I work for, if your CPR ticket expires, you go on suspension without pay until it is renewed. No ifs, ands, or buts, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 05, 2013, 10:23:53 AM
It would not surprise me if Florida State law does say something to that effect, and any such requirement was not made up the FL Wing.
New York State laws state regarding summer camps:
NY Public Health Law, Sect. 225, [/b]Subsects. 2.2 M states that First Aid shall be valid as specified by provider but shall not exceed three years... 2.2 N states that CPR shall be valid as specified by provider but shall not exceed one year...
Elsewhere the law states the camp director of health care should be certified in both, that in overnight camps, someone must remain overnight as well certified in CPR although aquatic staff certified in CPR can be counted.
I was looking the law regarding CPR certification but I am a little bit out of time. I am sure it does state similar regarding EMTs/Paramedics...
Edited to add: CPR certification is governed by a policy letter adopted by the Bureau of EMS. Bureau of Emergency Services Policy Statement 11-07 states that before being admitted to testing, all EMT and CFR students must pass a test following the 2010 Guidelines on CPR and ECC on CPR to include obstructed airways on adults and infants. Although this policy statement does not say anything about an expiration date, it states to reason that to be admitted to re-certification testing you have to be current as well.
These guidelines basically requires retraining every two years... Read http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/18_suppl_3/S920.full (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/18_suppl_3/S920.full)
Flyer
This code looks to apply to the certification itself. I'm sure there are Codes that apply to certain occupations as well. Keeping in mind that Civil Air Patrol is a Volunteer Organization thus not an occupation. Keep in mind that we are not a first responder organization with a duty to respond like public safety agencies either. Meaning that we should fall under the State's Good Samaritan law.
As far as the CPR certification currency. It is an educational requirement for renewal for any EMT level certifications, but it only needs to be valid at the time of renewal for the state to issue a new card. My state paramedic is valid for three years and my CPR for only two...Meaning in theory I can go a whole year without being CPR certified while still practicing. I personally didn't do that because I was a CPR instructor as well. I know in my state we don't have a requirement to maintain CPR Certification as a condition of certification. My employer typically refused payment for overtime or time away from primary duties for training that wasn't meetings for basic minimums...so this resulted in many Labor/Management/Attorney "Discussions".
Quote from: tsrup on September 05, 2013, 11:09:15 AM
^^Here in South Dakota it is a requirement to send in a copy of a valid and current BLS for Healthcare Provider (CPR/AED, obstructed airway, BVM) when renewing your EMS certifications every two years.
The hours used for the BLS refresher are also not counted toward our continuing education requirements either (which is the norm I believe).
Additionally, at the hospital I work for, if your CPR ticket expires, you go on suspension without pay until it is renewed. No ifs, ands, or buts, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.
It looks as though that's an employer requirement which goes to my earlier point about Civil Air Patrol does not delineate such requirements. If the Florida Wing does than they should publish in in an OI.
Quote from: SARDOC on September 06, 2013, 01:06:37 AMIt looks as though that's an employer requirement which goes to my earlier point about Civil Air Patrol does not delineate such requirements. If the Florida Wing does than they should publish in in an OI.
Please stop trying to assert this is a Florida wing policy. It is the national expectation.
First Aid expires, you're supposed to renew.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2013, 02:38:39 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on September 06, 2013, 01:06:37 AMIt looks as though that's an employer requirement which goes to my earlier point about Civil Air Patrol does not delineate such requirements. If the Florida Wing does than they should publish in in an OI.
Please stop trying to assert this is a Florida wing policy. It is the national expectation.
First Aid expires, you're supposed to renew.
If that is the expectation than the Regulation should be written better to reflect that. I would whole heartedly support because it's a good idea. However, that is not what the Regulation says. Read this:
QuoteMost formal courses do not have to be re-accomplished though some are recommended like first aid training.
So that may be the way you want it your corner of the world...But the Expectations are NOT required. Read the Reg.
Civil Air Patrol would actually be better at not requiring First Aid at all since they explicitly state that any care is done at the member's risk and not covered by malpractice...because requiring the training implies the requirement to provide care in the event an emergency arises putting the member at jeopardy.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2013, 02:38:39 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on September 06, 2013, 01:06:37 AMIt looks as though that's an employer requirement which goes to my earlier point about Civil Air Patrol does not delineate such requirements. If the Florida Wing does than they should publish in in an OI.
Please stop trying to assert this is a Florida wing policy. It is the national expectation.
First Aid expires, you're supposed to renew.
That may be a recommended best practice. Renewing First Aid/CPR is not a national expectation. It is not required in the CAPR 60-3, the Ground Team curriculum, nor the Ground Team Reference Text.
What makes you think this is otherwise the case?
Quote from: SARDOC on September 07, 2013, 09:59:28 PM
Civil Air Patrol would actually be better at not requiring First Aid at all since they explicitly state that any care is done at the member's risk and not covered by malpractice...because requiring the training implies the requirement to provide care in the event an emergency arises putting the member at jeopardy.
The First Aid requirement is to ensure that ground teams have a basic understanding of first aid for themselves and potentially their targets, but it's not required to be renewed because we're not a agency that's in the business of routinely rendering first aid.
I believe that it's smart to require exposure to first aid & CPR training, and it's even smarter to keep it current, but that it's smartest to activate EMS when someone needs it. I don't think the current requirement invalidates my view, the way it's written.
Quote from: Ed Bos on September 08, 2013, 09:10:56 PMThat may be a recommended best practice. Renewing First Aid/CPR is not a national expectation. It is not required in the CAPR 60-3, the Ground Team curriculum, nor the Ground Team Reference Text.
What makes you think this is otherwise the case?
The >ONLY< acceptable training has expiration dates right on the completion card. Ergo.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 08, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
The >ONLY< acceptable training has expiration dates right on the completion card. Ergo.
That's true. For example the my Red Cross First Aid/CPR card will expire in 2 years.
But I've spent the past 5 years as a GTM1, GTL, UDF, GBD with no current first aid certification. The expiration date on the card has no bearing on the CAP qualification because the training requirement is that you have had the training in the past.
Another example of this would be when the Planning Section Chief SQTR prequires (is that a word?) that you have had both ground SAR and aircrew training, but that they not necessarily be current when you get signed off. That qualification had an expiration date right on the completion card, but the requirement is that you have had the training previously, not that it be current.
^ Not the same thing. The text is explicit that you do >not< need to be qualified at the time to be a branch director.
Sir-
With due respect your post is moot.
GTM1 does not require First Aid currency.
GTL does not require First Aid currency.
UDF does not require First Aid currency.
GBD does not require First Aid currency.
The only qualification requiring a valid First Aid card, and thus training, is GTM3!
But again the agencies teaching the class states the training expires just because new practices are deemed better and they want you to be aware of said practices.
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on September 08, 2013, 09:28:42 PM
^ Not the same thing. The text is explicit that you do >not< need to be qualified at the time to be a branch director.
Similar, but not the same, you are correct. However, if you refer to the Knowledgebase, the intent of the requirement, "is for personnel to meet and document completion of some basic standard."
As a matter of fact, you don't even need to receive a card "with an expiration date" from any particular agency to meet the SQTR requirement. If you're curious, I know because as a Wing DOS I provided first aid training to meet the SQTR requirement, that covered all the topics listed in the relevant guidance including knowledge and hands-on testing, and signed off CAP personnel. Before I did so, I checked with leadership and got the relevant guidance from the OPR, and they affirmed by ability to complete the requirement in this way.
At the time, I held an appropriate position outside of CAP that would make me a qualified trainer, but I did not conduct the training under the auspices of any agency, and provided no certification other than signing off my students' SQTR. I documented completion of the standard with a Participation Letter, and called it a day.
As a point of clarification, CAP Ground Team members would be considered "bystanders" according to http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf, (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf,) but internally we use this and OSHA guidance to determine what sort of first aid training meets the GTM3 requirement.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 08, 2013, 09:32:22 PM
Sir-
With due respect your post is moot.
GTM1 does not require First Aid currency.
GTL does not require First Aid currency.
UDF does not require First Aid currency.
GBD does not require First Aid currency.
The only qualification requiring a valid First Aid card, and thus training, is GTM3!
But again the agencies teaching the class states the training expires just because new practices are deemed better and they want you to be aware of said practices.
Flyer
That's all true. With the exception of UDF, the requirements above all predicated on GTM3, and renewing GTL and the higher GTM qualifications renew GTM3. That was my point.
Quote from: Ed Bos on September 08, 2013, 09:59:00 PMAt the time, I held an appropriate position outside of CAP that would make me a qualified trainer, but I did not conduct the training under the auspices of any agency, and provided no certification other than signing off my students' SQTR. I documented completion of the standard with a Participation Letter, and called it a day.
You can't provide training under the auspices of another organization without providing the full materials and recording the training with them. That the
point of
having an outside body do it. I'd be willing to bet you violated your trainer agreement, which means they weren't certified. In effect, you personally trained then with no backing organization.
Quote from: Ed Bos on September 08, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
As a point of clarification, CAP Ground Team members would be considered "bystanders" according to http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf, (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf,) but internally we use this and OSHA guidance to determine what sort of first aid training meets the GTM3 requirement.
I'm not sure how that's relevent to this conversation.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:05:54 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on September 08, 2013, 09:59:00 PMAt the time, I held an appropriate position outside of CAP that would make me a qualified trainer, but I did not conduct the training under the auspices of any agency, and provided no certification other than signing off my students' SQTR. I documented completion of the standard with a Participation Letter, and called it a day.
You can't provide training under the auspices of another organization without providing the full materials and recording the training with them. That the point of
having an outside body do it. I'd be willing to bet you violated your trainer agreement, which means they weren't certified. In effect, you personally trained then with no backing organization.
I would agree with Eclipse here, CAP requires that the course meet the NGFATOS standards, if you aren't providing one of the approved syllabus programs, you're not meeting CAP standards.
I still maintain however, that CAP does not require that you need to maintain that First Aid certification to maintain any GTM rating. Once you've completed the required course, it's recommended that you renew periodically, but not required.
I'll at least concede to the fact that, while it's a common-sense inference, it certainly isn't explicitly written in the relevent text and curriculum.
Quote from: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf Page 16Successful Completion
Successful completion of a training program in first aid for non-dutied laypersons indicates completion of a course which follows generally recognized medical treatments that are safe, indicated, and helpful. A successful completion card or certificate should be issued when a qualified instructor:
• Respects the course curriculum and lesson format.
• Identifies each student's understanding of the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor objectives of these guidelines.
• Observes each student's comfort with, and reasonable performance of, essential psychomotor skills.
• Uses an appropriate evaluation tool to document the student's successful performance.
What defines a qualified instructor?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:05:54 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on September 08, 2013, 09:59:00 PMAt the time, I held an appropriate position outside of CAP that would make me a qualified trainer, but I did not conduct the training under the auspices of any agency, and provided no certification other than signing off my students' SQTR. I documented completion of the standard with a Participation Letter, and called it a day.
You can't provide training under the auspices of another organization without providing the full materials and recording the training with them. That the point of
having an outside body do it. I'd be willing to bet you violated your trainer agreement, which means they weren't certified. In effect, you personally trained then with no backing organization.
Quote from: Ed Bos on September 08, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
As a point of clarification, CAP Ground Team members would be considered "bystanders" according to http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf, (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf,) but internally we use this and OSHA guidance to determine what sort of first aid training meets the GTM3 requirement.
I'm not sure how that's relevent to this conversation.
They're not certified. They're familiarized with the material, which is all CAP requires. There's nothing in the regs that states that you need a card.
Quote from: Ed Bos on September 09, 2013, 03:00:44 AMThey're not certified. They're familiarized with the material, which is all CAP requires. There's nothing in the regs that states that you need a card.
60-3 disagrees.
As a private citizen or CAP member you are not authorized to provide first aid training.
Period.
As an instructor for one of the authorized providers, you are not allowed to provide training without the full materials and
procedures of that organization.
Period.
One of the reasons the regulations and program(s) are in such a self-conflicting, occasionally ambiguous mess is well-intention,
but misguided members choosing expedience and LCD interpretation over the common sense real spirit they
know was actually intended when the regulation or policy, etc., was written.
This puts themselves, the membership, and the organization at risk for the cost of expediency.
From 60-3
f. First Aid and Emergency Medical Care. CAP is not an emergency medical care or paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such. CAP will not be the primary provider of medical support on missions or training events though qualified personnel can be used to support such activities. The only type of medical aid that should be administered by CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable treatment deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering. This treatment must be executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level. When first aid or higher medical training is required for qualification in a particular specialty, the expectation is that the qualification course includes both knowledge and practical skills training;first aid courses taken on-line only are not acceptable; though members are not considered employees when supporting operations, courses are expected to meet the National Guidelines for First Aid in Occupational Settings available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf) or ASTM F 2171-02(2009), Standard Guide for Defining the Performance of First Aid Providers in Occupational Settings. CAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage, and any care provided is at the members own risk. Though medical supplies and equipment are not normally provided to responders, any reasonable supplies used on training or actual missions may be submitted for reimbursement as long as sufficient justification is provided.
Quote from: RangerConlin on September 09, 2013, 05:53:50 PM
From 60-3
f. First Aid and Emergency Medical Care. CAP is not an emergency medical care or paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such. CAP will not be the primary provider of medical support on missions or training events though qualified personnel can be used to support such activities. The only type of medical aid that should be administered by CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable treatment deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering. This treatment must be executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level. When first aid or higher medical training is required for qualification in a particular specialty, the expectation is that the qualification course includes both knowledge and practical skills training;first aid courses taken on-line only are not acceptable; though members are not considered employees when supporting operations, courses are expected to meet the National Guidelines for First Aid in Occupational Settings available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf) or ASTM F 2171-02(2009), Standard Guide for Defining the Performance of First Aid Providers in Occupational Settings. CAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage, and any care provided is at the members own risk. Though medical supplies and equipment are not normally provided to responders, any reasonable supplies used on training or actual missions may be submitted for reimbursement as long as sufficient justification is provided.
In regards to rendering first aid, this clearly states that we are allowed to administer first aid in order to save a life or prevent suffering. These are rather broad definitions, broad enough that it bothers me that we are not covered by something.
You missed the part that in order to provide that aid we have to be certified by an outside organization that we are competent in that care.
Forgive me, I skipped over that. I personally am a licensed MFR, so I skipped it.
It basically boils down to you need to have a card. I would suggest sticking with AHA or something big like that, but you need a card. Keep up the card to avoid possible problems, dont administer aid outside of your scope of practice, and dont be an idiot while administering aid.
The 160-1 is the only place where I see anything about being from a certifiying agency.
Under General duties of Health Services Personnel:
Quoteb. Provide or arrange for the provision of training in first aid, CPR and other life-saving
measures by a certifying agency (American Red Cross, American Heart Association, American
Safety and Health Institute, National Safety Council, etc.).
the 60-3 just states you have to have training if required for a specific specialty, the SQTR just says "Complete Basic First Aid" .. it doesnt specify training, certification, card or any period of validity/expiration.
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 09, 2013, 08:46:58 PM
the 60-3 just states you have to have training if required for a specific specialty, the SQTR just says "Complete Basic First Aid" .. it doesnt specify training, certification, card or any period of validity/expiration.
60-3 contains the specification which has been quoted several times in this thread alone.
Yes. In order to meet Civil Air Patrol regulations, the First Aid training course is required to be compliant with the National Guidelines for First Aid in Occupational Settings, (NGFATOS) This Standard suggests that the training agency/instructor issue a Course Completion Card or a Course Completion Certificate but does not require it (please note: It's not a CERTIFICATION Card). According, to the standard, the Instructor should be familiar with the concepts of basic First Aid.
The Card only signifies that the individual attended the course and demonstrated a Reasonable proficiency in practical skills. NGFATOS does not even require a written test for a Completion card to be issued. So if you wanted to teach a First Aid Class to your Squadron you could do it in as little as Four to Six Hours (according to the Standard).
There is a lot of "Should" in this standard that allows for a lot of flexibility. However, I would still recommend one of the canned programs from your Local neighborhood First Aid agency. (ARC, AHA, ECSI, Etc...) These programs provide a lot more credibility.
Oh Kay...
Then for the sake of argument, how does one substantiate completion of the training without the magic card?
And no one with a clue is actually fixating on a "card" - but a certificate, or "something" has to be presented to an SET
to substantiate completion of appropriate training as per the standard.
"My mom's a nurse." or "I skimmed NGFATOS on the train on the way home tonight." doesn't meet it.
Quote from: SARDOC on September 09, 2013, 09:03:29 PMSo if you wanted to teach a First Aid Class to your Squadron you could do it in as little as Four to Six Hours (according to the Standard).
"You" can't (as in a CAP member acting in that capacity). Also, just saying you are meeting the standard, doesn't meet the standard.
Those outside agencies and organizations have structured certification programs for instructors, and in turn liability insurance should you incorrectly use those skills, or they are taught incorrectly.
Standardized tests, etc., etc., are up to the training agency. What they decide is "appropriate" is up to them, because they are accepting the risk to the reputation and finances should they
be producing poorly trained individuals.
CAP has made it clear that this is the standard, like it or not.
Outside training with an expiration date.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 09:14:17 PM
Oh Kay...
Then for the sake of argument, how does one substantiate completion of the training without the magic card?
The Standard is meant for People whose occupation requires them to have the First Aid Training. OSHA leaves the Documentation of the training up to the particular employer as to not create an unreasonable burden on the Employer. An OSHA Inspector would just be happy to ask on an inspection for the employer to provide the documentation. It Could be the signed roster when the employer holds it's annual First Aid day accompanied by preferably the course curriculum to show that it met the standard.
OSHA regulations are specifically vague to that effect until there is a need to be more specific.
How about a relevent example.
Or this.
Take the class, scan the card, when it expires take the class again.
So much wasted time and mental hoops just to avoid being proficient in something important.
Everyone wants to "save lives" and wear the badges, no one wants to do the work.
Look no further for why CAP is where it is.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 09:14:17 PM
Standardized tests, etc., etc., are up to the training agency. What they decide is "appropriate" is up to them, because they are accepting the risk to the reputation and finances should they
be producing poorly trained individuals.
Correct, Testing is up to the training agency but not the Civil Air Patrol adopted NGFATOS Standard. The Standard doesn't require it because OSHA doesn't want to be responsible for those with limited intelligence skills or literacy level to lose a job they would otherwise be qualified for because they couldn't pass a First Aid Written Test.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Civil Air Patrol requiring the training. I suggest it and teach it under the auspices of the Training Organization that certifies me, I do also issue cards, because my training agency requires it... for a fee of course because that's how they pay their overhead.
That being said, you just can't just make up rules, to suit your argument. It is the best recommended practice in every scenario, but because of the nature of our Organization they've decided to not make it a requirement even citing it as the example in the regulation. They even adopted a Standard that typically would not otherwise apply to us. (Probably because it's the best written national standard for First Aid available in the Public Domain) However, the NGFATOS standard doesn't require it either because OSHA's Goal is get employers to comply without creating any unnecessary regulation or burden on the employer (this scenario doesn't apply to us either). More later.
If recertification is not required, then why did my GTM3 and FLM quals expire on exactly the same day that my first aid expired, even though the other tasks were all current?
Quote from: SarDragon on September 09, 2013, 09:39:32 PM
If recertification is not required, then why did my GTM3 and FLM quals expire on exactly the same day that my first aid expired, even though the other tasks were all current?
Maybe they fixed the programming as they indicated to me they likely would.
All of this can be solved if CAP quite simply a) Identified a specific or group of specific agencies and courses that satisfied the requirements or b) build our own training program.
What they got now is okay....but leaves a lot of room for interpretation and/or misunderstanding. It also is a little lacking IMHO of what you need for a field team in the first aid department.
Building our own training is not really that hard.
Break down what we want the GTM to be competent in into 10-15 tasks and build a SQTR.
Write a task guide and a training guide (just like we did for GTM 1-3).
No harm, no foul, no legal issues.
That solves the whole "I got to spend another $40 for a stupid card" issue. It solves the issue of "the reg says ARC Heart Saver Plus t.m. but that course does not exist anymore it is now Live Saver Easy t.m.....what do I do" issue.
WE set what we want our GTMs to know. We Beg, Borrow, Steal the training from the military. We tailor it for our own purposes and we move on.
I agree completely, and I'd also be strongly in favor of allowing our HSOs to provide this training and allow them to actually use their skills.
One could make the argument that the BSA has been doing this for years - I've basically spent the last 30 years of my life "relearning" what
I originally did as a Scout, however the BSA doesn't have an operational mission, so the likelyhood of ever using it is next to zero for anything
but buddy care.
That opens a lot of doors on both the good and bad side of the building, though.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 11:53:41 PM
I agree completely, and I'd also be strongly in favor of allowing our HSOs to provide this training and allow them to actually use their skills.
One could make the argument that the BSA has been doing this for years - I've basically spent the last 30 years of my life "relearning" what
I originally did as a Scout, however the BSA doesn't have an operational mission, so the likelyhood of ever using it is next to zero for anything
but buddy care.
That opens a lot of doors on both the good and bad side of the building, though.
That is exactly what we use our first aid requirement for anyways. I'm not advocating that we start certifying EMTs or anything like that.
I am saying that we need more training then the average day care provider is required to learn....because the situations are different.
ARC built their training around certain assumptions. The victim is going to be known some way to the rescuer, the victim will need care in an urban/suburban environment where EMT services are 10-15 minutes away and that "calling for help" may require you to go to the next room for the phone.
CAP GT ops are not going to be like that. Calling for help may require you to hike 30 minutes to get out of the radio dead zone. You may be an hour or more away from the nearest EMT services...and you may be hours away from the nearest road even if the EMT's can be where you left the van in 15 minutes.
So.....we need a more "wilderness" first aid course....with a lot of emphasis on patient transport, fracture/sprain/strain care, an emphasis on "trail" injuries and such.
While yes this is certainly something our HSO's can do to actually have a job.....but I would not restrict it to just HSOs. It would be just another GTM task that any GTM SETS evaluator can sign off on.
This is by far the easiest and cheapest option I have found yet (comprimise that is)
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13156.msg238480#msg238480 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13156.msg238480#msg238480)
http://ecsinstitute.org/ (http://ecsinstitute.org/)
Standard first aid, CPR and AED- one time investment for teh instructor kit $263. Books are $11 if you get more than 5. Cards are supposed to come with each book, but are basically $5 each if you order them seperately
mk
On a seperate but related note.... reading more of the 60-3, I came accross this reference:
(bold areas indicated for emphesis)
Quote1-17 Ground operations
...
c. Ground teams must follow proper procedures upon locating a search objective.
(1) Assess and secure the scene.
(2) Render aid to survivors and prepare survivors for evacuation.
(3) Do not disturb anything at the site except as necessary to render aid to survivors.
(4) Verify the identity of the aircraft, person, etc.
(5) Advise the IC of the situation and request appropriate authorities be notified.
(6) Retain aircraft or other resources in the area until certain they are not needed.
Note: Additional information is available in the Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Task Guide.
yet, later in the reg:
QuoteCAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage, and any care provided is at the members own risk.
So I am REQUIRED (ie must follow) to render aid to victims, and by product of qualification I msut be certified in first aid (and as we have argued it must be current and from a recognized qualifying agency), yet I do these mandated things at my own risk (because the organiztion doesnt carry the liability/malpractice to protect me???)
I cant see that one holding up in court real well: if I do not take the risk (ommision), or if I do and it didnt go well (commision) I dont see CAP being able to wash their hands of it.... just saying but it sounds a lot like duty to act and the risk for a negligence suit. Job requirement to provide aid (CAP regulation directing my actions at an incident), reasonable standard of care (referenced minimum standard by OSHA/ASTM) and an expectation of minimum competency (a card from a qualifiying agency demonstrating skill performance with an expiration date and assumption of maintainnig currency)
mk
sorry to hijack a little, but it seemd kind of relevant to the conversation.....
^^ I agree our FA requirements are tricky. I'd guess that it's a product of our AUX ON/AUX OFF Corporate status. I'd love to see it more spelled out in the regs:
GTMs will train and certify to do these specific FA tasks...
GTMs may perform these specific FA tasks when necessary.
Not sure if that would work or not, but seeing the limited scope we're "allowed" to do anyway...
I do not see the connection between the inconsistencies of First Aid with our "Aux on/Aux off."
I see it more being a "changing times" development and the inability of CAP to change.
I have been teaching First Aid and CPR since 1980 for both American Heart Association and American Red Cross. Not consistently, I would teach these subjects for about three to five years, stop for about 6 to 8, then do it again. Now I am on my third iteration.
In the 1980's the focus was that communities were going to have more "hands-on" and be more self-sufficient in case of a disaster or attack. The American Red Cross taught three different First Aid classes. Multimedia First Aid, Standard First Aid, and another First Aid class that was more like a class for First Responders.
These classes would not only cover what is now taught, but would also go into patient transport and splinting.
The CPR class was taught more like you were also be alone, and advanced help would be delayed.
I think the shifts were due to that we were still under the Cold War mentality and communities would not be able to get immediate help. Since then, society has made an enormous leap. Cold War is over. Communities now live under centralized EMT/Paramedic services. Not only do we have this, but there are also the Mutual Aid compacts, where stressed communities can rely on their neighbors to provide services. And the Medevac helicopters have come of age, where the Medevac concept was just infiltrating as a result of its development during the Vietnam War.
Both CPR and First Aid have changed in scope and context during my instructor stints.
If CAP would have been as detailed as you state, it would have invalidated the task as the change took place but the organization would not have adapted. Just like the discussions we are having now regarding the Uniform Manual and the NRA badge.
Flyer
I agree that there's no "aux on/aux off connection" here, since the regs and qualifications are the same, AFAM or not.
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 10, 2013, 08:13:29 AMSo I am REQUIRED (ie must follow) to render aid to victims, and by product of qualification I msut be certified in first aid (and as we have argued it must be current and from a recognized qualifying agency), yet I do these mandated things at my own risk (because the organiztion doesnt carry the liability/malpractice to protect me???)
You absolutely do >not< "do these mandated things at your own risk". If you follow the regulations the organization will protect you to
the limits of their ability and if its an AFAM with the weight of the Federal government.
It's only when you start playing "fast and loose" with regs and policies in a fashion which may well be expedient, but will not make sense
to a jury that you risk issues.
Stabilizing a victim by paying attention to the "A-B-C"s and making sure they are warm and safe until professional EMS arrives is what is expected.
However life isn't a textbook, and if they are permanently injured or die and you pull out your expired FA card from 7 years prior, you're just making
the plaintiff's job easier.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 10, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
I do not see the connection between the inconsistencies of First Aid with our "Aux on/Aux off."
Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2013, 02:04:09 PM
I agree that there's no "aux on/aux off connection" here, since the regs and qualifications are the same, AFAM or not.
I wasn't around before the change to a more corporate structure, so I was fielding a guess. I was thinking more along of the lines of liability, that maybe without the full-time AUX ON status that muddied the waters enough that insurance costs were different. Just spitballin' really.
I know that the way we do GT quals are much different than in previous generations. How was medical stuff handled back then or was it the same?
Quote from: Walkman on September 10, 2013, 07:33:39 PM
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 10, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
I do not see the connection between the inconsistencies of First Aid with our "Aux on/Aux off."
Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2013, 02:04:09 PM
I agree that there's no "aux on/aux off connection" here, since the regs and qualifications are the same, AFAM or not.
I wasn't around before the change to a more corporate structure, so I was fielding a guess. I was thinking more along of the lines of liability, that maybe without the full-time AUX ON status that muddied the waters enough that insurance costs were different. Just spitballin' really.
I know that the way we do GT quals are much different than in previous generations. How was medical stuff handled back then or was it the same?
I think what it really comes down to is one aspect of the regulation changing (these things are done at your own risk) while another aspect was forgotten (you will do these things). Just another one of those unintended consequences that no one realizes until it is too late.
Quote from: Walkman on September 10, 2013, 07:33:39 PM
I know that the way we do GT quals are much different than in previous generations. How was medical stuff handled back then or was it the same?
Well, in 1956 we were hanging IVs in the field, so that's one side of the pendulum swing.
(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/480/mmotcapnatgeomay1956pag.jpg)
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16769.msg302175#msg302175 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16769.msg302175#msg302175)
Between there and today are likely a lot of lawyers actuaries, and "best intentions".
Even the PA Ranger School attests to what we used to do vs. what we are now.
It's evident that once we were pretty much a first responder in that we went to look, and were the first on the scene. That's changed drastically. Many times though we may still be the first on the scene, we're in contact with the sheriff and help is in trail and in many cases on station waiting if we've reported sighting of a crash, they move in fast.
The days of getting cadets out of school and sending them out on a ground team volunteer fire dept. style are long gone.
Unless you go to the Ranger School today, some still seem to come back with the mentality that we do just that.
For First Aid, we taught the rescuer that "if a person is suffering from shock, does not show internal bleeding, not wounded in the stomach, and can swallow, make a mixture of water, salt." actual portions escape me at the moment. They were to drink sips of this about 1/4 or so per hour.
The class covered splinting injuries, and offer practice. Now the American Heart Assoc states to cover splinting only if the state allows it.
Multimedia First Aid students practiced Fireman's Carry; Litter Movement (basically the task for GTM3 on this); dragging an injured person in a blanket; and two chair carries for a conscious injured. One consisted of two rescuers sitting the injured in a chair, one rescuer would lift the back of the chair the other the legs. The second chair carry consisted of the two rescuers bending their left arm and extending their rights. The left hand would be placed on one's top right arm right where it bends. The hands of their extended right arms would grab each other's left elbow. This formed a seat. The injured victim would seat here and put his/her arms on the rescuer's shoulder.
What to do in case of poisoning was also left to the care of the rescuer. It taught to induce vomiting if there was no sign of burning at the mouth (indicative of swallowing acid or base solutions) and administering an activated charcoal mixture. At that time, there was no Poison Control Number or was starting to appear.
The basic American Red Cross class was Multimedia First Aid Class to be taught in two days. It used a 16mm film, and was the same format we see now. Watch video, stop, practice. There was even a test. Cannot state what is the contents of the current ARC First Aid class as I am not an instructor for this class. But the American Heart Association class is given in 5 hours without a CPR module, and 7 if with a CPR module. It does not cover injured transfer, and it is taught with the assumption that there will be contact with another agency providing advanced care. the test is optional, back then it was not.
CPR has seen the same context shift. In 1980 it was two days as well. If a heart attack was witnessed, the rescuer would give a pre-cordial thump on the middle of the chest, by raising a fist not higher than a foot from the chest. Non-healthcare rescuers, as well as health care rescuers were taught to feel for a pulse. Now the AHA teaches non-healthcare rescuers to look only for no breath, and if there is no breathing to begin compressions. The AHA now teaches that only health care providers are to feel for a pulse. In 1980 you would begin CPR by 1) checking for responsiveness, open airway one hand under the neck the other on the forehead and pulling up, 3) checking for breath by listening for breathing sounds, feeling for air coming out in your cheek, and looking for chest movement. No breathing, give four breaths then check pulse. No pulse, then begin compressions.
We also taught to check dilation of the iris to both healthcare and non-healthcare providers to check for CPR effectiveness.
Now AHA says to 1) check for scene safety, 2) check for response, 3) check for breathing, no breathing call for help and begin compressions then breath (healthcare providers will add feeling for a pulse after yelling before compressions). Now we do not listen or feel for air. We practiced two-rescuers whether it was a healthcare provider or not. Now AHA practices two-rescuer only if it is a healthcare provider. In 1980 we practiced both responsive and non-responsive victim choking. We practiced hand position only on students and warned not to give thrusts, and practiced non-responsive choking victim by 1) turning victim on the side and giving back slaps, 2) placing him/her back right side up then giving abdominal thrusts, looking for something in the mouth then breathing... And we also taught that if we suspected neck injury, instead of opening the airway with the hand under the neck, to pull the jaw up and away, which usually resulted in separating the lower jaw from its normal position.
Many were the manikins torn up in the eye by police and firemen when opening the eye to check for CPR effectiveness, and in the mouth again by police and firemen when practicing by opening the mouth to remove an object.
But I had fun. I was a member of an organization that served as a reserve for the state Civil Defense (not all members went out). We also provided First Aid to Boy Scout camps. Some classes were held at a hospital, and they would provide free lunch. We would place the infant on our shoulders, some people would gasp then laugh. I almost had a CO2 extinguisher discharged in my face by one of our members who was in his teens, but he moved his arm 45 degrees, and pressed the button, it delivered... And I was permitted to watch several operations without being a medical student. The director of the AHA CPR program under which we taught was also head anesthesiologist, so he was able to let us go into the operating room...
Sorry for the long post, it was asked...
Flyer
I would be in favor of CAP having a program to teach our own First Aid classes if we can do it in accordance with an accepted national standard for both the training and those giving the training. There is nothing magical about the Red Cross or AHA that makes them fundamentally different from CAP in their ability to teach this class. Why give money to other organizations when we could do some of it ourselves with a little effort?
Its pretty stupid that when I've got an ER doc in my unit (which has been the case in the past) that the ER doc can't jump through a few easy hoops to be a certified trainer and then be able to use a CAP First Aid training program and teach it to our cadets.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 10, 2013, 09:47:37 PM
I would be in favor of CAP having a program to teach our own First Aid classes if we can do it in accordance with an accepted national standard for both the training and those giving the training. There is nothing magical about the Red Cross or AHA that makes them fundamentally different from CAP in their ability to teach this class. Why give money to other organizations when we could do some of it ourselves with a little effort?
Its pretty stupid that when I've got an ER doc in my unit (which has been the case in the past) that the ER doc can't jump through a few easy hoops to be a certified trainer and then be able to use a CAP First Aid training program and teach it to our cadets.
+1
To be an ARC or AHA instructor....you just gots to pay your money and take the course....fill out a bunch of agreements and then you are set....assuming you collect the money and send it up the chain.
First Aid Training is not really propietory information.
We just need to get a working group together, figure out what qualifications we need and write the text.
BITD we had teams that had people who knew how to do IV's.......that may be a little farther then we want to go......but there is no real reason why we can't go that far....IF CAP was willing to accept that level of risk.
Like I said befor....IMHO ARC First Aid Training does not go far enough for our Ground Team needs. NOLS has a wilderness first aid for first responders that is probably a better fit for out Ground Teams is a worst case scenirio.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 10, 2013, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 10, 2013, 09:47:37 PM
I would be in favor of CAP having a program to teach our own First Aid classes if we can do it in accordance with an accepted national standard for both the training and those giving the training. There is nothing magical about the Red Cross or AHA that makes them fundamentally different from CAP in their ability to teach this class. Why give money to other organizations when we could do some of it ourselves with a little effort?
Its pretty stupid that when I've got an ER doc in my unit (which has been the case in the past) that the ER doc can't jump through a few easy hoops to be a certified trainer and then be able to use a CAP First Aid training program and teach it to our cadets.
+1
To be an ARC or AHA instructor....you just gots to pay your money and take the course....fill out a bunch of agreements and then you are set....assuming you collect the money and send it up the chain.
First Aid Training is not really propietory information.
Plus, ARC instructors no longer have the ability to do the classes at free/reduced rates. ARC courses are pretty pricey, IMO. Having this ability internally would ease that burden for sure.
Quote from: Walkman on September 11, 2013, 02:33:25 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 10, 2013, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 10, 2013, 09:47:37 PM
I would be in favor of CAP having a program to teach our own First Aid classes if we can do it in accordance with an accepted national standard for both the training and those giving the training. There is nothing magical about the Red Cross or AHA that makes them fundamentally different from CAP in their ability to teach this class. Why give money to other organizations when we could do some of it ourselves with a little effort?
Its pretty stupid that when I've got an ER doc in my unit (which has been the case in the past) that the ER doc can't jump through a few easy hoops to be a certified trainer and then be able to use a CAP First Aid training program and teach it to our cadets.
+1
To be an ARC or AHA instructor....you just gots to pay your money and take the course....fill out a bunch of agreements and then you are set....assuming you collect the money and send it up the chain.
First Aid Training is not really propietory information.
Plus, ARC instructors no longer have the ability to do the classes at free/reduced rates. ARC courses are pretty pricey, IMO. Having this ability internally would ease that burden for sure.
Yes and no, unless there's been a development in the last few months since I've been a little off the ARC radar... If you have an AP agreement there is a minimum fee plus supplies (I'm not going to post the fee here since I'm not sure if that's covered by some NDA somewhere), which is much lower than the rate you pay to take a class at the chapter. Once upon a time I taught FA classes to CAP for as little as $10, now I think that number is somewhere around $25 and you get to keep the ready reference card.
If they're requiring the full (insert whatever the current horrible number is) I'm bridging to AHA...
Quote from: Walkman on September 11, 2013, 02:33:25 AMPlus, ARC instructors no longer have the ability to do the classes at free/reduced rates. ARC courses are pretty pricey, IMO. Having this ability internally would ease that burden for sure.
The ARC started "cost recovery" back in the late 80's early 90's......they have just gotten more adamant about it.
So yes....even if you got one of your squadron members to be an ARC instructor and though "we'll just buy one set of books and do CPR for everyone in CAP" would be a direct violate of the provider agreements that each instructor is supposed to sign.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 10, 2013, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 10, 2013, 09:47:37 PM
BITD we had teams that had people who knew how to do IV's.......that may be a little farther then we want to go......but there is no real reason why we can't go that far....IF CAP was willing to accept that level of risk.
Like I said befor....IMHO ARC First Aid Training does not go far enough for our Ground Team needs. NOLS has a wilderness first aid for first responders that is probably a better fit for out Ground Teams is a worst case scenirio.
No no no no to IVs.
That is an advanced prehospital skill that takes hours of patient contact to be certified with. Unless you want cadets running around ERs starting IVs on people, or starting them one themselves at the squadron for months on end in order to get the proficiency, it's best left alone.
Not to mention the physiological knowledge needed to know when an IV is and isn't indicated cannot be taught in one lesson.
I've even heard that Combat Life Saver is doing away with teaching soldiers how to do IVs because now soldiers get so into getting a line started, they forget to do the ABCs first.
Sorry for the pile on what you probably meant as a throwaway comment, but it needs to be known that there is more to IVs than just a skill.
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 05:24:10 PM
No no no no to IVs.
That is an advanced prehospital skill that takes hours of patient contact to be certified with. Unless you want cadets running around ERs starting IVs on people, or starting them one themselves at the squadron for months on end in order to get the proficiency, it's best left alone.
Not to mention the physiological knowledge needed to know when an IV is and isn't indicated cannot be taught in one lesson.
I've even heard that Combat Life Saver is doing away with teaching soldiers how to do IVs because now soldiers get so into getting a line started, they forget to do the ABCs first.
Sorry for the pile on what you probably meant as a throwaway comment, but it needs to be known that there is more to IVs than just a skill.
Yes, Combat Life Saver, no longer teaches intravenous therapy and more focuses on early application of tourniquets and Chest Decompressions. They have had numerous instances of Soldiers bleeding out while the Life Saver was too focused on starting an IV instead of just stopping the bleeding.
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 05:24:10 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 10, 2013, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 10, 2013, 09:47:37 PM
BITD we had teams that had people who knew how to do IV's.......that may be a little farther then we want to go......but there is no real reason why we can't go that far....IF CAP was willing to accept that level of risk.
Like I said befor....IMHO ARC First Aid Training does not go far enough for our Ground Team needs. NOLS has a wilderness first aid for first responders that is probably a better fit for out Ground Teams is a worst case scenirio.
No no no no to IVs.
That is an advanced prehospital skill that takes hours of patient contact to be certified with. Unless you want cadets running around ERs starting IVs on people, or starting them one themselves at the squadron for months on end in order to get the proficiency, it's best left alone.
Not to mention the physiological knowledge needed to know when an IV is and isn't indicated cannot be taught in one lesson.
I've even heard that Combat Life Saver is doing away with teaching soldiers how to do IVs because now soldiers get so into getting a line started, they forget to do the ABCs first.
Sorry for the pile on what you probably meant as a throwaway comment, but it needs to be known that there is more to IVs than just a skill.
Yes....you are piling on me......for a more or less throw away comment.
Just some comments I need to make.
While I support whole heartedly cadet's involvement in ES......I completely disagree with the concept that GROUND TEAMS=CADETS. That is one of the reasons why we have so much trouble getting traction with outside agencies when we try to get our GT's into their operations. If we are going to bill ourselves as an SAR agency we need to make sure we have the capability with out including any cadet participation.
Second Comment......IF.....IF CAP were to be okay with the risk.....then yes it would be assumed that the member's who performed this level of care would have the proper certifications and training to do so.
In the past when we've had ARC classes organized for the unit, it's been where the instructor does it for the cost of the books and supplies rentals spread across the participants.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 11, 2013, 05:50:14 PM
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 05:24:10 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 10, 2013, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 10, 2013, 09:47:37 PM
BITD we had teams that had people who knew how to do IV's.......that may be a little farther then we want to go......but there is no real reason why we can't go that far....IF CAP was willing to accept that level of risk.
Like I said befor....IMHO ARC First Aid Training does not go far enough for our Ground Team needs. NOLS has a wilderness first aid for first responders that is probably a better fit for out Ground Teams is a worst case scenirio.
No no no no to IVs.
That is an advanced prehospital skill that takes hours of patient contact to be certified with. Unless you want cadets running around ERs starting IVs on people, or starting them one themselves at the squadron for months on end in order to get the proficiency, it's best left alone.
Not to mention the physiological knowledge needed to know when an IV is and isn't indicated cannot be taught in one lesson.
I've even heard that Combat Life Saver is doing away with teaching soldiers how to do IVs because now soldiers get so into getting a line started, they forget to do the ABCs first.
Sorry for the pile on what you probably meant as a throwaway comment, but it needs to be known that there is more to IVs than just a skill.
Yes....you are piling on me......for a more or less throw away comment.
Just some comments I need to make.
While I support whole heartedly cadet's involvement in ES......I completely disagree with the concept that GROUND TEAMS=CADETS. That is one of the reasons why we have so much trouble getting traction with outside agencies when we try to get our GT's into their operations. If we are going to bill ourselves as an SAR agency we need to make sure we have the capability with out including any cadet participation.
Second Comment......IF.....IF CAP were to be okay with the risk.....then yes it would be assumed that the member's who performed this level of care would have the proper certifications and training to do so.
What would be the point of CAP starting IVs anyways?
Even if the member was an AEMT, Paramedic, Nurse, etc...
Military Practical Joke:
During particularly warm brigade-level field exercises for our Guard unit, I would suggest to soldiers that looked a little peaked wandering around in their full battle-rattle that they drop by the Battalion Aid Station and tell the medic that they felt a little dizzy.
I would then go watch as a half dozen college students and 7-11 clerks who were school trained 91 Alphas for two weeks tackled the patient, stuff them into one of the medic tracks, and practice putting lines into each arm to treat the soldier for "dehydration."
They sure needed a lot of practice to get the lines running. It was hilarious.
I always felt a little bad about that . . . . .
But at least the medics got trained.
And reminded me to drink a lot of water.
True story: July 2008, Ft Sill OK, Alpha Battery 1/19 FA. Combat Lifesaver Course: I'm trained to start IV's, and I'm a 1st time go with the needle stick. Yeah me.
Fast forward about 8-9 months. . . .
3rd Platoon, 161st ESC, 27th EN BN, we are on a Platoon FTX out in the woods on Ft Bragg. PFC Joe Johnson is looking very pale, and is dehydrated. SFC Rodriguez calls "Seng! Grab the CLS bag and get over here. Johnson needs an IV." So I grab the bag, get him set at the table, and go through the process of cleaning the arm, and getting him stuck.
Bam. 1st time go with an actual IV start.
They all thought I was going to miss due to my "Crazy Eye.s"
Just goes to show you that it can be done, even by those that are not Combat Medics.
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 06:08:46 PMWhat would be the point of CAP starting IVs anyways?
Even if the member was an AEMT, Paramedic, Nurse, etc...
Not being a medic/EMT/Doctor/etc.....one would assume for some medically required condition.
Nothing against the 11B types out there, but honestly, if we can teach an infantry grunt to do it, and they know when to do and they consistently do it correctly, teaching even cadets is really a non issue. However, there are almost no places that I know of in the US (except the military) that "self train" non licensed personnel on "IV's". They almost always are part of an organized training program leading towards certification. (ie EMT-I, Advanced, paramedic etc etc)
If in the far reaching world of drastic changes and authorizations to CAP when it comes to "medical stuff" there would undoubtedly be a "...must be certified/licensed..." sort of requirement.
I have on a few occasions in and similar to CAP (not in a CAP status mind you) started IV's on people, or have been told of incidents that IV access and therapy would be appropriate, both in the training environment and actual operations.
mk
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 06:08:46 PM
What would be the point of CAP starting IVs anyways?
Even if the member was an AEMT, Paramedic, Nurse, etc...
I'm not advocating it but, starting IV's can be beneficial in the Treatment of Shock. Just a thought.
Quote from: SARDOC on September 11, 2013, 11:42:13 PM
I'm not advocating it but, starting IV's can be beneficial in the Treatment of Shock. Just a thought.
I keep a few around the house for those really hot summer days - squeeze in a couple lemons and some sugar and you have a no-fuss cooler!
I'll start the drip in the morning and just change the bag as the day goes by...
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 11, 2013, 11:13:41 PM
Nothing against the 11B types out there, but honestly, if we can teach an infantry grunt to do it, and they know when to do and they consistently do it correctly, teaching even cadets is really a non issue. However, there are almost no places that I know of in the US (except the military) that "self train" non licensed personnel on "IV's". They almost always are part of an organized training program leading towards certification. (ie EMT-I, Advanced, paramedic etc etc)
If in the far reaching world of drastic changes and authorizations to CAP when it comes to "medical stuff" there would undoubtedly be a "...must be certified/licensed..." sort of requirement.
I have on a few occasions in and similar to CAP (not in a CAP status mind you) started IV's on people, or have been told of incidents that IV access and therapy would be appropriate, both in the training environment and actual operations.
mk
I don't think anyone is advocating "self training" on anything beyond Wilderness First Aid and CPR skills. I would love to see CAP embrace EMT's as part of GT.......and encourage our members to actually go out and get licensed and certified.
Having said that how ever........just a hypothetical........how do you think the very first agency came about starting laymen training for first aid, CPR or even flying?
Becoming a "certified and licensed" skydiver for instance is totally up to the USPA in the united states. There are no government rules governing sky diving certification. Same story for SCUBA diving.
So in theory......and this just a hypothetical....I am not advocating this in any way......really.......If CAP decided that our GTs would be trained in starting and IV........there is not any reason why would could not develop and implement in house training that meets government licensing criteria.
Any more so then any of the hundred of "First Aid and CPR" certification providers we can find on the internet. They find out what the government standards/recommendations/ball park guesses are, they read the applicable literature from the industry, they hire a writer or two and publish a training program
A doctor may be lincensed by the state and board certified by the state.......but he is taught by JIM BOB's UNIVESITY OF Medicine in Grenada. CAP can certainly devlope the training, do the training and the send the potential IV'er off to do his state tests.
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 11, 2013, 11:13:41 PM
Nothing against the 11B types out there, but honestly, if we can teach an infantry grunt to do it, and they know when to do and they consistently do it correctly, teaching even cadets is really a non issue. However, there are almost no places that I know of in the US (except the military) that "self train" non licensed personnel on "IV's". They almost always are part of an organized training program leading towards certification. (ie EMT-I, Advanced, paramedic etc etc)
If in the far reaching world of drastic changes and authorizations to CAP when it comes to "medical stuff" there would undoubtedly be a "...must be certified/licensed..." sort of requirement.
I have on a few occasions in and similar to CAP (not in a CAP status mind you) started IV's on people, or have been told of incidents that IV access and therapy would be appropriate, both in the training environment and actual operations.
mk
I'm not sure where you are located, but I know in my area that there is no state Phlebotomy standard, so the hospitals have all created their own programs for starting IV's. The Hospital requires that Phlebotomy personnel as well as new nurses attend the class. It seems that even new nurses don't always get trained in most procedures until they are working in a field that requires it. The Hospital has been waiving EMT-E, EMT-I and EMT-P's since it's part of their training curriculum and standard practice.
The problem with teaching the Grunt to do it, is that's what the Grunt focuses on when SHTF happens. They were ignoring basic ABC's and focusing on this instead of addressing the "B" portion. So the Tactical Combat Casualty Care removed it and focused more on the early application of tourniquets.
There is a matter of liability involved in doing IV therapy enough to the point that I'm sure that CAP doesn't need to engage in that practice. Instead of Focusing on any Advanced Life Support Procedures, we should just focus on our search tactics and proficiency in the Basic First Aid measures.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 11, 2013, 11:54:27 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on September 11, 2013, 11:42:13 PM
I'm not advocating it but, starting IV's can be beneficial in the Treatment of Shock. Just a thought.
I keep a few around the house for those really hot summer days - squeeze in a couple lemons and some sugar and you have a no-fuss cooler!
I'll start the drip in the morning and just change the bag as the day goes by...
I've heard they can be awfully helpful after an evening of inebriation as well.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 12, 2013, 12:03:23 AM
So in theory......and this just a hypothetical....I am not advocating this in any way......really.......If CAP decided that our GTs would be trained in starting and IV........there is not any reason why would could not develop and implement in house training that meets government licensing criteria.
Well, the purchase of Intravenous Supplies may be difficult. They are identified under the United States Pharmacopeia and as such regulated like drugs and other medical devices. You'll need a physician order (prescription) in order to obtain supplies. Every State has different requirements for Medical licensure/training. The easiest way to accomplish this is probably just by establishing an EMS training program because they'll want the additional training in addition to just IV Therapy, There is more to it than just sticking. I don't even want to get into the requirements involved in the creation of a program.
Or just go get the IV stuff at the local feed store and tell them it's for your horse or Great Dane if they even ask...
Quote from: SARDOC on September 11, 2013, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 06:08:46 PM
What would be the point of CAP starting IVs anyways?
Even if the member was an AEMT, Paramedic, Nurse, etc...
I'm not advocating it but, starting IV's can be beneficial in the Treatment of Shock. Just a thought.
Depends on the type and origin of the hypoperfusion.
People advocating CAP being able to place IV lines clearly do not have experience in civilian prehospital emergency medicine.
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 05:24:10 PM
......
That is an advanced prehospital skill that takes hours of patient contact to be certified with. Unless you want cadets running around ERs starting IVs on people, or starting them one themselves at the squadron for months on end in order to get the proficiency, it's best left alone.
Not to mention the physiological knowledge needed to know when an IV is and isn't indicated cannot be taught in one lesson.
Thats where the "self training" comment came from.
Even here, the hospitals do their own internal training programs; in that scenario, CAP would more than likely fall into the realm of special EMS service, which means in my area anyway complying with the state EMS act which restricts IV therapy to certified prehospital providers (medics, PHRN's and Health professionals... ie EMS PA's/physician's.
The grunts were worrying about it because that's what we were teaching them, I still beat people around the ears in the civilian world, when they want to start 2 large bore IV's and push in fluid just because its a trauma....
IV fluids almost never are going to save your life, in fact in the case of GSW & IED issues the practice was killing more than saving. Its diluting your already screwed clotting ability, on top of that what little clots you are forming are being blown out by having your BP jacked up by extra volume that does nothing more than keep the container expanded. This still shocks some people (no pun intended) but patients can live just fine for awhile with a pressure in the 70's. In the tactical sense, the availability of IO access has also limited the need for early IV access by the CLS....even if they have started to decomponsate and peripheral veins start collapsing due to shunting, you can still pop them in the chest and have a ready point to dump in fluids, drugs and blood.....
mk
So.....anyway......we have established that EMT and IV bags are probably too far down the "PITA" route........I still think that something like NOLS WFA for first responders is probably the cert/level of training that we should be pushing our GTMs to get.
ARC First Aid is probably just fine for UDF.
Also.....I think....just because I'm and old Boy Scout.......that ALL ES personnel should have basic first aid AND CPR to be GES qualified.
But that's just me.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 11, 2013, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 06:08:46 PMWhat would be the point of CAP starting IVs anyways?
Even if the member was an AEMT, Paramedic, Nurse, etc...
Not being a medic/EMT/Doctor/etc.....one would assume for some medically required condition.
The problem with IV administration in a CAP context is the fact that once we have an IV established, then what?
WE have no medical direction, no Doctor on the other end giving orders (verbal or through protocol) and willing to allow us to practice on his ticket which is essential for licensed personel to have in order to do these things. In the absence of a medical director a Paramedic or Nurse is just able to give really good first aid (legally).
In order for CAP to do this, CAP would either need to start staffing Doctors to write our protocol at a national level and accept responsibility and liability for every licensed or certified provider in CAP, or local units need to find Doctors willing to volunteer and provide medical direction at a smaller scale, but would have to be willing to accept the liability that goes along with that. I'm not saying that the second scenario is impossible, but it sure is unlikely.
IVs in CAP are a bad idea. Administering medication in CAP is a bad idea. Medication includes Normal Saline and even Oxygen. Even the IV catheters themselves are not to be placed without a Physician's order (EMS gets around this by having a physician establish protocols dictating when administering an IV is appropriate).
I'm not trying to jump on you lordmonar, please understand that, you just brought up a very valid point that many laymen don't realize.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 12, 2013, 04:06:20 AM
So.....anyway......we have established that EMT and IV bags are probably too far down the "PITA" route........I still think that something like NOLS WFA for first responders is probably the cert/level of training that we should be pushing our GTMs to get.
This^^
I once worked as an orderly in an Emergency Room. Eleven pm to seven am.
One of the doctors there would order coffee and whenever we were out of sugar, would ask for a DW5 IV to sweeten the coffee. For those of you that do not know it, DW5 is 5 percent dextrose in water. Dextrose, a type of sugar...
And whenever I got sick, he suggested I could use a saline IV to gargle...
Flyer
Quote from: tsrup on September 12, 2013, 07:01:30 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 11, 2013, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 06:08:46 PMWhat would be the point of CAP starting IVs anyways?
Even if the member was an AEMT, Paramedic, Nurse, etc...
Not being a medic/EMT/Doctor/etc.....one would assume for some medically required condition.
The problem with IV administration in a CAP context is the fact that once we have an IV established, then what?
WE have no medical direction, no Doctor on the other end giving orders (verbal or through protocol) and willing to allow us to practice on his ticket which is essential for licensed personel to have in order to do these things. In the absence of a medical director a Paramedic or Nurse is just able to give really good first aid (legally).
In order for CAP to do this, CAP would either need to start staffing Doctors to write our protocol at a national level and accept responsibility and liability for every licensed or certified provider in CAP, or local units need to find Doctors willing to volunteer and provide medical direction at a smaller scale, but would have to be willing to accept the liability that goes along with that. I'm not saying that the second scenario is impossible, but it sure is unlikely.
IVs in CAP are a bad idea. Administering medication in CAP is a bad idea. Medication includes Normal Saline and even Oxygen. Even the IV catheters themselves are not to be placed without a Physician's order (EMS gets around this by having a physician establish protocols dictating when administering an IV is appropriate).
I'm not trying to jump on you lordmonar, please understand that, you just brought up a very valid point that many laymen don't realize.
I dont think anyone was advocating just running off and starting IV's like you would take a tylenol!?.... It would in a hypothetical world be one small part of an encompasing medical program of all of the things you mentioned and more......
Its a unrealistic pipe dream, individual EMS agencies have a difficult time managing all of the issues associated with the provision of adavanced level medical care; CAP has difficulty managing the programs that it does now in a safe, consistant and compliant manner on the 2 hours a day/once a week sort of management plan. In a carte blanche go forth and ALS folks type of system, the potential for oops is pretty high, and higher than I imagine the corporate "loose my home go to jail pay big fines" fearing folks are willing to risk. If there was a way to make that work I think it would be a fantastic boon in certain situations, but until that happy medium is found I dont believe it will happen, and begrudgingly believe that might be a good thing.
The often referenced FEMA typing guide actually reccomended for type II search team a wilderness first responder level as the mecical component. I think that would be a good standard to try and meet if you want to have a level II capable team (which is 32 people, in 4 8 person teams.... 4 TL/28 TM, 1 on each team must meet the WFR-medical specialist requirement)
Every member (and I'll concede GES type and up) should have a basic first aid training-thinking SABC type (and honestly there is no reason why that program couldnt be extended to cover CAP by the USAF)
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 12, 2013, 04:03:38 PMEvery member (and I'll concede GES type and up)
I agree - First Aid, whatever CAP decides is appropriate, should be happening before GES is awarded, and I would argue as part of Level I and Curry.
I would argue that just as an increase in encampment participation requirements would increase the number of encampments required by each wing,
requiring First Aid as a part of basic membership would not only increase the general awareness and competence of the membership, it would also
force the training to be better defined and probably brought in-house.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 12, 2013, 04:15:27 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 12, 2013, 04:03:38 PMEvery member (and I'll concede GES type and up)
I agree - First Aid, whatever CAP decides is appropriate, should be happening before GES is awarded, and I would argue as part of Level I and Curry.
I would argue that just as an increase in encampment participation requirements would increase the number of encampments required by each wing, requiring First Aid as a part of basic membership would not only increase the general awareness and competence of the membership, it would also force the training to be better defined and probably brought in-house.
This sounds like a good proposal to send up the Chain of Command in several Wings simultaneously.
Let's require a Basic First Aid/CPR/AED course for membership. Maybe something along the lines of "Must be completed within 6 months of membership." ... And Wing's could host the training twice annually.
If that was the case, we could remove the 1st aid requirement from the ES SQTRs, unless it was to add a requirement to keep it current.
Well, then the next question is, what happens if you don't get it?
Suspension?
I suppose you could delay promotion until it's completed, but is that a reasonable expectation in the attrition-averse culture that is NHQ right now?
I'd have to concede that suspending someone in their first six months of membership isn't going to reduce churn.
At least if it could be done in-house, then yo would eliminate the cost and access excuse.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 12, 2013, 04:15:27 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 12, 2013, 04:03:38 PMEvery member (and I'll concede GES type and up)
I agree - First Aid, whatever CAP decides is appropriate, should be happening before GES is awarded, and I would argue as part of Level I and Curry.
I would argue that just as an increase in encampment participation requirements would increase the number of encampments required by each wing,
requiring First Aid as a part of basic membership would not only increase the general awareness and competence of the membership, it would also
force the training to be better defined and probably brought in-house.
Why should first aid be required for GES?
GES=/= field ready. GES is just the precursor for those getting started toward other assignments. Does the MSA really need to know how to splint an arm?
Though with the advanced "experience" of many of our members in mission base, maybe having some MSAs around with a CPR card might not be a bad idea >:D
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 12, 2013, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: tsrup on September 12, 2013, 07:01:30 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 11, 2013, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: tsrup on September 11, 2013, 06:08:46 PMWhat would be the point of CAP starting IVs anyways?
Even if the member was an AEMT, Paramedic, Nurse, etc...
Not being a medic/EMT/Doctor/etc.....one would assume for some medically required condition.
The problem with IV administration in a CAP context is the fact that once we have an IV established, then what?
WE have no medical direction, no Doctor on the other end giving orders (verbal or through protocol) and willing to allow us to practice on his ticket which is essential for licensed personel to have in order to do these things. In the absence of a medical director a Paramedic or Nurse is just able to give really good first aid (legally).
In order for CAP to do this, CAP would either need to start staffing Doctors to write our protocol at a national level and accept responsibility and liability for every licensed or certified provider in CAP, or local units need to find Doctors willing to volunteer and provide medical direction at a smaller scale, but would have to be willing to accept the liability that goes along with that. I'm not saying that the second scenario is impossible, but it sure is unlikely.
IVs in CAP are a bad idea. Administering medication in CAP is a bad idea. Medication includes Normal Saline and even Oxygen. Even the IV catheters themselves are not to be placed without a Physician's order (EMS gets around this by having a physician establish protocols dictating when administering an IV is appropriate).
I'm not trying to jump on you lordmonar, please understand that, you just brought up a very valid point that many laymen don't realize.
I dont think anyone was advocating just running off and starting IV's like you would take a tylenol!?.... It would in a hypothetical world be one small part of an encompasing medical program of all of the things you mentioned and more......
Why start them at all?
Quote
Its a unrealistic pipe dream, individual EMS agencies have a difficult time managing all of the issues associated with the provision of adavanced level medical care; CAP has difficulty managing the programs that it does now in a safe, consistant and compliant manner on the 2 hours a day/once a week sort of management plan. In a carte blanche go forth and ALS folks type of system, the potential for oops is pretty high, and higher than I imagine the corporate "loose my home go to jail pay big fines" fearing folks are willing to risk. If there was a way to make that work I think it would be a fantastic boon in certain situations, but until that happy medium is found I dont believe it will happen, and begrudgingly believe that might be a good thing.
The often referenced FEMA typing guide actually reccomended for type II search team a wilderness first responder level as the mecical component. I think that would be a good standard to try and meet if you want to have a level II capable team (which is 32 people, in 4 8 person teams.... 4 TL/28 TM, 1 on each team must meet the WFR-medical specialist requirement)
Every member (and I'll concede GES type and up) should have a basic first aid training-thinking SABC type (and honestly there is no reason why that program couldnt be extended to cover CAP by the USAF)
mk
I'll agree with CAP moving up to the scope of practice as a MFR.
As far as allowing ALS providers to do ALS skills...
..Didn't this thread get rolling because we couldn't even get a handle on tracking a first aid card?
We should probably manage that first.
Quote from: Ed Bos on September 12, 2013, 04:20:41 PM
This sounds like a good proposal to send up the Chain of Command in several Wings simultaneously.
Let's require a Basic First Aid/CPR/AED course for membership. Maybe something along the lines of "Must be completed within 6 months of membership." ... And Wing's could host the training twice annually.
If that was the case, we could remove the 1st aid requirement from the ES SQTRs, unless it was to add a requirement to keep it current.
I would not require for every member. As.....and Eclipes is going to kill me....not every member is suited or wants to do ES. So it becomes just another stuipid "got to jump through a useless hoop" exercises.
I do think that anyone choosing to do ES should do a SABC style course to get GES.....and yes wing, groups, and squadrons can host them as needed.
Do the online course.....then maybe once a quarter or more often do the hands on part. Easy Pleasey.
At the squadron I work with......they got one guy who does the hands on maybe once or twice of month.
But I don't see the value added by requiring the general membership to have it.
Quote from: tsrup on September 12, 2013, 04:46:55 PM
Why should first aid be required for GES?
GES=/= field ready. GES is just the precursor for those getting started toward other assignments. Does the MSA really need to know how to splint an arm?
I agree on GES, as indicated in the regs, it's a license to train.
As to MSA's knowing First Aid, that would get to similar ideas the military has that everyone is a "warrior" at the most basic level. In our case, the
ability to provide self and buddy care should be one of our paramount skills. ICPs in real missions tend to be in environments that have hazards
and people get hurt.
I think requiring it for GES, especially if it was in-house, closes the conversation, and gets us where we want to be.
Lordmonor - First Aid isn't an ES-specific skill. It's useful in the CP and AE as well. In fact I would say most cadet-related 78's
come through during encampments and similar activities with no ES in sight.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 12, 2013, 05:04:41 PM
...I would not require for every member. As.....and Eclipes is going to kill me....not every member is suited or wants to do ES. So it becomes just another stuipid "got to jump through a useless hoop" exercises.
...
Im a little split on this one. One one hand there is a certain level of futility in maintaining currency on an item that some people will NEVER use. But perhaps it could be a one time learinng event (online wouldnt be that bad) and only GES rated personnel required to maintain "currency" (ie hands on portion and whatever other re-cert method is determined)
that way everyone in CAP has had at least some sort of training in the event they happen upon an emergency, "on the job' or off. And those with a higher than likely incident of actually coming upon an emergency are a little bit more competent.
mk
That's a reasonable suggestion, although First Aid tends to be like a motorcycle helmet, you really only need it on the days you crash.
I agree with those of you that should be required for those at the mission base, but not needed by most of those joining CAP.
As part or after GES? I don't know... However by the time that you become an MSA require it. Think about it, MRO requires a task on radio safety, Task L-0010, Mission Safety Procedures. Why not add First Aid or better yet, CPR to this qualification?
And about FLM, O-3004 and O-3005 which are tasks related to flight line safety and hazards. Why not add First Aid to this qualification?
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 12, 2013, 07:58:20 PM
I agree with those of you that should be required for those at the mission base, but not needed by most of those joining CAP.
As part or after GES? I don't know... However by the time that you become an MSA require it. Think about it, MRO requires a task on radio safety, Task L-0010, Mission Safety Procedures. Why not add First Aid or better yet, CPR to this qualification?
And about FLM, O-3004 and O-3005 which are tasks related to flight line safety and hazards. Why not add First Aid to this qualification?
Flyer
Per the FLM SQTR, "Complete Basic First Aid Training or Equivalent" is already there. It's the fourth item under Advanced Training.
MY mistake, apologies! I am not FLM...
Let's try that little bit of magic with MSA and MRO, then... Abracadabra, PUFF! Now it is also there... ;D
{Edited to add] Also add to UDT.
Nope... Suggesting then it be added to two instead of three. Two out of three ain't bad...
Flyer
Making it a part of GES knocks it out early, maybe to never think of it again. It also puts the member, theoretically in the proper
mindset of ES being serious.
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 12, 2013, 05:49:16 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 12, 2013, 05:04:41 PM
...I would not require for every member. As.....and Eclipes is going to kill me....not every member is suited or wants to do ES. So it becomes just another stuipid "got to jump through a useless hoop" exercises.
...
Im a little split on this one. One one hand there is a certain level of futility in maintaining currency on an item that some people will NEVER use. But perhaps it could be a one time learinng event (online wouldnt be that bad) and only GES rated personnel required to maintain "currency" (ie hands on portion and whatever other re-cert method is determined)
that way everyone in CAP has had at least some sort of training in the event they happen upon an emergency, "on the job' or off. And those with a higher than likely incident of actually coming upon an emergency are a little bit more competent.
mk
I see where you are coming from......and to a point I agree. I just think we front load a lot of crap on new members as it is.......Maybe move it back as a level II requirement or stick it in as part of the specialty tracks. That way we get more or less the same result but delay it a bit....with out having a "with in 6 month of joining" rules.
As for currency.....I'm one time good sort of guy. Like we said most of us will never have to use it......ever. But having been trained once....maybe you will remember the one or two really important things and call 911 and clear the airway.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 12:42:11 AM
I see where you are coming from......and to a point I agree. I just think we front load a lot of crap on new members as it is....
Not to run too far of a tangent into SM PD, but I'd like to see a bit more asked of newer members. I was honestly finished with L1 within a week of getting my card, and I'm like "This is it?". After taking the OBC, my first thought was "I wish I had done this prior to getting my butterbars". If we're going to be taken seriously by those outside, we need to earn it. I was a bit disillusioned for a while after starting.
In that vein, requiring basic FA or something like that as part of GES sets the tone. We're training seriously, because ES can be serious.
YMMV. I'm the kind of guy that eats this stuff up and goes back for thirds. If my family didn't have the habits of eating regular meals and sleeping indoors, I'd quit my job today and do every single SAR/EMT/survival/etc course I could find.
We forget this is the reason most adults join the organization - to "learn and do".
Absent a connection such as a cadet in the program, walk-in adults are generally joining for ES first and foremost, setting the expectation that First Aid is important
probably wouldn't come as any surprise.
It also forces the issue with unit CCs who would just as soon "not be bothered with ES".
Yup....and we got dedicated people who are only there to "support their cadet". Good people who do good work....but are just not interested in all the rank, the PD and all the ES stuff.
Forcing them to do a first aid class for the Level I.......is counter productive.
As for the idea that "you can't be bothered by the ES stuff". ES is NOT part of the Cadet Program. I support the idea of using ES to enhance your CP but I accept that people should focus on what is important to their mission focus.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 03:55:59 PM
Forcing them to do a first aid class for the Level I.......is counter productive.
Agreed, that why I like adding it to GES.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 03:55:59 PMForcing them to do a first aid class for the Level I.......is counter productive.
You have to be more specific then that. Counterproductive to "what"?
It's not counterproductive to mission and purpose. It might be to retention, but that depends on the hows and the whys.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 03:55:59 PM
As for the idea that "you can't be bothered by the ES stuff". ES is NOT part of the Cadet Program. I support the idea of using ES to enhance your CP but I accept that people should focus on what is important to their mission focus.
Not >THEIR< mission focus. THE mission focus.
The mission is not a menu. Individuals may treat it that way, but the
organization should not, and since it has, especially in the last decade or so,
we can chart the decline. ES and CP are on life support because they are done at the whim of the commanders involved, to the detriment of both (if for no
other reason then they share the member pool and there's no emphasis on recruiting), and AE is basically ignored, except where it crosses into ES or CP.
Quote from: Walkman on September 13, 2013, 03:46:32 PM
Not to run too far of a tangent into SM PD, but I'd like to see a bit more asked of newer members. I was honestly finished with L1 within a week of getting my card, and I'm like "This is it?". After taking the OBC, my first thought was "I wish I had done this prior to getting my butterbars". If we're going to be taken seriously by those outside, we need to earn it. I was a bit disillusioned for a while after starting.
The new Level One is significantly better than the old one. I have already ran one new member (former cadet CMSgt) through it, and I thought it is a good bridge between the Old Level 1 and OBC. I have a couple prospective applicants that are serious considering joining, so I'll have more to report later.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 13, 2013, 04:34:03 PM
Not >THEIR< mission focus. THE mission focus.
The mission is not a menu. Individuals may treat it that way, but the organization should not, and since it has, especially in the last decade or so,
we can chart the decline. ES and CP are on life support because they are done at the whim of the commanders involved, to the detriment of both (if for no
other reason then they share the member pool and there's no emphasis on recruiting), and AE is basically ignored, except where it crosses into ES or CP.
That's why it is important for Unit Commanders to be actively engaging people to get involved, and/or recruiting people to fill those aspects. I don't care how hard you WISH for someone to get involved in CP, if a person is only interested in flying for SAR, there is no way they will enter into the CP area. So, I recruit CP Personnel.
I'm actually glad that most of my people want to be involved in multiple sections of our Missions. Still, I have a few that will only fly (I've never actually seen him, or any regular contact (except for when he needs something.))
So, does that make me a bad Commander?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 13, 2013, 04:34:03 PM
Not >THEIR< mission focus. THE mission focus.
The mission is not a menu. Individuals may treat it that way, but the organization should not, and since it has, especially in the last decade or so, we can chart the decline. ES and CP are on life support because they are done at the whim of the commanders involved, to the detriment of both (if for no other reason then they share the member pool and there's no emphasis on recruiting), and AE is basically ignored, except where it crosses into ES or CP.
In my (somewhat limited) experience in three wings, two group HQ, three units and with many, many different commanders, I have to concur with your assessment.
I don't agree that First Aid should be part of Level 1. I'm not opposed to the idea that it be part of GES, but only is the burden to seek and pay for this training is removed from the members and put on CAP.
GES, as it has been said before, is your license to learn and I wouldn't want anyone prevented from learning and participating in ES training because the unit doesn't offer this course and they can't afford to do it outside of CAP. My preference would be to make it a requirement for every ES specialty, not just a few like GTM and FLM.
I also support the requirement that it be renewed every two years for ES purposes, as that is the expiration date given by most agencies/organizations who offer this training.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 13, 2013, 04:34:03 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 03:55:59 PMForcing them to do a first aid class for the Level I.......is counter productive.
You have to be more specific then that. Counterproductive to "what"?
It's not counterproductive to mission and purpose. It might be to retention, but that depends on the hows and the whys.
Counter productive to retention IS counter productive to mission and purpose.
QuoteQuote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 03:55:59 PM
As for the idea that "you can't be bothered by the ES stuff". ES is NOT part of the Cadet Program. I support the idea of using ES to enhance your CP but I accept that people should focus on what is important to their mission focus.
Not >THEIR< mission focus. THE mission focus.
The mission is not a menu. Individuals may treat it that way, but the organization should not, and since it has, especially in the last decade or so,
we can chart the decline. ES and CP are on life support because they are done at the whim of the commanders involved, to the detriment of both (if for no
other reason then they share the member pool and there's no emphasis on recruiting), and AE is basically ignored, except where it crosses into ES or CP.
Ehhhhmmmmm........sorry yes it is. CADET squadrons only do CADET programs. Senior squadrons only do ES.....Composite squadrons do both. And the designation of said squadrons is mostly a matter of choice. I redesginated the Nellis Cadet Squadron to the Nellis Composite Squadron after I took command....because I decided we need to do ES.
When National, Region, and/or Wing start pushing down real taskings to the squadrons then I will buy the missions are not a menu to be picked at will.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 13, 2013, 05:18:16 PM
I'm not opposed to the idea that it be part of GES, but only is the burden to seek and pay for this training is removed from the members and put on CAP.
And this money comes from where? Our membership dues? Our funding from Congress? In an era at where we are already seeing a cutback on financial capabilities (IE awards printing/approvals/etc) what missions would you have us cut to pay for the Training.
I absolutely think 1st Aid should be a part of GES. I would propose that First Aid would be good for
4 years for all Specialties except for GTM and UDF, which would be good for 2 years. My reasoning is that the GTM and UDF have the greater likelihood of actually needing to use the training than any others; so it would be a good idea to have those that need it, should have it. I won't get into whether we should be doing any more advanced things like IV's and such, but I honestly believe that EVERYBODY should know First Aid, even if they aren't in CAP.
edited to correct my typing speed error.
Free....except for the cost of the training supplies.......I we write our own First Aid SQTR/Task Guide/Training Text.
:)
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 05:29:22 PMCADET squadrons only do CADET programs. Senior squadrons only do ES...
To the continued detriment of the organization, not to mention potential members of the opposite status who are turned off then they learn they aren't needed / wanted.
Rarely do either unit types thrive at a level that rises above. Generally they stagnant at smaller numbers and the designation is a result of "can't be bothered", not
some mission-driven purpose.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 13, 2013, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 13, 2013, 05:18:16 PM
I'm not opposed to the idea that it be part of GES, but only is the burden to seek and pay for this training is removed from the members and put on CAP.
And this money comes from where? Our membership dues? Our funding from Congress? In an era at where we are already seeing a cutback on financial capabilities (IE awards printing/approvals/etc) what missions would you have us cut to pay for the Training.
If we don't have the money for this training, then we shouldn't make it mandatory for everyone. There are ways to work around the budget constraints and provide the training in-house, but we would have to change some regulations.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 13, 2013, 05:29:53 PM
I absolutely think 1st Aid should be a part of GES. I would propose that First Aid would be good for 2 years for all Specialties except for GTM and UDF, which would be good for 2 years. My reasoning is that the GTM and UDF have the greater likelihood of actually needing to use the training than any others; so it would be a good idea to have those that need it, should have it. I won't get into whether we should be doing any more advanced things like IV's and such, but I honestly believe that EVERYBODY should know First Aid, even if they aren't in CAP. (emphasis mine)
First Aid should be good for 2 years for every specialty, except for GTM and UDF, which should be good for 2 years? Am I missing something here?
I don't disagree that First Aid is a skill that is good for everyone, including those not in CAP or working in ES.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 13, 2013, 05:45:56 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 05:29:22 PMCADET squadrons only do CADET programs. Senior squadrons only do ES...
To the continued detriment of the organization, not to mention potential members of the opposite status who are turned off then they learn they aren't needed / wanted.
Rarely do either unit types thrive at a level that rises above. Generally they stagnant at smaller numbers and the designation is a result of "can't be bothered", not
some mission-driven purpose.
I've seen that happen over and over. In fact, it was the reason for my previous break in membership. Many folks join with certain expectations, which are then not fulfilled. I've seen members leave because they were underutilized. I've also seen members leave because they got burned out.
CAP can be a very rewarding organization, but it can also be extremely frustrating at times.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 13, 2013, 05:45:56 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 05:29:22 PMCADET squadrons only do CADET programs. Senior squadrons only do ES...
To the continued detriment of the organization, not to mention potential members of the opposite status who are turned off then they learn they aren't needed / wanted.
Rarely do either unit types thrive at a level that rises above. Generally they stagnant at smaller numbers and the designation is a result of "can't be bothered", not
some mission-driven purpose.
Yup.....MISSION DRIVEN......when has wing/region/national ever pushed mission taskings to the units?
See my posts on the 200 hour goal....and my post on the idea squadron thread.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 06:12:45 PM
..when has wing/region/national ever pushed mission taskings to the units?
Never, but that doesn't really change the conversation or situation, it just means that commanders need to rise up to the challenge themselves and
not accept mediocrity.
I think as you look around CAP and you find the units, activities, and missions that were / are really successful, not accidentally successful, or anecdotally successful,
or get press but cause a of of issues, the honestly successful ones, you'll find knowledgeable commanders who picked up the full mantle and didn't accept
mediocrity or fall into "no one cares so neither do I mode".
A good commander knows the difference between "good" and "good enough". The truly successful ones in the best sense of the word are never satisfied
with the former, and are continually frustrated by those that accept the latter, especially when you consider how simple CAP really is when you get to the core of it.
Lord-
What CAP regulation or just for Pete's sake, which CAP publication does it state that "Cadet squadrons only do cadet programs, while Composite squadrons are to do ES?"
In my 12 years of CAP service I have seen squadron commanders of cadet squadrons pushing their cadets to attend ES training. Actively participating in SAREX and other ES training.
It may really be a matter of preference, in which some senior members misread the phrase "cadet squadron" at the end of the name to mean "so we are not to do ES."
If we follow that logic, we would not be doing Aerospace Education at all, since we have no "Aerospace Education" squadrons!
Flyer
So.....basically you are saying if you are not a world class IC, Master CP guy and Master AE guy.......you are embracing mediocrity?
As you say all the time CAP is not everything to everybody.
The same is true for units.
Also.....I have question about your definition of "successful"? With out benchmarks....."successful" is a little nebulous at best.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 13, 2013, 06:46:04 PM
Lord-
What CAP regulation or just for Pete's sake, which CAP publication does it state that "Cadet squadrons only do cadet programs, while Composite squadrons are to do ES?"
In my 12 years of CAP service I have seen squadron commanders of cadet squadrons pushing their cadets to attend ES training. Actively participating in SAREX and other ES training.
It may really be a matter of preference, in which some senior members misread the phrase "cadet squadron" at the end of the name to mean "so we are not to do ES."
If we follow that logic, we would not be doing Aerospace Education at all, since we have no "Aerospace Education" squadrons!
Flyer
????
"Can only" Never said "Can only".
I said that CAP has built in the concept that there is a division of labor.....Senior, Cadet, Composite.
Sure senior squadrons can support cadet activities.......just as cadet squadrons can support ES activities. My statements were directed to Eclipse who suggested that Cadet Squadrons who don't do ES are somehow not fulfilling their obligations and senior squadrons who don't do CP are lacking as well.
CAP's missions are ES, CP, and AE.......just like the USAF's mission is to Fly, Fight, Win........not every squadron flies or fights.....but they do their portion of the mission to get it done.
CAP is the same thing.......If Squadron X want to just CP.....fine......the help CAP to fulfill the missions. Just like the Squadron Y doing just ES.
To keep harping on "you are not doing enough" is one of the reasons why we have the US vs THEM attitude in a lot of places.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 06:48:17 PM
So.....basically you are saying if you are not a world class IC, Master CP guy and Master AE guy.......you are embracing mediocrity?
Of course not, and you know that, however in regards to a unit's manning table, you could certainly make a valid argument.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 06:48:17 PM
As you say all the time CAP is not everything to everybody.
Correct, which why we need >more<, so that we have enough to get the job done.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 06:48:17 PM
Also.....I have question about your definition of "successful"? With out benchmarks....."successful" is a little nebulous at best.
Sadly, you're correct, with self-actualization being the only strategic direction, success is in the eyes of the beholder.
But like another nebulous concept defined by a judge "You know it when you see it", and I would be willing to bet that
if we surveyed our respective wings' units together, we would not be very far apart on which are successful and which
are not.
50 real members where a CC is taking a legit shot at trying to accomplish the full mission vs. 4 cadets showing up
and the two seniors sit in the corner talking to the parent about Desperate Housewives while the "cadets are over there doing their stuff..."
would probably the two sides of the pendulum and I bet we've both seen those.
The mid points of the swing aren't the issue, it's the fact that the outliers make up too much or the arc, especially the low-enders.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 06:55:40 PMTo keep harping on "you are not doing enough" is one of the reasons why we have the US vs THEM attitude in a lot of places.
No,
allowing an "us" vs. a "them" instead of a "we", is the issue.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 13, 2013, 05:56:16 PM
If we don't have the money for this training, then we shouldn't make it mandatory for everyone. There are ways to work around the budget constraints and provide the training in-house, but we would have to change some regulations.
You know as well as I do that it costs money to play. We need to be upfront about what the costs are. not to mention that ES is not mandatory of all members in a unit. I consider the cost of First aid and CPR like the costs of Gear maintenance.
Quote
First Aid should be good for 2 years for every specialty, except for GTM and UDF, which should be good for 2 years? Am I missing something here?
I typed too fast. See my edit.
I guess we see the same problems but look at the solution differently.
I see the status quo and look at ways to build on that to make it better.
Embrace the Cadet and Senior specialization but MANDATE, through detailed OPLANS and Mission Tasking and Goals to meet CAP overall mission goals.
That let's individuals to choose which squadron they want to join and be used to their fullest potential.
Instead of mandating all squadrons to all missions (i.e. we are all composite squadrons) but not giving them the tools they need.
There are somewhere around 2000 squadrons in CAP......only 550 +/- aircraft......ergo it is difficult for some squadrons to embrace the air side of ES.
With only around 900 vehicles it is difficult for all squadrons to embrace the GT side of ES.
When you throw in age restrictions for ES (both regulatory and customer driven) it is hard for some CP units to embrace Emergency Services.
Either way......we should judge a squadron on what they do......or more specifically How they do what the choose to do and not how or why they don't do all the missions in CAP.
My beef with you is that (at least to me) you marginalize the good work a unit does.....simply because they do everything.....even though they have not been given any benchmarks to meet from higher up. If that was not what you were doing I apologize.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 07:33:22 PM
There are somewhere around 2000 squadrons in CAP....
As of last week, there are less then 1300 squadrons in CAP.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 07:33:22 PM
only 550 +/- aircraft......ergo it is difficult for some squadrons to embrace the air side of ES.
With only around 900 vehicles it is difficult for all squadrons to embrace the GT side of ES.
Having an assigned aircraft isn't required, nor does it make it that much easier to be involved in air ops, and I have no idea what
having a van has to do with ground ES. As someone who has had both vans and ICP trailers assigned, I found that
just like pools and pets, "other people's vehicles" are a lot less hassle. If you need a van or a plane, you reserve it and get it.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 07:33:22 PM
When you throw in age restrictions for ES (both regulatory and customer driven) it is hard for some CP units to embrace Emergency Services.
Age restrictions? That's in regard to outside agencies, not internal. The vast majority of our missions are never impacted by an age restriction in anyway, and
if we got to a point where we were a credible force in the ES community, we could manage the age situation better. A lot of agencies will tell you initially
that responders have to be 18, until you tell them that they will always be supervised and under CAP control, at which point the responsibility shifts from
them to us and the conversation changes. I had this literal conversation 2 weeks ago in regards to a major agency and PODS response.
Any discussion about age issues in CAP ES is a red herring, not a valid justification for non performance.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 07:33:22 PM
My beef with you is that (at least to me) you marginalize the good work a unit does.....simply because they do everything.....even though they have not been given any benchmarks to meet from higher up. If that was not what you were doing I apologize.
I'm not trying to marginalize performance, but I have to see it first. Your cup is 1/2 full in this regard, I don't know if that's your attitude or your hands-on experience,
but I can tell you that my experience is that units that choose to specialize generally do it because the commanders don't want to be bothered, or have no program knowledge and are not inclined to seek it out. With no command imperative from on high, they just walk in a circle and then we ask "why".
Show me a trend of cadet units that are Spaatz factories and leading their wings on all points, or Senior units leading from the front on ES implementation
and execution. What I see are mostly units that succeed or fail by coincidence, accident, and circumstance, and a lot of senior units that are essentially flying clubs
without base staff or ground ops.
And there you have it.
If you want units to do it.....you have got to mandate it. Not as in a regulation "every squadron will do ES".....but in wing telling the Hommer J. Simpson Composite Squadron......"You will have 10 MP, 10 MO, 10 MS, 3 AOBD, 3 PSC, 1 OSC, 1 IC, 1 FASC, 1 MIO, 2 FLS, 3 MRO to satisfied your part of our wing's ES commitment. You will have at least 40 cadets to fulfill your part of the wing's CP commitment. You will perform 1 exertal AE presentation per quarter, you will "fly a teacher' at least 4 teachers in your AOR to fulfill your part of the wing's AE commitment. You will fly at least 40 O-rides this year".
That is how you get it done.
Yes....I know today you can't just say "get it done" and it will get done. If you are starting from zero.....you set the "end state goal" and set a realistic time line. Then you monitor and assist as necessarily to get it done.
We are doing this in our squadron right now.
WE self actualized what we wanted our ES and CP goals to be.....and we got a 2 year plan. Our master plan is to prove that this model works for use....then the whole bunch of us are going up to group and we are going push.....yes push it onto the other squadrons.....while we work the OPLANS and support agreements with our customers to have an actual integrated ES program.
As is the case recently, we're in more agreement then disagreement.
I agree wholeheartedly that the majority of the issue is lack of goals and mandates. Even if you can't actually "force" someone to do something,
you can certainly hold them accountable, and in comparison to their peers, and sometimes that peer pressure is all you need.
I continue to be disappointed and frustrated by CAP's complete lack of interest in hard numbers, and the kinds of Manager / Planning 101 tasks
that a successful lemonade stand needs, let alone a national organization with a congressional appropriation.
We have zero knowledge of baseline information, trends, or even an agreed upon understanding of important terms like "member" (i.e. an empty shirt
is noting but a donation, yet we count it as a personnel asset), and when members try to put that information together and the ghastly picture
begins to gel, eyes glaze over and we go back to discussing uniforms and airplanes.
Because one is painful and one is fun.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there.
So much of this is Leadership 101 for me, from my military background.
I ran a Communications Maintenance Shop. Not because I wanted to....but because we had a need for comm equipment and it needed to be maintained.
Some bright boy at AF Manning Center came up with the number of people I need to maintain my assigned equipment. It was my job to yell at leadership when the manning fell below our benchmark. It was my job to ensure that those people assigned where trained to do their job. I had to develop a training plan and we had tools to help track "task coverage" and project any short falls 90 to 180 days out.
It was my job to weekly report my training status, my equipment readiness status and report any shortfalls and how I was going to fix them.
BUT I CAN"T do any of that if they did not first give me the benchmarks I need to meet.
And that's where CAP is right now. No bench marks....then every squadron is successful if they don't diddle with the cadets, loose accountable property or misplace some money. Those are the only hard benchmarks I have ever been able to find in CAP.
All else seems to be forgivable.
That's why I find awards like QC, SOM, etc., amusing (at best), including the SOM my unit received while I was CC.
In most cases, units make (or don't make) these numbers as a matter of chance or circumstance (2 big families join, 3 active cadets
age-out, etc., etc), yet many tack the cert on the wall as a validation of their operation, despite the fact that nothing they did that year was by design, and nothing
they did is scalable or repeatable.
Yes....while I do thing the QU, SOM, SOD are good things to have....they are at least a step in the right direction. But as you say they are not necessarily a true indication of a "successful" unit.
You may take this as sour grapes.....We have the largest most active squadron in the wing.....and yet did not get the QU this year (or last year). It was primarily we focused on program instead of numbers.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 09:42:54 PMYou may take this as sour grapes.....We have the largest most active squadron in the wing.....and yet did not get the QU this year (or last year). It was primarily we focused on program instead of numbers.
Not at all, it's part and parcel of the problem, and a great way to demotivate members is not receiving what is essentially a baseline award to a unit that isn't struggling,
just isn't on the curve for the award. For example, at least in my wing, a unit with 34 cadets, especially 34 active, is what you'd consider "good", but that's one short of
making QC, even if you exceed every other criteria.
The SOM and SOD is so subjective both in scoring and actual award as to be all but useless in comparing recipients between wings and regions, which basically defeats its purpose.
Well....we are not demotivated at all....because it is not like we get extra pay or anything. To tell you the truth we did not even take a look at the numbers this year to see where we stood. We missed out last year because the commander at the time was doing some house cleaning and moving some empty shirts to the 000 squadron and it killed our retention numbers....we did not catch it until it was too late to try to move them back.
Like I said....I like the QU program.....it is a way for NHQ to guide commanders down the path of what they should be doing.....however.....the bench marks could be tweeked better to reflect so that units that are already on the higher end of the scale don't have to always be "improving" on the numbers games.
"
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 11:47:59 PM
Well....we are not demotivated at all....because it is not like we get extra pay or anything. To tell you the truth we did not even take a look at the numbers this year to see where we stood. We missed out last year because the commander at the time was doing some house cleaning and moving some empty shirts to the 000 squadron and it killed our retention numbers....we did not catch it until it was too late to try to move them back.
I believe the term you were looking for there is "normalized the roster", but I understand.
There needs to be a way to move people into inactive status without penalizing the unit.