CAP Talk

I've been to Hawk Mountain and had a good experience.  I think it is an excellent way to learn about Search and Rescue.  It is called Hawk Mountain Ranger School and has been around long before I joined CAP.  I respect that.

After my above statement, I will say that I disagree with starting "Ranger Programs" across CAP, i.e. in Florida.  I don't believe in CAP having elitist type programs that make people [think they are] better than other members.

Why have a "Ranger Program" that teaches you ground search and rescue.  Instead, why not call it "SAR College" where you learn ground search and rescue.  When you leave, you do so with greater knowledge and some great experiences. 

Instead, I've got a cadet in my squadron with a starched BDU cap with the top pushed down to be a "Ranger Roll", a white pistol belt, whistle and ascot around their neck.  The other 15 cadets all look to standard, CAP standard, but then there's this one person out of place.  Just gets me hot under the collar.

Does CAP really need said "Ranger program"?  Why not just train everyone to the same standard and call it, Ground Search and Rescue training.  Is there a real need to separate standards?  Call someone something other than a Ground Team Member?  There's a "Florida Wing Ranger School" but is there a school that teaches you just how to be a good ground team member with out all the dog and pony stuff?

What is the point?

There is a point top making graduates of elite programs stand out, which is to motivate others to attend said programs. However, the real Army gets that done with a simple little tab. Not a big ole clown suit like you describe.

There's also a point to elite programs that make people feel special. They take a committed group & push them through a lot more training than the average person. It's not that the average person can't come & get that training, but this group has committed to being there consistently & working hard. The rest is esprit.

Now there's also a point I've encountered where cadets come back from such places with an elitist attitude & think they are above the law. That is unacceptable & should be broken on first encounter. They aren't remotely special, they merely have an experience which they are now supposed to share with everyone.

IMO YMMV

I guess what I was trying to get at is that it seems the "advanced hooah course" was created in lieu of a basic course.  Regardless of subject matter, be it flying or disaster relief, you can't have the Blue Angels Aerial Demonstration Team without first having a fleet of standard issue pilots.

Instead of just getting everyone on the same sheet of music, i.e. CAP ground search and rescue standards, a "high speed" ranger program has been set up to award a whole bunch of uniformed nonsense coupled with "special ranger skills".

Did we make sure that these young motivated volunteers are qualified ground team members first, before taking them to elite status?  Are they skilled in the basics of ground to air communications, basic first aid, and map reading before going to a ranger school?  Or can anyone just jump in and say "I wanna go to this ranger program because you've got cooler hats, ascots, whistles and belts".

I saw floridacyclist advertising a communications weekend as part of the Florida Ranger School.  Why even throw in the word Ranger?  Is "Communications Training Activity" not good enough?  Do you have to be called a ranger to attend?  What if I'm a standard issue Ground Team wanna-be/new member that wants some good comms training.  Do I qualify to attend or do I need to be a ranger, or at least be a part of said ranger program?

I just don't get this whole need for the ranger name or need for special status.  Just be a CAP Ground Team guy/girl and do it well, without a special title, whistle, belt, tab, scarf.

CAP has no need for "Rangers". The Army does. Rangers perform a specific set of functions that they are trained for and perform as a unit. CAP rangers do not. You have members from all over the country learning about SAR tailored to the PA mountain environment who then return home thinking they are ES gods. (based on my experiences with them and the berets) They have tended to disregard the local training as wrong and have, at times, constantly challanged the instructors who are teaching the CAP standard curriculum because the 'ranger' or 'beret' knows how it 'really' supposed to be done and no one who isn't a 'ranger' or 'beret' really knows how to do SAR, regardless of their experience.

I have not had good experiences with 'rangers' in CAP. In the Army, on the other hand, they're nothing but positive and, even though they can usually run circles around you, they're more willing to stop and help others do the job right, even if it take more time.

Quote from: Stonewall on April 15, 2007, 08:00:30 PM
I just don't get this whole need for the ranger name or need for special status.  Just be a CAP Ground Team guy/girl and do it well, without a special title, whistle, belt, tab, scarf.

I bet they get more people to participate because of that.  NBB is the same deal.  A lot of CAP stuff has incentives to get people to to do something that might not be as cool otherwise.

And incentives are fine until they demotivate the people around them, which is to say a minor tab for a massive accomplishment rather than a whole get up or an attitude that breaks down unit cohesion.

The big deal with Army rangers is IF you graduate then 90% of you will just go right back to regular IN units where you are to act as an instructor of the things you've learned at the school, but otherwise just be a grunt & do your job. They know going in that they are there to record things & bring them back to their units, not to become better than anyone else.

Only the smallest percentage are offered a chance to go on to the Rgmt, which has a slight dif mission that they do together. SF is the one that's a low dif.

When the first two Batt's were formed, we were told one assignment to the Batt was all an NCO was likely to get.  After that, it was back to the "regular" army to share our skills and knowledge.  This worked for quite a while and was a benefit to everyone - except the Batt's themselves.  All of the good, experienced NCO's were leaving just as they were becoming really useful in their jobs.

Grenada showed there was a problem when they combined people from both Batts into one strike force.  Following Grenada, an honest AAR (After Action Review) was held amongst the leaders of the Army and the Strike Force leadership.  The result was the Regiment and the third Batt.  Regiment existed, at that time, to ensure that the ranger doctrine continued to evolve and that the TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) and the SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) of the three Batts were as close to identical as they could possibly be.  I say close, not identical, because at that time we we semi-focused on different areas of the world.

Panama proved that we could make ad-hoc organizations on the fly of rangers from different units because they were so much closer in TTP and SOP.  It also proved the worth of the "professional" "Batt-boy" who grew up in the regiment and never left it except for brief overseas tours (Alaska and Korea being the favorites).

Most of the enlisted people going through the course are going back to the Batt's.  A small percentage are either going to an LRSU (Long Range Surveillance Unit) or are from SOCOM and are going back to their home unit.

Officers on the other hand ...

Quote from: DNall on April 15, 2007, 08:24:50 PM
Only the smallest percentage are offered a chance to go on to the Rgmt, which has a slight dif mission that they do together. SF is the one that's a low dif.

Don't understand the last sentence, but as one with both combat patches, I will tell you that the Ranger and SF missions are entirely different.

As a Hawk Mountain alumnus (70, 71, 72), I thought it was a pretty good course but my Wing did not let us wear the folderall back at home station.  That's when I learned the real purpose of a helmet bag was to serve as your resume.

I didn't mean to compare Army Rangers to CAP Rangers but rather the lack of necessity to have any "elite" groups within CAP without first having standard "line troops".

I thought Middle East Region did an excellent job when they created MER SAR College in the '90s.  I went as recently as 2003 and now that I'm out of that region I'm not sure if they even do it.  But it was sort of a mini NESA that offered training in all facets of CAP Search and Rescue, from Observer to Ground Team Member certification.  Granted, you can't do everything in one weekend to get qualified, but you sure as heck could get a lot accomplished.

The point was not to make anyone special, but get them trained up to standard, ground team standard.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to advance your training, but how often do CAP members, specifically cadets, actually become the subject matter experts in ground SAR?  Enough to really advance to higher levels? 

Once CAP members get GTM/GTL qualified, is simply attending even as many as 5 2-day exercises warrant being an "expert" in that field?  In fact, if you do become skilled in the art of GSAR, then shouldn't you be bringing others up to speed, aka "standard".  And once those standards are reached, hone those skills until you become proficeient?

I think people tend to achieve a goal such as getting GTM qualified and once they've got that badge on their chest they think they're ready for something better.  When in reality, they should remain a simple ground team member for 2, 3 or even 4 years to gain enough experience to become proficient in ground team skills.

To equate it to the Army, you don't go to Jump School, earn your wings and then go to Jump Master School.  You spend years jumping standard static line in all sorts of scenarios from proficiency jumps to mass tac day and night until hopefully you have a slight grasp of the task.

I don't know, maybe I'm the only one that sees my own point.  I guess I'm just saying why have a special troops when you don't have enough people qualified to make up the rank and file troops to carry on standard missions and tasks?

Quote from: Stonewall on April 15, 2007, 09:27:22 PM
I don't know, maybe I'm the only one that sees my own point.  I guess I'm just saying why have a special troops when you don't have enough people qualified to make up the rank and file troops to carry on standard missions and tasks?

I read you and I agree.  Even if there is to be an elite group of SAR folks in CAP, I think there needs to be a better outline of what the difference is.  Not too long ago, there were 101T's and they were cards (remember that?)...you did your missions, no tasks, and you were a GTM or what have you.  The ranger program distinguished itself at that time by having tasks and sign-off sheets.  Now that we have them at the national level, the major difference in a ranger qualification is physical fitness requirements and a few additional tasks (mostly from the existing task guides).  Reference: http://pawg.cap.gov/hawk/standardsandeval.htm (http://pawg.cap.gov/hawk/standardsandeval.htm)

Then there is Expert Ranger, for which the tasks are classified (another issue).  I see Expert Ranger as more a personal award than a field qualification.  I am surprised by a lack of numbers in qualified personnel for ES in some units, so I see where you are coming from by mentioning the line-and-file folks.  I am all about working nationally towards NIMS compliance and national/inter-agency standards before we do anything else.

Thanks, James.  I wasn't sure if I was relaying my arguement as well as I could have.

When God created the Army, he didn't say "...and let there be the United States Army Rangers".  He said ..."let  there be the United States Army, the finest fighting force on the planet.  Then, if the need shall arise and everyone is a soldier first, then we can talk to Major Rogers and see about putting together a group of Rangers for some special missions, but not until we get enough line soldiers first..."  ;D

I have heard of these "Rangers", but having never seen a training curriclum (sp) I don't even know how to become one.

Quote from: JC004 on April 15, 2007, 09:40:55 PM
Then there is Expert Ranger, for which the tasks are classified (another issue).  I see Expert Ranger as more a personal award than a field qualification.  I am surprised by a lack of numbers in qualified personnel for ES in some units, so I see where you are coming from by mentioning the line-and-file folks.  I am all about working nationally towards NIMS compliance and national/inter-agency standards before we do anything else.

"Classified"?

While the testing materials are controlled documents, the contents themselves aren't classified and can be fairly readily extrapolated from the skill sheets of the other grades as well as from the advanced levels of instruction at HMRS.

I do agree to some extent that the Expert Ranger grade is more of a personal attainment than a field qualification. The role of an Expert Ranger is intended to be that of subject-matter expert and instructor, historically.

No need for the title of Ranger in CAP.  It serves no point, and does not mean the person is better skilled at anything. 

I am offended by the PAWG wing king saying that the HMRS patch can be worn in place of the Wing patch on BDU's, but those members who did not attend must wear the Wing Patch.  PERFECT EXAMPLE of separation and NON-TEAM building. 

I honestly don't care if people still go to HAWK MOUNTAIN, but for crying out loud, get rid of the titles/terms/anagrams and special handshakes that are part of the current Ranger Program. 

AS far as Florida goes, I was sorry to see Hawk Mountain Ranger School move its reach southward from PA.  That was a sad day.  Now we have more "Rangers" when we need to have less.

I hope I offended many!  Have a nice day   :-* :-* :-*

Quote from: Stonewall on April 15, 2007, 09:27:22 PM
I didn't mean to compare Army Rangers to CAP Rangers but rather the lack of necessity to have any "elite" groups within CAP without first having standard "line troops".

Well CAP ES is pretty screwed up across the board. Clearly non-standardized & very different from wing to wing, or even unit to unit. And, the training program & process is just short of insanity in the way it's administered at least.

If you're saying why do wh have these supposedly elite programs when we can't get everyone else trained up to standard, why is the energy not directed at that effort, well that's a fair point. I have mixed feelings on that. On one hand I'd sure like to agree with that cause it is the right thing to do. Yet on the the other hand, the CAP standard isn't useful in the real ES community, so it is a pretty good idea to train some people to real standards so the outside world calls looking for that & we can send them the broader group. Obviously the best case would be to work toward getting everyone to that higher standard, but that requires a CAP-wide change that we don't have local control over, so what you end up with are elite/specialized training programs.

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on April 15, 2007, 10:09:16 PM
I have heard of these "Rangers", but having never seen a training curriclum (sp) I don't even know how to become one.

See link in my post ^^^  Most of it is there.

It appears most of it is ES related.  I have most of the Tasks done already.

The plan I have heard from the source is that a ranger program will be started in each region, with a school in that region.  The staff for each school will have to attend HMRS to qualify to staff the various schools.  It's coming, and I hope it isn't well received.

Honestly?

If you took away the "Ranger Bling" (ascots, tabs, belts, whistles, patches, etc) and put "Ranger Qualified" instead of GTM3 (or whatever the heck we're calling it these days.. Gosh!) or added it as a "uber qualification" as the culmination of the Ground Team track on the 101 card, do you think that would:

a) increase the people training at the places (Hawk Mtn, NESA, wing-level "ranger" courses) that would be needed to grant this "uber qualification";

or

b)  decrease the number of people training at the places that would be needed to grant this "uber qualfication."

My guess is B, since my experience has been that the majority of the cadets who go to these things are there for the bling-bling, not the actual qualification.

  ^  B for me! 

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 15, 2007, 11:52:06 PM
The plan I have heard from the source is that a ranger program will be started in each region, with a school in that region.  The staff for each school will have to attend HMRS to qualify to staff the various schools.  It's coming, and I hope it isn't well received.

I have not attended HMRS.

I have known many members, seniors and cadets, who have.

There is undoubtedly a very positive  benefit to some of the training offered there, as well as some of the team building incentives.

That said, from my earliest acquaintance with HMRS, there has been a reputation of non-compliance with training regulations, both present CPPT protocols and their forerunners in the old CAPM 50-16.

The Ranger type programs (Jersey had one years ago, modelled on HMRS), have been a magnet, frankly, for the Rambo wannabees.

I hasten to add that many fine, dedicated CAP members have also been students and instructors in this program....but their is an unfortunate atmosphere about the
elitism, and, quite frankly, some of the ludicrous nonsense alleged to have taken place in some of these 'ranger' type programs.

Techniques and training methods used to build teamwork, weed out the unsuitable,a nd identify leadership potential in the Special Operations communit of the US military have no place in CAP.

If this is all urban legend, so be it, I'm happy that's the case....but I've been smelling this smoke for close to 40 years, makes me wonder whether or not there must, in fact, be a fire!

The whole elitist attitude has burned my backside for some time.  They've lost sight of the original objective.  As has already been alluded to by others in fine fashion, it's not about separating, or presuming to be better, but to get useful training, take it back to others, and spread it around.  If the only reason for going is the bling, then you're there for the wrong reasons, and you're of no additional value to your 'home' team.

At the root of all ES training, there is a core of common requirements and skills.  Then there will be components of legal-related matters that are strictly locally-influenced. While they are a requirement for operating on your 'home turf' they'd be of no use or interest to anyone else, there will also be training elements that relate to the local region or area.  Folks in FL have no reason to learn winter survival unless they plan to make themselves available to augment northern forces.  Folks in MN probably don't have to worry about hot-weather hazards, except maybe two months a year..  ;)  Folks here in OK talk about "survival training."  I discourage that term, in deference to "subsistance training" (but I'm open for a better term) because, in most parts of OK, you're not more than 1.5 miles from a road, or a cell phone call away from the cavalry. So, to say "survival" is more than a bit of Rambo-esque overkill.  Doing it as an activity, and possible fun is one thing, but insisting that you have to do it to be competent ground team (here) is poppycock. I went on several ground team missions as a cadet and senior and never needed more than the contents of my butt pack.  Resupply/relief was never that far away.

It's one thing to be gung ho, or just plain enthusiastic.  It's a whole other problem to be so enamored with the idea of a particular subject that your level of training, requirements or expectation leaves the realities of it in your rear view mirror. 

I've only met a handful of PA Rangers in my thirty-plus years here, and lets just say that my impression of them wasn't a positive one, because of their elitist attitude.  As an aside, several years ago I had to deal with a similar attitude problem from some OK cadets and seniors who attended NBB.  But since I'd known Gen Cass since he was my escort on IACE, we were able to work the problem out, and mutually apply a reality check to the non-cooperative locals.

Thanx, DNall and Stonewall for some very reasoned, well-thought out commentary. It's good to have analytical thinkers among us. My compliments..

V/R,

IMO, Hawk needs to reclassed as a local area training course. NESA should be upgraded to a TTT academy where folks are trained to conduct ES training with the appropriate NIMS compliant levels. (which means no GTM3(T), MRO(T), etc attending. ONly experienced qualified personnel) Part of that training would be - How to Teach, aka Instructional Methodologies. That is a skill most CAP members do not develop because too many feel they can teach whatever they've done. That is an attitude that is fairly uncommon in the ES world. To be qualified to instruct or teach in the fire service, one needs to complete some sort of instructor training on the topic they are teaching. For example, I spent a week to become qualified to teach at the haz mat technician level. This was after I was a CO Fire Instructor I. We spent three days covering instructional techniques and methodologies, one day on the Technician material, and one day demonstrating our teaching techniques. Plus homework each day.

Thanks for the kind words, LTC Gadget.

In no way am I intending to turn this into a HMRS bashing thread.  Like I said, I've been to HMRS and learned a few things.  I sense that a majority of the problem comes from the influence of seniors.  After all, cadets are impressionable and will often take after their leaders' example.  If a leader tells a young pup that this is the only way to do it and it is definitely the cool way, well then of course, cadets will follow suit.  I think HMRS offers fine training.  But it should be similar to the Army National Guard's Mountain Warfare School in Vermont; just a school.  They have winter and summer courses making the total school 4 weeks long.  No badges, no special hats; just knowledge and skills to take back to the unit and share with your cohorts.

I am skeptical of Florida's formation of the wing ranger program.  CAP already has a ground search and rescue program and standards to boot.  What is the point of a ranger program?  Are there any "CAP Rangers" that can explain the mission, the goal of a CAP Ranger Program?

For 15 years in National Capital Wing we trained collectively as a wing since we were smaller than some groups in CAP.  Our training was top notch and exceeded the old system's standards of you're a GTM(T), participate in 2 practice missions, get your ROP card and First Aid card and you'll be qualified.  We took it up a few notches and added some wing level testing and a few requirements.  We trained realistically.  We had annual training events like WINTEX, MOUNTEX and TAC COMEX.  All focusing around specific tasks.  Winter SAR operations, Mountain operations, Tactical Communicaitons, all of which worked closely with our wing's air crews.  We trained in a joint environment because that's how we operated.  We did our "survival training", but that was more for morale and "hooah" training than it was necessary.  It always motivates people to do some extra training outside the realm of standard CAP ground ops.  Keeps things interesting and can always be used in the future.  I would stack any one of my past cadet ground team members against any "specialized ranger" cadet.  Because chances are we trained similarly, if not moreso.  The only difference was that we didn't have a need for a special title other than "GROUND TEAM MEMBER".

well ill throw my 2 cents worth into the i mess. 
As many of you know I hold a few ES qualifications, and am constantly looking for ways to learn, and advance my understanding of "Rescue".  I approached the Hawk mountain cadre, and explained my situation.  I posed questions about attending Hawk, and was told not to come.  The officer in question informed me that they didn't want people with my knowledge to attend.  I was told that experienced ground pounders were discouraged because they undermined the program. 

In spite of this i have a high regard for PA rangers, and encourage members to attend the activity.

Quote from: NIN on April 16, 2007, 02:30:11 AM
If you took away the "Ranger Bling" ... do you think that would:

a) increase the people training at the places (Hawk Mtn, NESA, wing-level "ranger" courses) that would be needed to grant this "uber qualification";

or

b)  decrease the number of people training at the places that would be needed to grant this "uber qualfication."

Clearly, but then the point he was making is that there are finite resources. If these training programs are allowed to exist, much less be promoted on a large scale, then it causes fewer people to be qualified to the basic level. That instead we should direct those resources to getting as many people as possible qual'd to that baseline level rather than creating disruptive people that are trained for things that they will never be called on to do.

Quote from: arajca on April 16, 2007, 03:34:03 AM
IMO, Hawk needs to reclassed as a local area training course. NESA should be upgraded to a TTT academy where folks are trained to conduct ES training with the appropriate NIMS compliant levels.

Now that's a thought.

Quote from: Stonewall on April 16, 2007, 04:07:37 AM
Thanks for the kind words, LTC Gadget.

second.

1. DO NOT compare the US Army Rangers to CAP Rangers. It's like comparing US Army Rangers to Park Rangers. Totally different concepts, training, and job descriptions. Same name... different things.

2. Do not confuse the attitude of your individual cadets with the program. The program gives training to some cadets and officers that other cadets and officers do not possess. It is a difficult program and a right of passage for many. It is elite because of the members that have gone through it, not because you say so.

3. If you have a cadet who is a show-off, treat him as such. Stop blaming one activity or another for actions of your members. Place the responsibility squarely on the malfunctioning member. If they went through Hawk Mountain, they can handle the weight. Really, all this program does is give people skill sets. Mountain Search and Rescue skill sets. Most CAP members do not possess such skill sets. That's why some come back thinking they're hot stuff. It's your job as a mentor to these cadets and officers to remind them that their actions after coming back have as much affect on how they're perceived as their actions while in the school.
4. As a unit commander you may unauthorize the wear of non-standard CAP uniforms at your meetings. Sure, they'd still be authorized to wear it at Group/Wing/Region/National activities, but your squadron would be back to normal. Remember, you can restrict authorized items. You just can't authorize items that are specifically unauthorized.

As far as comparisons, they did that, not us. They chose to emulate Army Ranger training in many ways with it tailored to the CAP mission & experience. It's a fair comparison in some ways. They are attempting to create a motivational leadership program that teaches special & advanced skills which students take back to their units to share with others.

With respect, they go away fine & come back messed up with an attitude they're better than those around them & no one else - peer, superior, or subordinate - has the right to tell them what to do anymore on any subject ever. It is the program that made them act like that, or specifically the attitude/philosophy of the program & the quality control that occurs there - as far as I can tell anyway. It's only been one or two individuals out of a bunch that have NOT come back like that.

I personally think the underlying concept of HMRS is good, and the facilities are useful, but I think the program has long ago lost its way & needs to be reigned back into the reality of what we need done in CAP.

Hawk teaches mountain rescue skills you say. So what good is that in Kansas? Florida has a Ranger school in the Everglades where mountains are 30 feet tall. What use is mountain rescue in the everglades where an entirely different SAR program is needed. Hawk has the Winter training in tempratures that are below freezing, while in Florida people are going to the beach to swim. What Hawk provides is a training program that is useless in most areas of the country.
As to all the bling, it's fine while AT Hawk, but does produce elitest attitudes when the cadet or senior returns to a home Squadron. Why should cadet Doe wear the silly silver whistle, or ascot or hat or colorful t-shirt when everyone else in the Squadron is in the 39-1 authorized standard uniform? The idea is uniformity, and the added bling means a Hawk grad stands out like a sore thumb and does nothing to improve local SAR capability.
Florida Wing had a Ranger program BEFORE Hawk existed. The only bling was the standard Army Ranger tab worn above the Wing patch. It also produced an elitest attitude among cadets and seniors and the Wing Commander killed it since it did nothing to improves SAR capability overall throughout the Wing. It was replaced by a  SAR training program specific to Florida problems. When the majority of you Wing is urban, swamp or piney woods, what do you need to know about mountain rescue?
Each Wing has different geographical areas and problems that Hawk doesn't consider.

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 07:14:17 AM
2. Do not confuse the attitude of your individual cadets with the program. The program gives training to some cadets and officers that other cadets and officers do not possess. It is a difficult program and a right of passage for many. It is elite because of the members that have gone through it, not because you say so.

My "ranger" cadet doesn't have an attitude, they just wear all the garb.  However, I think it's 90% of every "Rangers'" attitude.  Growing up as a cadet in Florida I never heard of HMRS.  It wasn't until I got up closer to Hawk that I ran across a cadet who had a red "RANGER" tab on his BDUs.  The moment he opened his mouth and started spouting off crap about being elite, etc., I knew I wouldn't be an advocate of the program.  So I had to go for myself.  Yep, nothing too tough or worthy of being "elite".  Just a school with some decent training that, in my mind, doesn't warrant anything special.

"RIGHT OF PASSAGE" you say?  Passage into what?  It is elite because of the members have gone through it?  I don't even understand what you're saying.  It isn't elite.  It's ground SAR training on a mountain, which, as I have said, is good training.  It is the attitude along with the whole mystique of being called a "Ranger".

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 07:14:17 AM3.  If they went through Hawk Mountain, they can handle the weight.

Wow, you really think highly of these Rangers.  As if HMRS creates manly men who can handle anything. 

Your response is exactly what I would expect from an advocate of the ranger program.  All defensive and bullying up to act hard corps.  I have trained hundreds of people from local units to the national level, in everything from first aid to winter survival.  I would say I have enough experience to form an educated opinion, and based on my experience, I disagree with the mindset that the ranger program instills in CAP's cadets.  If ranger school did its job, these people would not just learn SAR skills, but skills of being a humble professional; a modest "expert" in the art of search and rescue who doesn't need 5 additional badges of hooahness to add to their uniform, but demonstrate their newly found skills by sharing their knowledge with their fellow members. 

One final thing.  If they're going to have a special uniform item, at least it could look good.  I mean, honestly, does anyone truly think the white pistol belt, ascot and whistle looks good?  Forget professional, I mean just plain looks.  I think it looks horrible.  Why not go with what everyone wants to wear, a beret?  I'd still argue against it, but at least a beret looks good.

I am an advocate of the school. I do believe it gives cadets and officers valuable skills in SAR and survival. I do believe that it is elite for CAP. I do believe that your cadets have an attitude (otherwise you wouldn't be here complaining). I do think you need to lighten up and understand that cadets are teenagers and at their point in life they don't have much to be proud of aside from activities such as HM. As teenagers, they are prone to wear all the crazy garb that comes with this membership in the HM Rangers and not to just quietly offer their newly gained expertise. It is up to you, as their leader to guide them to the proper way of using the skills and self-confidence. It is up to you to remind these cadets that they may have been to an elite school, but they are themselves not elite. It's up to you to set one standard for all your cadets and yes, I think they can handle responsibility if they can handle bragging about themselves being hot stuff. In the end, unauthorize the wear of special uniform items and relax.

Now the squadron where I served as a leadership officer had cadet graduates of Hawk Mountain. None of them displayed the ego or uniform items you speak of because they knew better. They knew it wouldn't be tolerated. Today, my group HQ is co-located with that squadron and we had another cadet who was a grad of Hawk Mountain... he just shipped out to become a Marine a few months ago, but the only thing he wore was a Hawk Mountain LL patch. No whistle, no pistol belt, just patch. Why? Because that's the environment we set up for our cadets. Because that's how our officers act and that's how we demand our cadets act as well.

Please, stop being the "parent who blames the school for bad behavior of his/her children". You are where the buck has to stop. The school is a school, not the teenager tamer. That's your job if you are the cadet programs officer.

The ones I've seen are the ones that have all the attitude. As you say they are teenagers, and they shouldn't be running around thinking they are better than other cadets. Humble pride in ones accomplishments is one thing, but it gets disruptive & demotivational when they hold it over the heads of others.

Now, I've never been to HM, been a while since I've been to the state, but I got more actual SaR experience than most people you're going to find, and I been to military courses that cover all the same material with no bling to show for it.

I do correct the behavior when it's displayed, but generally that is very hard on the cadet. They are taught at Hawk to have all this pride & esprit, taught that  they are being let into a limited fraternity that makes them special. Then they come back having taken those lessons as teens will & have to be deprogrammed. In that process they either feel like we are attakcing them, or they understand our position & feel like the whole effort at Hawk was wasted & a betrayal. It's just all around bad.

I have no doubt they offer some decent training, but they need to get control of tehmselves & reign that in. It needs to be dropped as a NCSA, and each wing needs its own terrain specific program that teaches to NIMS WSAR standards.

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 02:40:18 PM
Now the squadron where I served as a leadership officer had cadet graduates of Hawk Mountain. None of them displayed the ego or uniform items you speak of because they knew better. They knew it wouldn't be tolerated. Today, my group HQ is co-located with that squadron and we had another cadet who was a grad of Hawk Mountain... he just shipped out to become a Marine a few months ago, but the only thing he wore was a Hawk Mountain LL patch. No whistle, no pistol belt, just patch. Why? Because that's the environment we set up for our cadets. Because that's how our officers act and that's how we demand our cadets act as well.

Please, stop being the "parent who blames the school for bad behavior of his/her children". You are where the buck has to stop. The school is a school, not the teenager tamer. That's your job if you are the cadet programs officer.

hmmm....I don't think there is much wearing of the HMRS Garb now, but that is being changed.  In fact it was changed, and the change letter has just not yet been produced.  It will authorize the web belt, tabs, scarf, whistle and white boot laces.  It is coming, don't be surprised when you start to see it!

I am not  going to support your line of reasoning that the SQDs should be the line of defense on combating the results of HMRS.  It is HMRS that needs to change SOP, not me!
It would be real easy to get rid of everything "ranger" related there.  Keep the training, but stop the mental push that begins on day one to refer to everyone as Rangers.  

How many students wash out of Hawk? As I see it, your "elite" program is open to any CAP member with the time and cash to attend, just like any NCSA. Hardly a way to qualify as an "elite" program.

I realize the OP didn't mean for this thread to become a Hawk-bashing thread, but when the Hawk advocates hold it up as the be-all, end-all of CAP SAR training, they open it up to other opinions and experiences.

afgeo4, about your cadet who didn't wear the Hawk bling except for the patch, you overlook the fact that it was not authorized until last August, so your cadet simply may not have gotten into the habit of wearing it and may not have wanted to spend the money on it. An equally valid reason for not wering it.

Colorado at one time had a "Ranger" corps. it was disbanded when the rangers' attitudes became disruptive and contrary to the functioning of the wing. FWIH, several who got into GBD type positions refused to let nonrangers serve as ground teams because they weren't rangers.

Thought I would add my two cents - as I will try not to ramble.

Normally those against a Ranger type program are those who are not and cannot.  Sorry to generalize.

Even in the active military there have been periods that Ranger, SF, etc type units have been disbanded because they were seen as elitists.  For example, after WWII, Korean War, Vietnam...  It is weird that during periods of conflict were special skill and a highly trained soldier is needed - these type of units flourish.

If anyone out there thinks that you average soldier can find their way to anything besides the PX in the active army, they are way off base.  I would guess something similar exists in CAP.  Now to my point.

Are Ranger type programs useful - absolutely as long as they are organized and lead correctly.  The US Army Ranger School is less a field craft school than it is a leadership school - this is what you are evaluated on and must pass - patrols - which means the ability to lead a team and accomplish a mission.  Are the graduates of Ranger School a more elite soldier than those that are not, generally.  Do they have a swagger - you bet.  Do the ones that follow on the a Ranger Battalion think they are a more elite soldier - absolutely.  Are they - without question.

When you see a young ranger around base - you can tell, in our out of uniform.  It is obvious.  Are they abrasive about it - no, normally they are humble and usually travel in their own groups.  They came into the military for just the experience.

Now who does this relate to CAP.  My guess is that those who go to the PA Ranger training are looking for something more - a more military, type of experience.  Great for them - I think it is a great idea.  If this is more of a SAR type training, why not make it a GTM type qualification and change the name.  If it is a Leadership type training, and there is a big difference on how you should be evaluated - then call it a Ranger Course.  If everyone passes, it is not a Ranger Type course. 

If the PA Ranger course is producing graduates that have a swagger, and come back and provide a real value to their squadrons - I applaud.  If they are coming back with a better than though attitude, the cadre at the School are obviously a bunch of wannabees.

Here is my final thought.  This type of training normally caters to a certain type of individual that any organization would want - people of want to be challenged, lead, and sometimes fail.  It seems like there are enough of former SOCOM guys in CAP that we could come together as a committee and design a program that will produce Master GTMers - Rangers that can spread throughout the CAP Squadrons and deliver real professional training and leadership.  I would recommend we model it after the US Army Ranger Program, completed in phases at different locations, with different terrain and objectives and at the end of the course you would have some real super stars.

Just a thought.

K

^ No, no and NO!  First, in my generalization, those against the Ranger Program are those that CAN and HAVE.  I personally have, I know a few others that have posted have been there also, not to mention the various schools we have attended in the Military.  Second, there are some high speed soldiers that are not special forces, rangers, etc. that will run circles around those that attended those schools. 

HOWEVER, lets not put the CAP ranger program in any type of comparison to the military schools that are called the same!  There can be NO comparison!

As for the type of person who attends HMRS.....it is usually the type that needs to be better than his peers, needs to know more, and have something they can "whip" out if challenged to a pissing contest. 

My biggest gripe, that I have had for the time I have been working in PAWG, and have always brought up at the Wing Staff Meetings is the issue with how much funding the program gets and the type of person the program produces.  A few years back the school was almost shut down, if it were not for the one person at NHQ that had attended the school as a cadet and felt some type of nostalgia.  The plan was to shut down HMRS for one year and create a NER SAR school, without the Ranger crap.  Too bad, because it would have been a good program!

8)

I'd have top agree with mikelylikely. Most of the folks against Ranger programs in CAP are against them because of their experienes with the folks who have completed the programs - generally bad. I'm not saying they all are, but there are a lot who come back with a counter-productive attitude.

Any plan, course, etc - no matter how great it is - poorly executed produces poor results.  On the other hand, I believe there is a place for a course like this - it has to be well run, designed to promote leadership, and produce the desired results.

Quote from: Rangersigo on April 16, 2007, 06:57:26 PM
Any plan, course, etc - no matter how great it is - poorly executed produces poor results.  On the other hand, I believe there is a place for a course like this - it has to be well run, designed to promote leadership, and produce the desired results.

Therein lies the problem with Hawk. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on being well run and designed to promote leadership, but unless the desired result is to produce a bunch of egotistical [censored]s, it fails.

Thus, using your criteria, Hawk has no place in CAP.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 16, 2007, 06:32:21 PM
My biggest gripe, that I have had for the time I have been working in PAWG, and have always brought up at the Wing Staff Meetings is the issue with how much funding the program gets and the type of person the program produces.  A few years back the school was almost shut down, if it were not for the one person at NHQ that had attended the school as a cadet and felt some type of nostalgia.  The plan was to shut down HMRS for one year and create a NER SAR school, without the Ranger crap.  Too bad, because it would have been a good program!

You keep alluding to being 'in the know' and attending PAWG staff meetings, etc. etc..

It would seem that you're starting to approach 'put up or shut up' time in re: your identity v. your credibility. The only reason I'm bringing this up here is because you failed to respond to your previously-requested PM.

The premise behind HMRS is right on.  Teach CAP members about leadership in the field, and some 'advanced' SAR techniques.  There is however, something greatly lacking in the 'end result' of the shcool. 

All of the 'Rangers' I have ever encountered have had a 'holier than thou' attitude.  Completely unacceptable.

For example, my current squadron has a HMRS graduate...excues me...expert ranger.  He wanted to help re-vamp the current ES program in the squadron. GREAT!  Let's come up with a plan.

"Let's start with High-Angle Rappeling, mountain rescue, and make it a Ranger Team."

Reality check...

Let's start with GES, and work out way to GTM 3.  None of the items he suggested we do pertained to any ratings that anyone could get.  No sense in having a 'ranger team' if they aren't qualified to do anything.

When I tried to set his goals for the program a little more realistically, he responded.."well that's what they do at HMRS, and it works for them!  I've been to HMRS 3 times yada...yada...yada..."

I have never had any 'good' interactions with graduates of HMRS, most of them need a relief valve on their neck.

A lot of the things that they teach don't have many practical applications in the way CAP performs SAR.  A few years back, I was perusing their web-site photo section, and noticed some of the pictures...

1) Overweight SM with beard wearing BDUs.

2) Cadets doing pushups face first in the water.

What exactly does doing pushups in the water do in terms of teaching you SAR?

Looking at the photos they have up there now...

1) C/Col w/ chicken...what exactly is he doing with that chicken...oh yeah, learning how to kill and eat it.  Obviously something you need to know to find someone...

Don't get me wrong though, It's great in concept, and I'm sure there are many success's of the program, I just haven't met any yet.

^ me personally I love it when one of the Ranger types gets TWO (2) web belts and attaches them together to fit  around themselves.  AND they still Wear BDU's.  INSANE!  (I used to be a HUGE fatty, so don't bash on me for making fun of them)

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 02:40:18 PM
I do believe that your cadets have an attitude (otherwise you wouldn't be here complaining).

Hey there stud, I have never had any of MY cadets go to Hawk Mountain.  So you are wrong, it is not my cadets, but rather the cadets I have come across outside of my own unit.  And even worse, the senior members (Read:  Adults) who are trying to fullfill some void in their life of elitism.  Again, NOT MY CADETS.  Understand?  Chances are they are your cadets or someones cadets like you.

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 02:40:18 PMI do think you need to lighten up and understand that cadets are teenagers and at their point in life they don't have much to be proud of aside from activities such as HM.

Wow, you give very little credit to the CAP Cadet Program if you think Hawk Mountain is the be all end all to "pride" and "elistism" for our youth.  Again, cadets under my supervision/command never once had elitist attitudes.  In fact, it was a young female cadet who first explained to me the "Hawk Mentaility" when I first went North from Florida.  I really think you have priority issues.

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 02:40:18 PMAs teenagers, they are prone to wear all the crazy garb that comes with this membership in the HM Rangers and not to just quietly offer their newly gained expertise. It is up to you, as their leader to guide them to the proper way of using the skills and self-confidence. It is up to you to remind these cadets that they may have been to an elite school, but they are themselves not elite. It's up to you to set one standard for all your cadets and yes, I think they can handle responsibility if they can handle bragging about themselves being hot stuff. In the end, unauthorize the wear of special uniform items and relax.

Ummm... I don't have a problem with my cadets nor have I ever had a problem with my cadets and their attitudes.  Cadets that are under the supervision of wanna-bes who preach "Ranger" this and "Ranger" that.  Instead of letting cadets be themselves with some guidance from humble adults, they push and instill a need for elitism. 

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 02:40:18 PMPlease, stop being the "parent who blames the school for bad behavior of his/her children". You are where the buck has to stop. The school is a school, not the teenager tamer. That's your job if you are the cadet programs officer.

No, I don't "blame the school", I blame the "parent", i.e. people, or adults in the is case, that push such attitudes on their cadets.

I guess we're just opposites.  Only life will tell the difference in our leadership styles. 

Just my 0.02,

Wow, I feel lucky, I don't think I ever encountered a Ranger, and going by this thread I don't want too.  I will say I just finished a three weekend course to get GT3 qualified, with some of the instructors being NESA graduates.  These graduates where good teachers, if that is because of NESA course, gaining confidence by going through NESA, or just because of the type of person they were before NESA, I'll never know.  I would bet that it was more do to the personality before NESA then anything else; they are just good kids. 

From dealing with the world inside and outside of CAP, I have found someone who is motivated to get a fancy title, for the sake of title, probably does not deserve it.  The people that get the extra training because they need the skills or just want to improve themselves, probably don't care about the title or its special uniform accessories.  The people who deserve the title and have taking the training, understand they are still just a member of a team, and they may be walking around you in normal BDUs.

Finally, I have to agree with the earlier comment, if you have Rangers who are acting superior, and that is causing friction in the squadron, it is the Squadron Commander's responsibility to snap that the Ranger back into line, and into plain BDUs if need be.

All the fancy titles and ribbons may make look good, but it does not mean more then the rank on the collar.  Promote and reward members who help the squadron, not themselves.

RANGERSIGO.

Sir, thank you for your post, which I agree with.

In no way am I comparing Army Rangers with CAP Rangers.  The only similarity is the name.  And actually, I am not against the name.  Hawk Mountain Ranger School has been in existence for a long time.  I don't know off the top of my head, but I think its more than 40 years.

I am a fan of special operations and absolute agree with their existence, especially 75th Ranger Regiment.  I am a former Army Infantry guy myself and have had many fellow NCOs sport the Ranger Tab, Combat Scroll, or at least the Regimental Crest as their affiliation.  As a civilian, I worked 5 years for a government agency where I trained, trained with, and worked with SOCOM guys from every branch.  And the last 5 years I spent on a protection detail that consisted of former battalion Rangers and SFers alike.  Now I'm a cop and my sergeant is a retired First Sergeant,  RI and Ranger from all 3 battalions.  I just wanted to be clear that I am not, in any way, saying anything negative about Army Rangers. 

My beef is with CAP's "ranger mentality".  There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 15 year old wanting to emulate an Army Ranger, PJ, Fighter Pilot, Firefighter, SWAT Cop, Doctor, or Chef.  But CAP's "ranger community" does not support that, instead, it has been my experience that, like RangerSigo said, a cocky swagger with a holier than thou attitude.  As if, once they've been to a CAP Ranger Course that's it, they're the Bee's Knees and don't need to prove anything to anyone else, ever.  Their Orange Ascot should say it all.  And that is not how a "quiet professional" carries themself.  I think most here would agree.

I am not knocking the training that Hawk gives.  There is no doubt that it is very useful and is taught by subject matter experts.  But I think one thing is missing and one thing needs to go.  What is missing is the need to teach the young motivated students to carry themselves as humbled professionals.  And while they aren't professionals by definition; there is nothing wrong with instilling that type of attitude at a young age.  What needs to go is the mentality that you have can't be cool without a tab, badge, whistle, hat, beret, or pistol belt.

I think by taking away the accoutrement's that go along with going to Hawk (or any CAP ranger program) would change the attitudes of those who attend.  Unfortunately, it may also decrease the numbers of those who wish to go.  Not sure about that one.

And RangerSigo.  I do like your idea of getting people of a similar background together and setting up a leadership SAR program with the right goals in mind.  I was fortunate to be a part of a wing, and more specifically a squadron, for the past 15 years where we had a fairly large number of former BTDT types.  SF, Ranger, Airborne Infantry, SOG, Intel, TACP (old school guy from Vietnam, think they called them something different), standard Infantry, and a handful of Army and Air Force pilot types.  All of which were very level headed and had an amazing impact on the cadets for over 20 years.  Unfortunately they've all moved on, retired from CAP or moved up to higher headquarters.  So yes, I do know what it feels like to be in that environment, even in CAP.

I am now in a new wing and new squadron.  I am simply the leadership officer and I'm fine with that.  I've got my own 8 month cadet at home now and a job that has me rotating days off (5 on 4 off).  I'm still getting to know people and how this wing operates.  Very pleased, but wasn't so happy when I learned about the Ranger Program.  Time will tell.

Was it you who said "Instead, I've got a cadet in my squadron with a starched BDU cap with the top pushed down to be a "Ranger Roll", a white pistol belt, whistle and ascot around their neck.  The other 15 cadets all look to standard, CAP standard, but then there's this one person out of place.  Just gets me hot under the collar"?

If yes, then I think you owe me a small apology for your tone in reply. If not, then please check if anyone else is using your screen name to post on this board.

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 02:40:18 PM
I do believe that it is elite for CAP.

Advanced, maybe. Elite; um, no.  Check the dictionary, and don't confuse the two.  Elite means the best of the best.  One can's simply be elite because they show up somewhere, or survive somewhere.  One would be elite because of what one does. And if one is truly the best at something, he/she doesn't have to tell everyone, or wear a uniform device to signify or prove it.  Others will see it in their deeds and actions.

QuoteI do believe that your cadets have an attitude.

Not his cadets, "Ranger" cadets/seniors

QuoteI do think you need to lighten up and understand that cadets are teenagers and at their point in life they don't have much to be proud of aside from activities such as HM.

While it might be a reason, it is by NO MEANS a justification or an excuse. Part of growing up is learning what merits pride and what doesn't. Part of growing up is learning that saying it doesn't make it so. Part of growing up is learning that false pride is just that.  Telling him to 'lighten up' is also a bit of excessive tone on your part. Rank aside, it's simply rude.

QuoteAs teenagers, they are prone to wear all the crazy garb that comes with this membership in the HM Rangers and not to just quietly offer their newly gained expertise.

And part of our responsibility is to help them learn to put into perspective exactly what their attendance meant, and what it didn't.  Again, "expertise?"  One training class doesn't make one an expert at anything.  Trained, yes.  Advanced, maybe.  Expert?.. up for discussion.

In large part, the people at HM give the cadets just enough attitude rope with which to hang themselves which they seem to be able to do all on their own with great regularity.

QuotePlease, stop being the "parent who blames the school for bad behavior of his/her children". You are where the buck has to stop. The school is a school, not the teenager tamer. That's your job if you are the cadet programs officer.

The attitude doesn't spontaneously generate from out of nowhere, especially as many times as has been witnessed by us all.  The seniors and senior cadets there can't preach it for the length of the activity, and then retain culpable deniability when a cadet gets back to his unit and cops an attitude.  Methinks thou doth protest too much.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, chances are, it's a duck..

V/R,

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 17, 2007, 12:34:01 AM
Was it you who said "Instead, I've got a cadet in my squadron with a starched BDU cap with the top pushed down to be a "Ranger Roll", a white pistol belt, whistle and ascot around their neck.  The other 15 cadets all look to standard, CAP standard, but then there's this one person out of place.  Just gets me hot under the collar"?

If yes, then I think you owe me a small apology for your tone in reply. If not, then please check if anyone else is using your screen name to post on this board.

I'm new at a squadron.  They aren't "my cadets".  Its a cadet at my new squadron.  Plus, I was refering to my past experiences in CAP, over the past 20 years, not in the last week.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 16, 2007, 08:10:20 PM
^ me personally I love it when one of the Ranger types gets TWO (2) web belts and attaches them together to fit  around themselves.  AND they still Wear BDU's. 

milk...life cereal...through...nose.... :D

Even though I have played Air force and Army and have been through some very tough and interesting training, I still think Hawk Mountin would be fun.  Doing the huhha without having to worry about someone shooting at you is cool.

I hope to go to it sometime in the next few years.  Firt I want to tak my son to the Blue Baret program. (my son wants the beret pretty bad)

Quote from: desert rat on April 17, 2007, 04:48:24 AM
...Doing the huhha without having to worry about someone shooting at you is cool....

Just keep in mind that the facility has state game lands all around.   :)

I have no experience with HMRS, at one point I thought it would be neat to go... till I had an online 'chat' with a graduate of their "medic" program.
The elitism attitute by (CAP) Rangers scares me.

Those who were Godly enough -  ::) -  to serve in the real 75th, thank you.

I have read the whole thread and here is my 2 cents worth,
         I am a graduate of Hawk Mountain back in the old days having attended both the summer and winter programs. The schools were alot of fun and a good portion of the training was good as well. Being from the relative flatlands of eastern NC the mountain rescue and repelling was a waste of time. The other training for the most part was useful. When my team came back we were a bit elitist but no more than before we left we were teenagers. Fast Forward to today, I have cadets who attend Hawk every year, the only bling they get to wear is the patch. I tell them to take the school as a learning tool and apply what the learn to our particular area. And they do without any drama, mostly because we don't tolerate it. We have a Expert ranger in our group who helps teach at our Ground Team School, he shares these same beliefs. If knowledge is power than collect it from as many sources as possible and keep what fits your area best. I now instruct at the wing GT school and also teach GSAR at the MER SAR College( which I think is one of the best ideas around). Don't group all CAP Rangers together because we are not all that way. Some of us take what we learned and run with it all the way to Incident Commander.

Capt Andy Wiggs
ES Training Officer, NC Wing
CV, Group 3 NC Wing
Ranger

..ok thats my que.....
As a often proponent of HMRS I'll chime in for a few.
Me personally:

I hate the bling, the whistle chain looks dumb as does the belt and the ascot.
I am not really big on the shirt (except maybe in the field) and give me a patrol cap anyday.

There is nothing elite about the school or the training it provides.  If you show up, pay your cash and can suffer through living in a tent on the side of a hill through heat, rain and cold (all in the same week) you can graduate the school.  Given for some this is a major accomplishment, and for many students this is the first time they have had to apply themselves in a "difficult" environment, especially under the feeling of succeede or go home (which never happens, unless you cry your way home, just like encampments) but nothing that makes you "uber" special.

Some school background and insights:
the school was initially a survival oriented school, that addressed some SAR techniques.  As time went on they added more and more to the SAR curriculum while retaining the survival/outdoor living theme.  It wasnt until the late 90's that CAP as a whole added any kind of skill or performance requirements for any 101 qualification.  HMRS has had requiremetns and performance standards for survival and SAR since at least the 70's.  This is where I personally believe the attitude of "I am a better SAR person than you" came from, as most everyone else had no standards and with that almost no realistic training.  That has made an almost 180 degree turn since NHQ has insistead on standards for GTM's.  Almost leaving HMRS in the dust (they have only in the past 5 years or so incoroorated GTM/GBD qualifications into they ranger grades and training objectives.
What the school teaches.  This is a little complicated.  On the outside and basilar levels HMRS still teaches wilderness survival, wilderness mobility, first aid, communications and Search and Rescue techniques. 
On the not so visable side they also teach leadership training.  The cadet staff training program not only creates a place to gain cadet staff but serves as a leadership labratory for teaching and reinforcing the concepts of followership, leadership, teamwork and a bit of how to teach and instruct all the while with an ES undertone.

On the rope thing: Actually a big part of the "Rope Rescue" course is still leadership and teamwork (since you cant perform that type of technical rescue without those two things).  Honestly the average graduate doesnt know poop about rope rescue other than a few basic knots and they did a rappel and a belay.
Very few actually come out of the program able to effect that kind of rescue.  How does that course apply to ya'll outside of the mountains?  With a few exceptions there is no place in the US that is perfectly flat.  Everywhere has hills, valleys, holes in the ground, and other changes in elevation.  The same techniques, rigging and hauling systems that get a stokes basket and a tender up an over the edge of a 200 ft cliff are the same for a stokes four attendants up a 20 ft 45 degree emabankment because its closer than a 2 mile hike out.

The medic course:  My personal interest.  The main focus isnt actually emergency treatment and paragod type life saving of airplane crash victims.   Its how to help your team stay fit and healthy while trying to find the crashed plane (or whatever the mission).  Something that is often lacking in many of the EMT and Paramedic types that want to bring the ambulance on thier back while supporting CAP SAR ops.

A personal beefs with those that have beefs:
Many people say they havent found a grad that isnt all into themselves and the program as the have all, do all save all...that they need to be more quite like real SPECOPS types.  How do you know you havent meet them and they were being the quite proffesional, you just also met the loud mouth ones, and those are the ones that stand out. 
I could save a 100 people this year in CAP, but I kill one and thats all anyone is going to remember me for.  The same applies to HMRS grads, you meet one that is the kind we all dislike, and any other is going to fade into obscurity.  I have meet the same types from NESA, HMRS, BB, Honor Guard, PJOC and half a dozen other local only activites including encampments and leadership schools, both cadet and officer.  (10 years away from PA, its not just a HMRS problem)  But this is especailly a problem with the young and easily impressionalble (like most of the students there and eslewhere) and can easily overflow into the prior cadet turned senior member. (not an excuse for anyone, jut an observation)

I still stand behind the fact that the school is an excellent place to learn SAR and wilderness survival.  If you want to learn Rope Rescue, its also a good place if you want Ropes and Rigging and Rope I, II and III (basically technical for all you NFPA types, and not something you will generally get to do in CAP)
For cadets that like ES and the boy scout camping type thing its also a good place to learn about teamwork and leadership.  I am happy with their staff training program (mostly) I think 6 months of 2 weekends a month for a 10 day activity is better than the 2 days of RST most encampments do, and turn out some decent cadet staff members.
Again none of that makes you a SAR guru, but it puts you on the path if thats the route you want to take.  It is by no means the only way to do things, but it is not a bad one.  I certainly think its one of those things you really have to expereince for yourself before you make a judgement; good or bad.

questions, bring 'em on

mk

 ^ No doubt the school teaches some good stuff.  They can however stop using the word Ranger (with everything) they teach up there. 

QuoteNo doubt the school teaches some good stuff.  They can however stop using the word Ranger (with everything) they teach up there.

why?

Quote from: sarmed1 on April 18, 2007, 06:12:39 AM

QuoteNo doubt the school teaches some good stuff.  They can however stop using the word Ranger (with everything) they teach up there.

why?

This might be a good idea as the term Ranger has connotations for a variety of specialties, why not incorporate it into the existing qualifications at some additional special skill or rating.  Remove the name, the elitism goes with it...

Quote from: sarmed1 on April 18, 2007, 06:12:39 AM

QuoteNo doubt the school teaches some good stuff.  They can however stop using the word Ranger (with everything) they teach up there.

why?

BECASUE it produces individuals that look and act different than the rest of us.  Lets be one team here.....not "RANGERS, and then everyone else".  As witnessed after Katrina, the Rangers (and those leading them) were very unprofessional.  They would not abide by the rules and at one point decided to just up and quit because they were not getting what they wanted. 

-spelling-

I think PJOC is an excellent example of my original message regarding elitism and CAP's Ranger program.

Prior to every special activity getting an NCSA patch for their right shoulder, PJOC was the ideal "hooah course" without a single bell or whistle.  PJOC is NOT an emergency services course, however, I think most would agree that there are aspects of PJOC that are beneficial to field work. 

Over the past 15 years as a senior working directly with cadets at the squadron level, I have had as many as 20 of my cadets go to PJOC.  None of them ever came back with a single elitist attitude.  There wasn't even a title for them other than "PJOC graduate".  Heck, I even had an [advanced] PJOC failure come back.  Talk about a true humbling experience.  No berets, no special badges, and not a single chip on their shoulder.  In fact, more than anything, I think it was a gut check and humbling experience.  If the young teenager had any sort of swagger before hand, for no reason, they certainly had a reason upon their return.  However, I have yet to see one.

I remember PJOC giving out a Pararescue lapel pin or tie tack; not even allowed on the uniform.  Just a small thing to bring home and throw on a book bag or on the bookshelf.

No uniform accoutrements, not even a high speed title like "Ranger".  I think that speaks in and of itself.

Back to Kirts original problem:  as its is one that in one way shape or form seems echoed by many.

I'd say use that energy productively for you own needs.  Tell them this isnt PA we dont have Ranger Teams, but we do have ground teams and their is no reason they cant apply the same interest and ES ability to create a rocking cadet Ground Team.

I'd make them:
1-AAR their visit to PA,
2-Point paper and present the pros and cons of the "Ranger Team" concept and why it benifits the squadron both from a cadet trainig persepctive and a ES/Ops persepctive
3-Have them develop a trainig outline/plan that encorporates their "new" ideas as well as existing ES training plans and even any local specialty needs, plus a time line.

See what happens.
If it was just about bling and a idealistic name, my guess is failure.  If they actually learned something and are genuinely interested and capable in ES it might be worth your while.   
mk

OK,

I'm on board with rangersigo. A "Ranger Program" isn't a bad thing... if it serves a well defined purpose above and beyond what we already serve. An Identifier and a little badge is all they need; not all of the "BLING" that they use now.

The attitude is a product of their instructors. If they are in fact better than average, a little pretentiousness is expected. If they're the same as everyone else, except that they learned knot tying while in the front-leaning-rest, their leaders have fooled them into believing they are better than they are, thus making them more a liability than an asset. Good  training aside, the military title of Ranger supports the idea that is encompassed in the Ranger creed. Thing like



"Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move farther, faster and fight harder than any other soldier."


"Never shall I fail my comrades."

" I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be. One-hundred-percent and then some."


"Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well-trained soldier."


"Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor."

These things are not what a CAP Ranger is. These same ideals could be adapted to apply but....

Just my opinion

Better late than never, SSG Savage.  ;D

QuoteIf they are in fact better than average, a little pretentiousness is expected. If they're the same as everyone else...

You know this statement actually kind of hits it on the head.  I think by large the officer instructors are better than the average bear, but thats due to years of expereince both in the training world and in the operational world.  Many HMRS instructors have been doing SAR since they were cadets, and for some thats a long, long time.

The way this becomes perverse is when cadet students or even cadet junior staff begin to emmulate the officer instructors, sans experience.  They try to project the "I am a BA attitude" yet rarely have the ability to back that up, and thats where they get themselves (and as a representitive of the program) everyone else into trouble.

As far as the bling, I think most officer personnel at the school could care less if they wear a bizzilon pieces of flair.  The school patch and simple tab would be enough for me. (and not the Wing King version of the LL patch in place of the wing patch, I am sorry but I refuse to do that)

mk

Wow...I'm in the middle of Sun n Fun and the whole world goes to he&* in a handbasket while I'm busy chasing cadets around Lakeland. I'd like to make a couple of points and then I'm stepping back and finishing the week here at our own little mini-Oshkosh.

A) It is a Ranger Comm school because my squadron and Group Commander were not interested in sponsoring it as they didn't think they were up to what they consider a NCSA-style activity. When I mentioned this to the then FL Wing Ranger Training Officer, he suggested that we conduct it under the auspices of the Ranger Program so that it could proceed without local interference. Since that original suggestion, the concept has grown and changed a little...maybe it will grow into a repeat activity and be incorporated into the training, maybe it won't. In the meantime, at least we're doing something instead of sitting around talking about how much more fun CAP was in the old days. Heaven forbid the cadets might get a little training in and feel good about themselves in the process.

B) There is nothing absolutely special about our program or it's attendees, we just train a lot harder than the minimum standards call for. It's all in the spirit of  fun and learning; others seem to be taking us a lot more seriously than we do ourselves.  If you don't think we train differently than your standard ES activity, read the AAR from our last Ranger Weekend in the Tall Tales section or read the training description on http://www.tallahasseecap.org/commcamp and see if that sounds like any training you might have attended recently. For that matter, when have you heard any CAP program talk about fielding a NIMS-compliant type III Wilderness SAR team as a goal?

C) I've had my own problems with elitist cadets (read some of my past posts where I was talking about almost cancelling an ELT mission we were on because of the insubordination displayed by some of the HMRS PA wing cadets riding around with me. One thing we're doing a bit different is training the seniors and together and not treating the cadets like ES gods - and we tell them to knock that crap off. We're all on the same team and nobody needs to act any better than anyone else. If they think they're any better than anyone else, I don't want them at our school.

D) There probably would not be a North Florida Ranger School if we had any ES activity going on locally or were allowed to simply put on training when we could get away with it. I'm not going to point any fingers here, but suffice it to say that about the only local ES training in a couple of years has been as a Wing Activity under the name of "Ranger School". This allows us to bypass the roadblocks at the local level and train anyway

E) I don't see the relevance of rock-climbing and such here in FL but the kids sure love it. That said, we like to do our training in the swamp, which to me is FL's terrain that can be every bit as challenging as the mountains. If you'd like to see where our next training event will be, look up Bradwell Bay in Florida.

Bottom line is the cadets enjoy it and quite frankly I do too. I have seen both of my kids do complete 180s in both their personal lives and in CAP since going to HMRS; they've started promoting and their grades in school skyrocketed. Sure we need to temper any uppity attitudes by teaching these kids respect for their peers and others, but that is the responsibility of the parents and leaders. I will do my best to teach them that they are no better than anyone else, but it is up to those around them to let them know that attitude is not acceptable. If I catch my own kids acting like that, I'll kick their butts myself.

PS I hate the white pistol belt, whistle and ascot and never plan to wear them except maybe at HMRS if I ever go (I attended Falcon Academy in the Glades). Useless fluff is just that...useless fluff.

Quote from: floridacyclist on April 20, 2007, 05:15:42 AM
Wow...I'm in the middle of Sun n Fun and the whole world goes to he&* in a handbasket while I'm busy chasing cadets around Lakeland. I'd like to make a couple of points and then I'm stepping back and finishing the week here at our own little mini-Oshkosh.

Crap...there goes my weekend.  See you soon, I guess.  :'(

You mention being able to use the ranger school/program as a way around the lack of local help.  Who runs the ranger program in FL?  Is it like a sub-section of wing ops, its own quasi-department, an underground organization...?

Florida has always taken a different view of "Ranger Schools".  The original one started as a small activity during the late 1950's.  During the 1960's female cadets complained that there was no Ranger style activity for them, and Florida started what was called "Petticoat Trail". A strictly female Ranger School which was held on the northern edge of the Everglades or in north central Florida.
The only bling was graduates or both schools got to wear the Army style ranger patch (arc) above the Wing patch. They also got to wear orange baseball caps during the activity only.
The two Ranger programs which predated Hawk by several years, operated as a Wing level activity independent of the Wing Director of Cadet Programs under their own leadership. And that was the downfall of the program when the Ranger programs started conflicting with Wing Cadet Programs.

Quote from: JC004 on April 20, 2007, 05:30:26 AM
Crap...there goes my weekend.  See you soon, I guess.  :'(

You mention being able to use the ranger school/program as a way around the lack of local help.  Who runs the ranger program in FL?  Is it like a sub-section of wing ops, its own quasi-department, an underground organization...?

It is a sub-directorate of ES. There is a Wing Director of Ranger Training, a commandant of the Ranger North school, and a commandant of the Ranger South school. According to the letter that just came out from Wing the other day, I have the North school. It's not something that I volunteered for as the original plan was to simply give the cadets a chance to work on their ranger sign-offs in between sessions at HMRS, but it has kind of taken on a life of it's own.

It's not underground, in fact one of the classes we are working on is how to teach and properly evaluate...because the students will often be expected to take on those roles as needed and capable when they return to their home unit.

It doesn't make anyone special or elite, but it is great for those who want to train harder than the standard CAP SAR training calls for since not everyone is into 5mi ruck hikes or sleeping out in the woods in a poncho; other than that, it's simply all in fun and it helps keep the cadets interested in CAP when many are starting to drift away. I have had at least one parent tell me that this was what they thought CAP was supposed to be about when their kid joined and several cadets from other units have emailed me multiple times wanting to know about our next event.

We did have some minor problems with hazing (happily not involving any of our cadets from up here as the perpetrator, so i shouldn't have to deal with it again) but that has been addressed and the word is out that I simply will not tolerate it. We are here to provide fun and intense training that explores the envelope of what we can do and learn (such as our recent exercise where we practiced flanking with the K-9 SAR teams or our tentatively planned 3-day survival weekend in Sept), not a Boot camp experience; if someone wants one of those, they should join the Marines.

I look forward to meeting you if I see you around. I am currently serving as the IO for the CAP side of the event, although I will probably be out on the field as well. You will probably find me to be one of the more laid-back of the ES guys around here as I'm in this mainly to have fun with the cadets, 2 of whom belong to me.

Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2007, 12:17:02 PM
Florida has always taken a different view of "Ranger Schools".  The original one started as a small activity during the late 1950's.  During the 1960's female cadets complained that there was no Ranger style activity for them, and Florida started what was called "Petticoat Trail". A strictly female Ranger School which was held on the northern edge of the Everglades or in north central Florida.
The only bling was graduates or both schools got to wear the Army style ranger patch (arc) above the Wing patch. They also got to wear orange baseball caps during the activity only.
The two Ranger programs which predated Hawk by several years, operated as a Wing level activity independent of the Wing Director of Cadet Programs under their own leadership. And that was the downfall of the program when the Ranger programs started conflicting with Wing Cadet Programs.

I don't know where to begin with this!  Everything about what they did was outright wrong! 

Quote from: floridacyclist on April 20, 2007, 07:03:12 PM

Quote from: JC004 on April 20, 2007, 05:30:26 AM
Crap...there goes my weekend.  See you soon, I guess.  :'(

You mention being able to use the ranger school/program as a way around the lack of local help.  Who runs the ranger program in FL?  Is it like a sub-section of wing ops, its own quasi-department, an underground organization...?

It is a sub-directorate of ES. There is a Wing Director of Ranger Training, a commandant of the Ranger North school, and a commandant of the Ranger South school. According to the letter that just came out from Wing the other day, I have the North school. It's not something that I volunteered for as hte original plan was to simply give the kids a chance to work on their ranger sign-offs in between sessions at HMRS, but it has kind of taken on a life of it's own.

It's not underground, in fact one of the classes we are working on is how to teach and properly evaluate...because the students will often be expected to take on those roles as needed and capable when they return to their home unit.

It doesn't make anyone special or elite, but it is great for those who want to train harder than the standard CAP SAR training calls for since not everyone is into 5mi ruck hikes or sleeping out in the woods in a poncho; other than that, it's simply all in fun and it helps keep the kids interested in CAP when many are starting to drift away. I have had at least one parent tell me that this was what they thought CAP was supposed to be about when their kid joined and several cadets from other units have emailed me multiple times wanting to know about our next event.

We did have some minor problems with hazing (happily not involving any of our kids from up here as the perpetrator, so i shouldn't have to deal with it again) but that has been addressed and the word is out that I simply will not tolerate it. We are here to provide fun and intense training that explores the envelope of what we can do and learn (such as our recent exercise where we practiced flanking with the K-9 SAR teams or our tentatively planned 3-day survival weekend in Sept), not a Boot camp experience; if someone wants one of those, they should join the Marines.

I look forwad to meeting you if i see you around. I am currently serving as the IO for the CAP side of the event, although I will probably be out on the field as well. You will probably find me to be one of the more laid-back of the ES guys around here.

Thanks...was kind of wondering how that worked.  I was worried it might be a secret society with people dancing in the woods naked except for pistol belts (complete with 'gator sacrifices).   :o   ;)  Probably see you there...I don't look much like my avatar (and am sure as heck not wearing a uniform), but I am trying to eat as many donuts as possible and I will probably wear my lame-o CAP hat from Vanguard (didn't buy it, it was given to me by Vanguard) when I'm not near spinny things.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 20, 2007, 07:12:06 PM
I don't know where to begin with this!  Everything about what they did was outright wrong! 

Exactly!!!! LOLOL

So much so that if I didn't trust Bill, I'd think he was yanking on our legs a little LOL

Quote from: Stonewall on April 15, 2007, 07:15:01 PM
I've been to Hawk Mountain and had a good experience.  I think it is an excellent way to learn about Search and Rescue.  It is called Hawk Mountain Ranger School and has been around long before I joined CAP.  I respect that.

Instead, I've got a cadet in my squadron with a starched BDU cap with the top pushed down to be a "Ranger Roll", a white pistol belt, whistle and ascot around their neck.  The other 15 cadets all look to standard, CAP standard, but then there's this one person out of place.  Just gets me hot under the collar.

You might point out to said cadet that those uniform items are A) not approved yet at the national Level, and B) subject to wing approval on a wing-by-wing basis.

The more negative stuff I hear from the field about how it's being flaunted and abused, the more apt I am to lobby for the Wing CC to approve it only at Ranger events. Of course, that might knock out the blue beret too since that was part of the same ruling that was adopted, but I'm sure they'll live as well.

Personally,I have no use for the bling except for a smll BTDT patch although I do like the orange hats for practical reasons.

Quote from: floridacyclist on April 23, 2007, 01:38:45 PM

Quote from: Stonewall on April 15, 2007, 07:15:01 PM
I've been to Hawk Mountain and had a good experience.  I think it is an excellent way to learn about Search and Rescue.  It is called Hawk Mountain Ranger School and has been around long before I joined CAP.  I respect that.

Instead, I've got a cadet in my squadron with a starched BDU cap with the top pushed down to be a "Ranger Roll", a white pistol belt, whistle and ascot around their neck.  The other 15 cadets all look to standard, CAP standard, but then there's this one person out of place.  Just gets me hot under the collar.

You might point out to said cadet that those uniform items are A) not approved yet at the national Level, and B) subject to wing approval on a wing-by-wing basis.

The more negative stuff I hear from the field about how it's being flaunted and abused, the more apt I am to lobby for the Wing CC to approve it only at Ranger events. Of course, that might knock out the blue beret too since that was part of the same ruling that was adopted, but I'm sure they'll live as well.

Personally,I have no use for the bling except for a smll BTDT patch although I do like the orange hats for practical reasons.

My philosophy is as follows (and you all better follow it when I'm supreme national ruler): If you don't like what a regulation says, unless you are in some extreme safety situation, you follow that regulation.  If you want it changed, you propose a change, but don't violate it in the meantime.

That's how I see the use of unauthorized uniform items especially.  Besides it's a matter of...if you can't follow a black and white regulation on what to wear, can you follow instructions in the field and not get somebody/something broke?

If, as I have been led to understand, small animals (e.g. rabbits) are killed, field-dressed, cooked and eaten as a curricular part of HMRS, then I must disagree with floridacyclist when he proffered, "it's simply all in fun and it helps keep the cadets interested in CAP when many are starting to drift away."

Killing should never be seen as "all in fun" and, IMHO, "keep[ing] the cadets interested in CAP" is a poor excuse for needless cruelty toward animals.

Amid all of the violent (and desensitizingly gorey) video games, disgusting "Faces of Death" videos, gangsta' rap songs glorifying the murder of police and the violent degradation of women, I cannot see any justification for the killing of small animals (even as a survival exercise). It merely helps encourage more violence and feeds unhealthy voyeuristic tendencies of adolescents.

To my clergy mind, it is nothing but a rite-of-passage and therein de facto hazing.

If I am correct in my understanding of that hideous practice at HMRS, I will work tirelessly to end it forthwith. The Pennsylvania chapter of the SPCA will hear about it, to be sure.

If I am wrong --not about its implications or my disapproval of it-- and such kill-clean-and-eat exercises no longer are a part of HMRS, please let me know and then accept my apologies for being misinformed.

^^ You can debate the benefits and all, but to answer your question, yes, it remains part of the program (farm-raised rabbits). 

Thanks James ...

Off to the Penn SPCA website for contact info.

I have to side with Chaplain Don on this. even in the "REAL" Ranger School, we didn't kill and eat. That's reserved for SERE school and the SF "Q" Course. Not a good things for kids to practice... learn, yes, but not practice.

We don't kill animals in our school for three simple reasons. A) It avoids the kind of controversy you are seeing right now,  B) gathering plants and insects would be a much more efficient use of limited time and energy in a true survival situation. C) Food comes 4th in the rule of 3s (3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food, 3 seconds without your head).

I'm not saying that we would have the students munching away on grasshoppers (although they were good enough for John the Baptist along with a large percentage of the earth's population today), but that they understand the truth about banking all of your survival chances on hunting and killing the increasingly smaller population of wild game.

Which explains why we tried as hard as we could to have a native plants expert at our MLK weekend event.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on April 23, 2007, 04:16:02 PM
Thanks James ...

Off to the Penn SPCA website for contact info.

One question: Will your missive to the SPCA be anonymous too?

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 23, 2007, 06:42:49 PM

Quote from: Chaplaindon on April 23, 2007, 04:16:02 PM
Thanks James ...

Off to the Penn SPCA website for contact info.

One question: Will your missive to the SPCA be anonymous too?

(ut oh)  HEY GUYS!  LOOK OVER THERE!  FREE DONUTS AND COFFEE!  Over...there...that way...away from this thread -->

I would hope, on such a big topic as this, the thread would serve us well as a discussion of national standards, and for the rangers to reflect on their program and on themselves - hopefully to consider how they can move themselves and everyone else forward at the same time. 

Quote from: JC004 on April 23, 2007, 07:59:19 PM
I would hope, on such a big topic as this, the thread would serve us well as a discussion of national standards, and for the rangers to reflect on their program and on themselves - hopefully to consider how they can move themselves and everyone else forward at the same time. 

Exactly. I do not believe in everything that "Rangers" seems to stand for; I do not toe their party line (or anyone else's for that matter). But until something better comes along that will allow us to train in ways that would not go over in standard GT training, this is our best chance at doing the things that we joined CAP to do. Judging by how many show up to the training sessions, we're not alone.

Incidentally, one thing I constantly tell the cadets (who are often only worried about getting their Ranger ratings) is "Ranger ratings are fun to earn, but GTMs are who goes on the missions"

I will not go on to bash the Florida Rangers YET.  I will give you guys and ladies the benefit of the doubt, because I have never met the leadership down there.  However, I know who we have running HMRS up here in PA, so I will continue to post my distaste of the entire program.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 23, 2007, 08:41:44 PM
I will not go on to bash the Florida Rangers YET.  I will give you guys and ladies the benefit of the doubt, because I have never met the leadership down there.  However, I know who we have running HMRS up here in PA, so I will continue to post my distaste of the entire program.

... and anonymously, which speaks volumes as to your personal integrity.

If you're going to talk trash, at least pretend to have enough backbone to identify yourself, 'k?


[Apologies to the rest of the assemblage, I just find anon posting in a forum like this to be akin to cowardice. I agree strongly that this thread should be steered back to a constructive discussion of such programs, and IMHO that means that the anon punters should go back to the kiddie table.]

That's your opinion, it doesn't change the fact that anonymous posting is allowed by site policy.

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 23, 2007, 11:13:35 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 23, 2007, 08:41:44 PM
I will not go on to bash the Florida Rangers YET.  I will give you guys and ladies the benefit of the doubt, because I have never met the leadership down there.  However, I know who we have running HMRS up here in PA, so I will continue to post my distaste of the entire program.

... and anonymously, which speaks volumes as to your personal integrity.

If you're going to talk trash, at least pretend to have enough backbone to identify yourself, 'k?


[Apologies to the rest of the assemblage, I just find anon posting in a forum like this to be akin to cowardice. I agree strongly that this thread should be steered back to a constructive discussion of such programs, and IMHO that means that the anon punters should go back to the kiddie table.]

Does the kiddie table have chicken fingers and macaroni and cheese?!   >:D  Sorry...going back to my cage now...

Quote from: MIKE on April 24, 2007, 12:07:56 AM
That's your opinion, it doesn't change the fact that anonymous posting is allowed by site policy.

Very true, which is unfortunate.

Quote from: JC004 on April 24, 2007, 12:31:08 AM

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 23, 2007, 11:13:35 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 23, 2007, 08:41:44 PM
I will not go on to bash the Florida Rangers YET.  I will give you guys and ladies the benefit of the doubt, because I have never met the leadership down there.  However, I know who we have running HMRS up here in PA, so I will continue to post my distaste of the entire program.

... and anonymously, which speaks volumes as to your personal integrity.

If you're going to talk trash, at least pretend to have enough backbone to identify yourself, 'k?


[Apologies to the rest of the assemblage, I just find anon posting in a forum like this to be akin to cowardice. I agree strongly that this thread should be steered back to a constructive discussion of such programs, and IMHO that means that the anon punters should go back to the kiddie table.]

Does the kiddie table have chicken fingers and macaroni and cheese?!   >:D  Sorry...going back to my cage now...

Slightly smushed PB&J and cut-up hot dogs served with cheap yellow mustard for a dipping sauce. Oh, and half-stale and somewhat-broken potato chips and pretzels mixed together in a bowl. For dessert, a gelatin mold with ersatz whipped cream and sort-of diced fruit within.

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 24, 2007, 01:08:09 AM

Quote from: JC004 on April 24, 2007, 12:31:08 AM

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 23, 2007, 11:13:35 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 23, 2007, 08:41:44 PM
I will not go on to bash the Florida Rangers YET.  I will give you guys and ladies the benefit of the doubt, because I have never met the leadership down there.  However, I know who we have running HMRS up here in PA, so I will continue to post my distaste of the entire program.

... and anonymously, which speaks volumes as to your personal integrity.

If you're going to talk trash, at least pretend to have enough backbone to identify yourself, 'k?


[Apologies to the rest of the assemblage, I just find anon posting in a forum like this to be akin to cowardice. I agree strongly that this thread should be steered back to a constructive discussion of such programs, and IMHO that means that the anon punters should go back to the kiddie table.]

Does the kiddie table have chicken fingers and macaroni and cheese?!   >:D  Sorry...going back to my cage now...

Slightly smushed PB&J and cut-up hot dogs served with cheap yellow mustard for a dipping sauce. Oh, and half-stale and somewhat-broken potato chips and pretzels mixed together in a bowl. For dessert, a gelatin mold with ersatz whipped cream and sort-of diced fruit within.

As nice as the memories of crushed PB&J are, I am guessing there will be juice boxes, and I'd rather have a nice Guinness, so maybe I will sit at the big people table (at least for dinner).  Hopefully for breakfast, the kids will have Fruity Pebbles!

Quote from: JC004 on April 24, 2007, 01:20:26 AM
I'd rather have a nice Guinness, so maybe I will sit at the big people table (at least for dinner).

Would you consider Murphy's as a suitable substitute?

V/R,

Quote from: LTC_Gadget on April 24, 2007, 01:27:23 AM

Quote from: JC004 on April 24, 2007, 01:20:26 AM
I'd rather have a nice Guinness, so maybe I will sit at the big people table (at least for dinner).

Would you consider Murphy's as a suitable substitute?

V/R,

Substitutes...never.  Alternatives...sometimes.  Guinness makes you strong. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3266819.stm)

Quote from: LTC_Gadget on April 24, 2007, 01:27:23 AM

Quote from: JC004 on April 24, 2007, 01:20:26 AM
I'd rather have a nice Guinness, so maybe I will sit at the big people table (at least for dinner).

Would you consider Murphy's as a suitable substitute?

Murphy's goes better with some foods; Guinness is better by itself, IMHO.

Quote from: JC004 on April 24, 2007, 01:20:26 AM

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 24, 2007, 01:08:09 AM

Quote from: JC004 on April 24, 2007, 12:31:08 AM

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 23, 2007, 11:13:35 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 23, 2007, 08:41:44 PM
I will not go on to bash the Florida Rangers YET.  I will give you guys and ladies the benefit of the doubt, because I have never met the leadership down there.  However, I know who we have running HMRS up here in PA, so I will continue to post my distaste of the entire program.

... and anonymously, which speaks volumes as to your personal integrity.

If you're going to talk trash, at least pretend to have enough backbone to identify yourself, 'k?


[Apologies to the rest of the assemblage, I just find anon posting in a forum like this to be akin to cowardice. I agree strongly that this thread should be steered back to a constructive discussion of such programs, and IMHO that means that the anon punters should go back to the kiddie table.]

Does the kiddie table have chicken fingers and macaroni and cheese?!   >:D  Sorry...going back to my cage now...

Slightly smushed PB&J and cut-up hot dogs served with cheap yellow mustard for a dipping sauce. Oh, and half-stale and somewhat-broken potato chips and pretzels mixed together in a bowl. For dessert, a gelatin mold with ersatz whipped cream and sort-of diced fruit within.

As nice as the memories of crushed PB&J are, I am guessing there will be juice boxes, and I'd rather have a nice Guinness, so maybe I will sit at the big people table (at least for dinner).  Hopefully for breakfast, the kids will have Fruity Pebbles!

[smacking forehead]

I  forgot beverages.

As for cereal, why restrict it to breakfast? http://www.cereality.com

Leaving aside Major Rowley's distaste for anonymous posting (and of course that assumes he is indeed who he claims to be), the issue here as I see it is the PA Ranger program and its offshoots.

I first encountered HMRS secondhand as a cadet in the 70s, after some of my peers had attended the program in order to serve as cadre in establishing NJ Ranger program.

The dedication of the personnel was unmatched in CAP.

Unfortunately, so was the zealotry and the arrogant attitudes.

I had no use for it then, nor for some of the more extreme behavior (the business with the rabbits, for instance).....neither has any direct bearing on anything we actually do in CAP.

I still have no use for these aspects of the program, and think it will only receive broad-based respect when it focuses solely on the professional level skills some of its graduates do indeed demonstrate in SAR activities, and foregoes the eccentric, infantile nonsense.

Morale can be built without abusing people or animals.

If some of our personnel want to pursue survival training -- and there is no reason they shouldn't, although not under the guise of it having some immediate ES application -- I'd far rather see the program revamped under the auspices of current or former military instructors in the subject who also understand CAP and its role.

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 24, 2007, 01:40:03 AM

Quote from: LTC_Gadget on April 24, 2007, 01:27:23 AM

Quote from: JC004 on April 24, 2007, 01:20:26 AM
I'd rather have a nice Guinness, so maybe I will sit at the big people table (at least for dinner).

Would you consider Murphy's as a suitable substitute?

Murphy's goes better with some foods; Guinness is better by itself, IMHO.

hmm...fair enough.  As for Cereality, I've heard of it, but I haven't been there yet...it's probably 10 bucks a bowl plus 7% tax (is poured cereal a prepared food? dunno). 

Ok, now that we hijacked it again, back to your regularly scheduled thread, ladies and gentlemen (and anonymous posters).   >:D

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 24, 2007, 01:56:25 AMI still have no use for these aspects of the program, and think it will only receive broad-based respect when it focuses solely on the professional level skills some of its graduates do indeed demonstrate in SAR activities, and foregoes the eccentric, infantile nonsense.

Like I said, NIMS Type 3 Wilderness SAR standards is our eventual goal. I don't think it gets any more professional than that

QuoteMorale can be built without abusing people or animals.

I agree, which is why neither of those concepts are present in our school. We don't have enough training time to waste it on applications without some level of relatively immediate applicability.

QuoteIf some of our personnel want to pursue survival training -- and there is no reason they shouldn't, although not under the guise of it having some immediate ES application -- I'd far rather see the program revamped under the auspices of current or former military instructors in the subject who also understand CAP and its role.

Which is why our September event is tentatively scheduled to be survival training; it is dependent on whether the SERE guys from Eglin or Rucker can come out and play. I don't see very much direct relevance to ES in survival training, but the pride, self-esteem and self-confidence benefits (especially to teenagers) are enormous. Just learning that you really can handle anything life throws at you is a big deal to some of these kids.

In some ways, this really should be more under CP than ES.

 I don't 'claim' to be anyone in particular; I'm just me, that's pretty readily verifiable... and I don't purport to speak on behalf of anything or anyone else. That's not really the purpose of this thread, though. That being said, here's my own personal vision of what such schools should be:

- a place to learn baseline skills leavened with the needs/requirements of regional climate/terrain/etc.

- a place to develop leaders, instructors and subject-matter experts

- a champion for SAR training, setting high standards and encouraging their dissemination down to the grass-roots level

- a venue to offer continuing education and skills diversification as appropriate and feasible

My biggest gripe regarding SAR training in Civil Air Patrol in general is what I've perceived over the years to be a 'dumbing down' of multi-unit training in some respects and an excessive reliance on 'fair weather' training because some at various echelons only want to hold training when it's bright and sunny and all the airplanes can fly. We need to train like we search.

In addition, we need to examine and address how skills are evaluated and endorsed; over the years I've encountered in a number of places a whole slew of GTMs and GTLs as well as GBD or two who could probably provide a rote answer from the book but who I'd have fairly grave reservations about sending into the field. To be fair, I've encountered some 'rangers' and 'pathfinders' and such within CAP for whom I'd have the same misgivings.

I'm not a big fan of 'bling', personally. In general I'm a bit of a minimalist to begin with. There are times and places for trappings and regalia; if these times and places are not appropriately respected, the purpose of said trappings and regalia is diluted.

There's no place for arrogance in what we do. When it comes to both teaching and learning, I'm a strong believer of the concept of shoshin or 'beginner's mind'.

I'm a strong believer in tradition, but not blindly for the sake of repetition or as a tool to be misused.

I believe in a strong need for high professional standards among those who are to teach and to lead, but I don't necessarily believe that those skillsets come entirely from within the ranks of the military, and as such we shouldn't rule out competent, capable instructors who come from outside the military as long as they understand CAP and their role within same.

This isn't about 'my program's better than yours' or 'your people are meanies' or the usual circular arguments - it's about making the whole thing better.

 ^ Agree!

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 24, 2007, 03:40:29 AM
I don't 'claim' to be anyone in particular; I'm just me, that's pretty readily verifiable... and I don't purport to speak on behalf of anything or anyone else. That's not really the purpose of this thread, though. That being said, here's my own personal vision of what such schools should be:

- a place to learn baseline skills leavened with the needs/requirements of regional climate/terrain/etc.

- a place to develop leaders, instructors and subject-matter experts

- a champion for SAR training, setting high standards and encouraging their dissemination down to the grass-roots level

- a venue to offer continuing education and skills diversification as appropriate and feasible

My biggest gripe regarding SAR training in Civil Air Patrol in general is what I've perceived over the years to be a 'dumbing down' of multi-unit training in some respects and an excessive reliance on 'fair weather' training because some at various echelons only want to hold training when it's bright and sunny and all the airplanes can fly. We need to train like we search.

In addition, we need to examine and address how skills are evaluated and endorsed; over the years I've encountered in a number of places a whole slew of GTMs and GTLs as well as GBD or two who could probably provide a rote answer from the book but who I'd have fairly grave reservations about sending into the field. To be fair, I've encountered some 'rangers' and 'pathfinders' and such within CAP for whom I'd have the same misgivings.

I'm not a big fan of 'bling', personally. In general I'm a bit of a minimalist to begin with. There are times and places for trappings and regalia; if these times and places are not appropriately respected, the purpose of said trappings and regalia is diluted.

There's no place for arrogance in what we do. When it comes to both teaching and learning, I'm a strong believer of the concept of shoshin or 'beginner's mind'.

I'm a strong believer in tradition, but not blindly for the sake of repetition or as a tool to be misused.

I believe in a strong need for high professional standards among those who are to teach and to lead, but I don't necessarily believe that those skillsets come entirely from within the ranks of the military, and as such we shouldn't rule out competent, capable instructors who come from outside the military as long as they understand CAP and their role within same.

This isn't about 'my program's better than yours' or 'your people are meanies' or the usual circular arguments - it's about making the whole thing better.

I find myself in general agreement with all you said.

If your attitude is reflective of the present environment in HRMS -- and I understand that you spoke only for yourself -- then I can see the image of the school rapidly improving, as it becomes more visibly mission oriented.

I have seen pretty much the same thing in my two cadets who have come back from HMRS. Still very humble about who they are, but very willing to help, share knowledge, and instruct others. The only other HMRS cadet that I know very well (since he was 13) was with us for the RECON missions in 2004, and has since gone on to Combat Medic school and Jump School, and has returned to us (he's in the Guard) while awaiting his slot at SF school to open up; he is one of our instructors and is absolutely one of my favorite people of all time. Pretentiousness or arrogance are two words that are not found in his vocabulary. Needless to say he is an awesome role model.

That is my ideal for other graduates as well. All of our people here in North FL are at very basic levels, so this has not become an issue yet, but if it does, we will talk.

One thing to understand is that we are not a self-contained Ranger School, but rather a series of prep classes for those planning on attending HMRS or who need a couple of signoffs on return. We simply don't have the local manning to go much further than that.

I have been considering requesting permission to change the name to North Florida Ground Operations School to recognize that we do much more than the basic Ranger curriculum with none of the associated bling and potential hazing. If so, we would still offer the same training (including Ranger signoffs for those attending or planning to attend HMRS or Falcon) as long as it was relevant to our needs and be in the same chain of command, but would have some freedom to explore outside the Ranger curriculum.

Thoughts? Not that I'm going to obey (unless you're the Wing King :) ) but I am curious as to how others would perceive that change.

I think that name change makes sense. It also allows to easily revise the school's focus without having to change the name. Say from ranger-based to NIMS-based training.

Quote...with none of the associated bling and potential hazing

I fail to see the relevance in the curriculum vs the potential for hazing.  Prior to and even after RST, I have seen more instances of hazing at activites other than HMRS.
An activites potential for hazing has nothing to do with its curriculum or how the activity is run but rather who is running it.  I would argue that your localized "Ranger" training has a higher potential for hazing.

What NIMS trainig would you reccommend that is not already coverd in the course.
All personnel already recieve ICS 100 (as part of GES) and ICS 700
ICS 200 is reccommneded by FEMA for team leaders
I can see adding ICS 300 as an option for those pursuing GBD and above.

Honestly I dont see it being that much of an impact change that I would re-vamp the curriculum to "NIMS" based vs "Ranger" based.

If you look at the resource typing for wilderness SAR, HMRS 2nd year courses meet the objectives to support a type II team.  Which as far as I know, no other CAP SAR school does.  Specifically the medical and backcountry thechnical and patient evac requirements

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on April 26, 2007, 12:34:02 AM
If you look at the resource typing for wilderness SAR, HMRS 2nd year courses meet the objectives to support a type II team.  Which as far as I know, no other CAP SAR school does.  Specifically the medical and backcountry thechnical and patient evac requirements

mk

The medical and pt evac requirements are activities CAP is prohibited from doing. The technical stuff is permitted if your wing commander will sign off on it and the member provides the training and equipment.

All the more reason CAP needs to re-evaulate its medical care requirements if it wants to play in the big NIMS compliant world.

mk

One major reason for the restriction is the plethora of different requirements for each state and, in some cases, within each state. Plus the whole Physician Advisor issue.

Quote from: arajca on April 26, 2007, 02:21:09 AM
One major reason for the restriction is the plethora of different requirements for each state and, in some cases, within each state. Plus the whole Physician Advisor issue.

Neither of those is insoluble.

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 26, 2007, 02:23:02 AM

Quote from: arajca on April 26, 2007, 02:21:09 AM
One major reason for the restriction is the plethora of different requirements for each state and, in some cases, within each state. Plus the whole Physician Advisor issue.

Neither of those is insoluble.

True, but given the problems getting an HSO track put together and approved, I don't see either of these being tackled anytime soon.

Quote from: arajca on April 26, 2007, 02:25:18 AM

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 26, 2007, 02:23:02 AM

Quote from: arajca on April 26, 2007, 02:21:09 AM
One major reason for the restriction is the plethora of different requirements for each state and, in some cases, within each state. Plus the whole Physician Advisor issue.

Neither of those is insoluble.

True, but given the problems getting an HSO track put together and approved, I don't see either of these being tackled anytime soon.

Perhaps; the initiative shouldn't be abandoned IMHO.

Thread split.  New thread here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1997.0

Idea :)  why dont we just rename CAP rangers, something like SAR TECHS

Because then they would be aping another title that they don't really deserve based on this activity. 

Quote from: Stonewall on April 16, 2007, 04:07:37 AM
I sense that a majority of the problem comes from the influence of seniors.  After all, cadets are impressionable and will often take after their leaders' example.  If a leader tells a young pup that this is the only way to do it and it is definitely the cool way, well then of course, cadets will follow suit. 

I think you've hit the nail on the head....unfortunately the heritage runs back to the late 60s or early 70s, which is decades worth of an elitist philosophy....the right senior leadership, given a few years, could turn this around....but that would require  commitment and support from the highest echelons and grass roots alike in Pennsylvania Wing....sadly, the PA folks, who have a wonderful commitment to the ES mission, simply don't recognize or won't acknowledge that this aspect of the Ranger program damages their wing's reputation with much of the rest of CAP.

As an activity that draws cadets, some minimal 'bling' is almost a necessity -- but it needs to be scaled back to something less reminiscent of Manhattan doormen!

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 20, 2008, 09:56:04 PM
As an activity that draws cadets, some minimal 'bling' is almost a necessity -- but it needs to be scaled back to something less reminiscent of Manhattan doormen!

Maybe the Hawk MTN Patch would suffice??

Quotesimply don't recognize or won't acknowledge that this aspect of the Ranger program damages their wing's reputation with much of the rest of CAP.

come on when you have (or had as the case was) a Wing Commander who decides that he can change the location of a patch as directd by CAP regs because that's what he thinks it should be (or as I was told ...because he was on the "uniform committe") and puts out an official memo authorizing the change what do you expect.  Who exactly do you complain too?  Obvioulsly the region commander didnt have issue with it either 'cause it has yet to be rescinded...
or a NHQ staff that usue HMRS photos but photoshoped out the unauthorized T-shirt colors....yet no cease and desist memo from NHQ....

If no one from the wing commander to the National staff is going to say no...how exaclty do you propose to change the culture?   

Ask any of the nay sayers to HMRS bling (we'll call them anti-rangers..sorry) from PA.  What happens if you buck the HMRS system in PA?
For a while back in the late '90's my squadron was more into SAR than what we got out of HMRS, we dropped all "bling" except the school patch; GTM badges, black T-shirts and BDU caps, did a lot of work with non-CAP SAR and disaster teams.  We scheduled our own training that frequently coincided with HMRS weekends or went to civilian SAREX's.  One mission came up with CAP particiapation (missing person search)  it was during a HMRS weekend.  The school commander at the time sent a senior member LTC from HMRS to the mission base with specific instruction to prevent our team from taking any taskings until a school specific ranger team could get there (I am not assuming, it was a friend of mine and he leveled with me exactly why he was sent ahead of the team).

mk

QuoteBecause then they would be aping another title that they don't really deserve based on this activity.

You could apply that to the majority of CAP "Ground Teams" as well.

GTM3 is not a SAR qualification, the training program wouldnt even cut it to pass the SARTECH III exam.
GTM1 graduates would be hard pressed to pass the SARTECH II exams as well.

Being both a SARTECH II and GBD and an advanced ranger I can tell you that the HMRS program comes closer to preparing the student for actual land SAR than most CAP training I have seen.

mk

Quote from: CAPLAW on April 20, 2008, 09:00:32 PM
Idea :)  why dont we just rename CAP rangers, something like SAR TECHS

Ummm.....Being a SARTECH II, I vote for heck no.

If you really want to then eliminate the ranger tabs, authorize the NASAR SARTECH patches.

There is much more to learn as a SARTECH than a GTL2 or 3

Quote....authorize the NASAR SARTECH patches.

ummm..they are table 6-4 #25.....
block 1 NASAR qualification patches
block 2 embroidered
block 3 on the right sleeve 1/2 inch below shoulder seam of BDU or field uniform shirt, BDU field jacket, utility uniform or flight suit.

Back before the NB decision 2006 there was discussion of re-designing a HMRS patch for wear in accordance with the regulation that had rockers that were placed above the patch indicating the Ranger Rating (like NASAR) with Staff or Medic underneath.....when TP said tabs are ok the re-design went out the window

mk

I have stayed OUT of the Ranger/Hawk Mountain/Berets/Bling/etc. discussion because I really am not interested in trying to look like a Frenchman.  But...

My head is starting to hurt with all the NIMS/SARTECH/MEDIC requirements vs. CAP Rangers.  I want a solution that will make the folks happy, not make us look like idiots, and is simple and fair in its application.

So:

1.  What WE as CAP guys do is unique.  We operate ground teams to aid in searches conducted by aircraft.  They are trained in coordinated searches with an aircraft, communication (with and without radio) with a search aircraft.  Our GT guys are trained in basic fieldcraft, and rely on external support for their operations.  They can be tactically employed in two ways:

     a.  As separate teams, consisteng of CAP members only, and operating with a CAP airplane.

     b.  As a liaison element with another agency's SAR ground team, to provide coordination with a CAP airplane (Not at all unlike the Air Boss in an infantry unit who is an Air Force officer and pilot who coordinates the air support).

2.  The Air Force, in its own AFI, identifies these CAP ground-pounding people as "Rangers."  We limit that term to HM grads, and guys who complete a HM curriculum in Florida and elsewhere, but the AF does not.

3.  The cadets like berets.  We can't get around that.  Officers look pretentions in them, but the cadets love them.

So...  Proposed solution for discussion:

1.  GTM-3 requirements will be unchanged, and upon qualification as a GTM-3 , the GT badge will be awarded.

2.  GTM-2 requirements will be enhanced to include a minimum 3-day (2-nights) training bivouac in the field.  The training should fill the three days, be challenging, and mission-related.  At the conclusion of GTM-2 a beret will be awarded to cadets, but without a beret flash.

3.  GTM-1 completion gets the cadet a generic beret flash.  Maybe just a modified wing-and-prop cadet cap insignia.

4.  NBB and Hawk grads go directly to the beret, but with a distinctive flash, one for NBB and a different one for HM.

5.  GTM-3 and GTM-2 will be designated "Ranger Trainees" and GTM-1's, NBB grads, and HM grads will be designated "Rangers."

6.  Officers get the GT badges, but should not wear the beret unless they are instructing at NBB/HM, and once the class ends they put the BDU patrol cap on.

7.  NO OTHER BLING.  No patches, belts, bibs, whistles, sabers, sidearms, pins, funny hats, nothing!

Flame away.

Sabers?  Hmmm.  Maybe bling ain't so bad.  That would look great with my mess dress.  ;D

GC

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 01:21:28 PM
Flame away.

No flame - I like it.

argh......Johny, MORE BLING?? 

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 21, 2008, 02:02:39 PM
argh......Johny, MORE BLING?? 

Actually, my proposal would be a net REDUCTION of blingage.

^ Understood......I retract my ARGH.  Sorry!   :angel:

John,

I like it....but why not the officers?

As you said....cadet like the beret....so do officers.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 21, 2008, 05:25:31 PM
John,

I like it....but why not the officers?

As you said....cadet like the beret....so do officers.

In INWG all GTM's are allowed to wear one. I love mine.

I will say I never understood the dislike for beret's.

I earned mine and was proud to wear it (Airborne).

BTW...my resume does not compare to some here (SF, PJ, etc). However I will say that in the 82nd the FIRST thing you did was shave and shape your beret...no way in hell it stayed unshaved, and we certainly were not REMF's or "garrison pukes".

OK, Officers too.

I swear... you guys are gonna have to start respecting my decisions when I get to be National Commander!  No more talking sense to me!

John

You going to move National Headquarters to Patrick?

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on April 21, 2008, 06:36:33 PM
I will say I never understood the dislike for beret's.

I earned mine and was proud to wear it (Airborne).

You'll notice that I'm very anti-beret in CAP, but not anti-beret overall.  And to be honest, I'm not against berets in CAP, however, I am against them being awarded for finishing a school versus being a part of a specialized group.

Meaning, graduation from Hawk should not mean wearing a beret.

But, if you attended a specialized course such as Hawk, earning a recognized qualification that not everyone can achieve (some sort of attrition), and then were assigned to a recognized and official specialized group/team that offered something more than just being a standard issue ground team, then, I think it would be okay.

As another example.  I forget where or whom, but there was some special team called the "ramp rats", that were some high speed, highly trained, flight line team that only did flight line operations.  Put together a flight of those guys with some achievable qualifications and a course and make them a solid unit, throw'em a beret.

I am not for individuals going to an activity and coming back with a beret for completion.  A skill badge, even a tab, yes.  But not a hat.

You don't get a maroon beret for completing airborne school; a tan beret for completing ranger school.  Those are skills and do not mean you are going to an airborne or ranger unit.  Graduate the PJ pipeline and become a pararsecueman and you get to wear a maroon beret, but only while in that career field.  Same thing with Army special forces.  Sure, you get a green beret at the end of the Q-course, but it's not because of your qualification, it's because of your assigned unit.  People don't go to the SF Q-course and then go back to their unit, they graduate and are assigned to a Special Forces Group.

That's my rationale for my dislike for the use of berets in CAP; it doesn't follow the same rule of thumb that the "real military" follows.

Do berets look cool?  Yep.  Can people really mess'em up?  You know it.  I guess I just want and expect people to do things such as advanced training for more reasons than to get a cool looking hat.  Call me crazy.

Quote from: Stonewall on April 21, 2008, 07:35:14 PM

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on April 21, 2008, 06:36:33 PM
I will say I never understood the dislike for beret's.

I earned mine and was proud to wear it (Airborne).

You'll notice that I'm very anti-beret in CAP, but not anti-beret overall.  And to be honest, I'm not against berets in CAP, however, I am against them being awarded for finishing a school versus being a part of a specialized group.

Meaning, graduation from Hawk should not mean wearing a beret.

But, if you attended a specialized course such as Hawk, earning a recognized qualification that not everyone can achieve (some sort of attrition), and then were assigned to a recognized and official specialized group/team that offered something more than just being a standard issue ground team, then, I think it would be okay.

As another example.  I forget where or whom, but there was some special team called the "ramp rats", that were some high speed, highly trained, flight line team that only did flight line operations.  Put together a flight of those guys with some achievable qualifications and a course and make them a solid unit, throw'em a beret.

I am not for individuals going to an activity and coming back with a beret for completion.  A skill badge, even a tab, yes.  But not a hat.

You don't get a maroon beret for completing airborne school; a tan beret for completing ranger school.  Those are skills and do not mean you are going to an airborne or ranger unit.  Graduate the PJ pipeline and become a pararsecueman and you get to wear a maroon beret, but only while in that career field.  Same thing with Army special forces.  Sure, you get a green beret at the end of the Q-course, but it's not because of your qualification, it's because of your assigned unit.  People don't go to the SF Q-course and then go back to their unit, they graduate and are assigned to a Special Forces Group.

That's my rationale for my dislike for the use of berets in CAP; it doesn't follow the same rule of thumb that the "real military" follows.

Do berets look cool?  Yep.  Can people really mess'em up?  You know it.  I guess I just want and expect people to do things such as advanced training for more reasons than to get a cool looking hat.  Call me crazy.

LOL...actually I agree with what you said ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!

BTW...I know a former ground pounder her in GA Wing is trying to get together small team elements from across the state to be "rapid response" GTM's. I am looking into it and hope to become a part of it....of course there are no special badges, ribbons, or berets and that is fine with me. What I DO want as recognition is to be UTILIZED! :D

I too agree with what Stonwall said.

I allow my one NBB cadet to wear his....because I want to allow all GT members to wear one as well.

I also stress....that no matter what National does about this.....unit commanders have final say about whether to allow berets or not.

Unit cohesion is very important and nothing national does should prevent a unit commander from telling a HMRS or NBB grad to take off the extra bling and wear the unit's head gear.

But....on that same token....if one unit commander says this is what we are doing here then we as officers should support that (assuming that it is within regs) commander.

I don't like all the ranger bling....it's just too much.  But some is good.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 21, 2008, 09:26:21 PM
I too agree with what Stonwall said.

You sure, Patrick?  Because everything you wrote after the first sentence was the opposite of what I said.

I am against one individual at a squadron wearing something different.  Again, I'm a fan of a flight of specialists, not one here and there standing out in the crowd.

I really really miss the cadets of yore.  Graduates of PJOC, APJOC, NGSAR, ANGSAR as well as a lot of local and regional training.  Earn your GTM skill badge, come back, do the job.  Conduct ancillary and advanced skills training outside of the required "check offs", gain knowledge, and just continue doing your job; without so much as a special shoulder cord to wear.

I think doing something for the sake of training, learning and gaining new experiences teaches humility, whereas doing things for the sake of awards, recognition and showing off is an elitist attitude.

Quote from: BillB on April 21, 2008, 07:18:22 PM
John

You going to move National Headquarters to Patrick?

No.  The Officers' Club burned down.  We'll have to stay somewhere civilized.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 10:31:48 PM

Quote from: BillB on April 21, 2008, 07:18:22 PM
John

You going to move National Headquarters to Patrick?

No.  The Officers' Club burned down.  We'll have to stay somewhere civilized.

You make light of a very serious situation.  I was once stationed at a post where the Club did burn down, and after that the moral of all the officers was almost non existant. 

Quote from: DNall on April 15, 2007, 07:51:15 PM
There is a point top making graduates of elite programs stand out, which is to motivate others to attend said programs. However, the real Army gets that done with a simple little tab. Not a big ole clown suit like you describe.

There's also a point to elite programs that make people feel special. They take a committed group & push them through a lot more training than the average person. It's not that the average person can't come & get that training, but this group has committed to being there consistently & working hard. The rest is esprit.

Now there's also a point I've encountered where cadets come back from such places with an elitist attitude & think they are above the law. That is unacceptable & should be broken on first encounter. They aren't remotely special, they merely have an experience which they are now supposed to share with everyone.

IMO YMMV

Elite programs in the Army aren't created to get others to join the programs. They exist for operational training purposes. That's why a simple tab or badge is enough.

That's not so when it comes to Hawk Mtn. They exist to attract more cadets and seniors next year so they get more money and fame (and power within PAWG, NER, and CAP as a whole). That's why all the bling and the need to attract and stand out.

Now... given a real world ground CAP mission, which do you think trains you better, GSAR or Hawk Mtn? I know grads from both and while they all have the same ground team qualifications, I don't see attitude issues from NGSAR grads. That will win me over any day.

I don't even think there is a need for Hawk Mountain at all. I understand it if NGSAR didn't exist, but since it does... I think so much better can be done with the money, land, equipment, and people.

Quote from: sarmed1 on April 21, 2008, 09:41:53 AM

Quote....authorize the NASAR SARTECH patches.

ummm..they are table 6-4 #25.....
block 1 NASAR qualification patches
block 2 embroidered
block 3 on the right sleeve 1/2 inch below shoulder seam of BDU or field uniform shirt, BDU field jacket, utility uniform or flight suit.

Back before the NB decision 2006 there was discussion of re-designing a HMRS patch for wear in accordance with the regulation that had rockers that were placed above the patch indicating the Ranger Rating (like NASAR) with Staff or Medic underneath.....when TP said tabs are ok the re-design went out the window

mk

They are no longer allowed to be worn in this location on th BDU/BBDU/ Field Jacket as the reverse American flag is worn in this position.  They can be worn on the left breast pocket just like any other patch previously authorized to be worn on the right sleeve

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 22, 2008, 02:52:42 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 10:31:48 PM

Quote from: BillB on April 21, 2008, 07:18:22 PM
John

You going to move National Headquarters to Patrick?

No.  The Officers' Club burned down.  We'll have to stay somewhere civilized.

You make light of a very serious situation.  I was once stationed at a post where the Club did burn down, and after that the moral of all the officers was almost non existant. 

Make light of it!  I have to LIVE here!  It isn't bad enough that I live in a shack out in an alligator-infested swamp with a lazy dog and a crabby old woman, but I'm also stuck out here without a decent officers' club!

Even in Vietnam, and Honduras, we had a club.

I blame this situation on Space Command.  Since they are mostly non-pilots, their priorities and ability to process logic are both very faulty.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 03:25:47 AM

No.  The Officers' Club burned down.  We'll have to stay somewhere civilized.


Make light of it!  I have to LIVE here!  It isn't bad enough that I live in a shack out in an alligator-infested swamp with a lazy dog and a crabby old woman, but I'm also stuck out here without a decent officers' club!

Even in Vietnam, and Honduras, we had a club.

I blame this situation on Space Command.  Since they are mostly non-pilots, their priorities and ability to process logic are both very faulty.

If there was a club the dog wouldn't be so lazy ...

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 01:21:28 PM
I have stayed OUT of the Ranger/Hawk Mountain/Berets/Bling/etc. discussion because I really am not interested in trying to look like a Frenchman.  But...

My head is starting to hurt with all the NIMS/SARTECH/MEDIC requirements vs. CAP Rangers.  I want a solution that will make the folks happy, not make us look like idiots, and is simple and fair in its application.

So:

1.  What WE as CAP guys do is unique.  We operate ground teams to aid in searches conducted by aircraft.  They are trained in coordinated searches with an aircraft, communication (with and without radio) with a search aircraft.  Our GT guys are trained in basic fieldcraft, and rely on external support for their operations.  They can be tactically employed in two ways:

     a.  As separate teams, consisteng of CAP members only, and operating with a CAP airplane.

     b.  As a liaison element with another agency's SAR ground team, to provide coordination with a CAP airplane (Not at all unlike the Air Boss in an infantry unit who is an Air Force officer and pilot who coordinates the air support).

2.  The Air Force, in its own AFI, identifies these CAP ground-pounding people as "Rangers."  We limit that term to HM grads, and guys who complete a HM curriculum in Florida and elsewhere, but the AF does not.

3.  The cadets like berets.  We can't get around that.  Officers look pretentions in them, but the cadets love them.

So...  Proposed solution for discussion:

1.  GTM-3 requirements will be unchanged, and upon qualification as a GTM-3 , the GT badge will be awarded.

2.  GTM-2 requirements will be enhanced to include a minimum 3-day (2-nights) training bivouac in the field.  The training should fill the three days, be challenging, and mission-related.  At the conclusion of GTM-2 a beret will be awarded to cadets, but without a beret flash.

Will some form of standardized guide be provided for these activities or will each one wing it? WIth the very general guidance listed here, you never know what you'll end up with. The problem with three full days is, except for summer,  cadets can't do Friday or Monday, and many seinors can't do Fri/Mon year round.

Quote3.  GTM-1 completion gets the cadet a generic beret flash.  Maybe just a modified wing-and-prop cadet cap insignia.

How about the old National Emergency Assistance Training patch, minus the arc? It's about the right size. See CAPM 39-1, pg 125, for picture. Or, if having the word "Ranger" is important, replace the stars with "RANGER". Using something not specifically cadet related is good if senior member wear the beret as well - see comment below. What about grade on the beret? You know that issue will come up.

Quote4.  NBB and Hawk grads go directly to the beret, but with a distinctive flash, one for NBB and a different one for HM.

5.  GTM-3 and GTM-2 will be designated "Ranger Trainees" and GTM-1's, NBB grads, and HM grads will be designated "Rangers."

Do HM and NBB meet the GTM1 requirements? If not, why should they be called "Ranger" if that title is for GTM1's?

Quote6.  Officers get the GT badges, but should not wear the beret unless they are instructing at NBB/HM, and once the class ends they put the BDU patrol cap on.

If the beret is the only thing identifying Rangers, why not let officer wear them?

Quote7.  NO OTHER BLING.  No patches, belts, bibs, whistles, sabers, sidearms, pins, funny hats, nothing!

Flame away.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 03:25:47 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 22, 2008, 02:52:42 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 10:31:48 PM

Quote from: BillB on April 21, 2008, 07:18:22 PM
John

Even in Vietnam, and Honduras, we had a club.

Ah yes.  The club at Soto Cano.  I left some of my best brain cells there.  :D

Quote from: Gunner C on April 22, 2008, 03:14:24 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 03:25:47 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 22, 2008, 02:52:42 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 10:31:48 PM

Quote from: BillB on April 21, 2008, 07:18:22 PM
John

Even in Vietnam, and Honduras, we had a club.

Ah yes.  The club at Soto Cano.  I left some of my best brain cells there.  :D

Sergeant, I'm going to a meeting in Palmerola.  I'll be under my usual table if you need me!

Quote from: arajca on April 22, 2008, 02:45:27 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 01:21:28 PM
I have stayed OUT of the Ranger/Hawk Mountain/Berets/Bling/etc. discussion because I really am not interested in trying to look like a Frenchman.  But...

My head is starting to hurt with all the NIMS/SARTECH/MEDIC requirements vs. CAP Rangers.  I want a solution that will make the folks happy, not make us look like idiots, and is simple and fair in its application.

So:

1.  What WE as CAP guys do is unique.  We operate ground teams to aid in searches conducted by aircraft.  They are trained in coordinated searches with an aircraft, communication (with and without radio) with a search aircraft.  Our GT guys are trained in basic fieldcraft, and rely on external support for their operations.  They can be tactically employed in two ways:

     a.  As separate teams, consisteng of CAP members only, and operating with a CAP airplane.

     b.  As a liaison element with another agency's SAR ground team, to provide coordination with a CAP airplane (Not at all unlike the Air Boss in an infantry unit who is an Air Force officer and pilot who coordinates the air support).

2.  The Air Force, in its own AFI, identifies these CAP ground-pounding people as "Rangers."  We limit that term to HM grads, and guys who complete a HM curriculum in Florida and elsewhere, but the AF does not.

3.  The cadets like berets.  We can't get around that.  Officers look pretentions in them, but the cadets love them.

So...  Proposed solution for discussion:

1.  GTM-3 requirements will be unchanged, and upon qualification as a GTM-3 , the GT badge will be awarded.

2.  GTM-2 requirements will be enhanced to include a minimum 3-day (2-nights) training bivouac in the field.  The training should fill the three days, be challenging, and mission-related.  At the conclusion of GTM-2 a beret will be awarded to cadets, but without a beret flash.

Will some form of standardized guide be provided for these activities or will each one wing it? WIth the very general guidance listed here, you never know what you'll end up with. The problem with three full days is, except for summer,  cadets can't do Friday or Monday, and many seinors can't do Fri/Mon year round.

Quote3.  GTM-1 completion gets the cadet a generic beret flash.  Maybe just a modified wing-and-prop cadet cap insignia.

How about the old National Emergency Assistance Training patch, minus the arc? It's about the right size. See CAPM 39-1, pg 125, for picture. Or, if having the word "Ranger" is important, replace the stars with "RANGER". Using something not specifically cadet related is good if senior member wear the beret as well - see comment below. What about grade on the beret? You know that issue will come up.

Quote4.  NBB and Hawk grads go directly to the beret, but with a distinctive flash, one for NBB and a different one for HM.

5.  GTM-3 and GTM-2 will be designated "Ranger Trainees" and GTM-1's, NBB grads, and HM grads will be designated "Rangers."

Do HM and NBB meet the GTM1 requirements? If not, why should they be called "Ranger" if that title is for GTM1's?

Quote6.  Officers get the GT badges, but should not wear the beret unless they are instructing at NBB/HM, and once the class ends they put the BDU patrol cap on.

If the beret is the only thing identifying Rangers, why not let officer wear them?

Quote7.  NO OTHER BLING.  No patches, belts, bibs, whistles, sabers, sidearms, pins, funny hats, nothing!

Flame away.

OK, I had a skeleton of an idea.  If you want to flesh it out, fine.

First.  Yes.  The GTM-2 bivouac should have specific training goals, established Nationally.  How these goals are met is the local commander's job.  I have no problem with a Friday afternoon through Sunday afternoon bivouac meeting the standard.  In the Army we called them MUTA-5 weekends (Men Under Tent Asleep?)

I did not look up the ES patch you described, but I'm sure it would be fine.  I have no problem with embroidered officer grade on the flash for both cadet and adult officers.  We would just have to establish background colors for the different flashes.  As a future National Commander, I delegate such details to my future staff.  There is no pressing need to identify the word "Ranger" anywhere.  The badge and beret will identfy Ranger Trainees, the beret flash will identify qualified Rangers.  Identification is symbolic.  If you don't know the symbol for a CAP Ranger, you have no need to know who is one!

The last time I checked the curriculum at both HM and NBB, they DID meet the minimum standards for GTM-1.  If this has changed, as the future National Commander I order it changed back.

Somebody else already convinced me to allow officers to wear the Monica Lewinsky Hat.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 03:44:24 PMIn the Army we called them MUTA-5 weekends (Men Under Tent Asleep?)

Military Unit Training Assembly.  Each MUTA is a 4 hour period, but you don't get paid any more if you work longer than 8 hours a day.  In the Air Guard we call them a UTA, just lose the "M".

We did MUTA 5s in my Army Guard unit too.  We also did a couple per year at my last squadron, usually over the summer or during winter break.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 03:44:24 PM

Quote from: arajca on April 22, 2008, 02:45:27 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 01:21:28 PM
I have stayed OUT of the Ranger/Hawk Mountain/Berets/Bling/etc. discussion because I really am not interested in trying to look like a Frenchman.  But...

My head is starting to hurt with all the NIMS/SARTECH/MEDIC requirements vs. CAP Rangers.  I want a solution that will make the folks happy, not make us look like idiots, and is simple and fair in its application.

So:

1.  What WE as CAP guys do is unique.  We operate ground teams to aid in searches conducted by aircraft.  They are trained in coordinated searches with an aircraft, communication (with and without radio) with a search aircraft.  Our GT guys are trained in basic fieldcraft, and rely on external support for their operations.  They can be tactically employed in two ways:

     a.  As separate teams, consisteng of CAP members only, and operating with a CAP airplane.

     b.  As a liaison element with another agency's SAR ground team, to provide coordination with a CAP airplane (Not at all unlike the Air Boss in an infantry unit who is an Air Force officer and pilot who coordinates the air support).

2.  The Air Force, in its own AFI, identifies these CAP ground-pounding people as "Rangers."  We limit that term to HM grads, and guys who complete a HM curriculum in Florida and elsewhere, but the AF does not.

3.  The cadets like berets.  We can't get around that.  Officers look pretentions in them, but the cadets love them.

So...  Proposed solution for discussion:

1.  GTM-3 requirements will be unchanged, and upon qualification as a GTM-3 , the GT badge will be awarded.

2.  GTM-2 requirements will be enhanced to include a minimum 3-day (2-nights) training bivouac in the field.  The training should fill the three days, be challenging, and mission-related.  At the conclusion of GTM-2 a beret will be awarded to cadets, but without a beret flash.

Will some form of standardized guide be provided for these activities or will each one wing it? WIth the very general guidance listed here, you never know what you'll end up with. The problem with three full days is, except for summer,  cadets can't do Friday or Monday, and many seinors can't do Fri/Mon year round.

Quote3.  GTM-1 completion gets the cadet a generic beret flash.  Maybe just a modified wing-and-prop cadet cap insignia.

How about the old National Emergency Assistance Training patch, minus the arc? It's about the right size. See CAPM 39-1, pg 125, for picture. Or, if having the word "Ranger" is important, replace the stars with "RANGER". Using something not specifically cadet related is good if senior member wear the beret as well - see comment below. What about grade on the beret? You know that issue will come up.

Quote4.  NBB and Hawk grads go directly to the beret, but with a distinctive flash, one for NBB and a different one for HM.

5.  GTM-3 and GTM-2 will be designated "Ranger Trainees" and GTM-1's, NBB grads, and HM grads will be designated "Rangers."

Do HM and NBB meet the GTM1 requirements? If not, why should they be called "Ranger" if that title is for GTM1's?

Quote6.  Officers get the GT badges, but should not wear the beret unless they are instructing at NBB/HM, and once the class ends they put the BDU patrol cap on.

If the beret is the only thing identifying Rangers, why not let officer wear them?

Quote7.  NO OTHER BLING.  No patches, belts, bibs, whistles, sabers, sidearms, pins, funny hats, nothing!

Flame away.

OK, I had a skeleton of an idea.  If you want to flesh it out, fine.

First.  Yes.  The GTM-2 bivouac should have specific training goals, established Nationally.  How these goals are met is the local commander's job.  I have no problem with a Friday afternoon through Sunday afternoon bivouac meeting the standard.  In the Army we called them MUTA-5 weekends (Men Under Tent Asleep?)

I did not look up the ES patch you described, but I'm sure it would be fine.  I have no problem with embroidered officer grade on the flash for both cadet and adult officers.  We would just have to establish background colors for the different flashes.  As a future National Commander, I delegate such details to my future staff.  There is no pressing need to identify the word "Ranger" anywhere.  The badge and beret will identfy Ranger Trainees, the beret flash will identify qualified Rangers.  Identification is symbolic.  If you don't know the symbol for a CAP Ranger, you have no need to know who is one!

The last time I checked the curriculum at both HM and NBB, they DID meet the minimum standards for GTM-1.  If this has changed, as the future National Commander I order it changed back.

Somebody else already convinced me to allow officers to wear the Monica Lewinsky Hat.

Dear future Maj(Gen),

Will you be authorizing the tan beret as the beret of choice?

when I was the ES director at NBB we did not complete GTM1.  our foccus was on UDF.  that's the mission at Oshkosh, and there is not appropriate time for the GT1 level of training.  NBB is not so much a training ground as it is a live mission.

George:  My staff is working out the details.  I'm too important to concern myself with minutae.

Hawkeye:  We'll have to fix that.  Add some training to the NBB, or require some home-station training before reporting to NBB.  Easy fix.  Actually, we will probably have more heartburn deciding on a beret color that would make everyone happy.  Geroge from NY wants tan.  NBB implies a blue one.  The PA guys will want orange so they can blend in with the deer hunters.  California will want either pink or lavender so they can interface with the other silly-dressed SAR people.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 03:34:03 PM

Quote from: Gunner C on April 22, 2008, 03:14:24 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 03:25:47 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 22, 2008, 02:52:42 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2008, 10:31:48 PM

Quote from: BillB on April 21, 2008, 07:18:22 PM
John

Even in Vietnam, and Honduras, we had a club.

Ah yes.  The club at Soto Cano.  I left some of my best brain cells there.  :D

Sergeant, I'm going to a meeting in Palmerola.  I'll be under my usual table if you need me!

So that's where I know you from!  ;D

Camp Oso Grande (Big Bear), Departmento de Yoro, 1986-87.  Building the Famous Farm-to-Market Road.  The club that had all the patches on the wall got the one from the 300th Military Police Command from my left arm!

Love you guys, I really do  :-* but, um, topic drift...

I'm with Stonewall here on the drift...I think the horse died about 3 pages ago.

Full Disclosure: I have taken some Ranger courses at the Glades School, I'll probably get a "grade" of some sort. I don't drink the Kool-aid, but if you can look beyond the bling, they are teaching some good stuff there and giving cadets the practical field experience they wouldn't get on a regular basis otherwise.

It was structured, had a lesson plan, and was well taught. At least in this current incarnation down here I didn't see an infatuation with bling, and no cocky attitudes. The Cadet Commander is our squadron Dep. Commander, he's about as level headed as they come, and is a hell of a motivator and teacher.

Quote from: BigMojo on April 23, 2008, 01:44:01 AMbut if you can look beyond the bling, they are teaching some good stuff there and giving cadets the practical field experience they wouldn't get on a regular basis otherwise.

And that goes with what I've said from the beginning, however, as I did say on the first page of this discussion, no one should jump to any "advanced" status or rating, whether it be recognized or not, without first being at the basic level, to include all the stuff it takes to get GTM qualified.

And I'll look past the bling when the "ranger community" does.  Prove it to me that the entire HMRS group, Florida or otherwise, can survive without a single piece of blingage.  Remember, I attended a HMRS course too.  So I'm not speaking without my own personal experience.

I agree, I think GTM3 should be a pre-req to attending any "ranger" training. I don't have much experience with the Ranger people outside of those down here. I did see a lot of rolled bdu covers and excessive tabs at Lakeland a couple weeks ago, and I agree that ain't right.

I know they are looking for a director of ranger training in FL wing...you interested Stonewall?  ;D

Quote from: BigMojo on April 23, 2008, 02:26:44 AMI know they are looking for a director of ranger training in FL wing...you interested Stonewall?  ;D

Because the first thing I'd do is change the name from "ranger" to "ground operations training" and lose all the bling, and people just can't live like that.

Quote from: Stonewall on April 23, 2008, 02:33:13 AM

Quote from: BigMojo on April 23, 2008, 02:26:44 AMI know they are looking for a director of ranger training in FL wing...you interested Stonewall?  ;D

Because the first thing I'd do is change the name from "ranger" to "ground operations training" and lose all the bling, and people just can't live like that.

+1

Actually, I'd call it AGOS (Air, Ground Operations School).  Modeled after the 80s course from National Capital Wing.  It had everything you needed.

Gut Check
Quality in advanced aspects of GSAR
PT
Classroom

Air Ground Operations School.  Something I never experienced but saw videos, pictures and heard tons of stories about.  I showed up to National Capital Wing too late.  I think their last AGOS running was 1990, I got there in 1992.

The Staff:  75% former cadets, Mitchell and higher.  75% prior military, to include Special Forces, Ranger, and Airborne Infantry.  All ground team member or leader.  Cadets and Seniors.

The Setting:  Ft. Belvoir, VA Training Areas 8 and 9 (a huge area) all to themselves.  [Then] Ft. Belvoir (Davison AAF) Air Assault School obstacle course and rappel tower plus AAS Instructors available.  NO RANK for students, only a roster number taped to their fatigue hat.  Students were cadets and seniors alike totaling between 25 and 45 from what I understand.

Training:  7 days straight, all in the field.  Survival, first and foremost.  I have pictures from AGOS of them killing/eating both chickens and rabbits, living in natural shelters, washing in the creek, boiling water, building fires....  Tactical radio communications.  Setting up different types of radios and antennas.  Signalling exercises (mirror, panels, natural).  Water survival in Pohic bay to include water crossings, poncho rafts, etc.  Ropes course to include rappelling (wall and skid); negotiating the obstacle course several times over different days.  Land navigation out the wazzoo.  ELT tracking.  Lost person search.  Team level SAR competitions.  Medical training from 18Ds.  And the bread and butter of the course, air/ground coordination/communications.

Graduation:  No tabs, no bells and whistles, not even a certificate.  Just excellent training in leadership, followership, core operational skills, life skills and a gut check.  No one was ever hazed, just treated as equals while enduring some good training.  Actually, there was talk (back then) of creating a "RESCUE" tab to put over the nametape or something.

This went on for at least 5 or 6 years, starting in either '85 or '86.  I actually have the photos that belonged to the squadron because the guy that took command after my time was a POS who lost everything from the actual Charter we had hanging on the wall from 1960-something, to a brand new L'Per.

AGOS Formation.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2518.0;attach=760)

AGOS Inspection.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2518.0;attach=761)

Rucksack Flop.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2518.0;attach=762)

Old school ruck march...
(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2518.0;attach=763)

^ I like that!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 11:17:01 PM
George:  My staff is working out the details.  I'm too important to concern myself with minutae.

Hawkeye:  We'll have to fix that.  Add some training to the NBB, or require some home-station training before reporting to NBB.  Easy fix.  Actually, we will probably have more heartburn deciding on a beret color that would make everyone happy.  Geroge from NY wants tan.  NBB implies a blue one.  The PA guys will want orange so they can blend in with the deer hunters.  California will want either pink or lavender so they can interface with the other silly-dressed SAR people.

Sorry, but George is from NY and a Jew... so sarcasm was automatically implied. There should be hell no way that CAP "Rangers" should be able to wear a tan beret that symbolizes Army Rangers. Or tabs for that matter, especially over branch tapes (HIDEOUS!). How about a "Buckaroo" Patch on right breast where the ES patch normally goes and call it a day?

Seriously, is a Hawk Mtn grad who isn't current in his/her GTM rating really more important than anyone else? More important than someone who is current in his/her GTM rating?

OK, I got the sarcasm part.  I don't understand the rest of your post.

I THINK I made it claer that HM grads were NOT to be given special awards not available to all qualified GTM's.

Where did I go wrong?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 23, 2008, 05:07:53 PM
OK, I got the sarcasm part.  I don't understand the rest of your post.

I THINK I made it claer that HM grads were NOT to be given special awards not available to all qualified GTM's.

Where did I go wrong?

You joined CAP?
:-\

QuoteAnd I'll look past the bling when the "ranger community" does.

It would only be a limited look....There was a period there for a few years where Tabs we outlawed, and for the most part complied with (mostly those out of state that never got the wing CC memo confirming and re-iterating the national prohibition.)  Of course belts, ascots and funny hats (but technically 39-1 authorized) were still in and orange T-shirts (not so much legal) ....but thats as close as it got.  Like I posted in the other thread....the only way that things wil remain status quo is with a compromise....some official piece of bling that anyone can wear anywhere...other wise HMRS types will campaign for all the bling they can, and anti blings will campaign for no bling at all......whichever side wins the other will campaing until the decision is reverese and so on and so on......

Personally I think that if the bling went away the program and the training would be seen in a much better light, but with it all people see is the silly bling and have a difficult time getting anything past that.

I like the AGOS concept too.  When I got on board in TXWG thats a lot what we did with the GSARSS program (or ATS as it was)  we took best practices from HMRS, PJOC, Ranger, SF airborne and the civilian SAR community and picked what worked and did a kick but SAR themed teamwork/leadership type activity.  3rd year we got approval from national to award GTM badge as meeting NESA type activity equivilent and thats as far as the bling went......at some point the wing DCP put a cord into the cadet programs award list but that wasnt asked for or even cared about.  People came because word of mouth said it was an awsome activity not because of any bling......

mk

Quote from: Stonewall on April 22, 2008, 03:56:35 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2008, 03:44:24 PMIn the Army we called them MUTA-5 weekends (Men Under Tent Asleep?)

Military Unit Training Assembly.  Each MUTA is a 4 hour period, but you don't get paid any more if you work longer than 8 hours a day.  In the Air Guard we call them a UTA, just lose the "M".

We did MUTA 5s in my Army Guard unit too.  We also did a couple per year at my last squadron, usually over the summer or during winter break.

Stonewall:

The Army uses the term "UTA" as well.  A Unit Training Assembly is one 4-hour drill period.  A Multiple Unit Training Assembly (MUTA) is several 4-hour drills strung together, like on a weekend.  A MUTA-4 is full days Saturday and Sunday.  A MUTA-5 is one UTA on Friday night, tacked onto a MUTA-4 over Saturday and Sunday.

This goes back to when Guard and Reserve units met on weeknights, just like CAP units.  Each 4-hour period was one weekly meeting, and counted as one day of duty for retirement.  When weekend drils became more popular, the 4 weeknights were all done together.  The Friday night MUTA-5 came about because some months have 5 weeknight meetings.

That's why a weekend drill counts for 4 days of duty for retirement purposes... it takes the place of 4 weeknight meetings.

I was only kidding about "Men Under Tent Asleep."

Sort of like BOAC:  "Buying Officers Another Career."  and BOBC:  "Bringing Officers Back for Counseling."

Yeah, I know all about the MUTA stuff, I'm in the Guard.  But I didn't know you were kidding around.  I really need to learn how to see when someone's being sarcastic and when they're being sserious. 

We have a couple MUTA 5s per year, and got MUTA 6 all summer, but that's so we can skip Sept, cause they're changing the pay system.

I see MIKE in here.  I suspect a locking.

EDIT:  Guess I was wrong.  :o

Quote from: Stonewall on April 24, 2008, 02:27:34 PM
Yeah, I know all about the MUTA stuff, I'm in the Guard.  But I didn't know you were kidding around.  I really need to learn how to see when someone's being sarcastic and when they're being sserious. 

People really need to learn to use [sarcasm] tags... but since many can't seem to figure out the regular BBCode tags...

Quote from: Stonewall on April 24, 2008, 02:55:23 PM
I see MIKE in here.  I suspect a locking.

Yeah... It would appear that it's about that time.

Quote from: CAPLAW on April 20, 2008, 09:00:32 PM
Idea :)  why dont we just rename CAP rangers, something like SAR TECHS

Well...I think there's something called trademark...SAR Tech is a Civilian National Certification, not a CAP training program.  Although CAP can participate, it's a whole different ball park.