Pathfinder Technical School

[Eclipse]

So, your definition of "CAP Regulations Clearly Prohibit this" is:
CAP regulations point to some other regulations, which point to OSHA regulations which point to a number of certified providers, which, if you read their agreements with their instructors, prohibits this.

I would suggest that you and I have vastly different definitions for "clearly"

OK, that's fair - it's not "clear" in the general sense of the term and that's been my beef with NHQ on this for 15 some years.

It should say "You must do 'x'. it expires in 'y', and only 'q' may provide the training. I agree.

With that said, an adult charged with understanding this, i.e. commanders, ESO, etc. can pretty easily follow the
dots and clarify it for those who can't be bothered.  The problem as I said above is that people accept
CAP membership, they want to have the cool badge, the mantle of responsibility, and the air or being
"in the game", yet as soon as things get "hard", they disengage, or stop reading as soon as they find the
first sentence that "sorta, kinda says what I want it to say, pretty much, hopefully, if no one else reads the whole thing."
then they get indignant when someone else hits the F3 key twice more.

So it's not a 1st grade primer on first aid requirements, but it is also there if you can be bothered.  CAP
refers to other documents and standards all the time, it's part and parcel of membership from the AFIs that
establish the organization, through drill manuals and up into pilot training.  That's how it works.  Unfortunately,
we're so short handed, poorly and inconsistently trained, and triple-billeted all over the place that most members
can't take the time to comprehensively read the regulations, especially with an eye towards intent vs. expediency.

"Whatever gets this done quickest, I already know the material, anyway..."

But again, since we have to acknowledge that anything in more then 160 characters is "TL:DR" NHQ needs to
fix these regs and clarify the expectation, not assume people "get it", or worse, as is clearly the case here and
elsewhere, leave it purposely ambiguous to avoid "sad people".

[lordmonar]

So....since I read the same regulation and come up with a different answer then you......I am lacking in responsibility?

[Eclipse]

No, just comprehension.

The belief that you can self-certify a home-grown first aid curriculum "because", especially
considering the totality of NHQ's stance on this is more then a small leap.

At least you read it.  We still have far too many people submitting certificates from AED orientation seminars
and staff officers approving them as acceptable first aid training.

Then there's the issue of retraining, which is part of the standard, and a requirement of the program,
not to mention every other task in ES, except somehow FA isn't?  Ridiculous.

The whole thing can be cleared up with two sentences, yet it's left for people to "interpret",
then we wonder why we can't get things done.  I don't frankly care which answer is correct,
but there should be only one, with no place for interpretation by anyone. But again, clear rules
mean someone will be left standing alone or having to do "work", and that makes people sad.

Much better to just leave it as-is, since that's clearly "working".  Oh, wait...

[lordmonar]

It is working here.

I've had no problems at all.

What problems are you seeing?

[Eclipse]

What problems are you seeing?

Lack of training.

Lack of proficiency.

lack of understanding of the seriousness of the responsibility.

Lack of consistency in application of expectations and requirements.

Since this is a >National< problem, it's only working "there" because people choose to look the other way and/or ignore the problems.

[AALTIS]

After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group.  Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school?  Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help. 

[Private Investigator]

After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group.  Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school?  Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.

"Mohawks" for the Cadets and Staff would be tactikewl in the tradition of WWII Pathfinders. 

[LSThiker]

After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group.  Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school?  Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.

So far no "real concerns" about the training or curriculum have been presented.  The only concern that has been raised in direct relation to the school is the fact it is called "medic" and "pathfinder".  Before I cast any judgment on this new program, I would like to see more information on the training.  From the basic information on the website, it sounds like it could be some nice additional training for MOWG.

+1 on the "Mohawks" hairstyle.  Although I am sure the Missouria tribe would not like that  

[lordmonar]

After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group.  Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school?  Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.

Nope....like it.   Want to see the training curriculum to see if I can replicate it here in NVWG.  I think it is a great idea.

[Private Investigator]

After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group.  Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school?  Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.

So far no "real concerns" about the training or curriculum have been presented.  The only concern that has been raised in direct relation to the school is the fact it is called "medic" and "pathfinder".  Before I cast any judgment on this new program, I would like to see more information on the training.  From the basic information on the website, it sounds like it could be some nice additional training for MOWG.

+1 on the "Mohawks" hairstyle.  Although I am sure the Missouria tribe would not like that

Correctamundo, that is why, "Medic" training is on the agenda. 

[sarmed1]

....
Purely out of curiosity, I would like to see an expanded explanation of the some of the specific skills.
Skill specific-what are the basic and advanced knots.  Low angle rope rescue, is this a "Pathfinder" provider course or something they are obtaining from another source?  Same thing for Confined Space Awareness (since it doesnt have an "agency" reference)

MK

I re-iterate; as this is a topic of conversation at and regarding the skills taught by PAWG at HMRS, I do wonder about these curriculum items and what they are using as their training program.... DoD/Fire Dept; are they CAP instructors, or outside agency seperate from CAP, who owns the equipment etc etc.... or since they arent "rappeling" are they just teaching abstract concepts (ie skirting a grey area based on semantics)

MK

[lordmonar]

We can rappel now.....just have to get approval from wing and/or region IIRC.

[AALTIS]

As the person that is heading up the Pathfinder training group I think that I will weigh in on some of the topics here.

1- The course name of Pathfinder Technical School is from a school that we had for many years in Missouri Wing.  Members from over 40 wings had attended the course over the years.  We decided to use the name as honor to those who had both taken the training and those who had led the training.  I know that some will argue the use of just about anything we would name it.  That is their right.  I invite them to create a course and name it whatever they wish! 

2- The course is being taught using both CAP and DOD instructors.  It just so happens that several of the instructors also teach outside CAP in their paying jobs.  I teach in the fire, ems and industrial safety worlds.  Each instructor is fully qualified in the area that they are teaching.  We are using standard curriculum that is nationally recognized.  Take for instance the confined space awareness course.  It is a course that meets OSHA requirements for anybody that works around (not in) confined spaces.  This was selected because of the role that our wing is taking in working around disaster areas.  It is being taught by an instructor that teaches it for a living.

3- The medic course seems to have a lot of contention.  First what is wrong with teaching life saving skills as long as they are being taught by qualified instructors with recognized and approved curriculum that would be within their scope of practice within the State of Missouri?  It will be taught by EMTs and Paramedics when it is offered.  We are not starting a CAP ambulance service.  We are teaching how to deal with an emergency.  Those who say that CAP is not an emergency service agency clearly have never been on a real search for real victims.  A missing person search is an emergency.  The person may have injuries.  CAP gets called to missing person searches.  Therefore we need to have members that can administer basic medical care and recognize when they need higher level of care.  Everything within the course is being taught within the confines of CAP regulations.  Further each person who attends will be given copies of the regulations that deal with first aid and medical care.  As far as the name of the course...you have something better?  I'm open to suggestions.

CAP's role in emergency services is changing.  We used to do ELT searches all the time.  That job is drying up.  Granted, we will still be doing searches for ELTs, but we are also taking on new roles.  In Missouri Wing we are beginning to do ground photography for disasters.  There can always be missing persons searches, which is something that we need to do a better job in both training for and advertising that we can do.  The standards for training were created some time ago.  While I'm not saying that we don't need them, we need to keep up with what our clients need from us.  This course adds to the basics.  As someone pointed out that in Florida, hurricane training is important there.  In Missouri the training at PTS is important. 

If you would like further information, please just ask.  I would love to speak to any of you about our school.  We have a long way to go to get the school to where we want it, but it is worth it!

You can email me direct at aaltis@pathfindertechschool.org

[lordmonar]

Capt Altis,

First.......GOOD JOB!
Second.....I don't think anyone has any problem of what you are teaching.....again good job.  I still want to see the curriculum I want to steal it!
Third......good job!

[sarmed1]

We can rappel now.....just have to get approval from wing and/or region IIRC.

This is new to most people, but we have been able to rappel and do "high angle/rope rescue" for years, if my fuzzy memory is correct its been at least since the change from 55 to 60 series that the provision has been in the regs. (I think that was late 90's)  its only the rappelling as a cadet activity that has been rife with "issues" (the process for approval is more than hey I have some rope stuff, but it is doable; I used to have Rope Rescue on my 101 card....added by wing)

I was just more interested in the curriculum they are teaching. Be it really just basic rappelling or more of a ropes and rigging type course (knots, anchors, hauling and lowering systems for use in steep terrain ie <45 deg slope, vs high angle techniques....the later you need to rappel, the first not so much)  and the standards they use, specifically are they  teaching a certifiable course (HMRS in the past has actually issued state fire academy course completion certification for its course) or are they using just a Pathfinder course "completion".

MK

[lordmonar]

Yep. 

I think that all GTMs should know basic "low angle" rescue techniques.

Basic Knots, inspecting/caring/handling ropes, setting anchors, setting up and minding prusiks, belaying, setting up a low angle rig for a stokes litter, descending and ascending on a low angle with a litter, traverse a ravine or stream.

GTM1 should also know some medium and high angle rescue techniques....so that they could assist a High Angle Team.....I am NOT suggesting we be trained to be able to do a high angle pick off....but we can assist with guide lines, prusiks monitoring, assisting with belays.

[sarmed1]

Not that I will ever entirely agree with Eclipse, but as you dig down into his reply's there is a point I find useful.  Lack of standardization.  The more "local" schools that crop up, rangers, pathfinders, Recon, SAR commandos or whatever, they each have the same lofty goal:   Advanced training beyond what the national standard stipulates to meet some specific (real or imagined) local ES need. I think it would be to nationals advantage to find a way to bring some standardization to these schools.  IF in at least regardless of names, come up with some sort of policy that at least guides what type of advanced specialty qualification schools can train towards and how these specialties can be utilized by IC's if qualified personnel are available.  And how they would be documented in the ES qual system.

I will agree that it does an IC no good to have a "Ranger Team" or "Recon Team" (especially if outside of the home state) if he has no idea what they can actually do or if they have to try and explain what they can do that the average GTM cant. 

MK

[LSThiker]

3- The medic course seems to have a lot of contention.  First what is wrong with teaching life saving skills as long as they are being taught by qualified instructors with recognized and approved curriculum that would be within their scope of practice within the State of Missouri?

Good job with the offer for additional training.  Hope it works out well for MOWG and it does not turn into an ego driven school like others in the past and present.

I would be interested in the proposed skill set for the medic course.  You can PM me about it if you do not want to post them. 

Again, have fun and hope everything works out for you.

[Eclipse]

3- The medic course seems to have a lot of contention.  First what is wrong with teaching life saving skills as long as they are being taught by qualified instructors with recognized and approved curriculum that would be within their scope of practice within the State of Missouri?  It will be taught by EMTs and Paramedics when it is offered.  We are not starting a CAP ambulance service.  We are teaching how to deal with an emergency.  Those who say that CAP is not an emergency service agency clearly have never been on a real search for real victims.  A missing person search is an emergency.  The person may have injuries.  CAP gets called to missing person searches.  Therefore we need to have members that can administer basic medical care and recognize when they need higher level of care.  Everything within the course is being taught within the confines of CAP regulations.  Further each person who attends will be given copies of the regulations that deal with first aid and medical care.  As far as the name of the course...you have something better?  I'm open to suggestions.

The "you have something better?" response is what comes out when a plan or idea doesn't necessarily hold up to the "second question".

Whether or not someone has "something better" is 100% irrelevant when discussing if something is a good idea, especially in the context
of a national organization which has a set standard, a >very< specific lane of operation, and clear guidelines as to what it can, or cannot do.

CAP does not have "medics".  Period.  If your wing CC believes they should, the avenue is to address it through the CSAG, not create a local school
and just call them what you will.  Anything else exhibits either a fundamental misunderstanding of CAP and the ES program (and process for changing it)
or a disregard for the unintended consequences of training "medics" in a CAP context.  If this is the basic first aid appropriate for CAP members,
then they will not be "medics", any more then anyone else in CAP.  Calling them that is affectation and puffery.

If they want to be legitimate medics, there are lots of other organizations which can make good use of their time, whether paid or volunteer, but as actual
"medics", they will find themselves increasingly frustrated with CAP's role, which ultimately defeats the intended purpose.

CAP does not do rope rescues, nor is CAP a first-responder, lone-wolf agency on missing person's searches.  Assuming we are called,
we're part of a larger effort and LEA and EMS resources are generally involved directly and nearby - when we find someone, we stand and point, and call EMS.
There is nothing on a 101 card, nor within the scope of the curriculum or response MOUS which would allow that to happen, and no local agency in their right mind would allow it either.  Ropes training is considered an HAA, nothing more, nothing less.  If that's the level you're operating on, fine, but to present anything else is disingenuous to the participants.

CAP already has an avenue for recording CERT training on the 101 card, a separate "pathfinder" rating is unnecessary affection and puffery.

The key sentence above is the need to insure everyone has the regulations about what is, and isn't allowed in a CAP context. 
When you provide training "by-the-book", those things are unnecessary as there is no risk of misunderstanding. It's only when people
start to "extend and enhance" that you start seeing the issues.

As a matter of fact, CAPs ES role isn't evolving, it is, in fact, degrading when compared to the national curve of actual disasters and response.
What's happening is that members are trying to force an evolution from the ground up, and that's not how this works.
There has not been an update to the curriculum in a decade, and while the need for DR response is increasing each year, CAP's all-too-typical
attitude is "no time for backup, shoulder role through the door" - allowing members to respond more and more with less and less training,
including going into DR AO's with nothing but a wet GES or a UDF rating.

With that said, any change needs to come through national as part of a standardized program, not forced from below based on
what "sounds cool".

What every wing and region needs is a SAR school that teaches >the< curriculum and >only< the curriculum and then further stresses
using that in real-world situations.  What we have today is "check the box and sit by the phone".  What we don't need is another place with a cool name,
meaningless ratings, and wasting precious CAP training time on things the members aren't allowed to use and never will.

[lordmonar]

CAP does not do rope rescues - when we find someone, we stand and point, and call EMS.  There is nothing on a 101 card, nor within the scope of the curriculum
or response MOUS which would allow that to happen, and no local agency in their right mind would allow it either.  Ropes training is considered an HAA, nothing more,
nothing less.  If that's the level you're operating on, fine, but to present anything else is ingenuousness to the participants.

I will agree that we currently do not have an ES rating that says we do rope rescue.   But to say that we aer not allowed to do it.....I would have to say  "cite please".

Sure we should not be doing anything we are not trained to do.....looks like MOWG is solving that issue.

CAP already has an avenue for recording CERT training on the 101 card, a separate "pathfinder" rating is unnecessary affection and puffery.

There you go again.....getting bent over a name.

The key sentence above is that the need to insure everyone has the regulations about what is, and isn't allowed in a CAP context. 
When you provide training "by-the-book", those things are unnecessary as there is no risk of misunderstanding.

  That which is not forbidden is allowed. 

As a matter of fact, CAPs ES role isn't evolving, it is, in fact, degrading when compared to the national curve of actual disasters and response. There has not been an update to the curriculum in a decade, and while the need for DR response is increasing each year, CAP's all-too-typical attitude if "no time for backup, shoulder role through the door" - allowing members to responded more and more with less and less training,
including going into DR AO's with nothing but a wet GES or a UDF rating.

So when a wing decides that we should plan and train now......you call it unnecessary affection and puffery. 

With that said, any change needs to come through national as part of a standardized program, not forced from below based on
what "sounds cool".

Highly disagree.  In fact if you look at how CAP runs NCSA development.....it is completely the opposite.   NHQ wants you to develop it locally and run it a few times before they open it up as a full on NCSA.    Same thing can be said about ES stuff.   Work it our.  Conduct your training, develop the program.....then if it makes sense.....a national SQTR and Task Guide can be sent out to rest of the world.   Trying to develop new training program to "national" needs is something too big for most people with a good idea.

What every wing and region needs is a SAR school that teaches >the< curriculum and >only< the curriculum and then further stresses using that in real-world situations.

Again disagree....or as someone pointed out we will be conducting over water training to COWG and requiring all those low lander wings to have Mountain Fury training.   Regional and Wing SAR schools are the ideal place to teach additional and advanced training that only have local applications to meet THEIR mission requirements.

What we have today is "check the box and sit by the phone".  What we don't need is another place with a cool name,
meaningless ratings, and wasting precious CAP training time on things the members aren't allowed to use and never will.

a) It is our time to waste.  b) Cool names are cool.  c)Meaningless ratings? 

f. First Aid and Emergency Medical Care. CAP is not an emergency medical care or paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such. CAP will not be the primary provider of medical support on missions or training events though qualified personnel can be used to support such activities. The only type of medical aid that should be administered by CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable treatment deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering. This treatment must be executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level. When first aid or higher medical training is required for qualification in a particular specialty, the expectation is that the qualification course includes both knowledge and practical skills training; first aid courses taken on-line only are not acceptable; though members are not considered employees when supporting operations, courses are expected to meet the National Guidelines for First Aid in Occupational Settings available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf or ASTM F 2171-02(2009), Standard Guide for Defining the Performance of First Aid Providers in Occupational Settings. CAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage, and any care provided is at the members own risk. Though medical supplies and equipment are not normally provided to responders, any reasonable supplies used on training or actual missions may be submitted for reimbursement as long as sufficient justification is provided.

This is what the reg says about "medics".  We are not an Emergency Medical Provider nor a Paramedic organization.   Nor should we be advertising ourselves as one.   So I agree that the rating "medic" as a stand alone specialty gives the impression that those individuals are the there to provide medical assistance.   That is the only "unnecessary" rating I can see in the pathfinder program.

So....beyond the medic....what is really wrong with the training?  CERT....we already got that.   Confined Space Awareness.....that's a good idea for URBAN DR.  Low Angle Rescue......definitely a good idea for GT if you do any SAR in mountainous terrain.  Human Tracking......sure thing we need that.  Advanced Land Nav......yep can always use that.   CPR......sure thing not currently required by GTM3.  Wilderness Survival.....I think that is a good idea.

Pathfinder rating is a way to get our members to want to get more training.   If the only thing you dislike about it is the name......I say this again....you are just as bad as all those guys who only get the training to wear some bling and act above their station.

All of this training helps up to support our community, state and nation in times of natural disaster and other emergencies.   What is wrong with that?