CAP Rangers

[Stonewall]

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?

[DNall]

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

[Stonewall]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[MIKE]

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.

[DNall]

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.

[Trung Si Ma]

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 ...

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.

[Stonewall]

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?

[JC004]

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

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.

[Stonewall]

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..." 

[CadetProgramGuy]

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

[fyrfitrmedic]

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.

[mikeylikey]

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   

[DNall]

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.

[JC004]

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.

[CadetProgramGuy]

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

[mikeylikey]

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.

[NIN]

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.

[mikeylikey]

  ^  B for me! 

[ZigZag911]

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!