CAP Talk

Without to much emotion and bias (which may be difficult based on the various threads that I've read) can some explain the difference between Hawk Mtn and NESA Ground Team training?  Ranger vs. GTM(1, 2 or 3)  If anyone is brave enough, why does CAP maintain two, what seem to be similar, schools?

NESA is a national activity. Hawk is not.

NESA uses the nationally standardized curriculum. Hawk uses "Ranger" curriculum".

Hawk's "Ranger" designation is subject to heavy controversy and debate. NESA uses the regular qualifications that the rest of the country does.

Quote from: DWilkins on June 07, 2011, 04:23:28 AM
Without to much emotion and bias (which may be difficult based on the various threads that I've read) can some explain the difference between Hawk Mtn and NESA Ground Team training?  Ranger vs. GTM(1, 2 or 3)  If anyone is brave enough, why does CAP maintain two, what seem to be similar, schools?

there is no difference, only GTM 1 2 or 3....that's it. "ranger tabs" or anything else with that word on it mean diddly squat inside CAP, and even less outside CAP.

The term "ranger" is confusing to cap members, imagine how confusing it is to people that have no idea about CAP....

Ranger and all that other Hawk Talk is just PAWG talk for GTM stuff.  Effectively no difference.

CAP does not have two schools....CAP has one school and PAWG has another.

Go to which ever one you want...have fun......ignore the political BS you read here.

It's not really GTM "vs" because they do sign you off for the GTM levels that you earn also.

Their program pre-dates CAP's national standards.  It was the big program with actual tasks until 2001's 60-3, etc.  Before that, for the national GTM qualification (only one level of GTM), all you had to do was show up for 3 missions (or training missions) and get a little card (CAPF 101T) signed off for the specialty by someone who was also it.  There were no tasks to complete.

The Hawk program had actual sign-offs like knots, firebuilding, search lines, etc.

Their program still does have additional requirements not found in the GTM curriculum such as physical fitness testing requirements, more specific knots/ropes things, completing hikes with gear, and attending specific schools.  Here's an example sign-off sheet: http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/forms/RangerFirstClassTestingSheetMar2007.pdf

The reason, I guess, that CAP maintains two is because the Hawk program pre-dates GTM, NESA and all of that.

Some people argue that the GTM qualification should have physical fitness of some kind or at least the hike requirements like the Hawk program has. ("Complete a 2 Mile Hike with Day Gear" for R-3)

You do have to do GTM, GTL, etc. to get their ratings.

You'd really need to talk to their active program people for specific questions.  I did that as a young cadet, but only really did up to Ranger 1st Class.  I wasn't really into it.  I just mostly did communications stuff for them.

My advice if you decide to go to Hawk.

Your staff will only sign you off in 'Ranger' ratings unless you ask otherwise. At Hawk, you have to DEMAND that they sign you off in GTM ratings, or you will never get it. I have been there a few times, and they certainly don't care one bit about GTM ratings, thats why you have to persist until you get the signatures.

Duly noted, thanks elipod, I would have been mad...

"demand" might not be the word you're looking for. But armed with the Task Guide in mind, compare your performance with that of the Task Guide requirements and present your SQTR accordingly at the time.

But going in with the "demanding" attitude may get you results you're not looking for. Being informed, educated and prepared, and making it known in a normal way of communications. Such as having your paperwork organized will go a lot further...

Quote from: a2capt on June 07, 2011, 04:12:06 PM
"demand" might not be the word you're looking for. But armed with the Task Guide in mind, compare your performance with that of the Task Guide requirements and present your SQTR accordingly at the time.

But going in with the "demanding" attitude may get you results you're not looking for. Being informed, educated and prepared, and making it known in a normal way of communications. Such as having your paperwork organized will go a lot further...

Oh, of course. But sir, have you been to Hawk? It IS almost impossible to get their 'rangers' to sign any GTM ratings. They just don't like to do it. I had three cadets go there, and I was the only one who got any sign-offs. The other cadets of course all got Ranger ratings that day. When I asked why they didn't get any GTM ratings, they responded with "my staff didn't like GTM ratings, so they would only sign-off Ranger sheets".
My Squadron commander was appalled, to say the least.

There isn't a question of liking them or not liking them.  While changes are in the process for ratings, as it stands, GTM, GTL, etc. are required parts of the Ranger ratings program.

Since ranger ratings are useless on a real mission I'm not sure why they hate GTM so much.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 07, 2011, 04:29:26 AM
NESA is a national activity. Hawk is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cadet_Special_Activities

Google Is Your Friend.

http://ncsas.com/index.cfm/hawk_mountain_search_and_rescue_school?show=career_fair&careerFairID=28

It's an NCSA, but it's managed by PAWG, not National.

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on June 07, 2011, 08:13:09 PM

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 07, 2011, 04:29:26 AM
NESA is a national activity. Hawk is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cadet_Special_Activities

Google Is Your Friend.

Wikipedia is hardly a solid source. In any event, I checked 39-3 and it's listed for an NCSA ribbon. I learned something new today.

I've always considered it a PAWG activity but I guess not...

I'm actually somewhat confused as to why PAWG Ranger Staff would actually refuse to sign off on GTM tasks.  From everything I'm reading in the program guides for both the Ranger program as a whole, and the Ranger Staff program specifically, GTM training is a requirement for serving as a staff member.  As such, why would the staff not serve to assist and train their trainees to that standard, as well as the Ranger standard?  Especially since, as noted above, Ranger grades have no ES value outside of PA.   :o

They may not be approved SETs, or even hold the ratings themselves.

Quote from: BGNightfall on June 07, 2011, 09:35:07 PM
I'm actually somewhat confused as to why PAWG Ranger Staff would actually refuse to sign off on GTM tasks.  From everything I'm reading in the program guides for both the Ranger program as a whole, and the Ranger Staff program specifically, GTM training is a requirement for serving as a staff member.  As such, why would the staff not serve to assist and train their trainees to that standard, as well as the Ranger standard? Especially since, as noted above, Ranger grades have no ES value outside of PA.   :o

Or on any AF assigned mission

I've never had any problem getting SQTRs signed off at Hawk and neither have any of my cadets.   

Thanks to everyone who has contributed answers to my original question.  I have learned some great stuff from your responses and applaud your professionalism :clap:

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 07, 2011, 09:01:32 PM

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on June 07, 2011, 08:13:09 PM

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 07, 2011, 04:29:26 AM
NESA is a national activity. Hawk is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cadet_Special_Activities

Google Is Your Friend.

Wikipedia is hardly a solid source. In any event, I checked 39-3 and it's listed for an NCSA ribbon. I learned something new today.

Wikipedia is good for "quick and dirty" reference; I simply didn't have time to cite chapter and verse.

I have not been to either school, but if I were to spend the money I would go to NESA.  NESA does give you exposure to real training that is directly applicable to our ES mission. ;)  I would avoid PA Rangers because of the negative image/reputation it has as a program. 

I wonder too if the instructors aren't qualified to sign off GTM task just as Eclipse stated. ???

After you go to NESA then apply for PJOC and try for CCOC, those will test you.
Good luck.  Go to schools/activities to learn and have fun.  I had a great time at
PJOC and APJOC.

The 'rangers' that signed me off, did have all the qualifications (including SET) to sign me off. Why? because I asked. They just did not display any desire, or willingness to cooperate with GTM ratings.

Hawk and NESA are two very different activities.  HMRS is basically a wilderness encampment teaching field operations, navigation, map reading/orientation, etc.  NESA is a more general school geared to ground and flight crew training for SAR/DR missions. NESA is held at a NG base and, HMRS is held in the woods where you sleep, eat and learn all in the same place.
Both activities are recognized as NCSA's.  Both are required to meet national's standard for NCSA's and both will qualify you for GTM ratings.  As Colgan pointed out, you can't get a ranger grade until you have a GTM/GTL rating first.

Ranger tabs are not required for CAP ES however, IMO, they are good skills to have and, the school is a great experience for those who like a more "primitive" experience.  There is a reason why hundreds show up every year.

NESA is a great school and has great support from the Indiana National Guard.  The facilities were recently renovated and, the training is first rate.

PJOC is something else entirely...and, I haven't heard anything negative about it since CAP shut it down for a year because of poor leadership.

Ahh well, Hawk is issuing 'Ranger Grades' without the appropriate GTM ratings sir. I got issued my Ranger third class and I had NO GTM ratings at the time. Several of my cadets have Ranger third class ratings, but still no GTM ratings.

What do you think about that?

Quote from: elipod on June 08, 2011, 03:27:56 AM
Ahh well, Hawk is issuing 'Ranger Grades' without the appropriate GTM ratings sir. I got issued my Ranger third class and I had NO GTM ratings at the time. Several of my cadets have Ranger third class ratings, but still no GTM ratings.

What do you think about that?

The black PAWG vans are pulling up outside his house....  ;)

Quote from: elipod on June 08, 2011, 03:27:56 AM
Ahh well, Hawk is issuing 'Ranger Grades' without the appropriate GTM ratings sir. I got issued my Ranger third class and I had NO GTM ratings at the time. Several of my cadets have Ranger third class ratings, but still no GTM ratings.

What do you think about that?

For Advanced Ranger you need GTL, GBD trainee, for R3-R2 you don't need any GTM rating.  If you don't want the ranger grade just bring your GTM SQTRs and get those signed off.  For as often as my unit goes to Hawk, we have never had any problems getting staff to sign off on SQTRs.  I could care less about ranger grade, like I tell my cadets, ranger grade won't get you out on a mission. 

Quote from: NCRblues on June 08, 2011, 03:41:50 AM

Quote from: elipod on June 08, 2011, 03:27:56 AM
Ahh well, Hawk is issuing 'Ranger Grades' without the appropriate GTM ratings sir. I got issued my Ranger third class and I had NO GTM ratings at the time. Several of my cadets have Ranger third class ratings, but still no GTM ratings.

What do you think about that?

The black orange PAWG vans are pulling up outside his house....  ;)

LMFTFY!

Quote from: elipod on June 08, 2011, 03:27:56 AM
Ahh well, Hawk is issuing 'Ranger Grades' without the appropriate GTM ratings sir. I got issued my Ranger third class and I had NO GTM ratings at the time. Several of my cadets have Ranger third class ratings, but still no GTM ratings.

What do you think about that?

Why do you not read the references provided to you?

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/forms/RangerFirstClassTestingSheetMar2007.pdf

It is required beginning at R-1, so naturally you could be an R-3 without having GTM.  R-3 has pretty much always been sort of a "Trainee Ranger" so to speak.  Not directly like, but kind of like getting your GES before moving on.  I don't remember what I did when because it has been a decade since I did that R-3 thing, but I read the references to check my information before I made any statements.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 08, 2011, 04:08:40 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on June 08, 2011, 03:41:50 AM

Quote from: elipod on June 08, 2011, 03:27:56 AM
Ahh well, Hawk is issuing 'Ranger Grades' without the appropriate GTM ratings sir. I got issued my Ranger third class and I had NO GTM ratings at the time. Several of my cadets have Ranger third class ratings, but still no GTM ratings.

What do you think about that?

The black orange PAWG vans are pulling up outside his house....  ;)

LMFTFY!

The new vans were announced in 2009 on the website.  People should have known about them by now.

See here:

(http://www.colganmarketing.com/vans.png)

Quote from: octavian on June 08, 2011, 03:47:51 AM
If you don't want the ranger grade just bring your GTM SQTRs and get those signed off.  For as often as my unit goes to Hawk, we have never had any problems getting staff to sign off on SQTRs.  I could care less about ranger grade, like I tell my cadets, ranger grade won't get you out on a mission.

All I can say, is you have had tremendous luck. And true, Ranger grade is nothing on a mission, and it is nothing outside of PAWG.

And JC004, I'm deeply sorry I haven't read all the references, haha.  But, thank you for pointing that out. I was merely referring to what FW had said about not being able to have ranger grades without having a GTM grade. 

I have been enlightened! 

Just to clraify:
Should I print out SQTR's for the stuff they can help qualify me for and bring them to hawk?
and they dont do BCUT's at hawk do they?

Sometimes they hold a BCUT training weekend.

But, Yes. Take the SQTR that you are training for, I think it would be GTM3 in your case.

Just make sure you get time with your staff to have you evaluated.

Thank you sir.

I went to Hawk when I was a cadet.  This notion that HMRS doesn't care about GT qualifications is nothing but false.  We did our Ranger training and our GT training all together.  In fact, I had my staff sign me off as I did the tasks.  In addition, on graduation, I received a packet with all the GT tasks I had done with their names and code numbers, with the CAPID's of SET/trainer AND the mission numbers.

I just think some people may have had a bad experience with a specific squadron at HMRS, but that does not reflect the school's policy.

The problem with HMRS and GTM qual is that HMRS can not "complete" your SQTR, it still requires your squadron to process it thru.  That why you are given a paper sign off SQTR at the end of the school; its you and your squadrons responsability to complete it once you return home.  It is my understandig that NESA has approval authority to approve the qualification for any member regardless of home unit assignment.  HMRS students are "signed off" on GTM requirement for the purpose of completion of the Ranger grade if the SQTR is complete at the school; not necsisarily cleared theu E-services.

In my opionion and observation, especially on the cadet student side of things, HMRS is more about leanring the lessons of followership, teamwork and leadership; using the medium of Emergency Services/Wilderness survival.  Very conveniently these are wonderfull attributes to bring to the ES arena.  Especially for the basic year its almost more of a practical leadership lab in some ways than an ES school.  The true ES school portion seems to come more so after you have mastered the the leadership labratory part of it.

mk

You know, this particular discussion seems to be the least polarized regarding HMRS of any I've seen on CT.  Certainly the most frank regarding the training standards of HMRS, its staff, and how it relates to actual ES qualification.  I must admit.... I'm impressed. 

BZ CAPTalk!

QuoteThe problem with HMRS and GTM qual is that HMRS can not "complete" your SQTR, it still requires your squadron to process it thru.  That why you are given a paper sign off SQTR at the end of the school; its you and your squadrons responsability to complete it once you return home.

Obviously...

I have been to three winter Hawks. My cadets have also been. I am the ONLY one (out of around ten cadets from my squadron) who has received sign-offs, and only because I begged for it.

Its quite possible that the summer hawk program is more on top of their game.

Winter and Summer schools are two completely differant animals.  The specific objective of the winter school is to introduce and prepare you for cold weather operations. 

Interestingly enough there has been a new addition to the during the month training weekends (previously staff training only) An emergency services specific training flight was added; just to work on GTM and Ranger qualifications, seperate from the staff training weekend topics.

mk

Quote from: elipod on June 09, 2011, 01:48:51 AMI have been to three winter Hawks. My cadets have also been. I am the ONLY one (out of around ten cadets from my squadron) who has received sign-offs, and only because I begged for it.

I don't know if its related to this thread or not - but I just looked at the Hawk Mountain website and now it mentions in several places that you can earn ES ratings there.  I don't remember it being so prominent last time I looked - or even mentioned at all.

In my opinion in dealing with ppl from Hawk, many will carry themselves as if they are better then everyone else. They develope an ego and rarely will take input from another source

        Also in my experience, NESA is more of a school setting, alot of class rooms then some field time, but i was in comms not GTM so that course could be diff.

Watch it.  There will be no bringing back this thread to start a fight over what has been done here many times and got locked many times before.

This thread has been civil.  Consider this a pre-ticking-clock.

Quote from: JC004 on June 17, 2011, 02:16:25 AM
Consider this a pre-ticking-clock.

Is that when you wind it up before it starts running?

I think the factor for me, at least at this point is that Hawk is an experience, while NESA is where you go to get ES Quals done.

Pick whichever you prefer.

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on June 17, 2011, 03:25:28 AM

Quote from: JC004 on June 17, 2011, 02:16:25 AM
Consider this a pre-ticking-clock.

Is that when you wind it up before it starts running?
...

It is.  It is ready to tick if necessary.

 For atleast the last three years HMRS has made available to any member from CAP training for all GTM/GTL/UDF, and all other SQTR's for ground ops.
As a member of HMRS staff I will explain what happens when we do "sign offs".
During the summer school every cadet is given a binder with 2 copies of each Ranger sign off sheet up to Advanced Ranger. However they are not provided with SQTR's in this packet. That is because of how the tasks for Ranger and GTM overlap in some strange ways. What then does happen is every night the SQDN commanders use a grid matrix to mark what tasks each student has completed. That sheet then gets turned into admin who then lists the tasks in eservices.
At the end of the school you will get a packet with brand new SQTR's printed out with the tasks you have completed.
You will also get your ranger card for whatever level of ranger you have earned.

Please note this, at the end of every school during clean up I find these packets left behind in the mud on the parade field and they are wet and unreadable. Please put away your packet somewhere deep in your pack or foot locker so it goes home with you.

During weekends. If you come up for the ES or "charlie" sqdn program during a weekend, Training may be in a large group or typicly one on one. It is very complete and detailed training because of the smaller class size and can be customized for your needs on the go. (Provided it is a small group.) During those weekends I try to teach GTM skills. But by learning GTM skills you will also earn your Ranger 3rd class. A very basic rating but people seem to like to earn the rating. Normally I can finish all GTM 3 requirements in a weekend with a student starting from scratch. Even if we have to take the online GES test which you should have before you arrive. However that doesnt always happen. During these weekends the student holds on to thier SQTR. Then at the end of the weekend we will do signoffs.

I hope this explains some things as far as signoffs go.

So to boil it all down:
My personal experience with Hawk was that it was extremely difficult. Had a blast, but it was tough. Ranger tabs essentially line up with GTM ratings, but they do deviate slightly. Hawk is very focused on survival and getting to a crash site as well as patient packaging.
My close friend's experience with NESA: They teach GTM ratings exclusively. They focus on more on searching for items/missing persons. More relaxed than my experience at Hawk.
I personally prefer Hawk mainly because of the environment and because I love the outdoors. You are living rough, with little to no comforts (depending on what YOU brought). The thing about Hawk is, you are literally told everyday that you are better than everybody else out there because you had the motivation to come, and are receiving some of the best training out there. I won't argue that. But it does instill a bit of cockiness in those who have completed the program. NESA does not do that, to my knowledge. If I were you, go to both.

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
So to boil it all down:
My personal experience with Hawk was that it was extremely difficult. Had a blast, but it was tough. Ranger tabs essentially line up with GTM ratings, but they do deviate slightly. Hawk is very focused on survival and getting to a crash site as well as patient packaging.
My close friend's experience with NESA: They teach GTM ratings exclusively. They focus on more on searching for items/missing persons. More relaxed than my experience at Hawk.
I personally prefer Hawk mainly because of the environment and because I love the outdoors. You are living rough, with little to no comforts (depending on what YOU brought). The thing about Hawk is, you are literally told everyday that you are better than everybody else out there because you had the motivation to come, and are receiving some of the best training out there. I won't argue that. But it does instill a bit of cockiness in those who have completed the program. NESA does not do that, to my knowledge. If I were you, go to both.

Funny, never have i had to "package a patient" and according to CAP rules, we as cap members, cant even do that so... what are we handing out "ranger tabs" for when they are worthless?

I also find it funny how HAWK can get away with telling cadets they are better than everyone else... I'm pretty sure if another activity like, oh lets say NBB, said this everyone would jump and scream and say "ELITISIM"... love the lack of care, maybe that's why so many of us see horrible attitudes come out of HAWK year after year

I see less and less good coming out of HAWK every year....

Quote from: phillybiker on June 20, 2011, 05:26:37 AM
For atleast the last three years HMRS has made available to any member from CAP training for all GTM/GTL/UDF, and all other SQTR's for ground ops.
As a member of HMRS staff I will explain what happens when we do "sign offs".
During the summer school every cadet is given a binder with 2 copies of each Ranger sign off sheet up to Advanced Ranger. However they are not provided with SQTR's in this packet. That is because of how the tasks for Ranger and GTM overlap in some strange ways. What then does happen is every night the SQDN commanders use a grid matrix to mark what tasks each student has completed. That sheet then gets turned into admin who then lists the tasks in eservices.

The task guide is very explicit in how the tasks are to be done.  Is the evaluation criteria for each of the tasks followed at Hawk?

Funny, never have i had to "package a patient" and according to CAP rules, we as cap members, cant even do that so... what are we handing out "ranger tabs" for when they are worthless?

I also find it funny how HAWK can get away with telling cadets they are better than everyone else... I'm pretty sure if another activity like, oh lets say NBB, said this everyone would jump and scream and say "ELITISIM"... love the lack of care, maybe that's why so many of us see horrible attitudes come out of HAWK year after year

I see less and less good coming out of HAWK every year....
[/quote]
1) Patient packaging: as in, the proper transportation of a patient, and yes, we do it all the time. Moving a patient is pretty common within CAP. They just taught you a very excellent way to move a patient over rough terrain, how to clear an LZ for a chopper, etc. Things you would most likely need in wilderness search and rescue.
2) Please, don't be an [censored]. You probably have never been to Hawk. Don't pass judgement upon something until you have gone yourself.
3) People are told they are the best all the time. Heck, they even did it at my basic encampment.
4) Those horrible attitudes coming out of Hawk every year are some of the most motivated cadets you can find. They know they can ruck many miles in a day with 30, 40, sometimes even 50 lbs. on their back, and then they can set up an excellent campsite with nothing more than tarps, rope, and some matches. They horrible attitudes are those who have proven to themselves that they are capable of doing whatever they dream of. Those horrible attitudes are cadets and senior members who are confident in themselves and their abilities.
Please. Don't try to bash Hawk without really knowing about it.

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
Hawk is very focused on survival

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the campsite at Hawk at the bottom of a mountain in a swamp? First rule of survival is don't camp at the bottom of a hill... Makes me wonder about the quality of the training if they can manage to screw that up.

NESA takes place at the Mary Hulman-George SAR Academy on a NG base. The SAR Academy is run by IDHS and is a nice facility. I've not been to NESA but I have taken a course at the Academy and it is a very nice facility.

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 02:53:05 AMThose horrible attitudes are cadets and senior members who are confident in themselves and their abilities.

...are a huge PITA.

Don't encourage the swagger until you've have to deal with "rangers" who have 50 lbs of gear and not a single functional CAP ES qualification,
yet want to stand in front of the room and tell experienced members with actual real-world mission experience "how it is".

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 02:53:05 AM
4) Those horrible attitudes coming out of Hawk every year are some of the most motivated cadets you can find. They know they can ruck many miles in a day with 30, 40, sometimes even 50 lbs. on their back, and then they can set up an excellent campsite with nothing more than tarps, rope, and some matches. They horrible attitudes are those who have proven to themselves that they are capable of doing whatever they dream of. Those horrible attitudes are cadets and senior members who are confident in themselves and their abilities.
Please. Don't try to bash Hawk without really knowing about it.

Funny that every NESA GT Basic graduate can do exactly the same thing but dont have the rep for the bad attitude.

capes, To answer your question about staying to the standards of the 60-3. Yes. a class on any subject is done like this. First it is taught in a class room setting. If it is a task from the 60-3 then it is taught using the guidelines in that book. Then it is demonstrated and finally it is preformed by the students. If one or more student is having a hard time with a task or they did not understand the task they will get extra one on one instruction. Quite often they might not understand why they are doing a certain task because they don't understand the "big picture" of a SAR op. Once you explain to them we do this,so IC can do that, it always clicks.
The other times you may have problems is during navigation classes. They are long and boring to cadets and they tend to drift off. So Navigation is constantly reviewed.
However I am talking about first time students. Advanced students have been doing SAREX's at their home wings/units and normally are proficient. You always get a student who has been somewhere else(and no I don't mean NESA, It can happen at any SAREX) and has been signed off as a GTM1 who can't find a location using UTM or Lat and Long. But then you know who that student is and you work with them till they know it.
Does this answer your question/statement?
Also as a member of Hawks staff I can't wait till I have 3 weeks of vacation time so I can go to NESA and take classes.

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 02:53:05 AM. Those horrible attitudes are cadets and senior members who are confident in themselves and their abilities.

There is huge difference between confidence and arrogance.

Quote from: davidsinn on June 21, 2011, 02:54:55 AM

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
Hawk is very focused on survival

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the campsite at Hawk at the bottom of a mountain in a swamp? First rule of survival is don't camp at the bottom of a hill... Makes me wonder about the quality of the training if they can manage to screw that up.

NESA takes place at the Mary Hulman-George SAR Academy on a NG base. The SAR Academy is run by IDHS and is a nice facility. I've not been to NESA but I have taken a course at the Academy and it is a very nice facility.

Its the property that we own. If you are willing to donate a few hundred acres of land for the school that is not in a swamp we will gladly accept it. The Hawk mountain website has links on where you can make your donation and thank you.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 03:29:14 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on June 21, 2011, 02:54:55 AM

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
Hawk is very focused on survival

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the campsite at Hawk at the bottom of a mountain in a swamp? First rule of survival is don't camp at the bottom of a hill... Makes me wonder about the quality of the training if they can manage to screw that up.

NESA takes place at the Mary Hulman-George SAR Academy on a NG base. The SAR Academy is run by IDHS and is a nice facility. I've not been to NESA but I have taken a course at the Academy and it is a very nice facility.

Its the property that we own. If you are willing to donate a few hundred acres of land for the school that is not in a swamp we will gladly accept it. The Hawk mountain website has links on where you can make your donation and thank you.

I live in Indiana...

Quote from: davidsinn on June 21, 2011, 02:54:55 AM

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
Hawk is very focused on survival

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the campsite at Hawk at the bottom of a mountain in a swamp? First rule of survival is don't camp at the bottom of a hill... Makes me wonder about the quality of the training if they can manage to screw that up.

NESA takes place at the Mary Hulman-George SAR Academy on a NG base. The SAR Academy is run by IDHS and is a nice facility. I've not been to NESA but I have taken a course at the Academy and it is a very nice facility.

I knew the SAR academy was there but I didn't know NESA used it. NESA has also just completed standing up permanent CAP owned facilities on Atterbury to host other training throughout the year.

Quote from: davidsinn on June 21, 2011, 03:47:46 AM

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 03:29:14 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on June 21, 2011, 02:54:55 AM

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
Hawk is very focused on survival

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the campsite at Hawk at the bottom of a mountain in a swamp? First rule of survival is don't camp at the bottom of a hill... Makes me wonder about the quality of the training if they can manage to screw that up.

NESA takes place at the Mary Hulman-George SAR Academy on a NG base. The SAR Academy is run by IDHS and is a nice facility. I've not been to NESA but I have taken a course at the Academy and it is a very nice facility.

Its the property that we own. If you are willing to donate a few hundred acres of land for the school that is not in a swamp we will gladly accept it. The Hawk mountain website has links on where you can make your donation and thank you.

I live in Indiana...

Thats one of the great things about America, you can buy property in any state. So once again I thank you in advance for your future donation.

Quote from: sarmed1 on June 08, 2011, 08:27:11 PM
In my opionion and observation, especially on the cadet student side of things, HMRS is more about leanring the lessons of followership, teamwork and leadership; using the medium of Emergency Services/Wilderness survival.  Very conveniently these are wonderfull attributes to bring to the ES arena.  Especially for the basic year its almost more of a practical leadership lab in some ways than an ES school.  The true ES school portion seems to come more so after you have mastered the the leadership labratory part of it.

I was a little bored and started reading this thread about Hawk vs. NESA and warned myself, but overall it hasn't been all that bad.  More professional than most, actually.

I know Mark personally, although it's been years, but he always has solid and valid feedback about Hawk that doesn't come off as defensive or accusatory in nature.  Good job, brother.

I think Mark's above statement is spot on.

I was commandant of NGSAR's Advance Course a long time ago, before it was called NESA.  And I've attended Hawk's winter course, simply to meet up with some friends and to get a taste of Hawk.  And again, my experience supports Mark's statement above.

I have personally experienced several arrogant, cocky and otherwise unwarranted "attitudes" coming from Hawk graduates, but if I were a cadet today, in 2011, I would probably choose Hawk over NESA. 

I don't disagree with CAP going to the National SAR standards, but I hate the fact that we had to.  I loved ES when ES was a CAP program and not something with such oversight and 5,000 boxes to check.  I also enjoyed CAP ES (specifically ground pounding) before we got GTM badges.  Back when you did it to DO IT, not to earn a badge or some national rating.  But that's me being old fashion.

QuoteHMRS is more about leanring the lessons of followership, teamwork and leadership; using the medium of Emergency Services/Wilderness survival. 

<--- This is absolutely what Hawk is and should be about.  But I challenge you and anyone else going to Hawk.  Do so and come back WITHOUT wearing any of the Hawk bling (tabs, belts, whistles, hats) (http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/uniform_items.htm-).  Go to Hawk, have fun, learn about survival and learn about yourself.  NESA is an emergency services academy set up more like an encampment, with barracks, chow halls, bathrooms, etc.  Hawk is on the side of a Mountain with minimal luxuries.  In fact, your biggest luxury is your ruck sack.

NESA and Hawk are your two choices for ES activities.  If you want a more physically challenging activity with a solid military atmosphere, you may want to consider PJOC or CCOC.

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 02:53:05 AM
Funny, never have i had to "package a patient" and according to CAP rules, we as cap members, cant even do that so... what are we handing out "ranger tabs" for when they are worthless?

I also find it funny how HAWK can get away with telling cadets they are better than everyone else... I'm pretty sure if another activity like, oh lets say NBB, said this everyone would jump and scream and say "ELITISIM"... love the lack of care, maybe that's why so many of us see horrible attitudes come out of HAWK year after year

I see less and less good coming out of HAWK every year....

1) Patient packaging: as in, the proper transportation of a patient, and yes, we do it all the time. Moving a patient is pretty common within CAP. They just taught you a very excellent way to move a patient over rough terrain, how to clear an LZ for a chopper, etc. Things you would most likely need in wilderness search and rescue.
2) Please, don't be an [censored]. You probably have never been to Hawk. Don't pass judgement upon something until you have gone yourself.
3) People are told they are the best all the time. Heck, they even did it at my basic encampment.
4) Those horrible attitudes coming out of Hawk every year are some of the most motivated cadets you can find. They know they can ruck many miles in a day with 30, 40, sometimes even 50 lbs. on their back, and then they can set up an excellent campsite with nothing more than tarps, rope, and some matches. They horrible attitudes are those who have proven to themselves that they are capable of doing whatever they dream of. Those horrible attitudes are cadets and senior members who are confident in themselves and their abilities.
Please. Don't try to bash Hawk without really knowing about it.
[/quote]


Can you cite to me one time you, in Kansas, have ever moved a "patient"?

I just got off the phone with Col. Aye, your wing commander, and she had no idea that you were moving "patents" all the time in Kansas. Amazed her even, i would say. I travel through Kansas a lot, and know several of the squadrons and their commanders, again, i have never heard of CAP "patient packaging" and moving them before.

I can judge hawk all i want to. I have not gone, nor will i go, until things are changed in that program. Way to many people come home from that activity thinking they really are better than everyone else, and that is flat out unacceptable in CAP. No one in CAP is better than anyone else, no matter what activity they have PAID TO ATTEND.

Quote from: Stonewall on June 21, 2011, 04:19:20 AMI was a little bored and started reading this thread about Hawk vs. NESA and warned myself, but overall it hasn't been all that bad.  More professional than most, actually.

Well, open mouth, insert foot.  I suppose I should retract my original statement at the beginning of my post.  It looks like a bunch of [insert derogatory word here] with low self-esteem are at it again arguing over who has the coolest badge.

Why don't you guys concentrate on something important in life, like family, career, education or, here's a big one, physical fitness.  /done

Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.

NCRblues, Really? I mean really?
Feel free to contact me. This discussion is not for this thread.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 06:03:40 AM
NCRblues, Really? I mean really?
Feel free to contact me. This discussion is not for this thread.

Contact you about what?

I am asking a fair question. That person came on captalk with their unit displayed, and said "patient packaging" and movement of "patients" is widespread in CAP. He/she said they learned those skills at HAWK, and that's all fine and dandy, but i want to know when and where he/she has used those "skills". If that person is going to make those claims than he/she should be able to back the claim up with proof...plain and simple.....

I'm my 11 years of CAP service, i have yet to see a single time those "skills" were utilized by cap, and i have yet to see a ranger do something that GTM's could not. The ranger TAB means nothing to me, and many many other on this website and throughout cap.

I have consistently seen bad behavior/attitude probelms come back from HAWK, more so than any other NCSA, so why is that? Your on staff, so please explain it to me.

Please explain to me why we need GT ratings and then "ranger" ratings. Please explain what it is a ranger is certified to do that i can not do as a GTL/GBD.

Please explain why "ranger medics" have anything to offer other than a little more advanced first aid, when CAP as a whole cant even take medications from minor children at overnight activity's anymore.

I think these are fair questions.

I view ranger tabs exactly the same way as blue berets and NESA ball caps. Keep it at the activity you earned it at. All other times, follow 39-1.

Quote from: Stonewall on June 21, 2011, 05:20:13 AM

Quote from: Stonewall on June 21, 2011, 04:19:20 AMI was a little bored and started reading this thread about Hawk vs. NESA and warned myself, but overall it hasn't been all that bad.  More professional than most, actually.

Well, open mouth, insert foot.  I suppose I should retract my original statement at the beginning of my post.  It looks like a bunch of [insert derogatory word here] with low self-esteem are at it again arguing over who has the coolest badge.

Why don't you guys concentrate on something important in life, like family, career, education or, here's a big one, physical fitness.  /done

+1000

Quote from: Stonewall on June 21, 2011, 05:20:13 AM

Quote from: Stonewall on June 21, 2011, 04:19:20 AMI was a little bored and started reading this thread about Hawk vs. NESA and warned myself, but overall it hasn't been all that bad.  More professional than most, actually.

Well, open mouth, insert foot.  I suppose I should retract my original statement at the beginning of my post.  It looks like a bunch of [insert derogatory word here] with low self-esteem are at it again arguing over who has the coolest badge.

Why don't you guys concentrate on something important in life, like family, career, education or, here's a big one, physical fitness.  /done

What he said.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 21, 2011, 05:23:15 AM
Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.

What he said.

Quote from: JC004 on June 17, 2011, 02:16:25 AM
Watch it.  There will be no bringing back this thread to start a fight over what has been done here many times and got locked many times before.

This thread has been civil.  Consider this a pre-ticking-clock.

What I said.  Consider this a ticking clock.

(http://www.colganmarketing.com/clock1.gif)

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 03:17:44 AM
capes, To answer your question about staying to the standards of the 60-3. Yes. a class on any subject is done like this. First it is taught in a class room setting. If it is a task from the 60-3 then it is taught using the guidelines in that book. Then it is demonstrated and finally it is preformed by the students. If one or more student is having a hard time with a task or they did not understand the task they will get extra one on one instruction. Quite often they might not understand why they are doing a certain task because they don't understand the "big picture" of a SAR op. Once you explain to them we do this,so IC can do that, it always clicks.
Does this answer your question/statement?

Yes, thank you.

Quote from: NCRblues on June 21, 2011, 08:02:08 AM
I am asking a fair question. That person came on captalk with their unit displayed, and said "patient packaging" and movement of "patients" is widespread in CAP. He/she said they learned those skills at HAWK, and that's all fine and dandy, but i want to know when and where he/she has used those "skills". If that person is going to make those claims than he/she should be able to back the claim up with proof...plain and simple.....

I hope that I don't regret this...

To answer your question, it may have been unwise to say that patient packaging and movement are widespread, but patient movement is a required task for ground team members (O-0502 PARTICIPATE IN A LITTER CARRY).

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 21, 2011, 03:58:28 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on June 21, 2011, 02:54:55 AM

Quote from: IC3man on June 21, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
Hawk is very focused on survival

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the campsite at Hawk at the bottom of a mountain in a swamp? First rule of survival is don't camp at the bottom of a hill... Makes me wonder about the quality of the training if they can manage to screw that up.

NESA takes place at the Mary Hulman-George SAR Academy on a NG base. The SAR Academy is run by IDHS and is a nice facility. I've not been to NESA but I have taken a course at the Academy and it is a very nice facility.

I knew the SAR academy was there but I didn't know NESA used it. NESA has also just completed standing up permanent CAP owned facilities on Atterbury to host other training throughout the year.

NESA uses many of the facilities on Camp Atterbury -  barrack and dining facilities in the main cantonment area, the new permanent facilities, and the Indiana Sar Academy.  The permanent facililites (The "COE") and the Sar Academy are on adjacent properties.

Quote from: nesagsar on June 21, 2011, 08:31:12 AM
I view ranger tabs exactly the same way as blue berets and NESA ball caps. Keep it at the activity you earned it at. All other times, follow 39-1.

This (see pic at lower right-hand corner, text in lower right-hand corner of pic):

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/ranger_staff_training.htm

"- Eligible for wear in all Wings"  Who knew?

Quote from: Bobble on June 21, 2011, 04:23:29 PM

Quote from: nesagsar on June 21, 2011, 08:31:12 AM
I view ranger tabs exactly the same way as blue berets and NESA ball caps. Keep it at the activity you earned it at. All other times, follow 39-1.

This (see pic at lower right-hand corner, text in lower right-hand corner of pic):

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/ranger_staff_training.htm (http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/ranger_staff_training.htm)

"- Eligible for wear in all Wings"  Who knew?

Just because Hawk says it does not make it so. There are so many blatant uniform violations there that it's not even funny. That and it just plain looks stupid. Starched uniform? Really? That's a good way to rub something raw or over heat.

 I want you to contact me because I don't want to waste everyones time with this and I want to keep the thread on subject. You seem to be very grounded in your biased attitude of HMRS. I would like to discuss your issues on a case by case level. But not on this thread. "The Hawk Mountain attitude" concerns me and I belive it to be unjustified.
I will tell you that "patient packaging" is a GTM skill. Participate in a litter carry is on the GTM sheet. I do hope that you are not just moving around a empty litter or even worse just flopping a patient and a stretcher unsecured and walking the patient out of the woods like that. That should end that part of the argument.
Other skills that rangers are taught that GTM members are not.
Knots, very usefull and should be a GTM skill. Just for setting up a shelter, another GTM skill.
Fire building, You need the ability to heat your meals. In a disaster electricity would be out, maybe gas lines in urban areas would be out and you might have gas leaks. When and where is it safe to have a fire and what is a safe fire?
Water procurement, How to make water safe to drink. This skill is obvious.
Rope work, and I don't mean rappelling but low angle stuff for moving a stretcher or yourself up and down steep or slick terrain SAFLEY. You should not have to stop and operation if the vehicle you need to get to is 25 feet above you on a steep rise to the road. Raised roadways go on for miles and are common everywhere.
Basic survival skills.
Safety with edged tools.
Also at the end of summer school they have become more self sufficient as it is a rugged environment that they have lived in the past 9 days.
Those are some of the differences in skills.
There is also PT requirements. You can be a IC1 but if you are unable to preform the task due to health reasons you are a risk to the op and a potential casualty.
Medic program. Well I guess we should just stop teaching the masses of the world CPR or first aid. Since not everyone will use those skills. Not that the skills the students are taught in the CAP medic program would greatly benefit that student outside of CAP. They are taught real world skills that are used in fire service and EMS on a daily basis. As a senior member I would welcome a HMRS trained medic if I had a student who was showing signs of dehydration or heat exhaustion, so that they can monitor that student and treat that student and keep the rest of the class on point and learning what they came there to learn. It frees' me up to do my job and I know the medic is competent to do theirs.

Quote from: NCRblues on June 21, 2011, 08:02:08 AM

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 06:03:40 AM
NCRblues, Really? I mean really?
Feel free to contact me. This discussion is not for this thread.

Contact you about what?

I am asking a fair question. That person came on captalk with their unit displayed, and said "patient packaging" and movement of "patients" is widespread in CAP. He/she said they learned those skills at HAWK, and that's all fine and dandy, but i want to know when and where he/she has used those "skills". If that person is going to make those claims than he/she should be able to back the claim up with proof...plain and simple.....

I'm my 11 years of CAP service, i have yet to see a single time those "skills" were utilized by cap, and i have yet to see a ranger do something that GTM's could not. The ranger TAB means nothing to me, and many many other on this website and throughout cap.

I have consistently seen bad behavior/attitude probelms come back from HAWK, more so than any other NCSA, so why is that? Your on staff, so please explain it to me.

Please explain to me why we need GT ratings and then "ranger" ratings. Please explain what it is a ranger is certified to do that i can not do as a GTL/GBD.

Please explain why "ranger medics" have anything to offer other than a little more advanced first aid, when CAP as a whole cant even take medications from minor children at overnight activity's anymore.

I think these are fair questions.

I had one of my teams (real world) move a patient from the rocks where he broke his leg to the LZ that they built for the county SAR helo.

It is used.  Even if we do not use it all the time...we should know it, if for nothing else, we can assist the EMTS when they load up the patient.

We don't "need" GT rating and ranger ratings.  They are similar but different.

Seeing as ranger ratings are harder to get (that is they have more requirements, closed book test, and physical fitness test) then GT ratings.........the question may be......why aren't we adopting the ranger ratings as standard?

I don't like all the ranger bling....but don't knock their program and standards over a stupid patch and their choice of accouterments.

I've done most of the survival/knot/medical stuff with the Boy Scouts.

On second look, I've done all of what phillybiker listed above in basic GT training and with the BSA.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 04:43:47 PM
I want you to contact me because I don't want to waste everyones time with this and I want to keep the thread on subject. You seem to be very grounded in your biased attitude of HMRS. I would like to discuss your issues on a case by case level. But not on this thread. "The Hawk Mountain attitude" concerns me and I belive it to be unjustified.

Nothing being said has not been said 30 times before.  You can believe whatever you like, those of us who have dealt with it know better.
There are also a few here who have experienced the issues during high-profile missions first hand and were disappointed by the situation (to say the least).

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 04:43:47 PM
Other skills that rangers are taught that GTM members are not.

Most of what you mention is, in fact, a part of GTM training

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 04:43:47 PM
Medic program. Well I guess we should just stop teaching the masses of the world CPR or first aid.

No, you should stop calling them Medics.  Period.
If all you are providing is First Aid and CPR, they are no more "medics" than anyone else in CAP, and if you are training them in
more, fine, you can never learn "too much", however that still does not make them "medics".

As suggested ad nauseum, the simplest way to prove HMRS' value and place in CAP is to lose the entirety of the uniform and
insignia which is not in line with 39-1, and knock off the "you found the place, so now you're elite" nonsense.  Allow the program to stand on
its own without the burden of the extra weight of non-curriculum silliness and we might be surprised at what the results are, or you might
be surprised at what you're really doing.

If your reply is, and we've heard this before, "some people would not come back if we dropped the uniform extras...", well, then you've answered
your own question.

There's always at least one senior or cadet who wants to defend the whole HMRS package, and then gets lost in their own rhetoric because for the
most part, beyond tradition, none of it is supportable.  However, I get it.  As someone who ran an encampment for 8 years, I was routinely challenged with the typical "why's" and the "what the heck are they doings" of people uninvolved and looking in from the outside.  The difference is that because
we were tight to the core curriculum, regs, and our activities meshed with the overall program, I could simply refer naysayers to an authoritative document and then ask "if there are any further questions".

NBB provides us similar "fun" with the goofy french pancake.  Another PITA, (actually, it kinda looks like a pita, and they sure smell like a gyros after being worn all day in the field!) however operationally they don't export people with a difference of opinion as to how CAP ES works. For the most part NBB does things the "CAP Way", and while you might occasionally have to correct an overzealous member about their place in the universe, their alumni interact pretty well with everyone else.

Bottom line, any National Activity which receives the visibility and funding on the level that HMRS does, supposes itself to be an "elite school" yet
does not focus on the core of the CAP ES program and procedures, while at the same time exporting behavioral programs back to home units, either
needs to accept the criticism it attracts, or make the fairly simple changes required to quell the masses.

Correct, you will learn the skills I mentioned with BSA training. But since not evertone in CAP is or has been in the BSA we teach those skills to bridge gaps that we see in the standard gtm training.
GTM ratings are a national standard. Which in my mind you must meet these minimum requirements. However, it should be left to the wing you are in to add to those skills for the climate your wing is in.
The northwest and rocky mountains have huge mountains that make Hawk mtn look like a mole hill. In the southwest you have hot arid dessert areas.
Around the gulf states  you have real swamps. With gators!
Wings need schools to teach the fine tuning skills you need for your area. But that is the purpose of a SAREX. The schools like Hawk and NESA get you going on your way. But after graduating you still have much to learn. You will never stop learning, and maybe more important practice so you don't forget what you learned (ie: knots and nav ).
Both schools are available so you have a choice. One school might be better suited to a students needs. The time the school is hosted is a factor along with the cost of going and getting there.
No student should have to worry about a biased attitude of graduating either school.
There are not enough volunteers to gripe about who goes where. And CAP is to small, under budgeted, and expensive to be a member of to get rid of any resource we have.

To elipse.
We do agree on some topics. However (and there is always a however)
None of the things I listed are on a sqtr. Part of water procurement is in heath and medical on a sqtr but I feel it needs more emphasis.
There is not a single thing on a sqtr about string,rope,twine,whatever. Knots should be a requirement on a sqtr. But can be taught locally so I'm not worried about it.
Uniforms, ahh yes. These tabs have been around for a long time. Are belts, scarves, whistle chains blingy, yes. But I don't see the point in getting rid of the tabs. They signify a level of experience. Just how there are diffrent GTM tabs. Really, they dint say anything on them. So one could argue that they might be more confusing, and they look kinda like jump wings. Be honest, they do.
But with all that being said, and it has been posted on this forum before all the ranger bling has been approved by national a few years back. The 39_1 needs a major update.
I know of no eliteism. The staff works hard for the students. CAP owns the property so we as staff are there year round doing projects to improve the grounds and just keep it from getting overgrown. None of us think we are better than anyone else. I'm sure that in person we would get along just fine.
I am not part of the HMRS medic program. But having been a EMT in Philadelphia for over 10 years I can not think of anything else to call the medics at hawk mtn.  You call for a medic you know what you are getting. First aid.

Thank you Maj. Harris, this is the first time i have EVER heard of CAP using that training.

If you notice i never said i was against that training. But, i do not believe it is "wide spread" as that person claimed it was, and i know for a fact (confirmed by his/her wing commander) that Kansas wing has not done that in the time that the current wing commander has been around.

Phillybiker, I'm not going to contact you everytime i have a problem with a "ranger", because i correct it on the spot, or send them home from the activity. I do it to anyone with a behavior problem, be it a "ranger" or a "beret" or a nesa grad.

I disagree with the attitude that is taught (maybe not be the SM's there but someone is spouting elitism's rhetoric) at hawk, and thats that. I have seen way to many people come back changed for the worse and not the better. We are going to have to agree to disagree on HAWK.

Im bowing out of this one before i say something to get me in trouble.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:03:44 PM
Uniforms, ahh yes. These tabs have been around for a long time. Are belts, scarves, whistle chains blingy, yes. But I don't see the point in getting rid of the tabs. They signify a level of experience. Just how there are diffrent GTM tabs. Really, they dint say anything on them. So one could argue that they might be more confusing, and they look kinda like jump wings. Be honest, they do.

There are 3 different GT badges, all with an objective, nationally vetted curriculum for award - Member, Leader, Branch Director. Hardly confusing, and all
directly related to the national program and our legitimate capabilities and what we are allowed to do.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:03:44 PM
But with all that being said, and it has been posted on this forum before all the ranger bling has been approved by national a few years back. The 39_1 needs a major update.

Um, no.  One sentence in a set of NEC minutes which have never been implemented or clarified is hardly "approved", which has been the ongoing argument.  I can't begin to see any need to "update 39-1" in this respect, since the HMRS insignia has no place on our uniforms.  The NCSA patch is plenty, for everyone else, but not for HMRS.

Why?

Well I can only tell you about myself. I don't wear a NESA patch because I still have to go to that school. As soon as I have the vacation time I will be going. So I am not allowed to wear that patch. I have graduated from HMRS so I wear that patch.  I do wear my ranger tab. It lets students know right away what I can sign them off for. I am a GBD but earned my GTL first. That badge is still on my uniform because I don't feel like sewing on a slightly different badge. I still have uniforms with second Lt grade on them. Because being a senior member officer in CAP with a dollar in my pocket will still just get me a cup of Coffee.
I never heard of anyone saying that if the uniforms changed they would not come back.

(http://www.marksmedals.com/CAP%20insignia/emergencyservices_files/gtbadge.JPG)(http://www.sfa11.org/pics/JumpWings1.jpg)

Might just be the Army brat in me talking, but I hardly see a similarity between the two badges.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:58:24 PM
Well I can only tell you about myself. I don't wear a NESA patch because I still have to go to that school. As soon as I have the vacation time I will be going. So I am not allowed to wear that patch.

NCSA =/= NESA

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:58:24 PM
I have graduated from HMRS so I wear that patch.  I do wear my ranger tab. It lets students know right away what I can sign them off for.

Again, the question is why. Why the HMRS "bells and whistles" (actually, " " not needed). Why the berets? Etc.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:58:24 PM
I am a GBD but earned my GTL first. That badge is still on my uniform because I don't feel like sewing on a slightly different badge. I still have uniforms with second Lt grade on them. Because being a senior member officer in CAP with a dollar in my pocket will still just get me a cup of Coffee.

Maybe it's time to learn to do it yourself then...

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:58:24 PM
I never heard of anyone saying that if the uniforms changed they would not come back.

What?

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:58:24 PM
Well I can only tell you about myself. I don't wear a NESA patch because I still have to go to that school.

Excellent.

NCSA = National Cadet Special Activities, which both NESA and HMRS are are one (somewhere SARDRAGON just threw up a little in his mouth from that sentence but doesn't know why). NESA sees fit to stay within the program and simply issues
a patch worn in the NCSA area, but that is not enough for HMRS.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:58:24 PM
I do wear my ranger tab. It lets students know right away what I can sign them off for. I am a GBD but earned my GTL first. That badge is still on my uniform because I don't feel like sewing on a slightly different badge. I still have uniforms with second Lt grade on them. Because being a senior member officer in CAP with a dollar in my pocket will still just get me a cup of Coffee.

This paragraph speaks volumes regarding your acceptance of the regs and the program as a whole.  You took the time to
sew a ranger tab on, but you can't wear the proper ES qualification badge, and you seem to disdain CAP grade.

I don't think there's much else you need to say, we get it.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 04:43:47 PM
I want you to contact me because I don't want to waste everyones time with this and I want to keep the thread on subject. You seem to be very grounded in your biased attitude of HMRS. I would like to discuss your issues on a case by case level. But not on this thread. "The Hawk Mountain attitude" concerns me and I belive it to be unjustified.
I will tell you that "patient packaging" is a GTM skill. Participate in a litter carry is on the GTM sheet. I do hope that you are not just moving around a empty litter or even worse just flopping a patient and a stretcher unsecured and walking the patient out of the woods like that. That should end that part of the argument.
Other skills that rangers are taught that GTM members are not.
Knots, very usefull and should be a GTM skill. Just for setting up a shelter, another GTM skill.
Fire building, You need the ability to heat your meals. In a disaster electricity would be out, maybe gas lines in urban areas would be out and you might have gas leaks. When and where is it safe to have a fire and what is a safe fire?
Water procurement, How to make water safe to drink. This skill is obvious.
Rope work, and I don't mean rappelling but low angle stuff for moving a stretcher or yourself up and down steep or slick terrain SAFLEY. You should not have to stop and operation if the vehicle you need to get to is 25 feet above you on a steep rise to the road. Raised roadways go on for miles and are common everywhere.
Basic survival skills.
Safety with edged tools.
Also at the end of summer school they have become more self sufficient as it is a rugged environment that they have lived in the past 9 days.
Those are some of the differences in skills.
There is also PT requirements. You can be a IC1 but if you are unable to preform the task due to health reasons you are a risk to the op and a potential casualty.
Medic program. Well I guess we should just stop teaching the masses of the world CPR or first aid. Since not everyone will use those skills. Not that the skills the students are taught in the CAP medic program would greatly benefit that student outside of CAP. They are taught real world skills that are used in fire service and EMS on a daily basis. As a senior member I would welcome a HMRS trained medic if I had a student who was showing signs of dehydration or heat exhaustion, so that they can monitor that student and treat that student and keep the rest of the class on point and learning what they came there to learn. It frees' me up to do my job and I know the medic is competent to do theirs.

Most of that stuff was taught at NESA GT Basic when I was there in 2003. I already knew it from scouting but that just meant that I got to assist in teaching it to the others.

Quote from: nesagsar on June 21, 2011, 11:03:37 PM
Most of that stuff was taught at NESA GT Basic when I was there in 2003. I already knew it from scouting but that just meant that I got to assist in teaching it to the others.

Why did they take knots and firecraft out of GTM?

Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2011, 11:13:06 PM

Quote from: nesagsar on June 21, 2011, 11:03:37 PM
Most of that stuff was taught at NESA GT Basic when I was there in 2003. I already knew it from scouting but that just meant that I got to assist in teaching it to the others.

Why did they take knots and firecraft out of GTM?

Safety reasons.  Fires are too dangerous for cadets.  Cadets could tie one another to things.

Quote from: JC004 on June 21, 2011, 11:17:18 PM

Safety reasons.  Fires are too dangerous for cadets.  Cadets could tie one another to things.

HA!

Quote from: JC004 on June 21, 2011, 11:17:18 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2011, 11:13:06 PM
Why did they take knots and firecraft out of GTM?

Safety reasons.  Fires are too dangerous for cadets.  Cadets could tie one another to things.

You know, if cadets in ES were taught proper knots, the senior members in charge might be able to free those cadets tied to other things!

;)

Quote from: Ed Bos on June 22, 2011, 12:53:24 AM

Quote from: JC004 on June 21, 2011, 11:17:18 PM

Safety reasons.  Fires are too dangerous for cadets.  Cadets could tie one another to things.

HA!

I vote that this scenario be put in the next version of Avoiding the Hazing Trap.

Quote from: nesagsar on June 22, 2011, 01:50:18 AM

Quote from: Ed Bos on June 22, 2011, 12:53:24 AM

Quote from: JC004 on June 21, 2011, 11:17:18 PM

Safety reasons.  Fires are too dangerous for cadets.  Cadets could tie one another to things.

HA!

I vote that this scenario be put in the next version of Avoiding the Hazing Trap.

The best such class EVER was taught by the DEWG CC, who used me as a demonstration, "hazing" (yes, quotes - he didn't actually haze me until I was a SM...heh heh) me to ask the "hazing or not hazing" questions.  It was at...Hawk. 

Quote from: davidsinn on June 21, 2011, 04:38:33 PM

Quote from: Bobble on June 21, 2011, 04:23:29 PM

Quote from: nesagsar on June 21, 2011, 08:31:12 AM
I view ranger tabs exactly the same way as blue berets and NESA ball caps. Keep it at the activity you earned it at. All other times, follow 39-1.

This (see pic at lower right-hand corner, text in lower right-hand corner of pic):

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/ranger_staff_training.htm (http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/ranger_staff_training.htm)

"- Eligible for wear in all Wings"  Who knew?

Just because Hawk says it does not make it so. There are so many blatant uniform violations there that it's not even funny. That and it just plain looks stupid. Starched uniform? Really? That's a good way to rub something raw or over heat.

Thanks, I realize that, I was just being a bit snarky.  I thought it was interesting that this was the first time I have seen hard evidence (other than anecdotal) regarding what HMRS graduates are informed of regarding the wearing of their "bling" outside of HMRS.  Obviously no reference to the wearing of a Ranger Tab as part of the BDU/BBDU/Utility Uniform exists in CAPM 39-1 or subsequent ICL's (ICM's?), yet there it is in plain sight on the WWW that yes, according to the HMRS staff, the Ranger Tab is "Eligible for wear in all Wings".

Perhaps in this instance the word "eligible" has a different connotation from that of "permitted"?

QuoteObviously no reference to the wearing of a Ranger Tab as part of the BDU/BBDU/Utility Uniform exists in CAPM 39-1 or subsequent ICL's (ICM's?), yet there it is in plain sight on the WWW that yes, according to the HMRS staff, the Ranger Tab is "Eligible for wear in all Wings".

I do ask the status of this every now and again....usually it ends up in a once "they" get around to putting out an updated 39-1 it will be included..." kind of conversation.  The "hold-up" is approval for wear on the AF style uniform; however, being as there is no AF approval required for CAP specific uniforms; tabs are authorized for wear on the BBDU.  (the NB meeting approval reference that is out there; "....authorized all awards...." or however it is worded.)

I would personally say that there is a difference between eligible vs approved.... ie if you wing puts it into a supplement/ICL then it would be ok; not just because someone at HMRS or worse namesless, faceless person on the interweb said so......

mk

The Hawk bling was pushed by the former National Commander who attended Hawk. It was introduced by the Florida Wing Commander, Col. Levitch. Which in it's self is unique since the Hawk bling was not authorized to be worn in Florida Wing.

Quote from: NCRblues on June 21, 2011, 08:02:08 AM

Please explain to me why we need GT ratings and then "ranger" ratings. Please explain what it is a ranger is certified to do that i cannot do as a GTL/GBD.

Please explain why "ranger medics" have anything to offer other than a little more advanced first aid, when CAP as a whole can't even take medications from minor children at overnight activity's anymore.

The first one I have started to ask about (again).  There was a push under Pineda to get Ranger ratings on the 101 card; I asked what specifically that would qualify you to do over the regular GTM program; my answer and the push died with his ousting.  I have heard rumblings of the same again lately and again have asked what/why.  The discussion has gone down the path of since the rest of CAP now has pretty much the same standards as the Ranger program (remember there was a time that there was no GTM curriculum, the Rangers were the only ones in CAP with a well documented capabilities/skill & knowledge document & practice), where should the Ranger program be going?  ie they niched the wilderness SAR world of CAP for how long, if they want to be something special, what is that next niche that they are uniquely suited to provide for.  GTM plus 72 hours self sustaining & high terrain mobility and steep terrain/high angle evac dont really warrant a "special" qualification to me. (OK maybe the whole "rope rescue" but there is a provision for that in 60-3, and HMRS doesnt have a corner on that market anymore than the local fire/rescue training community)

that is a discussion still in progress; hopefully it is engaged more at this years school.

#2: I could likely entertain an entire/separate thread on the medic program.  Just like many other aspects of CAP, the purpose is twofold;  first the HMRS medic program provides a framework of health services support to both the training and operational environment of Ranger Teams and HMRS (developed and improved upon in the time of an absence of CAP guidance and direction) 
Commanders (at whatever level) are responsible for the health/welfare and safety of their personnel; medics (or HSO's in the non HMRS world) are utilized to meet/monitor that responsiblity for the commander (and otherwise provide advice/guidance to them in the decision making process).  As common sense dictates (that whole highest level of training thing) they also serve as the focal point for providing and/or directing treatment of emergency medical care.  One thing the HMRS medic program includes is some of those public health/field sanitation/hygiene areas that aren't normal parts of EMT/nurse/physician training (not a hard thing to train people in; they just have it as part of their program).  Another part is that all of their medical personnel are trained in wilderness medical care (which does have some different thought process/ideas from regular street EMS).
The other aspect of the program is the opportunity.  It provides a career glimpse and entry point for cadets interested in the medical field not available anywhere else in formalized CAP programs.  I personally know/know of a large number of former cadets that are now civilian and military EMT's, paramedics, nurses and physicians who all got their start in HMRS's medic program.

mk

Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2011, 11:00:52 PM

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:58:24 PM
Well I can only tell you about myself. I don't wear a NESA patch because I still have to go to that school.

Excellent.

NCSA = National Cadet Special Activities, which both NESA and HMRS are are one (somewhere SARDRAGON just threw up a little in his mouth from that sentence but doesn't know why). NESA sees fit to stay within the program and simply issues
a patch worn in the NCSA area, but that is not enough for HMRS.

Quote from: phillybiker on June 21, 2011, 08:58:24 PM
I do wear my ranger tab. It lets students know right away what I can sign them off for. I am a GBD but earned my GTL first. That badge is still on my uniform because I don't feel like sewing on a slightly different badge. I still have uniforms with second Lt grade on them. Because being a senior member officer in CAP with a dollar in my pocket will still just get me a cup of Coffee.

This paragraph speaks volumes regarding your acceptance of the regs and the program as a whole.  You took the time to
sew a ranger tab on, but you can't wear the proper ES qualification badge, and you seem to disdain CAP grade.

I don't think there's much else you need to say, we get it.

Well really I can't sew on the proper ES grade on any of my older uniforms as when I place any patch on my uniform I set them with fabric glue before sewing them on. Because of this, the patches can never be removed. It helps to stop the wrinkle effect you get after washing your BDU's and the uniform shrinks more than the patches do. So if I get promoted or earn another GTM level I will have to buy a new blouse and all the patches and sew them on.
I am a blue collar working guy and I try to keep my sqdn cadets active. If  I have to decide what I'm going to spend money on. ie; a new complete uniform or money to put gas in the van for a day trip for the cadets. Money for the cadets wins every time. And it always should. I don't have a ego where I must have all the stuff on my uniform and I don't care if someone thinks they outrank me. I do my job to the best of my abilities and keep the cadets safe and out of trouble.

Quote from: phillybiker on July 03, 2011, 03:24:45 PMIf  I have to decide what I'm going to spend money on. ie; a new complete uniform or money to put gas in the van for a day trip for the cadets. Money for the cadets wins every time. And it always should.

Admirable and misguided.

Gas in the van, or any other expense is not your personal responsibility, especially when it allows others to abdicate theirs.

Doing so gives people an improper feeling of ownership which never ends well.

Pass the hat and fix your uniforms.

Whoever mentioned earlier that Hawk graduates leave with SQTRs with completed tasks marked is WRONG.  They do not -  Hawk attendees DO NOT do GTM sign-offs.  Maybe its true if they beg.  However, they should not have to beg.

When did you go last?  I was there in 2003 last, and I got sign offs without EVER having to ask for it.  Sounds like we have had a few different experiences.  Does not mean someone is "right" or "wrong", just that different people have  fared one way or another.

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

go to the school and see for your self.

Quote from: tarti on July 21, 2011, 02:52:31 AM
as a staff member at hawk you need to look at the ranger grade sheets and you will see that they are in line with the sqtrs with additional items.  any and all  staff signoff on the sqtrs as well as the ranger sheets. you as a student are responsible to have the sheets and get the signoffs during the school.
the sqtrs and ranger grades are entered into e-services at the school. if any person commenting on a school and have not been there themself or have not been there in the last 5 years to see how things are being done should hold there comments.  i am sure that all schools have had good and bad reports so be your own judge and take to people who give you the correct information on a school not just rumors and hear say.

go to the school and see for your self.

Here we go...

Meh, shooting fish in a barrel gets old after awhile, even when the fish are jumping out calling after you.

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

Quote from: tarti on July 21, 2011, 02:52:31 AM
as a staff member at hawk you need to look at the ranger grade sheets and you will see that they are in line with the sqtrs with additional items.  any and all  staff signoff on the sqtrs as well as the ranger sheets. you as a student are responsible to have the sheets and get the signoffs during the school.
the sqtrs and ranger grades are entered into e-services at the school. if any person commenting on a school and have not been there themself or have not been there in the last 5 years to see how things are being done should hold there comments.  i am sure that all schools have had good and bad reports so be your own judge and take to people who give you the correct information on a school not just rumors and hear say.

go to the school and see for your self.

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

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on July 21, 2011, 04:28:59 AM
It's the person's first post...no need for anyone to unload a full clip.

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

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 21, 2011, 05:49:37 AM

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on July 21, 2011, 04:28:59 AM
It's the person's first post...no need for anyone to unload a full clip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: rebowman on July 21, 2011, 10:16:37 PM
Coming home and not being GTM3 is just not right....

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

Quote from: sarmed1 on July 22, 2011, 02:56:21 AMWe had two students not complete the requirements for completion of the medic course, they went home with a medical bag

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

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

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

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

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on July 22, 2011, 04:01:23 AM
Let me clarify:  they failed the re-test on the written exam for ESCI Advanced Wilderness first aid, a requirement for course completion. 
The went home with a bag full of first aid supplies because they paid for it. (nothing in there that you coundnt buy in a local CVS)

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

Quote from: sarmed1 on July 22, 2011, 04:01:23 AM
Regardless of you personal experience with stethescope toting "cadet medics" I know for a fact that HMRS students are instructed on the particular restrictions on medical care wihtin CAP, the specific roles that health services personel play in commander's health/safety  responsibilities and basically what is and what is not within thier scope of practice both in training environemnts and on operational missions..... anyone else's personnel are not mine nor HMRS's fault/problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Eclipse on July 22, 2011, 04:13:21 AM

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

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

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

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on July 23, 2011, 12:19:42 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 22, 2011, 04:13:21 AM

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

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

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

mk

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

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

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

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

Excellent response Nathan!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 23, 2011, 02:01:55 AM
If the provider is trained/certified, acting within the scope of their training, and are not being paid or otherwise do not have a duty to act then the provider should be covered under an appropriate Good Samaritan act, regardless of age. While good Sam laws vary this fact should be constant across all of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mk

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

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

mk

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

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

Quote from: sarmed1 on July 23, 2011, 02:42:15 AM
Eclipse, I was going to go down the same path there (again in quasi agreement....)
I as a proffesional (or volunteer if you want to make such a distinction) medical provider would never put my trust in the Good Sammaritan Laws if I am doing anything more than stopping along the side of the road to help sort of deal.....

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

mk

That's what is so frustrating about the whole situation.  We have professionals and adults with common sense who see this from all sides, including the risk to our members leaving things gray.

Yet things are left gray.

I actually worry more about senior members in these types of cases than cadets..... Cadets tend to know their place, even if you have to tell it to them, they grumble but listen;  seniors not always so compliant.........

mk

Sadly agree, even to the point of overt insubordination in some cases.

(i.e. "You can't tell me what to do..." or my personal all time favorite "I don't read regs, I read FARs...")

Quote from: sarmed1 on July 23, 2011, 02:34:31 AM
Why does CAP allow cadets to do anything in a "ES" realm.  They are either supervised or not supervised.....Who is liable if a cadet destroys evidence on a search?  If a cadet loads a piece of equipment wrong on the van/trailer etc and it falls off and causes an injury?  Fails to pass on a piece of information recieved by phone/radio/runner critical to the mission?  They can either be trusted to do the job or they cant...it shouldnt matter what that job is.....the consequences of "screwing up" can be just as bad as a poor medical decision.......

As has been pointed out, CAP trusts people to do the job when they have gone through the training that CAP has authorized as adequate. If a CAP member (cadet or senior) has a GTM badge, and has therefore met CAP's standards for being on that mission, then CAP is legally responsible for how they perform in the field. If they suck, that's going to require a review of the training standards.

As we well know, Hawk does NOT seem to try to meet these standards intentionally. That's not to say that they have bad training. It's just saying that Hawk training is not something that CAP has yet been willing to say is "good enough". In the case of "medics", if CAP doesn't train medics, then no medical skills are authorized to be used in the field. That's not saying it's always a bad idea to use them, but if you do, CAP ha no obligation to take responsibility for your actions, because they don't have any "sanction" over such things.

Let's take it to an extreme example. Say that some school decided to start training members in "SAR martial arts." Officially, CAP has no authorization to use any sort of force on a crash scene, but like medical situations, we can all imagine situations where we might HAVE to (ie, a crazy guy shows up with a knife). Now, if we ever have a situation where said combat skills are used, and the cadet gets in trouble, CAP will certainly get flak due to the uniform association, but they CAN claim that they never authorized martial arts to be used during operations, and therefore, this member was acting outside of their assigned duties in CAP. Now, that member is under the bus, despite the "blind eye" argument.

It's really no different. The fact is that CAP is perfectly fine with both cadets and seniors participating in missions using skills they have authorized, namely because they have gone to lengths to ensure that if the rules and skills are observed, then the chance for a real screw-up is low. When you start to add riskier skills and scenarios, like medical situations or crash-site-kung-fu to the mix, then that's a situation that CAP feels carries too much risk, and the member is alone.

I have to reiterate: I am not against CAP members using medical skills on principle. But so long as CAP is not willing to protect the members for using medical skills, then doing so is an "at your own risk" situation. Giving cadets a medic tab and telling them they're ready to go be a SAR medic is irresponsible if they don't decide to also drill into the cadet's head the likelihood that within one or two actual uses of their medical skills in a real mission, they are likely to end up in court, and CAP will have as little to do with the situation as humanely possible.

If adults want to risk it, fine. But allowing a cadet to assume that kind of risk is well outside the bounds of responsible leadership, especially when the parents are not likely being informed that their children are risking the family's well-being trying to play medic with a week's worth of training.

No there is a big difference between medical care and crash site kung-fu.  There is no, not even a gray area, that allows defensive tactics by CAP personnel.  Were there some vague you can defend yourself line in a regulation you might have an argument for comparison.  On the other hand CAP has a provision for medical care (feel free to look it up in the 60-3 for the whole thing)

Quote.....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

They are saying you can do it, it must be within your level of training...and more over that where qualification dictates it as a requirement, the training must meet a certain (though very broad)  standard.  Now before you fire off a speedy reply....

QuoteCAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage, and any care provided is at the members own risk.

So there is the blind eye/grey area.  CAP is going to say you must have the training, you can go ahead an use it (within certain restrictions) but even though they know you are going to run the risk of being in a situation that you may need to use the training , you are on your own if you screw up.

Emergency first aid care is allowed under regualtions...Lifesaving/silver medal of valor if it goes good; slap on the hand and a good luck with your law suit if it goes bad.......crash site kung fu 2b if it goes badly;  if it goes good and you save your life and everyone else' still 2b.


mk

Lets move off of the medical thing, though HMRS seems to have a market corner on this one, its by far a problem unique only to them...back to more of the training/curriculm & activity comparison in the spirit of the OP....

QuoteAs we well know, Hawk does NOT seem to try to meet these standards intentionally. That's not to say that they have bad training. It's just saying that Hawk training is not something that CAP has yet been willing to say is "good enough".

I'm not sure what standards you are refering to.  If its GTM standard, yes they do.  (I will agree not in the entirety, and they make it seem that GTM qualification is secondary in some cases) however having seen past skill sheets for the various ranger grades, the most recent ones actually ID individual tasks by GTM task, and from what I was told that was to remove the redundancy in testing the same (or mostly the same) skills. It does also happen (and I cant speak to if this was on puropse or by accident) bring the R/grades more in line with their equivilent GTM quals. Somewhere I think I did a breakdown of Ranger grade by tasks vs GTM training....if I recall correctly the only thing missing from each ranger grade vs the GTM quals was the mission participation requirements (but dont hold me to that...cant find the chart on my lap top)

Actually I would go so far as to say not that CAP isnt willing to say HMRS training is "good enough" but rather they havent figured out why its any better.  Personally speaking (even as a one time CAP HMRS staff memeber, R/adv etc etc) I dont see what the benefit is to having a "Ranger" qual appear on the 101.
the things I see that seem to come out of the training program not covered in regular GTM quals.... 1) an emphasis on 72hours self sustainment (geared toward the wilderness environment) 2)  Mobility skills for the wilderness/mountainous environment 3) basic understanding (at the lower level) of rope skills/steep terrain evac and actually competency in their operations (at the higher levels) 4) they have held onto some of the skills that fell away from the GTM program, basic knots/ropes (as mentioned) and the pateint packaging skills.
These are not areas that are unique to the Ranger program, anyone could teach them to their ground team and they certainly dont make a member or the team anything elite or special......

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on July 24, 2011, 03:29:57 AM
If its GTM standard, yes they do.  (I will agree not in the entirety, and they make it seem that GTM qualification is secondary in some cases)

This is where most of us would have the heartburn and which causes most of the issues.  Participants can spend the time, do the work, believe they
are now CAP assets, and then be told they can't even play.

Fix that and a lot of the angst disappears over night.

As a GBD, I have no way to use an HMRS grad who hopes to someday complete GT3, but I can make all kinds of use of a GT3 who is also am HMRS grad.

Now here's a question fer 'ya.  Are HMRS grads in PAWG allowed to participate in missions, real or training, based on it saying "ranger on the 101" vs.
an nationally accepted qualification?

If they are, that's dead wrong, and if they aren't, then what are they training for?

Quote from: Eclipse on July 24, 2011, 03:52:24 AM
Now here's a question fer 'ya.  Are HMRS grads in PAWG allowed to participate in missions, real or training, based on it saying "ranger on the 101" vs.
an nationally accepted qualification?

If they are, that's dead wrong, and if they aren't, then what are they training for?

Based on the last SAREVAL I conducted for PAWG (given I was the comm and logistics evaluator, but......) all personnel must present a valid 101 for the position they are occupying (or SQTR verified for a trainee position)

so for anything outside of the school, GTM quals trump ranger quals (ie an R/1 with just GTM 3 is still a GTM 3)

mk

ok here's the excel sheet that shows what GTM skills are completed for each ranger grade level.

There are a few holes that I will point out to the stan/eval folks:
The downside is even though the basic summer school should train a student to Ranger 2nd level, there are 1 or two tasks that are not covered under that level that are required for the GTM 3/2 (distress beacon bearing, locate distress beacon and BCUT) I would also argue that the medical/first aid tasks are missing 1 or two area that I would want covered under complete basic first aid

On the up side a Ranger First class (regardless of the fact the HMRS sheet says must have 101 GTM 3) complete's all the skill requirements for GTM1 (some of the HMRS tasks are also GTL tasks)

The other I attached is the cummulative R1 skills that are not found in the GTM qual program

mk

How is it that you can progress to Ranger 2 without ever having determined a distress beacon bearing or complete a 2 hour BCUT class?

Given that on a national level that's the guts of what our ground pounders do it seems to be a glaring omission.

I haven't really been following this thread, but let me jump in here and suggest the following:

1.  There is no "gray area" when it comes to non-emergency medical care provided by CAP folks to members or non-members.  The regulation could not be clearer.  It is simply and clearly forbidden.  For all the reasons we have discussed in countless other threads.  No really; all non-emergency medical care is totally and absolutely forbidden.

2.  Although Good Sam laws vary by state, I have not found a single one that would protect a member acting in their CAP capacity.  More importantlly, none will protect CAP, Inc. from a errors and omissions by a CAP member.

3.  The rules are the same for cadets and seniors in this arena.  (I.e., neither can provide non-emergency medical care.).

4.  These rules have been effect for many, many years. 

5.  It is just as silly to suggest that CAP will somehow be liable for training cadets in first aid as it is to suggest that we will be liable for teaching them basic flying skills if they later have an accident as an airline pilot.

Now back to dicussing the relative merits of Hawk and NESA.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

Quote from: Ned on July 24, 2011, 05:58:32 AM
I haven't really been following this thread, but let me jump in here and suggest the following:

1.  There is no "gray area" when it comes to non-emergency medical care provided by CAP folks to members or non-members.  The regulation could not be clearer.  It is simply and clearly forbidden.  For all the reasons we have discussed in countless other threads.  No really; all non-emergency medical care is totally and absolutely forbidden.
.....

For once, we were actually (or at least thats were I thought the conversation was) discussing ony the emergency first aid part...

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 24, 2011, 05:21:07 AM
How is it that you can progress to Ranger 2 without ever having determined a distress beacon bearing or complete a 2 hour BCUT class?

Given that on a national level that's the guts of what our ground pounders do it seems to be a glaring omission.

I dont know, its on my list to ask the stan/eval dude.
You cant look at GTM3, 2, 1 as the same as R/3, 2, 1...think R/3 the same as GTM3 trainee....  Under the old ranger rating system R/2 was the minimum competency level, it would seem probabale that was never updated with the addition of actual skills to the R3 level....but thats just my guess based on experience...could be that some one at HMRS has a reasoning behind it.....

mk

This gets us back to the problems of cadets from Kansas, Florida or Delaware training to be "Rangers" at HMRS. Most all of the Hawk training revolves about mountains which is useless for the coastal and flat states. A Florida cadet doesn't need to know how to rappel off an I-95 overpass. In almost all cases a medical helicopter is less than a half hour away so no need for "Ranger Medics".
However, each Region should have a Survival course and training for ground teams. Can a cadet from Montana recognize a coral snake? Setting up a Survival School in most Regions would train cadets for wilderness activity in their geographical areas. And such training should follow the requirements of SQTRs for GT1 or GT2 including BCUT. SER might be able to train at Eglin AFB where USAF trains Special Ops etc. It might be possible to get U.S. Army aviation support from Ft Rucker's helicopter schools.
Hawk Mountain is great for cadets from that geographical area, but useless for most of the country. Training at the bRegion Survival Schoolws and Hawk should aim to have the cadets earn GT1 or GT2, not courses that do not apply to the average cadet in this country.
Thje other arguement against Hawk is the bling that the cadet come back to his home unit with. While authorized in PAWG, most other Wings do not allow it (even if the Natl Board gave an OK whiich still is not in print)

Well, a cadet might use their high angle skills if a plane crashes on Mount Trashmore, the growing landfill on the east side of Wilmington.  ;D  Otherwise, not so much.

Quote from: Ned on July 24, 2011, 05:58:32 AM
1.  There is no "gray area" when it comes to non-emergency medical care provided by CAP folks to members or non-members.  The regulation could not be clearer.  It is simply and clearly forbidden.  For all the reasons we have discussed in countless other threads.  No really; all non-emergency medical care is totally and absolutely forbidden.

Is this where I should post the photos of cadets at encampments and other activities wearing stethoscopes and manning the "medical flights"?
There may be no "gray area" of regulation, but there is certainly a significant amount of negligence of enforcement.

How many Form 79's are active right now which reference activity medical officers (most who aren't MD's as required), or similar "sick call", etc.
We could start making phone calls there.

Quote from: Ned on July 24, 2011, 05:58:32 AM5.  It is just as silly to suggest that CAP will somehow be liable for training cadets in first aid as it is to suggest that we will be liable for teaching them basic flying skills if they later have an accident as an airline pilot.

I never said their involvement in other organizations brings liability because of training, I'm saying CAP training brings the liability on itself during CAP activities and missions.

Is it silly to think a member "trained" by CAP who hurts someone during a CAP activity or mission, in a CAP uniform, would get CAP some liability?
How about a fellow member hurt or killed by a "medic" we trained?

Airline pilot? Obviously not.  But it is not out of the realm of possibility that a member trained as a pilot could cause property damage or injury to another aircrew member, and his "training" would absolutely be considered.  Cadets can be aircrew, and hurt the rest of the crew, not to mention those below him, or even the no-so-stretch that having a new(ish) cadet mission pilot on a sortie slowed the search and resulted in the death of victims. 

Quote from: BillB on July 24, 2011, 01:05:14 PM
Thje other arguement against Hawk is the bling that the cadet come back to his home unit with. While authorized in PAWG, most other Wings do not allow it (even if the Natl Board gave an OK whiich still is not in print)

Actually, the argument is not so much the bling, it's the attitude they bring back.

Quote from: arajca on July 24, 2011, 06:02:37 PM

Quote from: BillB on July 24, 2011, 01:05:14 PM
Thje other arguement against Hawk is the bling that the cadet come back to his home unit with. While authorized in PAWG, most other Wings do not allow it (even if the Natl Board gave an OK whiich still is not in print)

Actually, the argument is not so much the bling, it's the attitude they bring back.

+1 though the conversation generally starts with "You can't wear that...", continuing into "You can't make me...".

Quote from: BillB on July 24, 2011, 01:05:14 PM
This gets us back to the problems of cadets from Kansas, Florida or Delaware training to be "Rangers" at HMRS. Most all of the Hawk training revolves about mountains which is useless for the coastal and flat states.

Just curious, what publication, course sylabus, school schedule or learning objectives do you derive "most all" from?

The fact that its called Hawk Mountain?

Given I did post that 2 of the 4 differnces between Ranger capabilites and GTM's revolve around wilderness/moutainous mobility and rope skills. (but those are in addition to the rest of the standard GT capabilities)

Quote2)  Mobility skills for the wilderness/mountainous environment 3) basic understanding (at the lower level) of rope skills/steep terrain evac and actually competency in their operations (at the higher levels)

Perhaps you missed downloading the two documents I uploaded on Ranger specific additions and GMT skills included by Ranger level.  (My math skills show that 1/2 dozen skills and a 5 mile hike out of 70 some skills could not equte to "most all of")

mk

Quote from: Eclipse on July 24, 2011, 05:10:52 PM

Quote from: Ned on July 24, 2011, 05:58:32 AM
1.  There is no "gray area" when it comes to non-emergency medical care provided by CAP folks to members or non-members.  The regulation could not be clearer.  It is simply and clearly forbidden.  For all the reasons we have discussed in countless other threads.  No really; all non-emergency medical care is totally and absolutely forbidden.

Is this where I should post the photos of cadets at encampments and other activities wearing stethoscopes and manning the "medical flights"?
There may be no "gray area" of regulation, but there is certainly a significant amount of negligence of enforcement.

How many Form 79's are active right now which reference activity medical officers (most who aren't MD's as required), or similar "sick call", etc.
We could start making phone calls there.

Quote from: Ned on July 24, 2011, 05:58:32 AM5.  It is just as silly to suggest that CAP will somehow be liable for training cadets in first aid as it is to suggest that we will be liable for teaching them basic flying skills if they later have an accident as an airline pilot.

I never said their involvement in other organizations brings liability because of training, I'm saying CAP training brings the liability on itself during CAP activities and missions.

Is it silly to think a member "trained" by CAP who hurts someone during a CAP activity or mission, in a CAP uniform, would get CAP some liability?
How about a fellow member hurt or killed by a "medic" we trained?

Airline pilot? Obviously not.  But it is not out of the realm of possibility that a member trained as a pilot could cause property damage or injury to another aircrew member, and his "training" would absolutely be considered.  Cadets can be aircrew, and hurt the rest of the crew, not to mention those below him, or even the no-so-stretch that having a new(ish) cadet mission pilot on a sortie slowed the search and resulted in the death of victims.

I have no heartburn with teaching cadets first-aid and CPR in the context of GT training or just as general life skills that everyone should know. I think though that we should make it clear that they are in no way "medics" who will treat victims of SAR/DR operations or in any way "in the name of CAP." The first aid training should be taught in the context of self-aid or buddy aid until a senior can be alerted or EMS called.

About 10-11 years ago at Summer Encampment, we had a cadet squadron commander who was also a First Responder. We found out that instead of letting his cadets go to the MO or sick call he was treating them himself. After numerous members of the chain of command tried to talk some sense into him, he was directed to leave the encampment. He had it in his head that this was a "cadet run" activity and that the seniors should not be telling him how to deal with his cadets. He also felt that as a FR he had a "duty" to treat these [boo boos]. The part about "cadet run,but Senior supervised" just didn't seem to sink in no matter how many ways it was explained to him. Plus the fact that if he screwed up and hurt a kid either through action or inaction, he wasn't the one Mom and Dad's lawyers were going to come after.

You know I read the first page and just stopped at that point.  There have been a lot of stupid comments made about Hawk and honestly if they want to run their own program I say more power to them.  It's local which makes it easier for their members to get what they need.  I have the same attitude about the recent start up a couple of years ago of LESA in Texas.  It's a long way to Indiana for some and having something close is a good thing.  I can even mention RIGSAR in Rhode Island which ran an awesome program. 

I've met great cadets with ranger tabs and really poor cadets with ranger tabs.  I'm blaming that on the individual person and who they are.

This was my fourth year on staff at NESA and I am the webmaster for it.  I am also a 35 year veteran of the program and have run three squadrons including one I started from scratch.   My first year at NESA I went for week one and found the quality of the training to be so above and beyond what I have had in the program I took and additional week off from work and stayed for the advanced.   I have never attended Hawk training because it was always more portrayed to me as a survival school than at GTM school.   So the only negative thing I can say about it is some of it's graduates have returned with some not so great ideas of doing things.  All activities have these problems based on our being a volunteer organization.

I can tell you from my experience from NESA that the majority of the people that go there enjoy it and walk out truely qualified.  In my school "pencil whipping" someone's qualifications is not tolerated.  And if we don't think they can handle the qual they are training for they will not be signed off.

We had an awesome team of instructors and staff this year and we have all been invited back for next. 

It would be my hope like someone said on page one, forget the political BS and go have fun.  It's a plus if you can come home with a skill to pass on to the other members of your unit!

"Just my two cent"

Lt. Col. Rowen,
Thank you for your wisdom and comments.  I agree with you in many ways, including the first page reply regarding the political BS and pick a school and have fun.  That is what I did this summer.  I picked HMRS for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that I could go with my son.  There is much misinformation about Hawk, much of it passed along by people who fail to do their homework before speaking.  A couple of example....Hawk is indeed a NCSA contrary to many who state that it is not.  GTM tasks were not only signed off for me, but they were put into eservices by the staff.  I don't know that either Hawk or NESA are better, but I am sure they are different.  There is nothing wrong with different, in fact, I believe that different approaches are often a very good thing.

I had an excellent experience at Hawk and would go back again.  I would also welcome the opportunity to attend NESA and see the approach taken there.  I am sure that I would come out of either school with a higher knowledge directly related to MY effort.

My advice to those interested in HMRS or NESA, forget trying to get a factual answer on CAPTALK.  Few are capable of speaking in facts without emotional opinion.  In addition, many in CAP are misinformed and will provide inaccurate information.  I would suggest that you speak directly to the staff of each school and ask specific questions about the experience.  The as was stated on page 1, forget all the political BS, pick a school and go have a good time.

Quote from: DWilkins on August 30, 2011, 11:13:27 PMMy advice to those interested in HMRS or NESA, forget trying to get a factual answer on CAPTALK.  Few are capable of speaking in facts without emotional opinion.  In addition, many in CAP are misinformed and will provide inaccurate information. 

You know, you had me up to about right there...

Between national board members, people who were in CAP when the only thing available was black and white television, as well as a few of us with "only" a decade under our ever-increasing belts, the regular members who participate in CAPTalk (and CS) are some of the most experienced, well-informed members of the organization.

The problem is that the facts and personal experience of these people directly conflicts with the reality distortion field that many members erect around themselves. The people you lumped into your blanket statement include staffers at those very activities you mention.

There are also two separate pieces to this argument - the activities themselves, which are generally well-run as activities, but suffer from the same
inconsistency of policy and purpose that CAP has overall, to one degree or another.

And the fallout locally of those who participate when they get back.  The latter is largely out of the hands of those running the activity(s), and in some cases is a larger symptom of shortcomings in the way we execute our program and expectations, but could also be helped by a few direct paragraphs from NHQ regarding the pinch points that make things difficult for local commanders.

Just like anything in CAP, remember you are a volunteer, and remember that you will get out of it what YOU put into it!  If you go into it with a clear head, and give it your ALL, you will surely have no options but to find good in it.  If you go into it looking for faults, you will surely find them no matter what you do!

SQUIRRRELLLLLL

Quote from: HMRSRANGER on January 11, 2012, 01:02:23 AM
SQUIRRRELLLLLL

lets see, it's been 4 months since the last post and you thought THAT would be a worthwhile contribution?

*locked*