Hawk Mountain Ranger School

[JayT]

I took ARC Advanced First Aid in 1977!

I was an instructor trainer for First Aid, CPR, Life Guarding, and Swimming from around 1989-1997.

As far as training to standards.....I don't know but would assume that HMRS uses a SQTR like training matrix to conduct and rewiew their training.

True, but is Hawk training accedited by any state or national organization? Even their sign off forms don't totally match the CAP forms if memory serves.

[lordmonar]

I took ARC Advanced First Aid in 1977!

I was an instructor trainer for First Aid, CPR, Life Guarding, and Swimming from around 1989-1997.

As far as training to standards.....I don't know but would assume that HMRS uses a SQTR like training matrix to conduct and rewiew their training.

True, but is Hawk training accedited by any state or national organization? Even their sign off forms don't totally match the CAP forms if memory serves.

Is any CAP training accreditied by any state or national organisation (other than CAP  )?

[Майор Хаткевич]

We're talking medical training, which can be a big Charlie Foxtrot if something happens...

[flyerthom]

I think they use http://www.ashinstitute.org/ but sarmed1 would have to verify.

[sarmed1]

ECSI is the program that is used for initial entry medic training; 36 hour wilderness First Aid with proffesional CPR forms the base certification.   The texts are written by AAOS.  Qualified medics (the "red Scarves") are required to have at minimum First Responder Certification, we provide via AAOS/ECSI if needed but suprising most go out and get it outside of HMRS and usually continue by running with a local fire company or ambulance squad.  Progression to the other two medical levels (Senior and Master Medic) require certification as an EMT of higher.

AAOS text for wilderness includes boith spinbal immobilization skills and C-spine clearing in the field as mentioned above.  The text and teaching outline talks about immobilization using improvised equipment primarily; we folow that up with regular EMS gear; when they test its using the NREMT standard as the basis of pass/fail. 
If you are interested on the standards and Eval page of the HMRS web site, the skill sheets for all 4 medic qualifications are listed there as well as the skill sheets for everything except Expert Ranger.  For non medical skills, the tasks that match up to GTM/GTL are identified by the GT task number and are tested using the same evaluation griteria as GTM/GTL.  Obviously HMRS specific tasks are listed without the task numbers.

mk

[Gunner C]

Under whose authority are the HMRS tasks certified?  Are they just made up ("Hey, this looks like a cool thing to do") or is there a formal process where the tasks are examined and deemed tasks necessary to accomplish a particular mission?  As a former Army Special Forces training developer, I'm kinda shocked that you folks are using tasks that are just HMRS tasks.  That may be part of the problem.

In the RM (and probably in any other type of training organization), the tasks have to go through an entire process including having the customer (the unit receiving the trained individual) saying "yea verily", this task is something we need our soldiers/marines/airmen/sailors/guardsmen trained in.  Having presided over one of these boards for JFK Center, I was surprised that there were units that said some of our most "sacred tasks" (had been taught since von Steuben was a Lt) were a waste of time - they didn't need them.  I'm sure that NREMT has a similar process.  When you teach what you think the customer needs instead of what the customer TELLS you they need, then you're just initiating into a club, not training for a mission.

I tell you for certain that SF soldiers going through the "Q" course right now are getting training that I didn't in the mid 70s.  I can also tell you that they've gone back to some things that were lost in the 90s that in that environment were deemed irrelevant.

From what I can see, some of the training there is good.  Some of it is crap.  Some of it is just initiation into the club.  Seems to be a great deal of wasted time.

[lordmonar]

In the RM (and probably in any other type of training organization), the tasks have to go through an entire process including having the customer (the unit receiving the trained individual) saying "yea verily", this task is something we need...

I got to call BS on this one Gunner.  I was a USAF training manager for many years.  There is NO formal procedure for most tasks to be certified by outside agencies....You just make them up, provide the training reference and press on.

I got no problem with local training standards for local training issues.  In the case of HMRS....standard GTM training does not fit their need so they add training.  No need to ask for permission.  No need to seek accredidation.

[sarmed1]

When I say HMRS specific task, I am refering to those not part of the National Curriculum, that Hawk teaches because they are part of what people (customers) are expecting out of PA's Ranger teams (or what they sell themselves as being capable of doing  They do constant program review at looking what tasks they are doing, are they usefull do they need to be updated or eliminated.  Rope rescue work is one of these areas:as the outside standards evolve so do the task for Ranger grade progression...WIWAC pretty much all you had to do was tie a few knots, be able to demonstrate a safe rappel (2 carribiners on a piece of rope tied into a swiss seat) and describe how to raise and lower a stretcher .....today well I wont get into explaining the NFPA 1670/1006 standard.
I can speak personally from the medical side, the same thing occurs there...as those of us in the medical field know, standards change sometimes weekly.  I have been involved in helping rewrite the training curriculum and qualification standards for all 4 medical grades
mk

[Gunner C]

In the RM (and probably in any other type of training organization), the tasks have to go through an entire process including having the customer (the unit receiving the trained individual) saying "yea verily", this task is something we need...

I got to call BS on this one Gunner.  I was a USAF training manager for many years.  There is NO formal procedure for most tasks to be certified by outside agencies....You just make them up, provide the training reference and press on.

I got no problem with local training standards for local training issues.  In the case of HMRS....standard GTM training does not fit their need so they add training.  No need to ask for permission.  No need to seek accredidation.

So an AF service school just teaches what it wants to?  I'm sure that AETC has the same thing - AETC writes the training programs and the schools execute. Unit training is completely different.

[lordmonar]

So an AF service school just teaches what it wants to?  I'm sure that AETC has the same thing - AETC writes the training programs and the schools execute. Unit training is completely different.

When an AETC course is rewritten it goes through a validation phase......but HMRS is not...nor is any CAP course an AETC course.

[Gunner C]

Hello?   ::::tap, tap, tap::::  Is this thing on?   

[flyerthom]

ECSI is the program that is used for initial entry medic training; 36 hour wilderness First Aid with proffesional CPR forms the base certification.   The texts are written by AAOS.  Qualified medics (the "red Scarves") are required to have at minimum First Responder Certification, we provide via AAOS/ECSI if needed but suprising most go out and get it outside of HMRS and usually continue by running with a local fire company or ambulance squad.  Progression to the other two medical levels (Senior and Master Medic) require certification as an EMT of higher.

mk

Thabks Mark, I got ECSI mixed up with ASHI.

Tom

[BuckeyeDEJ]

In the published newsletter posted above, what the heck does Captain Kee have over his Civil Air Patrol tape!?

More questions:

What's that chain hanging off his buttonhole, and does it lead to a set of keys? That's no whistle lanyard (which should go around the neck, not be worn like a cop) — it should be tied to a dog leash.

And what's with the hat and the patch on it? Who really thinks all that silly bling is reasonable? Anyone in the Keystone State ever see CAPM 39-1? No wonder we get ridicule, when we turn out for a mission looking like the Barnum and Bailey Clown School.

/rant

[sarmed1]

No its a whistle chain.....thats the way HMRS wants it to be worn....
Of course they have seen the 39-1...however when you are told to do something/wear something by corporate officers that run the show...what do you do?  and please dont throw the integrity card/core value thing out there...

The former PAWG commander said wear the LL patch on the Left shoulder (it may even have been a policy letter), the current CC has not rescinded it

The school commander (the MOWG commander) said wear the orange/red t-shirt, pin on grade on a ball cap and ranger tabs...and will tell you it was approved by the NB, they are just waiting for it to be incorporated into the new 39-1; and he is backed by the current PAWG commander (and a few others at the NB level)

The National Commander has been there and worn her Orange hat and pretty sure they had her in an orange T-shirt (and there was no "....dont wear this when you leave 'cause its not really legal..." speech at the end)
http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/summer.htm....about 3/4 of the way down

And no they dont have a supplement to 39-1 (on their site or National)
No there is no published Ranger Supplement (...though I have seen the draft...even contributed some)

If you dont like it complain to NHQ...but I bet holding your breath waiting for an answer or intervention isnt a good idea


mk

[Майор Хаткевич]

No its a whistle chain.....thats the way HMRS wants it to be worn....
Of course they have seen the 39-1...however when you are told to do something/wear something by corporate officers that run the show...what do you do?  and please dont throw the integrity card/core value thing out there...

The former PAWG commander said wear the LL patch on the Left shoulder (it may even have been a policy letter), the current CC has not rescinded it

The school commander (the MOWG commander) said wear the orange/red t-shirt, pin on grade on a ball cap and ranger tabs...and will tell you it was approved by the NB, they are just waiting for it to be incorporated into the new 39-1; and he is backed by the current PAWG commander (and a few others at the NB level)

The National Commander has been there and worn her Orange hat and pretty sure they had her in an orange T-shirt (and there was no "....dont wear this when you leave 'cause its not really legal..." speech at the end)
http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/summer.htm....about 3/4 of the way down

And no they dont have a supplement to 39-1 (on their site or National)
No there is no published Ranger Supplement (...though I have seen the draft...even contributed some)

If you dont like it complain to NHQ...but I bet holding your breath waiting for an answer or intervention isnt a good idea


mk

I'll just stick with the last line on that "website": ALL LINKS SHOWN ON THIS SITE DO NOT INDICATE AN ENDORSEMENT BY CIVIL AIR PATROL OR ITS AGENTS OF THE MATERIAL OR PRODUCTS PRESENTED.  THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE END USER.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

...And no they dont have a supplement to 39-1 (on their site or National)
No there is no published Ranger Supplement (...though I have seen the draft...even contributed some)

If you dont like it complain to NHQ...but I bet holding your breath waiting for an answer or intervention isnt a good idea


mk

Wonder if CAP-USAF is aware of HMRS's uniform violations. Or HAF. After they finished laughing, what would they do?

[SilverEagle2]

See here for the documentation where the NB voted to allow them.

Hawk items are authorized on the BBDU and rumor is that they are pending the USAF for approval on the BDU.

But this was 3 years ago.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

See here for the documentation where the NB voted to allow them.

Hawk items are authorized on the BBDU and rumor is that they are pending the USAF for approval on the BDU.

But this was 3 years ago.

Jason, you and me (as well as most CAPTalkers) know RUMINT and urban legends are no way to run an organization, though we all see it in action every day. Some points, using this as a springboard:

— If the National Board authorized anything for the blue BDU, great, but where's the regulations to back it up? Other regulations are updated as needed, so why not CAPM 39-1?
— Outside of the patch, the HMRS accoutrements are NOT authorized for the woodland BDU. To the best of my knowledge, there are NO supplements to CAPM 39-1 that address said items.

So why are we discussing this here? Only because someone wants to play outside the lines, and has been allowed to for so long that it's been tacitly accepted... and a violation of the core ethics ensues. (Before you roll your eyes: The core values define everything we do, and when we fail to live up to them, we provide fodder for CAPTalk.) Is it possible for an entire wing to blow off the core values? Guess it's as possible as National Headquarters selectively issuing and updating directives... hmmm.... (groan)

Besides, what does HMRS do that can't be taught on the outside? What makes them so more special than any other groundpounder with exactly the same credentials? An orange hat and some illegal bling? OK, OK, so that was drastic, but come on.

[SilverEagle2]

To be clear, I am not advocating the wear/non wear of the items (despite having earned them myself). I was simply mentioning that the NB has voted them OK. As I understand it, that is as good as a supplement per the bylaws and constitution of CAP.

I have asked National several times when they would be included and the answer is, in the next revision of 39-1.

"Rumor" was a poor choice of a word. Once the vote was made and passed, it required approval for the woodland from the USAF. I am not sure if that has or has not occurred to date.

Further research shows that the May 2008 NEC also approved these items for wear with clarification and follow up items specifically in reference to the USAF uniform combinations. See Agenda Item 5. These minutes have been approved and finalized.

[Fuzzy]

To be clear, I am not advocating the wear/non wear of the items (despite having earned them myself). I was simply mentioning that the NB has voted them OK. As I understand it, that is as good as a supplement per the bylaws and constitution of CAP.

Dude, how does that make sense? 

So the NB approved it, but did they lay out any instruction on how to wear it? Sure the Hawk school probably has its own rules for the wear of the bling and its probably pretty straight forward (above the name tape or whatever), but for all we know the NB approved it for wear and wanted it on the right sleeve or something crazy.

CAPM 39-1, says its the sole source for uniform information so why not believe it?