CAP Talk

In looking at past posts, I've noticed a trend of strong criticism towards the some NCSA 's, particularly Hawk Mountain SAR School – Rangers, and attendees of National Blue Beret.  Mostly, the criticism is in the attitude of the attendees following their participation in events, but that can be said about some of the posters here on CAP Talk as well! 

What is the opinion out there: are these "elite" to cocky for their own good?  Are these just a few isolated instances that give the appearance of a trend?  Are these just highly confident young people that we want in our organizations and communities?  Do these NCSA's still provide something of value that doesn't already exist within the organization (i.e. the GT vs. Ranger argument) or, do they just augment or duplicate efforts? 

Please, let's try to keep this as an actual discussion and not complaint and trolling session towards a particular NCSA.  It need not be limited to Hawk Mountain/Rangers, or Blue Berets, if there are other examples you wish to discuss, please add them to the conversation. 

Is this another "academic exercise"?

There's plenty here without rehashing again.

Search is your friend.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
Is this another "academic exercise"?

There's plenty here without rehashing again.

Search is your friend.

Thanks.

So...now does anyone have any opinion on the question at hand?

Beating a dead horse...



Does not need to be rehashed...



There is an old saying that says basically the more you stir sh__, the worse it smells, so do not rehash this...



Flyer

If you read the other topics, then what new info do you expect to see in this one?

I think there are pages upon pages of "opinions" that have run this into the ground.

Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 09, 2013, 06:55:50 PM
In looking at past posts, I've noticed a trend of strong criticism towards the some NCSA 's, particularly Hawk Mountain SAR School – Rangers, and attendees of National Blue Beret.  Mostly, the criticism is in the attitude of the attendees following their participation in events, but that can be said about some of the posters here on CAP Talk as well! 

What is the opinion out there: are these "elite" to cocky for their own good?  Are these just a few isolated instances that give the appearance of a trend?  Are these just highly confident young people that we want in our organizations and communities?  Do these NCSA's still provide something of value that doesn't already exist within the organization (i.e. the GT vs. Ranger argument) or, do they just augment or duplicate efforts? 

Please, let's try to keep this as an actual discussion and not complaint and trolling session towards a particular NCSA.  It need not be limited to Hawk Mountain/Rangers, or Blue Berets, if there are other examples you wish to discuss, please add them to the conversation.

In my mind there is only one Ranger School and it's at Ft Benning.....If in fact any of those kids are cocky...well I've not news for them...they haven't earned that right

Quote from: blackrain on October 09, 2013, 08:53:00 PM

Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 09, 2013, 06:55:50 PM
In looking at past posts, I've noticed a trend of strong criticism towards the some NCSA 's, particularly Hawk Mountain SAR School – Rangers, and attendees of National Blue Beret.  Mostly, the criticism is in the attitude of the attendees following their participation in events, but that can be said about some of the posters here on CAP Talk as well! 

What is the opinion out there: are these "elite" to cocky for their own good?  Are these just a few isolated instances that give the appearance of a trend?  Are these just highly confident young people that we want in our organizations and communities?  Do these NCSA's still provide something of value that doesn't already exist within the organization (i.e. the GT vs. Ranger argument) or, do they just augment or duplicate efforts? 

Please, let's try to keep this as an actual discussion and not complaint and trolling session towards a particular NCSA.  It need not be limited to Hawk Mountain/Rangers, or Blue Berets, if there are other examples you wish to discuss, please add them to the conversation.

In my mind there is only one Ranger School and it's at Ft Benning.....If in fact any of those kids are cocky...well I've not news for them...they haven't earned that right

This is why we don't ask for opinions on Hawk
;)

Quote from: blackrain on October 09, 2013, 08:53:00 PM

Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 09, 2013, 06:55:50 PM
In looking at past posts, I've noticed a trend of strong criticism towards the some NCSA 's, particularly Hawk Mountain SAR School – Rangers, and attendees of National Blue Beret.  Mostly, the criticism is in the attitude of the attendees following their participation in events, but that can be said about some of the posters here on CAP Talk as well! 

What is the opinion out there: are these "elite" to cocky for their own good?  Are these just a few isolated instances that give the appearance of a trend?  Are these just highly confident young people that we want in our organizations and communities?  Do these NCSA's still provide something of value that doesn't already exist within the organization (i.e. the GT vs. Ranger argument) or, do they just augment or duplicate efforts? 

Please, let's try to keep this as an actual discussion and not complaint and trolling session towards a particular NCSA.  It need not be limited to Hawk Mountain/Rangers, or Blue Berets, if there are other examples you wish to discuss, please add them to the conversation.

In my mind there is only one Ranger School and it's at Ft Benning.....If in fact any of those kids are cocky...well I've not news for them...they haven't earned that right

I'll tell my Forest Ranger and Texas Ranger and NPS Ranger friends you think that they are just cocky kids.

The OP was in a way pointing out that we here on CAPTALK often go overboard in out assault on NBB or HM people for being "cocky kids".....when in fact it is just a few isolated individuals who are painting a bad picture for everyone who had done these NCSAs.


And we attack anyone who is trying to have a simple discussion about how bad the problem may be.   End of rant.

Guys....it's a youth activity.   It's not a big deal.  It really isn't.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 09, 2013, 09:05:07 PM
The OP was in a way pointing out that we here on CAPTALK often go overboard in out assault on NBB or HM people for being "cocky kids".....when in fact it is just a few isolated individuals who are painting a bad picture for everyone who had done these NCSAs.

While it just may be a few individuals, it seems that there enough of these few individuals that comprise the majority of the NBB/Hawk folks the members here seem to meet. Hence the fairly consistant attitude about them.

I've been told that I'm not supposed to judge an activity by the people I meet who have completed it but instead by what the proponents of the activity tell me it is. Well, too bad. If the product of an activity has an attitude problem afterward, I blame the activity as well as the member.

I think both Blue Beret and Hawk Mountain are good activities and they provide different training opportunities in their own way. When compared to other activities such as NESA, I don't think they duplicate efforts or even compete with each other. Again, they're different activities. They may share some training objectives and methods, but they're geared toward different overall goals. There's nothing wrong with that. If that keeps our cadets and senior members active and contributing to the organization, then where is the harm in that?

As far as the few "bad apples" that are constantly being mentioned here, they're not necessary limited to these two activities. There's always going to be people like that and that's why we have rules and regulations to deal with them. At the end of the day, they're just two more activities available to our members. And I think that's a good thing.

I know there are plenty of debates here on whether these activities "deserve" a distinctive insignia or uniform item such as the beret or the Ranger tab, but I think that's a different discussion all together.

DISCLAIMER: I have not participated in either one of these activities, so I have no vested interest or direct personal experience with them.

Quote from: arajca on October 09, 2013, 09:15:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 09, 2013, 09:05:07 PM
The OP was in a way pointing out that we here on CAPTALK often go overboard in out assault on NBB or HM people for being "cocky kids".....when in fact it is just a few isolated individuals who are painting a bad picture for everyone who had done these NCSAs.

While it just may be a few individuals, it seems that there enough of these few individuals that comprise the majority of the NBB/Hawk folks the members here seem to meet. Hence the fairly consistant attitude about them.

I've been told that I'm not supposed to judge an activity by the people I meet who have completed it but instead by what the proponents of the activity tell me it is. Well, too bad. If the product of an activity has an attitude problem afterward, I blame the activity as well as the member.

So we judge CAP on the few salute trolls or duffle bags or pedophiles?   

Yes we got our bad apples......we don't judge the harvest on the few that don't get it.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 09, 2013, 09:39:13 PM

Quote from: arajca on October 09, 2013, 09:15:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 09, 2013, 09:05:07 PM
The OP was in a way pointing out that we here on CAPTALK often go overboard in out assault on NBB or HM people for being "cocky kids".....when in fact it is just a few isolated individuals who are painting a bad picture for everyone who had done these NCSAs.

While it just may be a few individuals, it seems that there enough of these few individuals that comprise the majority of the NBB/Hawk folks the members here seem to meet. Hence the fairly consistant attitude about them.

I've been told that I'm not supposed to judge an activity by the people I meet who have completed it but instead by what the proponents of the activity tell me it is. Well, too bad. If the product of an activity has an attitude problem afterward, I blame the activity as well as the member.

So we judge CAP on the few salute trolls or duffle bags or pedophiles?   

Yes we got our bad apples......we don't judge the harvest on the few that don't get it.

If all you see, or the vast majority of them, are the bad apples, you do.

Well, where do I start?

Mind you, I came from an environment where we *had* a group level ranger program that was pretty widely known in my wing, run by guys from an AF rescue squadron, with some heavy-duty training requirements and participants who had no shortage of ego and puffery.

I went to another group's ranger program that was different, but still, there was ego & puffery. 

But then, lets not forget, teenagers are prone to ego & puffery.

However, in 32 years of association with CAP, I've never seen someone come back from AETCFC trying to convince people that they're a bad ass Air Force jet pilot.

I've never seen someone come back from COS with a "my leadership is better than your leadership" attitude.

I've never seen someone come back from PJOC and try to convince me that they're a PJ (the spectre of MSgt Miller hovers strongly over these...)

However, I have seen people return from Hawk Mtn and act like they're suddenly the leading authority on Search & Rescue.

Or tell people that because they're a Hawn Mtn medic, they're like an EMT, but better. (no kidding)

Or return from NBB with a nifty hat, some cool stories, and act like they know everything there ever is to know about tracking down an ELT.

Or go to Honor Guard Academy and come back acting like the Honor Guard Way™ is the one true way and that they're so honorable that they're going to honorably tell you about how much honor their honor has, while they "slow salute" at inappropriate times again...

Whats the common theme here?

You go to PJOC, you get cool stories and an NCSA patch.  No hat, no beanie, no ascots...

You go to AETCFC, you get some photos, and an NCSA patch. Maybe a t-shirt. No whistle, no pistol belt, no ranger tab...

You go to COS and you learn a lot about a lot of things. You might get a cool t-shirt, perhaps a patch.  Not a new way of wearing your uniform that isn't reflected in the regulations.

Is it telling that the couple years they stopped calling NBB "Blue Beret" and didn't authorize a beret, attendance dropped by 2/3?

I've been to Hawk Mountain: they don't tell their rangers "Hey, go out and act like a knucklehead, heres your patch authorizing it."  (side note: the LL patch and the ranger tab are authorized by the regs. The whistle, pistol belt & ascot worn as they are in BDUs are not. Coincidence?)

How *awesome* is a highly-trained search & rescue dude who won't turn his head further than 30 degrees off center because if he does, it causes his ascot to get all goofed up?  THAT is search & rescue?

I'm not down on people trained by Hawk Mtn.  Heck, I am one!

I'm down on people who act the fool when they shouldn't.

I'm not down on NBB. I think Oshkosh is a great event. But when people refer to fellow attendees as "berets," then I think its clear where the focus is at.  When people pitch an absolute fit because you'd rather they wore the BDU cap that EVERY OTHER DUDE IN THE UNIT is wearing, there is a problem.

I don't mind the concept of honor guard, as long as the participants understand there is a time and a place for their uniform, D&C and 2x4 inserted in the tailpipe.  You don't seen A1C Bagodonuts, the personnel shop clerk who is also on the Base Honor Guard at Burpleson AFB slow saluting or wearing his honor guard uniform when he's not doing honor guard duty, do you?

Do cool things. Be a part of the team.

You guys rehash the same stuff every time. It's an activity for KIDS!!!

I seriously can not believe we are going to rehash the same things over NCSA's...

Quote from: NIN on October 09, 2013, 09:52:26 PM
Well, where do I start?

Mind you, I came from an environment where we *had* a group level ranger program that was pretty widely known in my wing, run by guys from an AF rescue squadron, with some heavy-duty training requirements and participants who had no shortage of ego and puffery.

I went to another group's ranger program that was different, but still, there was ego & puffery. 

But then, lets not forget, teenagers are prone to ego & puffery.

However, in 32 years of association with CAP, I've never seen someone come back from AETCFC trying to convince people that they're a bad ass Air Force jet pilot.

I've never seen someone come back from COS with a "my leadership is better than your leadership" attitude.

I've never seen someone come back from PJOC and try to convince me that they're a PJ (the spectre of MSgt Miller hovers strongly over these...)

However, I have seen people return from Hawk Mtn and act like they're suddenly the leading authority on Search & Rescue.

Or tell people that because they're a Hawn Mtn medic, they're like an EMT, but better. (no kidding)

Or return from NBB with a nifty hat, some cool stories, and act like they know everything there ever is to know about tracking down an ELT.

Or go to Honor Guard Academy and come back acting like the Honor Guard Way™ is the one true way and that they're so honorable that they're going to honorably tell you about how much honor their honor has, while they "slow salute" at inappropriate times again...

Whats the common theme here?

You go to PJOC, you get cool stories and an NCSA patch.  No hat, no beanie, no ascots...

You go to AETCFC, you get some photos, and an NCSA patch. Maybe a t-shirt. No whistle, no pistol belt, no ranger tab...

You go to COS and you learn a lot about a lot of things. You might get a cool t-shirt, perhaps a patch.  Not a new way of wearing your uniform that isn't reflected in the regulations.

Is it telling that the couple years they stopped calling NBB "Blue Beret" and didn't authorize a beret, attendance dropped by 2/3?

I've been to Hawk Mountain: they don't tell their rangers "Hey, go out and act like a knucklehead, heres your patch authorizing it."  (side note: the LL patch and the ranger tab are authorized by the regs. The whistle, pistol belt & ascot worn as they are in BDUs are not. Coincidence?)

How *awesome* is a highly-trained search & rescue dude who won't turn his head further than 30 degrees off center because if he does, it causes his ascot to get all goofed up?  THAT is search & rescue?

I'm not down on people trained by Hawk Mtn.  Heck, I am one!

I'm down on people who act the fool when they shouldn't.

I'm not down on NBB. I think Oshkosh is a great event. But when people refer to fellow attendees as "berets," then I think its clear where the focus is at.  When people pitch an absolute fit because you'd rather they wore the BDU cap that EVERY OTHER DUDE IN THE UNIT is wearing, there is a problem.

I don't mind the concept of honor guard, as long as the participants understand there is a time and a place for their uniform, D&C and 2x4 inserted in the tailpipe.  You don't seen A1C Bagodonuts, the personnel shop clerk who is also on the Base Honor Guard at Burpleson AFB slow saluting or wearing his honor guard uniform when he's not doing honor guard duty, do you?

Do cool things. Be a part of the team.

In our last rehash I posted my still evolving theory. HMRS/NBB/HGA don't make bling loving knuckleheads, but the bling hunters choose those activities because of the bling.

I haven't met a HMRS grad yet, but my very first positive impression of CAP came from an NBB grad.

I was visiting the squadron for the first time, my wife had dropped our son off and I went to pick him up after work. I had chatted with the other SMs for a little bit and they invited me outside to watch closing formation. I knew the CDC's son was this one cadet wearing a beret.

The cadets form up, the elements leaders report to this beret kid and then he walks up to the CDC, performs a snappy salute and states "All cadets present, Ma'am". It was at this point I started falling in love with the cadet program. Not many teenagers I knew of would show such respect to their mothers.

This cadet was awesome, never had a bad attitude, always made sure that if there was a problem anywhere he took appropriate leadership responsibility for his part and was generally fun to be with. Oh, yeah, he's also a Marine infantryman with two tours in the Sandbox now.

Just throwin' a good example out there...

Personally, I'd like to do both programs, they seem like a heck of a lot of fun.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 09, 2013, 10:15:04 PM
In our last rehash I posted my still evolving theory. HMRS/NBB/HGA don't make bling loving knuckleheads, but the bling hunters choose those activities because of the bling.

^^ This.  Very much this.

Quote from: arajca on October 09, 2013, 09:50:42 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 09, 2013, 09:39:13 PM

Quote from: arajca on October 09, 2013, 09:15:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 09, 2013, 09:05:07 PM
The OP was in a way pointing out that we here on CAPTALK often go overboard in out assault on NBB or HM people for being "cocky kids".....when in fact it is just a few isolated individuals who are painting a bad picture for everyone who had done these NCSAs.

While it just may be a few individuals, it seems that there enough of these few individuals that comprise the majority of the NBB/Hawk folks the members here seem to meet. Hence the fairly consistant attitude about them.

I've been told that I'm not supposed to judge an activity by the people I meet who have completed it but instead by what the proponents of the activity tell me it is. Well, too bad. If the product of an activity has an attitude problem afterward, I blame the activity as well as the member.

So we judge CAP on the few salute trolls or duffle bags or pedophiles?   

Yes we got our bad apples......we don't judge the harvest on the few that don't get it.

If all you see, or the vast majority of them, are the bad apples, you do.

If all you look for are the bad apples....that's all you are going to see.

And with that I'm done with this topic.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 10, 2013, 12:57:53 AM
If all you look for are the bad apples....that's all you are going to see.

That's all there >is< to see, because it's only the bad apples that draw attention to themselves.
HMRS participants can't do anything anyone else can, so the "good apples" (I like Red delicious)
simply fall into ranks and do their thing like everyone else, and you may never even know they went.

My issue is specifically regarding performance, which, in my direct and specific experience was
sorely lacking and disappointing from about 3 different vectors.

(http://blog.pennlive.com/italian-kitchen/2009/03/large_Corned%20Beef%20Hash%20and%20Eggs.jpg)
Here's some eggs to go with the rehash - seriously, Headhunter, are you interested in anything that
hasn't been discussed to death?

I think we should just turn this into a uniform thread  ;) After all, why waste a good thread that mentions the words beret and BDU's???? All we have to do is say......wait for it................. ABUs!!!!!!!

Quote from: CAPAPRN on October 10, 2013, 03:00:38 AM
I think we should just turn this into a uniform thread  ;) After all, why waste a good thread that mentions the words beret and BDU's???? All we have to do is say......wait for it................. ABUs!!!!!!!

Man.  CAP getting ABUs would solve so many or our problems organization-wide.

Yeah, but we need to talk about which insignias and patches to include.

Should we use the current CAP and nametapes in ultramarine blue, or do we go with these tapes in Navy blue? And change from white to silver?

Do ya think the US flag should be kept?

Let's ask for ABU shorts as well, to use in PR, FL and Hawaii when the sun is hot...

Flyer

Quote from: lordmonar on October 09, 2013, 09:05:07 PM

Quote from: blackrain on October 09, 2013, 08:53:00 PM

Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 09, 2013, 06:55:50 PM
In looking at past posts, I've noticed a trend of strong criticism towards the some NCSA 's, particularly Hawk Mountain SAR School – Rangers, and attendees of National Blue Beret.  Mostly, the criticism is in the attitude of the attendees following their participation in events, but that can be said about some of the posters here on CAP Talk as well! 

What is the opinion out there: are these "elite" to cocky for their own good?  Are these just a few isolated instances that give the appearance of a trend?  Are these just highly confident young people that we want in our organizations and communities?  Do these NCSA's still provide something of value that doesn't already exist within the organization (i.e. the GT vs. Ranger argument) or, do they just augment or duplicate efforts? 

Please, let's try to keep this as an actual discussion and not complaint and trolling session towards a particular NCSA.  It need not be limited to Hawk Mountain/Rangers, or Blue Berets, if there are other examples you wish to discuss, please add them to the conversation.

In my mind there is only one Ranger School and it's at Ft Benning.....If in fact any of those kids are cocky...well I've not news for them...they haven't earned that right

I'll tell my Forest Ranger and Texas Ranger and NPS Ranger friends you think that they are just cocky kids.

The OP was in a way pointing out that we here on CAPTALK often go overboard in out assault on NBB or HM people for being "cocky kids".....when in fact it is just a few isolated individuals who are painting a bad picture for everyone who had done these NCSAs.


And we attack anyone who is trying to have a simple discussion about how bad the problem may be.   End of rant.

Apologies Mr Harris.... I was never referring to the very professional entities which you mentioned. I knew they were Rangers but I never knew they attended training that was formally called "Ranger School"

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2013, 01:37:10 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 10, 2013, 12:57:53 AM
If all you look for are the bad apples....that's all you are going to see.

That's all there >is< to see, because it's only the bad apples that draw attention to themselves.
HMRS participants can't do anything anyone else can, so the "good apples" (I like Red delicious)
simply fall into ranks and do their thing like everyone else, and you may never even know they went.

My issue is specifically regarding performance, which, in my direct and specific experience was
sorely lacking and disappointing from about 3 different vectors.

(http://blog.pennlive.com/italian-kitchen/2009/03/large_Corned%20Beef%20Hash%20and%20Eggs.jpg)
Here's some eggs to go with the rehash - seriously, Headhunter, are you interested in anything that
hasn't been discussed to death?

Eclipse, are you a troll or moderator? I mean historically, we could just as easily discuss your posts and attitudes. I respect your lifelong CAP achievements, but please, being an attitudinal troll and trying to bully others on their posts only paints a poor impression of yourself, which I hope you don't take back to a unit and share with youth. 

ABU's would fix everything.  ;)

Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 10, 2013, 05:11:24 AMEclipse, are you a troll or moderator? I mean historically, we could just as easily discuss your posts and attitudes. I respect your lifelong CAP achievements, but please, being an attitudinal troll and trying to bully others on their posts only paints a poor impression of yourself, which I hope you don't take back to a unit and share with youth. 

Nice try.

Again, what's the point of asking the same question that's been answered 20 times at length, especially to a non-member?

It seems as if something is missing. 

There is all this critique of these programs and/or those that attend, but what is being done with attendees afterwards?  How is all of that "attitude" and excitement that members have following their achievements getting redirected afterwards in their units and community? Is it being capitalized on? 

The benefit of these programs (outside of unique training & experience) seems to be the output of motivated folks who just need purpose, direction and guidance.  Has anyone figured out a way to capitalize on that?

Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 10, 2013, 05:37:51 AM
It seems as if something is missing. 

There is all this critique of these programs and/or those that attend, but what is being done with attendees afterwards?  How is all of that "attitude" and excitement that members have following their achievements getting redirected afterwards in their units and community? Is it being capitalized on? 

The benefit of these programs (outside of unique training & experience) seems to be the output of motivated folks who just need purpose, direction and guidance.  Has anyone figured out a way to capitalize on that?

When members return to their units with what is essentially a chip on their shoulder, declare that the Hawk Way is the right way, and refuse to conform to the regs, it's hard to capitalize on their misdirection.

I joined CAP in 1964 as a 15 yo cadet, in NJWG. I heard about Hawk from PAWG and HJWG cadets who had attended, and even back then, there were those who had the holier-than-thou attitude. Not all of those graduates I met were like that, but certainly enough to sour me, and others, about Hawk.

Eh.

Let me repeat:  Eh.

They're kids.  Let them have their day in the sun before the responsibilities of adult life rears its ugly head and imposes itself upon them.

And let's face it.  Teenagers are always going to just naturally assume they know everything there is to know.

I agree with letting them be kids up to a point, however when the "attitude" becomes disruptive to others and the unit, then it has to be dealt with.  When I ran WTA in WAWG, I had a new cadet commander for the activity who was a Hawk graduate and wanted to wear his "Hat" and other stuff, I simply sat down with him and talked about leadership and setting an example. The problem went away, and he was an outstanding cadet commander for the activity. 

So in reality, it is not the cadet per say, but rather, how we as seniors address the situation.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2013, 01:37:10 AM
(http://blog.pennlive.com/italian-kitchen/2009/03/large_Corned%20Beef%20Hash%20and%20Eggs.jpg)

Dang, that looks so-o-o much better than the oatmeal I had for breakfast this morning...

Quote from: blackrain on October 09, 2013, 08:53:00 PM
In my mind there is only one Ranger School and it's at Ft Benning.....If in fact any of those kids are cocky...well I've not news for them...they haven't earned that right

the underlying basis of this sentiment could be applied to so many other things, epscially in a CAP context, and I would be carefull throwing it around as gospel...

mk

Walkman, given the time scope of your story, that beret cadet was wearing it when he knew it wasn't authorized.

Quote from: Panache on October 10, 2013, 09:04:21 AM
They're kids.  Let them have their day in the sun before the responsibilities of adult life rears its ugly head and imposes itself upon them.

And let's face it.  Teenagers are always going to just naturally assume they know everything there is to know.

Where is the idea that only kids cadets attend HMRS and NBB?

I'd say at least 50% of the issues I've had have been with adult members, including the situation where they failed to perform properly but did exhibit the
very attitude that causes the ongoing issues.

My position was that without the cadet program, there would be no Ranger or NBB.  Adults participate and are active, but in support of the cadets.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 10, 2013, 03:08:04 PMAdults participate and are active, but in support of the cadets.

This isn't the case for either activity.  You are probably right in terms of manpower and the sustainability of the activity itself, but adult members are there as trainees and participants, not just staff.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2013, 02:35:26 PM

Quote from: Panache on October 10, 2013, 09:04:21 AM
They're kids.  Let them have their day in the sun before the responsibilities of adult life rears its ugly head and imposes itself upon them.

And let's face it.  Teenagers are always going to just naturally assume they know everything there is to know.

Where is the idea that only kids cadets attend HMRS and NBB?

I'd say at least 50% of the issues I've had have been with adult members, including the situation where they failed to perform properly but did exhibit the
very attitude that causes the ongoing issues.

interesting statistic?  50%.  Out of how many instances. 2....10.....100?
Honestly (other than yours) I have seen more examples of "...I have/had this cadet who________....."   leaning more towards flying pigs argument than yours.....

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on October 10, 2013, 03:27:17 PMinteresting statistic?  50%.  Out of how many instances. 2....10.....100?
Honestly (other than yours) I have seen more examples of "...I have/had this cadet who________....."   leaning more towards flying pigs argument than yours.....

I can't argue that - day-to-day the majority of the issue is bound to be cadets with attitude causing issues since they both
make up a larger cadre and are also more inclined towards that sort of nonsense.

I had a singular experience with them in a real-world, large-scale event with very poor results.  Their attitude, not to mention
the reaction of their wing leadership at the time, and follow-on actions told me pretty much all I needed to know.

SHTF, they had the opportunity to either "rise up and show the world, or act as expected", they did the latter. 

You can't make a second first impression.

NIN

QuoteOr tell people that because they're a Hawn Mtn medic, they're like an EMT, but better. (no kidding)

No kidding; as someone that works full time in the EMS field, this isnt always a stretch.... there have been a number of people I have encountered (in or out of HMRS) that arent EMT's that have a much better grasp of the actuall responsibilites and level of competency then some of the partners I have had over the years.

But point taken

mk

Reruns... I love reruns.... ;) 

On a serious note worth restating; CAP will close down any activity which is not performing up to minimum standards regarding the proper feeding of its cadets.  It happened to PJOC in 2002(?) for a year. 

It's been said many times; cadets will get an attitude, at times, when they accomplish things most do not.  It's our "jobs", as mentors and teachers, to remind them they must adhere to our "core values".  Maybe add in some instruction on humility....

^ Then why multiply the attitude by continuing to allow "devices of office" to be worn outside the activities?

There's nothing "special" about the activities, nor the training (at least in a CAP context), yet this is allowed to persist, which,
frankly, is the core of the problem - members who feel "special" because they went to an NCSA while never having actually "done something, while other members with an actual track record have to deal with the "special".

That's the problem.

As I said before, I'm sure both of these are good activities. The (potential) problem may be with the "elite" mentality that may develop in some individuals from a portion of the training, specifically the part geared toward earning the Blue Beret and Ranger tabs.

It's hard for some teenagers (and even some adults) not to get a "big head", once they become a "Blue Beret" or a "Ranger". The Blue Beret Creed, for example, starts with "I am a Blue Beret" and states that "to wear the Blue Beret is a great honor". Whether intentional or not, this type of training can become somewhat of an indoctrination that I doubt stays at NBB once participants are done with the activity.

The Ranger Creed for Hawk Mountain starts with "It is my duty as a member of the Rangers of the Civil Air Patrol ground search & rescue service..." As far as I know, such service doesn't exist, but when members come back to their home units, I can see how it would be hard to convince them otherwise; that while the training and experience they received may have been great, they're not part of an elite team but members of CAP just like everyone else. Their HMR training doesn't confer then any additional privileges or qualifications beyond the Ops Quals attained though the standard ES training program.

Again, I'm not opposed to these activities. Heck, I've even considered attending at some point. But maybe the "elite" part of the training needs to be tempered a bit. The fact that participants can earn special uniform items doesn't help mitigate the potential attitude that some participants may display when they return home.

3 Pages so far.......  do I hear a fourth!!!???

Quote from: sarmed1 on October 10, 2013, 03:35:30 PM
NIN

QuoteOr tell people that because they're a Hawn Mtn medic, they're like an EMT, but better. (no kidding)

No kidding; as someone that works full time in the EMS field, this isnt always a stretch.... there have been a number of people I have encountered (in or out of HMRS) that arent EMT's that have a much better grasp of the actuall responsibilites and level of competency then some of the partners I have had over the years.

But point taken

Hawk Mtn Medic's kit at a CAP event

BP Cuff, 'scope, tacticool C-Collar...

I'm not sure how much of that is "outside of CAP's scope of care"

Nice hat......  I think SAR teams quite wearing those in about 1982

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 10, 2013, 05:09:40 PM
3 Pages so far.......  do I hear a fourth!!!???

I wonder if this is what HeadHunter had in mind when he started this thread?

Im sure it is.....

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 10, 2013, 05:21:42 PM
Nice hat......  I think SAR teams quite wearing those in about 1982

Judging by the condition, that one was unearthed in the Crimea circa 1900....

Love it.

A C-Collar and BP Cuff but only one pair of gloves.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 10, 2013, 05:09:40 PM3 Pages so far.......  do I hear a fourth!!!???

At this point, it's still Page 1 for me ;)

How? I thought I SeT mine to max? Your post is #3 on pg2 for me

At the point of the post I quoted, it was still page one. My reply folded to #3 on #2, like you see it.

I'm disappointed that the owner of that helmet didn't use a red marker to change DANGER to RANGER.

Mike

Quote from: sardak on October 10, 2013, 09:41:02 PM
I'm disappointed that the owner of that helmet didn't use a red marker to change DANGER to RANGER.

Mike

Freudilan slip?

Eclipse-

There are more gloves under the hard hat...

8)

[Edit] Darn, still three pages!

Flyer

Go to Profile, Look and Layout, and change Messages to display per page: to 50.

Huh, didn't know that.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2013, 04:04:52 PM
^ Then why multiply the attitude by continuing to allow "devices of office" to be worn outside the activities?

There's nothing "special" about the activities, nor the training (at least in a CAP context), yet this is allowed to persist, which,
frankly, is the core of the problem - members who feel "special" because they went to an NCSA while never having actually "done something, while other members with an actual track record have to deal with the "special".

That's the problem.

Heck, I can make this a uniform thread... ;D
BDU's and BBDU's are filled with patches of activities past and present.  I was thinking; maybe as a fundraiser... charge fees to allow a member to wear a patch, any patch.  I wonder how that will turn out?  ;D ;D :o >:D

Quote from: FW on October 11, 2013, 12:45:08 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2013, 04:04:52 PM
^ Then why multiply the attitude by continuing to allow "devices of office" to be worn outside the activities?

There's nothing "special" about the activities, nor the training (at least in a CAP context), yet this is allowed to persist, which,
frankly, is the core of the problem - members who feel "special" because they went to an NCSA while never having actually "done something, while other members with an actual track record have to deal with the "special".

That's the problem.

Heck, I can make this a uniform thread... ;D
BDU's and BBDU's are filled with patches of activities past and present.  I was thinking; maybe as a fundraiser... charge fees to allow a member to wear a patch, any patch.  I wonder how that will turn out?  ;D ;D :o >:D

It started as a uniform thread, and participants at these activities already get a patch just like everyone else, and a decoration.

Apparently that isn't "special" enough.

We already charge members an annual fee to wear their patches.  The license is in small print on the back of the ID card.

What if CAP got helicopters?  Then Rangers could rappel from CAP R22s and then they could be Air Assault Rangers.  They could get another badge and aspiring helicopter pilots could build time! 

Discuss?

Then NHQ would have to issue a new set of ES specialties.

Helicopter Mission Pilot.

Helicopter Transport Pilot.

Would a Flight Marshaller now be able to marshal a helicopter? I do not know, I never finished training for that specialty. Can someone else comment?

Mission Observer and Mission Scanner would have to be treated similarly.

NHQ would not need to stop using Aircraft Ground Handling, just rename it to Airplane Ground Handling and issue a new one, Helicopter Ground Handling.

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 11, 2013, 03:01:26 PMWould a Flight Marshaller now be able to marshal a helicopter? I do not know, I never finished training for that specialty. Can someone else comment?

GTMs can.

Salad Shooter Retro Commercial 1994 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvL-I3Dfeqc#)

Helicopter pilots done really care what the ground marshaler says anyway.   I like sitting in a 3' hover while I watch the ground guy flap his arms up and down like hes trying to fly.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 11, 2013, 03:14:27 PM
Helicopter pilots done really care what the ground marshaler says anyway.   I like sitting in a 3' hover while I watch the ground guy flap his arms up and down like hes trying to fly.

Time to clean my keyboard again for spilling coffee all over it.

Quote from: vento on October 11, 2013, 04:54:18 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 11, 2013, 03:14:27 PM
Helicopter pilots done really care what the ground marshaler says anyway.   I like sitting in a 3' hover while I watch the ground guy flap his arms up and down like hes trying to fly.

Time to clean my keyboard again for spilling coffee all over it.

Flying Pig speaks the truth!

On a Chinook, once the FE/CE has the load in sight from the cargo hole, the pilots are listening to him on the ICS and not paying any attention to the marshaller.

We were hooking some shotgun HUMVEEs or something once, and I'm working the hook to the hookup guys atop the load when the pilot comes on the intercom and says "Chief, you gotta see the guy out here waving his arms around. Is everything cool back there?"

Me: "Yessir, I need forward 10 and down 5.."

Pilot: "Thats funny, cuz he's telling me I need to back up.. or maybe its go up.. Hell, I don't think he knows what he wants!"

Me: "Forward 5 and down 2, sir. We're just over the load now.  Forward 3..2..1... hold your forward. Hold your forward..."

Co-Pilot: "Guy's telling us to go up now, for sure, chief."

Me: "The hook is still 3 ft over the guy's head, sir. Down 3, drifting slightly forward.  Hold your forward, down three."

Co-pilot: "Now he's waving his hands around... "

Me: "Load being hooked.. load is hooked, hookup man is clear."

Co-Pilot: "He's dancing like he's got ants in his pants, chief."

Me: "You're clear to come up 15, sir.  Slings coming tight..slings tight, load's coming light... Load's off 1..2...3...4...5..."

In our debriefing later that day, I told the SF E-6 who was marshaling us "A) Don't stand on a 15 ft high berm 45 ft in front of a Chinook unless you want the worst haircut ever; and B) Once we're over the load, we don't care about you anymore. Seriously. Just stop."

Doing it in the Huey is funny because 90% of the time the marshaler cant even look at you because of the rotor wash..... those that remember eye protection you cant tell if they are trying to keep their balance or trying to give you signals!

Quote from: NIN on October 11, 2013, 05:41:15 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 11, 2013, 03:14:27 PM
Helicopter pilots done really care what the ground marshaler says anyway.

...the pilots are listening to him on the ICS and not paying any attention to the marshaller.

Exactly. I remember going into an LZ (ok, it was a softball field, but still...) in Korea one day in my Huey and the unit sent out a marshaller. I asked my co-pilot, after the crew chief told us we were clear of obstacles, "I wonder if that guy really thinks we are paying any attention to him?"

Even if the marshaller was trained, it was just as easy to land with the crew chief clearing the tail over obstacles and letting us know if we were landing somewhere unsuitable.

Ive gone into an LZ before on NVGs and all of the SAR volunteers from the neighboring county thought they were doing me a huge favor by circling their vehicles and facing their headlights inwards with their highbeams on.   After I couldn't get anyone to answer up on the radio I just flipped up my goggles and went in unaided.   Even then..... there was a dude marshaling. 

Biggest thing with helicopters is just let the pilot know where you want them to land.  They will do the rest.  About the only thing a pilot would need would be a wave off in case there was some unforeseen situation the pilot isn't able to see.   It doesn't hurt at all to marshal.   Just don't get upset if the pilot does something else.

The turbine helicopters I fly operationally all have 2-3 minute cool down periods (MD500, OH58, UH1H).  Ive had people as soon as my skids touch the ground are already giving me the "cut" sign for the engine.  One guy at a static display got really agitated that I wasn't shutting down to the point where he walked up to the helicopter and yelled "Shut it Down!"  Afterwards I explained to him what was going on and he had no idea. Bottom line, unless Im on fire and its obvious the pilot doesn't know......  let the crew fly their machine.

So far I think this discussion has offered far more benefit that debating the attitudes of kids after an activity.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 11, 2013, 01:35:41 PM

Quote from: FW on October 11, 2013, 12:45:08 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2013, 04:04:52 PM
^ Then why multiply the attitude by continuing to allow "devices of office" to be worn outside the activities?

There's nothing "special" about the activities, nor the training (at least in a CAP context), yet this is allowed to persist, which,
frankly, is the core of the problem - members who feel "special" because they went to an NCSA while never having actually "done something, while other members with an actual track record have to deal with the "special".

That's the problem.

Heck, I can make this a uniform thread... ;D
BDU's and BBDU's are filled with patches of activities past and present.  I was thinking; maybe as a fundraiser... charge fees to allow a member to wear a patch, any patch.  I wonder how that will turn out?  ;D ;D :o >:D

It started as a uniform thread, and participants at these activities already get a patch just like everyone else, and a decoration.

Apparently that isn't "special" enough.

We already charge members an annual fee to wear their patches.  The license is in small print on the back of the ID card.

No it did not........:(

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 11, 2013, 03:01:26 PM
Would a Flight Marshaller now be able to marshal a helicopter? I do not know, I never finished training for that specialty. Can someone else comment?

Yes we can now......helo ops are part of what I teach when I teach flight line marshaling.

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on October 11, 2013, 06:16:49 PM
Even if the marshaller was trained, it was just as easy to land with the crew chief clearing the tail over obstacles and letting us know if we were landing somewhere unsuitable.

"Clear of the final barriers, clear down right and rear..."

Quote from: lordmonar on October 11, 2013, 07:44:41 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 11, 2013, 01:35:41 PM

Quote from: FW on October 11, 2013, 12:45:08 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2013, 04:04:52 PM
^ Then why multiply the attitude by continuing to allow "devices of office" to be worn outside the activities?

There's nothing "special" about the activities, nor the training (at least in a CAP context), yet this is allowed to persist, which,
frankly, is the core of the problem - members who feel "special" because they went to an NCSA while never having actually "done something, while other members with an actual track record have to deal with the "special".

That's the problem.

Heck, I can make this a uniform thread... ;D
BDU's and BBDU's are filled with patches of activities past and present.  I was thinking; maybe as a fundraiser... charge fees to allow a member to wear a patch, any patch.  I wonder how that will turn out?  ;D ;D :o >:D

It started as a uniform thread, and participants at these activities already get a patch just like everyone else, and a decoration.

Apparently that isn't "special" enough.

We already charge members an annual fee to wear their patches.  The license is in small print on the back of the ID card.

No it did not........:(

A uniform item was in the subject line, and for the most part the only real angst about these activities stems directly from the
unwarranted elitism engendered in the participants by the uniform items these activities confer.

Absent those, both are simply NCSAs, no more, no less, and we would not have 1/2 the issues we do in this regard.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

Okay....we get it....you hate the beret and the ranger bling.

But Headhunter asked a legitimate question....and specifically said let's not start bashing.....he was trying to find out how wide spread the "problem" is.

Instead of getting an answer he got attacked......and here we are.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 11, 2013, 08:49:16 PM
Do you see the hypocrisy?

No.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 11, 2013, 08:49:16 PM
Okay....we get it....you hate the beret and the ranger bling.

Again, incorrect.  I don't care one way or the other what they do at those activities.  See the above and 1 million lines of
comments by others for the actual issue.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 11, 2013, 08:49:16 PM
But Headhunter asked a legitimate question....and specifically said let's not start bashing.....he was trying to find out how wide spread the "problem" is.

First off, why?  Another non-member who's "curious".  No skin in the game, no way to understand the paradigm, and
no reason to care either way.

How do you answer a question about "why don't you like 'x' " without telling "why you don't like 'x' "

There is literally no answer that hasn't been typed 100 times, so anyone "curious" can simply use the search function and not reengaging.
"But why is important?"  If you don't want to "rehash", just don't respond.
Because the nature of the net is that people only read the first two sentences of the first paragraph of a Google search, so when you "rehash",
that floats to the top.  Leave a 1/2-baked idea or incomplete answer, and the next thing yo know you're hearing it parroted at unit meetings.  BTDT.

Lastly, I didn't see anyone "bashing", myself included - I asked "a legitimate question" about hit "legitimate question" and responded in the exact way
I would if asked in person.

Can we get back to more relevant topics?

[attachment deleted by admin]

Quote from: lordmonar on October 11, 2013, 08:49:16 PM
Do you see the hypocrisy?

But Headhunter asked a legitimate question....

Instead of getting an answer he got attacked......and here we are.

Ok I shall bite a little. I have no knowledge of hawk so I can't truly comment one way or another.

But on NBB it's a different story.

It has taken me a long time to come to this conclusion, and yes I shall admit I was a little blinded by my attendance to NBB.

NBB in the past has had issues. With attitude of cadets returning home, over emphasis on the hat, lack of consistent return (IE quals not loaded into the system ext) and a couple other items.

Someone pointed out that the beret creed was odd at best in the wording and it has just piled on from that point. Some of the criticism is legitimate and others are sort of far out there.

But, with NHQ having an application process for activity director this year these items can be addressed depending on the selection made by NHQ. I know a couple of the "old timers" who put in an application and I know a couple "new age thinkers" that also did.

Some of the things like the creed, training and ops quals issues can be fixed rather easy. Others (like some of the entitlement attitudes seen in some cadets and seniors) needs a little push to move along to the 21st century.

Is NBB perfect? No, no way. Is anything in CAP perfect? Nope. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely! Will it? We shall see. 

New member, thank you.

The OP will reach far and high in CAP with this attitude, right? Now comment how do 

::)

you feel?

Flyer

Lighten up, Francis! (http://forums.cadetstuff.org/images/smilies/icon_drillsergeant.gif)

[Formerly directed at a now removed post. Nothing to see here. Move along.]

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 11, 2013, 07:09:08 PM
Ive gone into an LZ before on NVGs and all of the SAR volunteers from the neighboring county thought they were doing me a huge favor by circling their vehicles and facing their headlights inwards with their highbeams on.   After I couldn't get anyone to answer up on the radio I just flipped up my goggles and went in unaided.   Even then..... there was a dude marshaling. 

Biggest thing with helicopters is just let the pilot know where you want them to land.  They will do the rest.  About the only thing a pilot would need would be a wave off in case there was some unforeseen situation the pilot isn't able to see.   It doesn't hurt at all to marshal.   Just don't get upset if the pilot does something else.

The turbine helicopters I fly operationally all have 2-3 minute cool down periods (MD500, OH58, UH1H).  Ive had people as soon as my skids touch the ground are already giving me the "cut" sign for the engine.  One guy at a static display got really agitated that I wasn't shutting down to the point where he walked up to the helicopter and yelled "Shut it Down!"  Afterwards I explained to him what was going on and he had no idea. Bottom line, unless Im on fire and its obvious the pilot doesn't know......  let the crew fly their machine.

So far I think this discussion has offered far more benefit that debating the attitudes of kids after an activity.

Do you just want us to put out an inverted "Y" and let you figure it out for yourself?

Quote from: ol'fido on October 12, 2013, 12:28:48 AM
Do you just want us to put out an inverted "Y" and let you figure it out for yourself?

That's always been my preference.

Parking lights would work.  High beams and NVGs are not very compatible.  Finding out of the crew has NVGs would be a good start also.  Generally, if they are flying in the mountains at night.... they'll have them.

 :clap:

The "ideal" would be a LZ defined with IR Cyclume sticks. Made just for NVG's.

<cues the Jeopardy music>

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

Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2013, 04:33:53 AM
The "ideal" would be a LZ defined with IR Cyclume sticks. Made just for NVG's.

Id agree with that... "NVGs for $500 please"

Perhaps this topic was doomed from the start, but I'll give it a chance to avoid the lock button.

Perhaps discuss how the attitudes and perceptions have changed over the years at the programs that are set up to be "elite" (including the programs of this type that are now closed, or have re-opened). 

Or discuss what would make them better programs and better integrated into CAP - what role they could play.

I think the idea WAS to derail the thread.... not salvage it. 

Maybe better off talking about kittens or something in theory, but still against the rules.  This particular topic probably doesn't need any help at all getting derailed.  Just sayin.

Quote from: JC004 on October 12, 2013, 09:35:05 PM
Perhaps this topic was doomed from the start, but I'll give it a chance to avoid the lock button.

Perhaps discuss how the attitudes and perceptions have changed over the years at the programs that are set up to be "elite" (including the programs of this type that are now closed, or have re-opened). 

Or discuss what would make them better programs and better integrated into CAP - what role they could play.

I'll take "attitudes and perceptions" for $500.

Back in the day, the early to mid 80's to be exact, members of our unit decried the PA Ranger program. We even had a song about them that wasn't too nice. We thought we were the bee's knees, humping the Georgia mountains during summer with our field gear and PRC-77s, and in the winter on our annual FTX to the Alabama wilds, complete with parachute tents and midnight navigation courses. We thought we were the elite, and we were. In Georgia.

Nowadays, I feel that attitude belongs in the past. The schools we send our cadets and seniors to in order to further their skills are pretty good. I've heard nothing but good things about PAWG Rangers, LESA, WESS, and the like. I like to think I have a lot of knowledge to pass on at the local level, but that's local. I've never been to a school outside of my wing, so my knowledge of what goes on there is very limited to "Gee, Major, I had a swell time at _______! I can't wait to go again! Golly gee!" I like to think that the five or so members we are sending to WESS over the next few weekends will come back with something to teach ME. Makes my job easier.

I contend that it's not the training, the knowledge, that's the issue.

It's the attitude that's seemingly ingrained.

If all they took away from the event was knowledge and friends..

At one time CAP may very well have had 1st responder ground teams that performed medical services as needed. That is no longer the CAP that we are part of, and having this being the first line in a Creed without informing them that is Creed is historical, not current ..

I mean, they may very well do that. But it seems to be about as effective as the typical real estate agent informing buyers that there is an airport nearby.

You know, the issue is that some cadets take the NBB/Ranger thing to the extreme when they come back to their home units. There's nothing wrong with the experience or the beret, it's more that some cadets come back to their units with this "the elites" vs. "the clowns" attitude and we end up with problems in the ranks because some of these individuals forget that they can be constructive as mentors.

I think cadets coming back from that type of training need to be debriefed and then made to sit through a class on harassment and elitism. I also strongly believe that the berets need to stay at the activity as a duty uniform an not worn again once they return to the unit. After all, they're already wearing any number of different badges and have ribbons or patches for their various uniforms. The beret/special uniform only compounds the elitism.

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 13, 2013, 03:55:25 PM
I think cadets coming back from that type of training need to be debriefed and then made to sit through a class on harassment and elitism.

We do this.  Extensively. 

NBB '06, '08, '12, '13

I would agree with flyboy about the debriefing aspect.  68w, I have never seen or heard of this type of debriefing...but I'm glad it is happening.  I think, overall, we could do a better job showing some cadets how to lead properly.  I think some of that happens because some SM's don't know how to lead properly.  I've seen some squadrons where elitism and cockiness is rampant, but it's not a result of attending any of these special activities.  A good leader is not the person who yells the loudest, or corrects the most number of mistakes.  It is the person who can mentor, teach, train, and help the new guys while still maintaining a positive attitude and keeping them interested in the program.  Personally, I don't have a problem with all of the bells and whistles that cadets (or SM's for that matter) earn at these activities.  I'm much more concerned with how they conduct themselves at meetings and in the field.

Quote from: SAREXinNY on October 13, 2013, 04:15:52 PM
I'm much more concerned with how they conduct themselves at meetings and in the field.

Ditto.  But leadership needs to keep an eye out for these things and nip it before it becomes a problem.

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 04:07:18 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 13, 2013, 03:55:25 PM
I think cadets coming back from that type of training need to be debriefed and then made to sit through a class on harassment and elitism.

We do this.  Extensively. 

NBB '06, '08, '12, '13

Then you may need to review your course content then. Because it doesn't seem to be getting the job done.

Quote from: SAREXinNY on October 13, 2013, 04:15:52 PM
68w, I have never seen or heard of this type of debriefing...but I'm glad it is happening. 

It's been discussed ad nauseum in the dozens of other threads on this topic.  We (the Senior and Cadet staff of NBB) make it a point to discuss elitism, decorum related to wearing the hat, how not to carry yourself as a graduate of NBB and while wearing the hat, etc, etc.  We work incredibly hard to produce good Cadets that understand how things work at Airventure, and how to take those lessons home to compliment activities at their local unit.  Please notice that I made it a point to say compliment, not change.  The way we do things at Airventure works exceptionally well at Airventure, but I don't hunt ELTs the same way in my locale as I do when I'm driving a golf cart around Wittman.  I explained this numerous times to my own Cadets, and I know that the other TAC Officers stressed the same to their Cadets. 

The point has been raised (by usafaux2004 to be precise) that the problem lies not in the types of Cadets that bling produces, but in the types of Cadets that bling attracts.  We get many Cadets at NBB each year that are only there to get a hat.  Most learn very quickly that we have a job to do and that their fixation on a piece of headgear just won't cut it.  Some don't learn that lesson quickly, or at all.  As a staff, we work diligently to ensure that those Cadets are effectively counselled and mentored in order to limit the attitudes which have stereotypically been attributed to NBB.  I personally feel that every Cadet can be mentored in this way, however I will acknowledge that in some cases we simply don't have sufficient contact time to correct pre-existing issues. 

This brings me to my final point.  What we need, as an organization, is for Unit Commanders to do their jobs.  Please understand that this is not intended to be antagonistic to the hundreds of individuals that work tirelessly to effectively command their units, although I will acknowledge that it could be taken that way.  The Commander Approval for NCSA participation exists for a reason.  CCs need to take time to very seriously consider whether or not their Cadets are ready for and capable of NCSA participation.  If they don't meet those criteria, then they need to be counselled and trained until they are.  By exercising better quality control of the Cadets going into these activities, activity staff can do a better job of training effective graduates of the same.

So >not< wearing the berets outside NBB isn't an option?

Debriefings, "commanders do your jobs", etc., etc., that's all necessary, but not wearing the HMRS and NBB stuff, that's not?

There's your easy fix, but typical of CAP, a fewself-interested loud voices in the room prevent the clear and simple fix to the detriment of the very
goals they are trying to achieve.

The only NCSA specifically intended to train members in emergency services, NESA, doesn't get involved in all this plumage,
and strangely, doesn't seem to have the same issues, yet its members and staff are some of the most active and proficient
members involved in ES, including shaping national curriculum.

Interesting.

I think I'd agree with USAFAUX2004, the activities themselves don't necessarily promote the attitude, but tend to attract
those more interested in the plumage then the training, in the same way CAP ES tends to attract whackers and others of the ilk.
(Lordmonor likes to assert that if that is what gets them there, so be it.  I, and others, disagree). 

Were I the commander of an activity which had its reputation negatively affected by a hat or a patch, I'd ask the CSAG to "Please
stop trying to 'help' me by allowing wear of same outside our activities"...

As long as NHQ allows squadrons to wear headgear other than the standard cap, ie the Woodland hat, elitism will continue. In other words, I feel the baseball caps of different colors with squadron numbers are also elitist, and thus we should not tell those NBB people not to wear the blue "thingy" on their heads.

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 13, 2013, 06:29:22 PM
As long as NHQ allows squadrons to wear headgear other than the standard cap, ie the Woodland hat, elitism will continue. In other words, I feel the baseball caps of different colors with squadron numbers are also elitist, and thus we should not tell those NBB people not to wear the blue "thingy" on their heads.

Flyer

At a unit with a squadron ball cap, >everyone< is wearing that hat, based soley on their assignment to that charter.  No elitism exists or is implied, unless you consider "esprit de corps" as "elitism", but at least in this case that "elitism", such that it is, is properly conferred.

A member wearing a blue beret wears it based on successfully completing an NCSA.  Nothing "elite" was accomplished, and they possess no skills
not locally attainable and in many (most?) cases are significantly less experienced in real-world ES operations then their active local peers, yet
elitism is not only implied, it is improperly conferred.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:17:12 PM
So >not< wearing the berets outside NBB isn't an option?

Debriefings, "commanders do your jobs", etc., etc., that's all necessary, but not wearing the HMRS and NBB stuff, that's not?

I never said it wasn't, and had no problem with not wearing mine when this was national policy.  The current argument is based on the reality of the situation we're facing right now.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:17:12 PM
There's your easy fix, but typical of CAP, a fewself-interested loud voices in the room prevent the clear and simple fix to the detriment of the very
goals they are trying to achieve.

Interesting, because my experience has been that the loudest people in this room are those who a) haven't been to one or either of the activities or b) allow one bad experience to taint their perception of them.  Surprisingly enough, we don't spend a lot of time talking about why it's essential that we wear the hat, just how one should carry themselves if they choose to (IAW the latest ICL). 

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:17:12 PM
The only NCSA specifically intended to train members in emergency services, NESA, doesn't get involved in all this plumage,
and strangely, doesn't seem to have the same issues, yet its members and staff are some of the most active and proficient
members involved in ES, including shaping national curriculum.

Interesting.

And yet graduates of the AGSAR course are allowed special dispensation to wear a Senior GTM badge, even if they are not qual'd GTLs.  Also interesting, because that sounds like something "different" than other GTM2/1s.  It may not be as noticeable as a hat or a tab, but it's still there.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:17:12 PM
I think I'd agree with USAFAUX2004, the activities themselves don't necessarily or promote the attitude, but tend to attract
those more interested in the plumage then the training, in the same way CAP ES tends to attract whackers and others of the ilk.
(Lordmonor likes to assert that if that is what gets them there, so be it.  I, and others, disagree). 

You disagree with historical precedent?  They took away the beret in the early 90s, and participation plummeted.  While I find that incredibly frustrating (it's a great experience regardless of headgear, and that's why CAP members should attend), it's the way things are.

I don't disagree people are attracted to nonsense and bling, I assert CAP, especially in regards to training and leading cadets,
is supposed to be about more then that.

If participation plummets because a hat is taken away, you're making my (our) point, and there may well be an issue with the
activity itself.  I would hazard the same would happen with HMRS, which indicates the same thing.  Both activities are fine as HAAs
in an of themselves, afford excellent opportunities and new experiences, and should stand on their own, without being "special".

If you can't get people there without a free t-shirt, then something needs to change, and it's not "bring back the free t-shirts".

For the record, I don't agree with NESA grads getting badges unless they are qualified, and I think the instance of that happening
is near zero these days.

That one must "attend to understand" is a fallacy in the same way that "you can't understand, you were never a cadet" is.  One doesn't
need to attend these to have to deal with the ramifications of the participants when they return, which is where the issue is.

Also, to assert that NHQ is allowing the wear in a vacuum is also naive at best, they made those changes at the specific request of the leadership
of those activities and the specific wing, otherwise, why would they care?  And I'm sure if the NBB or HMRS leadership requested these
"special cases" be rescinded, the CSAG would have no issue doing that.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:17:12 PMThe only NCSA specifically intended to train members in emergency services, NESA, doesn't get involved in all this plumage,
and strangely, doesn't seem to have the same issues, yet its members and staff are some of the most active and proficient
members involved in ES, including shaping national curriculum.

And yet I have had more trouble with cadets returning from NESA and Encampments then I have had cadets returning from NBB, HMRS, and HGA combined.....Interesting.

Again.....I think it is more of a "I HATE the beret" attitude that is the problem then "I'm a Blue Beret Elite" attitude.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
I don't disagree people are attracted to nonsense and bling, I assert CAP, especially in regards to training and leading cadets,
is supposed to be about more then that.

If participation plummets because a hat is taken away, you're making my (our) point, and there may well be an issue with the
activity itself.  I would hazard the same would happen with HMRS, which indicates the same thing.  Both activities are fine as HAAs
in an of themselves, afford excellent opportunities and new experiences, and should stand on their own, without being "special".

If you can't get people there without a free t-shirt, then something needs to change, and it's not "bring back the free t-shirts".

For the record, I don't agree with NESA grads getting badges unless they are qualified, and I think the instance of that happening
is near zero these days.

That one must "attend to understand" is a fallacy in the same way that "you can't understand, you were never a cadet" is.  One doesn't
need to attend these to have to deal with the ramifications of the participants when they return, which is where the issue is.

Also, to assert that NHQ is allowing the wear in a vacuum is also naive at best, they made those changes at the specific request of the leadership
of those activities and the specific wing, otherwise, why would they care?  And I'm sure if the NBB or HMRS leadership requested these
"special cases" be rescinded, the CSAG would have no issue doing that.

^ :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2013, 06:58:28 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:17:12 PMThe only NCSA specifically intended to train members in emergency services, NESA, doesn't get involved in all this plumage,
and strangely, doesn't seem to have the same issues, yet its members and staff are some of the most active and proficient
members involved in ES, including shaping national curriculum.

And yet I have had more trouble with cadets returning from NESA and Encampments then I have had cadets returning from NBB, HMRS, and HGA combined.....Interesting.

Again.....I think it is more of a "I HATE the beret" attitude that is the problem then "I'm a Blue Beret Elite" attitude.

It isn't about "I HATE the beret." Even in the military, there are those individuals who are attracted to certain career fields just because of the badge or the beret. If they don't make the cut, it's like their world has just ended. If they do make the cut, there are those individuals who have to be taken down a peg or two in order to be productive in that career field because they aren't team players.

I had one NBB cadet who came back wearing the SAR Ribbon and find ribbons with multiple attachments. When that was corrected, he started wearing an Army MP brassard on his BDUs. When that was corrected, he transferred to a unit where he was the only cadet in a chartered flight and is now essentially untouchable.

Don't get me wrong, such special uniforms/items are important because they foster comradery in a unit, but they become a detriment when they foster elitism. 

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 04:07:18 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 13, 2013, 03:55:25 PM
I think cadets coming back from that type of training need to be debriefed and then made to sit through a class on harassment and elitism.

We do this.  Extensively. 

NBB '06, '08, '12, '13

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 05:39:51 PM

Quote from: SAREXinNY on October 13, 2013, 04:15:52 PM
68w, I have never seen or heard of this type of debriefing...but I'm glad it is happening. 

It's been discussed ad nauseum in the dozens of other threads on this topic.  We (the Senior and Cadet staff of NBB) make it a point to discuss elitism, decorum related to wearing the hat, how not to carry yourself as a graduate of NBB and while wearing the hat, etc, etc.  We work incredibly hard to produce good Cadets that understand how things work at Airventure, and how to take those lessons home to compliment activities at their local unit.  Please notice that I made it a point to say compliment, not change.  The way we do things at Airventure works exceptionally well at Airventure, but I don't hunt ELTs the same way in my locale as I do when I'm driving a golf cart around Wittman.  I explained this numerous times to my own Cadets, and I know that the other TAC Officers stressed the same to their Cadets. 

The point has been raised (by usafaux2004 to be precise) that the problem lies not in the types of Cadets that bling produces, but in the types of Cadets that bling attracts.  We get many Cadets at NBB each year that are only there to get a hat.  Most learn very quickly that we have a job to do and that their fixation on a piece of headgear just won't cut it.  Some don't learn that lesson quickly, or at all.  As a staff, we work diligently to ensure that those Cadets are effectively counselled and mentored in order to limit the attitudes which have stereotypically been attributed to NBB.  I personally feel that every Cadet can be mentored in this way, however I will acknowledge that in some cases we simply don't have sufficient contact time to correct pre-existing issues. 

This brings me to my final point.  What we need, as an organization, is for Unit Commanders to do their jobs.  Please understand that this is not intended to be antagonistic to the hundreds of individuals that work tirelessly to effectively command their units, although I will acknowledge that it could be taken that way.  The Commander Approval for NCSA participation exists for a reason.  CCs need to take time to very seriously consider whether or not their Cadets are ready for and capable of NCSA participation.  If they don't meet those criteria, then they need to be counselled and trained until they are.  By exercising better quality control of the Cadets going into these activities, activity staff can do a better job of training effective graduates of the same.

Well said.

Once that string of dates is a bit longer, I think the problem will be alleviated.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2013, 06:58:28 PM
And yet I have had more trouble with cadets returning from NESA and Encampments then I have had cadets returning from NBB, HMRS, and HGA combined.....Interesting.

In what context - this is more likely a quantity vs/ quality issue.  No one says NBB & HMRS are the only activities which cause issues.
These are the only two that purport elitism in an ES context.  And the only two that have authorized their cadets to wear special items outside the
activity.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2013, 06:58:28 PM
Again.....I think it is more of a "I HATE the beret" attitude that is the problem then "I'm a Blue Beret Elite" attitude.

You'd b e wrong in my case.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
For the record, I don't agree with NESA grads getting badges unless they are qualified, and I think the instance of that happening
is near zero these days.

NESA is a "100% task completion" type of activity; if members don't complete every aspect of the training and get every task signed off on their SQTRs, they don't get the qualification or corresponding badge.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 13, 2013, 07:14:51 PM
NESA is a "100% task completion" type of activity; if members don't complete every aspect of the training and get every task signed off on their SQTRs, they don't get the qualification or corresponding badge.

It's a reference to this (from CAPR 35-6 Sec 4b)...

b. Senior Ground Team Badge:
1) Be qualified as a CAP ground team leader in accordance with the CAP 60-series regulations or
2) Graduate from the CAP National Ground Search And Rescue School Advanced Course or equivalent program as determined by NHQ CAP/DO and certified by the school/activity director. Each wing and region is encouraged to host ground team schools with the intent of certifying their members. All schools must ensure trainees meet the current regulatory requirements for qualification in the specialty before the rating is awarded.

The Advanced GSAR at NESA qualifies graduates in GTM1 & UDF, not GTL (according to their website).

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
I don't disagree people are attracted to nonsense and bling, I assert CAP, especially in regards to training and leading cadets,
is supposed to be about more then that.

If participation plummets because a hat is taken away, you're making my (our) point, and there may well be an issue with the
activity itself.  I would hazard the same would happen with HMRS, which indicates the same thing.  Both activities are fine as HAAs
in an of themselves, afford excellent opportunities and new experiences, and should stand on their own, without being "special".

If you can't get people there without a free t-shirt, then something needs to change, and it's not "bring back the free t-shirts".

I disagree with your assertion, but I'm willing to entertain it for the purpose of discussion.  How do you recommend "changing" these activities?

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
For the record, I don't agree with NESA grads getting badges unless they are qualified, and I think the instance of that happening
is near zero these days.

Whether or not you agree with it is not the issue, that it happens is.  As for the instance being near zero, I've seen both Cadets and Seniors wearing it for that reason recently.  I tend to agree that just because I saw it doesn't mean it's an issue on a broad scale, but then I'm also not the only one throwing around anecdotal evidence as "fact."

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
That one must "attend to understand" is a fallacy in the same way that "you can't understand, you were never a cadet" is.  One doesn't
need to attend these to have to deal with the ramifications of the participants when they return, which is where the issue is.

I'll concede, but I think it's worth noting that many in our organization are woefully ignorant of what happens at these activities. 

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
Also, to assert that NHQ is allowing the wear in a vacuum is also naive at best, they made those changes at the specific request of the leadership
of those activities and the specific wing, otherwise, why would they care?  And I'm sure if the NBB or HMRS leadership requested these
"special cases" be rescinded, the CSAG would have no issue doing that.

This is supposition, unless you can produce some sort of evidence to either assertion.

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 05:39:51 PM

Quote from: SAREXinNY on October 13, 2013, 04:15:52 PM
68w, I have never seen or heard of this type of debriefing...but I'm glad it is happening. 

It's been discussed ad nauseum in the dozens of other threads on this topic.  We (the Senior and Cadet staff of NBB) make it a point to discuss elitism, decorum related to wearing the hat, how not to carry yourself as a graduate of NBB and while wearing the hat, etc, etc.  We work incredibly hard to produce good Cadets that understand how things work at Airventure, and how to take those lessons home to compliment activities at their local unit.  Please notice that I made it a point to say compliment, not change.  The way we do things at Airventure works exceptionally well at Airventure, but I don't hunt ELTs the same way in my locale as I do when I'm driving a golf cart around Wittman.  I explained this numerous times to my own Cadets, and I know that the other TAC Officers stressed the same to their Cadets. 

The point has been raised (by usafaux2004 to be precise) that the problem lies not in the types of Cadets that bling produces, but in the types of Cadets that bling attracts.  We get many Cadets at NBB each year that are only there to get a hat.  Most learn very quickly that we have a job to do and that their fixation on a piece of headgear just won't cut it.  Some don't learn that lesson quickly, or at all.  As a staff, we work diligently to ensure that those Cadets are effectively counselled and mentored in order to limit the attitudes which have stereotypically been attributed to NBB.  I personally feel that every Cadet can be mentored in this way, however I will acknowledge that in some cases we simply don't have sufficient contact time to correct pre-existing issues. 

This brings me to my final point.  What we need, as an organization, is for Unit Commanders to do their jobs.  Please understand that this is not intended to be antagonistic to the hundreds of individuals that work tirelessly to effectively command their units, although I will acknowledge that it could be taken that way.  The Commander Approval for NCSA participation exists for a reason.  CCs need to take time to very seriously consider whether or not their Cadets are ready for and capable of NCSA participation.  If they don't meet those criteria, then they need to be counselled and trained until they are.  By exercising better quality control of the Cadets going into these activities, activity staff can do a better job of training effective graduates of the same.

This is one of the best things I've read awhile. :)

I've had a thing rolling around in the back of my head about "teenagers and individualism" (versus cadets and uniformity) for the last couple days, based on seeing a couple dudes out in the parking lot of my apartment complex spending HOURS doing kick-flips and such with skateboards.  It struck me that much like some of the societal changes noted in the book "Bowling Alone" (http://bowlingalone.com/ (http://bowlingalone.com/)), teens today are more likely to participate in "individual activities" versus team sports, etc.  They're a LOT more individualistic in their approaches to sports, activities, etc.    Two guys standing in a parking lot kicking a skateboard into the air and complimenting one another on how cool they look != a sport. :)

I'm sure we all wanted to do that stuff WIWAC, too.  I know I was 15-16, went to a search & rescue school and got a nifty beanie, and wore it to the detriment of the concept of "uniformity" (to be fair, there were many others, more senior to me, who set that example, too).  So here's a whole formation of cadets in gumby hats (fatigue caps) and then there's two of us like raisins in rice pudding wearing berets. 

I wish someone had beaten that out of me.   8)

Oh, wait, they did.

Quote from: Elioron on October 13, 2013, 07:23:20 PMIt's a reference to this (from CAPR 35-6 Sec 4b)...

b. Senior Ground Team Badge:
1) Be qualified as a CAP ground team leader in accordance with the CAP 60-series regulations or
2) Graduate from the CAP National Ground Search And Rescue School Advanced Course or equivalent program as determined by NHQ CAP/DO and certified by the school/activity director. Each wing and region is encouraged to host ground team schools with the intent of certifying their members. All schools must ensure trainees meet the current regulatory requirements for qualification in the specialty before the rating is awarded.

The Advanced GSAR at NESA qualifies graduates in GTM1 & UDF, not GTL (according to their website).

35-6 is written very strangely in that regard - my GTM1 qualification expired years ago, but I'm still technically authorized to wear the badge because I went to NGSAR Basic 11 years ago...

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 13, 2013, 07:09:23 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
I don't disagree people are attracted to nonsense and bling, I assert CAP, especially in regards to training and leading cadets,
is supposed to be about more then that.

If participation plummets because a hat is taken away, you're making my (our) point, and there may well be an issue with the
activity itself.  I would hazard the same would happen with HMRS, which indicates the same thing.  Both activities are fine as HAAs
in an of themselves, afford excellent opportunities and new experiences, and should stand on their own, without being "special".

If you can't get people there without a free t-shirt, then something needs to change, and it's not "bring back the free t-shirts".

For the record, I don't agree with NESA grads getting badges unless they are qualified, and I think the instance of that happening
is near zero these days.

That one must "attend to understand" is a fallacy in the same way that "you can't understand, you were never a cadet" is.  One doesn't
need to attend these to have to deal with the ramifications of the participants when they return, which is where the issue is.

Also, to assert that NHQ is allowing the wear in a vacuum is also naive at best, they made those changes at the specific request of the leadership
of those activities and the specific wing, otherwise, why would they care?  And I'm sure if the NBB or HMRS leadership requested these
"special cases" be rescinded, the CSAG would have no issue doing that.

^ :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2013, 06:58:28 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:17:12 PMThe only NCSA specifically intended to train members in emergency services, NESA, doesn't get involved in all this plumage,
and strangely, doesn't seem to have the same issues, yet its members and staff are some of the most active and proficient
members involved in ES, including shaping national curriculum.

And yet I have had more trouble with cadets returning from NESA and Encampments then I have had cadets returning from NBB, HMRS, and HGA combined.....Interesting.

Again.....I think it is more of a "I HATE the beret" attitude that is the problem then "I'm a Blue Beret Elite" attitude.

It isn't about "I HATE the beret." Even in the military, there are those individuals who are attracted to certain career fields just because of the badge or the beret. If they don't make the cut, it's like their world has just ended. If they do make the cut, there are those individuals who have to be taken down a peg or two in order to be productive in that career field because they aren't team players.

I had one NBB cadet who came back wearing the SAR Ribbon and find ribbons with multiple attachments. When that was corrected, he started wearing an Army MP brassard on his BDUs. When that was corrected, he transferred to a unit where he was the only cadet in a chartered flight and is now essentially untouchable.

Don't get me wrong, such special uniforms/items are important because they foster comradery in a unit, but they become a detriment when they foster elitism.

My point has been.....those cadets and SM who just don't get are the exception to the rule.......and should be dealt with accordingly.   Do we punish (and that is who all the others would see it) all beret wearers because one kid wants to be a horse's hind quarter?    If we followed that thinking we should all take off the USAF uniforms because of the salute trolls.

Badges are worn permanently regardless of current equal. That's one reason they are tracked as such in services.

Quote from: raivo on October 13, 2013, 07:51:03 PM
35-6 is written very strangely in that regard...

Yeah.  The way I read it is to award the Senior badge but reiterate that it doesn't grant the ES qualification unless they complete the required tasks.  It still doesn't rectify the fact that the Advanced GSAR only trains to GTM1.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
Badges are worn permanently regardless of current equal. That's one reason they are tracked as such in services.

Another thing that makes me wince, not that my opinion matters to what's allowed.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 07:13:02 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2013, 06:58:28 PM
Again.....I think it is more of a "I HATE the beret" attitude that is the problem then "I'm a Blue Beret Elite" attitude.

You'd b e wrong in my case.

I don't think I am......Why take away the beret and ranger bling from people who don't even fall within your scope operations?  Really?
Of the hundreds that go through these programs every year.....we are talking about a small hand full of cadets who don't get it.  I have had that problem with cadets and seniors who have never even been to NBB or HMRS.   Why attack "elitism" in the case of NBB and HMRS and ignore it everywhere else (officers, cadet officers, pilots, comm).   Why is there elitism okay but the NBB and Ranger elitism not okay?

Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 13, 2013, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
For the record, I don't agree with NESA grads getting badges unless they are qualified, and I think the instance of that happening
is near zero these days.

NESA is a "100% task completion" type of activity; if members don't complete every aspect of the training and get every task signed off on their SQTRs, they don't get the qualification or corresponding badge.

Not true.....attend the Advanced Ground Team Course and you get Senior GT badge...which for everyone else is reserved for completing the GTL SQTR.

Can you folks who run NBB not award the beret if a cadet "just doesn't get it"?

Quote from: PHall on October 13, 2013, 08:10:20 PM
Can you folks who run NBB not award the beret if a cadet "just doesn't get it"?

Is that directed at me?  I've participated in the activity twice as a Cadet and twice as a Senior Member in a TAC Officer role.  As a result, I haven't been in a position where I'd make that determination.

Quote from: PHall on October 13, 2013, 08:10:20 PM
Can you folks who run NBB not award the beret if a cadet "just doesn't get it"?

Now that would be great.  But we know that it usually takes more then a week or two to find out if they get it or not.

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 08:19:11 PM

Quote from: PHall on October 13, 2013, 08:10:20 PM
Can you folks who run NBB not award the beret if a cadet "just doesn't get it"?

Is that directed at me?  I've participated in the activity twice as a Cadet and twice as a Senior Member in a TAC Officer role.  As a result, I haven't been in a position where I'd make that determination.

As an experienced TAC Officer, I would say you are in a position to make the recommendation, even though you don't make the final determination. Especially since you have both the cadet and senior perspectives to go off of.

Quote from: arajca on October 13, 2013, 08:35:25 PM

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 08:19:11 PM

Quote from: PHall on October 13, 2013, 08:10:20 PM
Can you folks who run NBB not award the beret if a cadet "just doesn't get it"?

Is that directed at me?  I've participated in the activity twice as a Cadet and twice as a Senior Member in a TAC Officer role.  As a result, I haven't been in a position where I'd make that determination.

As an experienced TAC Officer, I would say you are in a position to make the recommendation, even though you don't make the final determination. Especially since you have both the cadet and senior perspectives to go off of.

To be frank, I don't want to speak for those that actually run the activity.  Some of them frequent this board, and I'll let them speak to this. 

I'm more interested in how observers feel the activity can be changed for the better, if indeed that's the right way to move forward on this issue.

Here's the reason for the question.  The vast majority of NBB "graduates" are not the ones who cause problems.
It's that last 15-20% who cause the majority of the problems. So how do we "fix" that?

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 08:19:11 PM

Quote from: PHall on October 13, 2013, 08:10:20 PM
Can you folks who run NBB not award the beret if a cadet "just doesn't get it"?

Is that directed at me?  I've participated in the activity twice as a Cadet and twice as a Senior Member in a TAC Officer role.  As a result, I haven't been in a position where I'd make that determination.

That isn't a solution and it would never correct the problem. The beret/ranger bling are recognized awards. The solution is to make it activity unique and NOT allow wear at the unit once the activity is over.
Keep it activity unique.

The thing is, once a NBB/HMRS graduate is back at the unit, they aren't going into the field as a NBB/HMSR graduate, they're going into the field as a ground team member. Why, then, would they be wearing a beret or uniform item that is not worn by the rest of the team?

Quote from: PHall on October 13, 2013, 10:16:19 PM
Here's the reason for the question.  The vast majority of NBB "graduates" are not the ones who cause problems.
It's that last 15-20% who cause the majority of the problems. So how do we "fix" that?

Two ways.

Give the various special activities specific rankings.

Then there should be some sort of mechanism at the unit/group/wing level to determine the cadet's real motivation for attending the activity. Perhaps a question or series of questions determining motivation would be in order. Then the unit/group/wing selection board would make a recommendation to NHQ to assign the cadet to a different activity until it can be determined that the individual is better suited to attend the event for the proper reasons.

There needs to be room for a board to make a comment that a certain cadet may not be appropriate for a specific activity and needs to assigned to something else.

My experience with special activities boards, however, is that everyone goes to what ever regardless of how they rank at the selection board.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2013, 08:06:08 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 13, 2013, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
For the record, I don't agree with NESA grads getting badges unless they are qualified, and I think the instance of that happening
is near zero these days.

NESA is a "100% task completion" type of activity; if members don't complete every aspect of the training and get every task signed off on their SQTRs, they don't get the qualification or corresponding badge.

Not true.....attend the Advanced Ground Team Course and you get Senior GT badge...which for everyone else is reserved for completing the GTL SQTR.

You should read my post again before stating "not true". NESA IS a "100% task completion" activity. As I stated in my previous post, if you don't complete all tasks associated with the qualification, you don't get the badge. What you're referring to has nothing to do with NESA or my statement, but with CAPR 35-6. Graduates from ANY equivalent advanced GSAR course, not just NESA, can earn the Senior Ground Team Badge. And if you don't complete the tasks leading to GTM2 and GTM1 at NESA, you don't get the badge, which is what I stated in the post you said was "not true".

I see the provision in CAPR 35-6 that allows graduates of an advanced GSAR course to earn the Senior Ground Team Badge as giving cadets who are not 18 years old yet an opportunity to earn the badge, as ground team leaders (GTL) must be 18 years or older.

Regardless of how some may feel about awarding the senior badge to non-GTL cadets, one thing is for sure; the quality of training received in some of these schools, NESA included, surpasses that of many local units, which may not have the same resources to conduct a comprehensive GSAR training program. When I see a Senior GT Badge, I know the that the member is either a qualified GTL (current or expired) or completed advanced training at a formal school, in addition to attaining their GTM2 and GTM1 qualification.

I can see the argument in favor and against allowing graduates from an advanced GSAR course to earn the Senior GT Badge, but this in no way compares with the issues being discussed about the Blue Beret and the Ranger Tab.

(edited for grammar)

Storm:

:clap:

Flyer

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 13, 2013, 10:18:24 PM

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 08:19:11 PM

Quote from: PHall on October 13, 2013, 08:10:20 PM
Can you folks who run NBB not award the beret if a cadet "just doesn't get it"?

Is that directed at me?  I've participated in the activity twice as a Cadet and twice as a Senior Member in a TAC Officer role.  As a result, I haven't been in a position where I'd make that determination.

That isn't a solution and it would never correct the problem. The beret/ranger bling are recognized awards. The solution is to make it activity unique and NOT allow wear at the unit once the activity is over.
Keep it activity unique.

The thing is, once a NBB/HMRS graduate is back at the unit, they aren't going into the field as a NBB/HMSR graduate, they're going into the field as a ground team member. Why, then, would they be wearing a beret or uniform item that is not worn by the rest of the team?

Ahhhhh.....but why?

PAWG has no problems with their people wearing ranger bling.....and I got no problems with my members wearing NBB bling.

So why keep it activity unique?   Really.....why?   

Yes....there are a few people who come back with attitudes......Seen it with NBB, HMRS, HGA, Encampment, PJOC, Flight Academy, NCOS, BCOS, COS, and just a cadet getting too big for his own britches.

Attitudes no compatible with my ability to do my mission get corrected.

At the local level.......if you (assuming you are a commander or in the direct chain of command) think that ANY bling (even service CAPs for Officers, Ties for staff, brown T-shirts instead of Black for staff, different colored hats for staff member, oh and cords, berets, and ranger tabs......are detrimental  to YOUR operation.....by all means.....set the policy for YOUR squadron.

But.......and here's the big but, stay in your lane.   Why ruin it for everyone?

What works for you may not work for me.....and vice versa.

Cadet X comes back from the flight academy with this Solo wings and then feels he can't march in a flight anymore.....or is allowed to sport a flight suit anytime he feels........set the policy and correct the behavior.....but don't make it so I can't let MY CAP Solo Pilots wear their flight suits.

That is the only point I have been making.

IF.............IF there were a shred of evidence that this attitude problem was really wide spread......then I would be all for shutting down the NCSA and rebuilding it.

Which brings us back to the OP's question.........how bad is this "problem" or is just the 1% bad apples who are getting all the press time?

Quote from: 68w10 on October 13, 2013, 06:36:05 PM

And yet graduates of the AGSAR course are allowed special dispensation to wear a Senior GTM badge, even if they are not qual'd GTLs.  Also interesting, because that sounds like something "different" than other GTM2/1s.  It may not be as noticeable as a hat or a tab, but it's still there.

It isn't necessarily as much special dispensation as it is discontinuity between regulations.  The current CAPR35-6 was written in 2002; at that time, the AGSAR school at NESA was the GTL school.  When the GSAR curriculum was rearranged in 2004, we added the GTL school.   However, the 35-6 was not (and still hasn't been) updated to reflect this change.

As the one who physically hands out these badges to the AGSAR graduates each year, I certainly understand the frustration that results from this discontinuity.  I spend a fair amount of time each year answering emails and explaining this to unit ES officers all over the country after each event.  A simple wording change in the 35-6 would alleviate the situation, but it has been, shall we say, very challenging getting it changed.

(Edited for grammar)

Sure could....don't hand out the GTM badge until you complete GTM1.

>:D

Lord-

Is not what you say in contrast with what Storm says?

Here is the relevant part of Storm's message:

Quote
And if you don't complete the tasks leading to GTM2 and GTM1 at NESA, you don't get the badge...

So if they do that right now, that is, they do not award the badge if they do not complete those requirements, why are you insisting on them not awarding the badge if they do not complete...?

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 14, 2013, 01:47:49 AM
Lord-

Is not what you say in contrast with what Storm says?

Here is the relevant part of Storm's message:

Quote
And if you don't complete the tasks leading to GTM2 and GTM1 at NESA, you don't get the badge...

So if they do that right now, that is, they do not award the badge if they do not complete those requirements, why are you insisting on them not awarding the badge if they do not complete...?

Flyer

No.

GTM1 gets you nothing in the real world.

You get the basic badge for GTM3, the senior badge for GTL and the master badge for GBD.

We need to change it to basic at GTM1.....(and then somewhere down the road do away with GTM 3 and 2)

But I digress.

What Storm was saying is that participants in the AGSAR school at NESA get the Senior GT badge for completing GTM1 at NESA.....where everyone else has to earn GTL to get it.    That is wrong in my book.

I Know that NESA is not handing out the badges to those who fail to complete the GTM1 tasks....which is a good thing.

Now the real question is.......and this is a complaint I have had about NESA for a long time.....why can't you get everyone to GTM1 in a week? 

But again....I digress.

I would love to, but there aren't enough training hours in the week to get someone from "nothing" to GTM1 (while meeting the
evaluation criteria in the task guide). 

Lord,

That is not what the relevant regulation says.

Quote
You get the basic badge for GTM3, the senior badge for GTL and the master badge for GBD.

The Advanced School leads to completion of GTM1 and GTM2.

The current regulation says that the Senior Badge is awarded for being a GTL or a graduate of an advanced school.

If NHQ approved the curriculum change at NESA, they are comfortable with it.

If you do not like it, push for NHQ to rescind it.

Flyer

Flyer.....I know what the regulations says....I'm not saying that NESA is doing anything outside of the regs.

I'm saying that any or all of the following happen.

a) The Senior GT badge NOT be awarded for completion of AGSAR school at NESA.
b) The Basic GT badge be awarded for completion of GTM 1 not GTM 3.
c) GTM 1, 2, 3 be eliminated and combined into just GTM....where the basic badge is awarded.

And I am pushing NHQ to change it.

I am sorry, now your feelings came out clearer.

I do not agree with you about rescinding the award of the Senior Ground Team Badge to GTM1 and GTM2.

However when I initially qualified as GTM and GTL well, in 1998 or 1999 it was GTM then GTL. Back then it was clearer. So what you want... could be based in historical precedence.

I think the breaking into GTM3, GTM2, and GTM1 must have come around 2004 or 2005 when I left CAP and my quals expired.

Flyer

GTM3 makes sense as most of our ops don't need much more than UDF.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 14, 2013, 03:08:25 AM
Flyer.....I know what the regulations says....I'm not saying that NESA is doing anything outside of the regs.

I'm saying that any or all of the following happen.

a) The Senior GT badge NOT be awarded for completion of AGSAR school at NESA.
b) The Basic GT badge be awarded for completion of GTM 1 not GTM 3.
c) GTM 1, 2, 3 be eliminated and combined into just GTM....where the basic badge is awarded.

And I am pushing NHQ to change it.

Add my name to your list for all of the above, but I don't expect much to change.
#B & C were as it was when I joined, when NHQ changed it, I recall some of the public verbiage was specifically aimed at members more interested in the badge then the duty (i.e. "It takes too long to get to GTM1, so members quit trying...so let's give them the badge at a much earlier time to get them
engaged and enhance "retention").  IMHO this was just one more thing on the pile that watered down the program and actually work to the detriment of the intention.  We wound up with "GTL-3", ambiguity regarding what GTM3's can do, and no advantage I've seen.

QuoteI think the breaking into GTM3, GTM2, and GTM1 must have come around 2004 or 2005 when I left CAP and my quals expired.

Flyer

The April 2003 draft of 60-3 had only GTL, GTM and UDF and one level of IC and AL. The following month the ES Curriculum Project (ESCP) Working Group recommended splitting IC and GT into levels. The April 2004 draft of 60-3 shows the three levels of GT plus UDF, and the three levels of IC and AL. NHQ issued a final 60-3 dated May 26, 2004 accompanied by a letter stating:

3. Second, the incident commander, agency liaison, and ground team member specialties have been broken into three levels. Personnel listed in MIMS as qualified in these specialties will be retained as qualified at the lowest level of each specialty. Commanders and emergency services officers should review the qualifications of their personnel to consider upgrading them to higher levels as soon as possible.

In the qualifications for GTM2 and GTM1 this note was included: Commanders or their designees should review ground team training records to determine if current personnel meet the requirements to be qualified in this specialty and approve qualifications in MIMS as appropriate.

In other words, don't just leave everyone at a GTM3 level.

Mike

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 13, 2013, 07:09:23 PM
I had one NBB cadet who came back wearing the SAR Ribbon and find ribbons with multiple attachments. When that was corrected, he started wearing an Army MP brassard on his BDUs. When that was corrected, he transferred to a unit where he was the only cadet in a chartered flight and is now essentially untouchable.

If he's the only cadet in that unit, who's he showing off too, exactly?

Quote from: Panache on October 14, 2013, 08:04:24 AM

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 13, 2013, 07:09:23 PM
I had one NBB cadet who came back wearing the SAR Ribbon and find ribbons with multiple attachments. When that was corrected, he started wearing an Army MP brassard on his BDUs. When that was corrected, he transferred to a unit where he was the only cadet in a chartered flight and is now essentially untouchable.

If he's the only cadet in that unit, who's he showing off too, exactly?

That's the point. He was kept in check with his attitude until he transferred to a unit where he wasn't going to be challenged.

I personally never agreed with the GTM split, I guess that from a start to finish completion time it made sense.  I personally would have also held off on the badge award until GTM1..... ie Fully Qualified.

Mk

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 14, 2013, 10:47:09 AM

Quote from: Panache on October 14, 2013, 08:04:24 AM

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 13, 2013, 07:09:23 PM
I had one NBB cadet who came back wearing the SAR Ribbon and find ribbons with multiple attachments. When that was corrected, he started wearing an Army MP brassard on his BDUs. When that was corrected, he transferred to a unit where he was the only cadet in a chartered flight and is now essentially untouchable.

If he's the only cadet in that unit, who's he showing off too, exactly?

That's the point. He was kept in check with his attitude until he transferred to a unit where he wasn't going to be challenged.

He was a CAP cadet wearing Army MP insignia?  What was that all about?

Maybe a Guardsman?

SARMED-

Quote
...also held off on the badge award until GTM1..... ie Fully Qualified...

Which badge for the GTM1? The Senior Badge or the plain one?

We always chastise cadets because they use text lingo. Or other grammar mistakes. Yet we senior members also lapse sometimes.

As of now, the GTM1 rating, if taken when at NESA advanced school, fully qualifies the member for the Senior Badge!

Flyer

Flyer

MP brassard?

We seniors sometimes encourage this attitude...

Tell me you have never been at least once to an Encampment, Bivouac, or other activity in which cadets have worn a brassard with an obvious military connection... "Officer of the Day," "OD," medical brassard with subdued colors on one side non-subdued on the other...

But MP? It takes the cake...

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 14, 2013, 02:57:27 PM
MP brassard?

We seniors sometimes encourage this attitude...

I've seen my fair share of senior members wearing unauthorized military insignias or authorized insignias (both military and CAP) on the wrong place. My "favorite" are those who want to show more "bling" than what's authorized, so they just find creative places in the uniform to put them on. At the last wing conference I attended, for example, I saw a major wearing four specialty track badges (one on each pocket, one above the name tag and one above the ribbons), when only two are authorized (one centered on each pocket).

Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 14, 2013, 03:53:08 PM
I've seen my fair share of senior members wearing unauthorized military insignias or authorized insignias (both military and CAP) on the wrong place. My "favorite" are those who want to show more "bling" than what's authorized, so they just find creative places in the uniform to put them on. At the last wing conference I attended, for example, I saw a major wearing four specialty track badges (one on each pocket, one above the name tag and one above the ribbons), when only two are authorized (one centered on each pocket).

+1 - or subdued military badges in between white on blue for a total of 3+, even seen 4, on BDUs.

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 14, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
SARMED-

Quote
...also held off on the badge award until GTM1..... ie Fully Qualified...

Which badge for the GTM1? The Senior Badge or the plain one?

We always chastise cadets because they use text lingo. Or other grammar mistakes. Yet we senior members also lapse sometimes.

As of now, the GTM1 rating, if taken when at NESA advanced school, fully qualifies the member for the Senior Badge!

Flyer

Flyer

I was speaking specifically in regards to award of a badge for qualification, not in relation to the completion of a school.  At the time of the split from GTM to GTM's 3, 2 & 1 I agreed that it was a long and sometimes difficult process to fully qualify someone, and it was easier to have them at least minimally qualified (GTM3) while working toward GTM1. However, what I disagreed with was awarding the badge at the GTM 3 level.  Partially because I looked (and honestly, still look) at GTM3 & GTM 2 as not being FULLY GTM qualified.  Why award a badge to someone that isnt capable of doing all of the tasks expected of a GTM?  More specifically, if I recall correctly, prior to the split, wernt there additional requirements to the GTM badge besides just GTM qualified?  Werent there some level of mission participation and a First aid card requirement as well? or is the cloud of age confusing that with some other award?

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on October 14, 2013, 08:25:44 PMMore specifically, if I recall correctly, prior to the split, wernt there additional requirements to the GTM badge besides just GTM qualified?  Werent there some level of mission participation and a First aid card requirement as well? or is the cloud of age confusing that with some other award?

Just 2 missions and first aid, but of course the SQTR was a lot longer, and you had to be GTM1 before you could get GTL.

There was some discussion early-on when they made the change that a GTM 1 was "more proficient" because it would require 6 missions to get to that level.  The people making that assumption / assertion are apparently not familiar with the check-box mentality
of many members, especially cadets.

Why even bother with GTM2&1?  You get the badge at 3, and can go directly to GTL from there, and the limitations to what a GTM3 may, or may not do are both unclear, and worse, largely ignored by many GBDs and other mission staff - when I raise the issue I get crickets.  If you're training to be an asset, things just got harder, if you're just a badge collector, things got easier.

Which do you think helps retain member we actually want to keep?

The 3-2-1 split gives the badge too early, and then raises the bar to actual effectiveness, meaning we ultimately have a lesser trained force.

SAR-

Basically what you are saying is not give a badge at all for GTM3 or 2. Give the Basic Badge after attaining GTM1, and give the Senior Badge to GTL. No Advanced School graduate would get the Senior Badge, because it would produce GTM2 and 1.

If I recall correctly, before the split you earned the GT Badge Basic. Requirements for GTM included both CPR and First Aid. Basically all the tasks now separate back then were together. And the same two sorties, real or training.

Later I can look up the old 101 form used to request the 101 card. I stillhave them...

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 14, 2013, 09:43:37 PMIf I recall correctly, before the split you earned the GT Badge Basic. Requirements for GTM included both CPR and First Aid. Basically all the tasks now separate back then were together. And the same two sorties, real or training.

That's correct.  CPR was dropped in the split.  Most people got it done in the same FA class.

I spend a LOT of my free time doing ES training (at least 1 full weekend a month, but often more than that), and I have a hard enough time keeping my GTM3 current due to all of the red tape recently implemented at NY wing.  I don't think I'll ever be able to get my 2 or 1 or GTL.

SAREX-

I think I remember who you are. If I am right, you live in the city. In the city, we need more UDF than GTM. I suggest you keep trying for GTM3 and GTL. GTM2 and 1 are nice to have and know but not required for GTL, so if you actually get some tasks signed off for 2 and 1, just say "thank you" but do not sweat them. Move 2 and 1 to the bottom of your list...

At least that is my plan of action. Keep GTM3 active, get GTL and UDF not necessarily in that order. Work as I can other specialties into as I can include them.

Flyer

Flyer I believe you are correct. I was a GTM and ST III for much of my cadet career (1996-2002) and could not get my GTL as a cadet because of rules surrounding the CAP DL at the time. Our SM leadership stayed with the van and between myself and two other cadet officers we ran the GT and UDF missions. I always felt the GTM3,2,1 was to respond to criticism regarding CAP GTM vs. SARTECH III, II and I. I don't know if it is even worth trying to get my GT again except if I want to progress eventually I will need it. I think getting only my UDF would be easier but not as useful in AR so I am torn. I know my personal limitations and I don't have the time to train or the physical fitness to ground pound through the brush all day anymore. What I do have is a background in search management and tactics and incident management which can't be used without GTM. I am going to start on MSA and we will see what happens from there.   

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 14, 2013, 03:19:15 AM
I am sorry, now your feelings came out clearer.

I do not agree with you about rescinding the award of the Senior Ground Team Badge to GTM1 and GTM2.

However when I initially qualified as GTM and GTL well, in 1998 or 1999 it was GTM then GTL. Back then it was clearer. So what you want... could be based in historical precedence.

I think the breaking into GTM3, GTM2, and GTM1 must have come around 2004 or 2005 when I left CAP and my quals expired.

Flyer

Continuing the thread tangent...

I was thinking, considering the extent of most of our missions, that GTM3 & 2 SQTRs could be combined into a GTM rating, then GTM1 & GTL into a new GTL rating.

Because this thread hasn't derailed enough...


Because, you know, there's nothing safer and more visible when going into the field than camouflage, and "looking cool" is the most important SAR accessory!

Quote from: Elioron on October 15, 2013, 01:36:18 AM
Because this thread hasn't derailed enough...

GIVE US ABUs!!!!!!!

Because, you know, there's nothing safer and more visible when going into the field than camouflage, and "looking cool" is the most important SAR accessory!

We don't wear ABU's because of the functionality during SAR.  We want ABUs because we want to be part of the USAF.

Plain enough for you?

Quote from: flyer333555 on October 14, 2013, 02:57:27 PM
MP brassard?

We seniors sometimes encourage this attitude...

Tell me you have never been at least once to an Encampment, Bivouac, or other activity in which cadets have worn a brassard with an obvious military connection... "Officer of the Day," "OD," medical brassard with subdued colors on one side non-subdued on the other...

But MP? It takes the cake...

Flyer

Oh I can see somebody taking the whole enchilada too.  8)

Quote from: lordmonar on October 15, 2013, 04:22:07 AM

Quote from: Elioron on October 15, 2013, 01:36:18 AM
Because this thread hasn't derailed enough...

GIVE US ABUs!!!!!!!

Because, you know, there's nothing safer and more visible when going into the field than camouflage, and "looking cool" is the most important SAR accessory!

We don't wear ABU's because of the functionality during SAR.  We want ABUs because we want to be part of the USAF.

Plain enough for you?

Exactly   8)

Regarding CPR and first aid for ground team personnel:

1983 CAPM 50-15
Ground Operations Officers and GTLs had to "possess a current advanced first aid card or equivalent." No mention of CPR anywhere in the manual.
GTMs had to "possess a current standard first aid card."
Ratings were Ground Ops Officer, GTL and GTM.

1992 CAPR 50-15
GTL(T) and GTM(T) had to "possess a current Red Cross basic first aid card or equivalent." Again no mention of CPR.
Ratings were now Ground Operations Director, Ground Search Coordinator, GTL and GTM. You had to be a senior member at least 21 to be a qualified GOD or GTL, but a GSC could be 18 and a cadet.

1996 CAPR 50-15
GTL(T) and GTM (qualified, note change from 1992) had to "possess a current Red Cross basic first aid card or equivalent." No CPR.
The CAPF 100, used to apply for a 101 or 101T, had a space to check off first training/qualification and CPR was listed, but so were EMT and paramedic. There was no requirement to have CPR.
The ratings were the same, but the senior member requirements were dropped and the age for all but GTM was 18.

In 1999 35-6 was changed to "align CAP ground team badge requirements with current emergency services specialty qualifications to allow for easier field recognition and tracking."
Basic badge awarded for being a qualified GTM or graduation from the NGSAR Basic Course or equivalent.
Senior badge awarded for being a qualified GTL or graduation from the NGSAR Advanced Course or equivalent.
Master badge awarded for qualification as a CAP ground branch director (formerly ground operations director).

2001 CAPR 60-3 replaced 50-15
The 101-T cards were now in their own reg, CAPR 60-4, Volume II.
GTL had to "Complete Advanced First Aid Training or equivalent." No CPR.
GTM had to "Complete Basic First Aid Training or equivalent." No CPR.
The CAP Form 100 still had the check boxes for EMT, paramedic and CPR.

As I pointed out back in post #142 of this thread, the split of GTM into three levels was proposed in 2003 and incorporated in the May 2004 release of CAPR 60-3 and the arrival of SQTRs. When that change occurred, all GTMs became GTM3. That's why you get the basic badge as a GTM3.

Note that BITD, the requirement was to "possess a current first aid card." In 2001 the wording was changed to "complete a first aid course." Big difference in wording.

Mike

Quote from: lordmonar on October 15, 2013, 04:22:07 AM

Quote from: Elioron on October 15, 2013, 01:36:18 AM
Because this thread hasn't derailed enough...

GIVE US ABUs!!!!!!!

Because, you know, there's nothing safer and more visible when going into the field than camouflage, and "looking cool" is the most important SAR accessory!

We don't wear ABU's because of the functionality during SAR.  We want ABUs because we want to be part of the USAF.

Plain enough for you?

Sorry, MSgt.  Trolling fail (on my part). :P

In truth, I couldn't care less.  I have to get new uniforms every year anyway and I wear the DFU.  Uniforms will change as they change...as long as we don't piss off the Air Force too much.

To steer back to the original point:  In a parallel discussion; the Ranger Program used to restrict award of the LL patch to R1's only, basically you either had to complete the training/qualification via repeat Hawk training weekends, or if you had home unit R/Adv or R/Exp available or return for a second year summer course.  Now that patch is awarded to everyone who attends the school regardless of what they complete.   Also the hated orange T-shirts were reserved only for school staff members.... now everyone gets one just for showing up. 

As a BTDT point, this was before there were any CAP GTM skill specific requirements, only topics:  HMRS was one of the only programs that had actual skill specific competency and testing requirements for ground SAR in CAP.    Being an R1 (which was always considered a fully "qualified Ranger", vs R2 was more of a Ranger(T)) meant that you were actually capable in the aspects of Wilderness SAR, communications, navigation, first aid etc etc.... where everyone else in CAP it was open to interpretation. ie your squadron said you were trained, but it was up to you to say how....and honestly it lead I think to mostly pencil whipping or otherwise only teaching to what you personally as an ES training officer, felt was needed or worse only what you knew, leaving in many cases, not even consistency from unit to unit even in the same geographic area
(Admittedly this could be where my bias in favor of the Ranger program comes from.....)

The point being, regardless of your opinion on the Ranger program, just like the award of the GTM badge for minimal training at the GT level, I think that either practice (GTM or Ranger) of "dumbing" down the "badge" earning requirements  encourages more badge hunting rather than skill competency.

mk

I think also you see a little issue with people who graduate these programs the further from the flagpole they get.


Without naming any names, I know of a cadet who frequently wears what he refers to as the "ranger parade uniform," references to which I have not found on the Pennsylvania/HMRS website, published SOPs, etc. I have found the so-called "ranger base uniform" which roughly corresponds with the uniform he wears. According to HMRS [ETA: documentation that I've seen], that uniform is worn only "on the mountain". 

I don't have a beef with that, if they want to wear pink tutus and a garbage bag while running up and down Hawk Mountain, that's fine.

But it does not appear to me that the message of "when and where the wear of the full Hawk Mountain uniform is appropriate" is getting correctly inculcated before these people leave the mountain. They show up to their home unit or wing with the ascot, the pistol belt, the whistle, the orange hat, the orange t-shirt and claim it is an authorized uniform. No, it is not

So then, now that I think of it, maybe the wear of a non 39-1 compliant uniform while they are at Hawk Mountain is actually contributing to the problem. Maybe we should all have a beef with that.

Again, I don't have a problem with the stuff that is in 39 - 1: the LL patch, and the ranger tab.  It's the stuff beyond that, and then the attitude that they are doing things correctly , that causes a problem.

QuoteThe point being, regardless of your opinion on the Ranger program, just like the award of the GTM badge for minimal training at the GT level, I think that either practice (GTM or Ranger) of "dumbing" down the "badge" earning requirements  encourages more badge hunting rather than skill competency.

Speaking of dumbing down the requirements, I found the 1992 rev of 35-6, which added the procedures and requirements for wear of the ground team badge. These were the requirements until the 1999 change.

Basic Ground Team badge:
1. Minimum of 1 year continuous tenure after qualification as a GTM.
2. Participate in a minimum of 3 ground team sorties after qualification as a GTM.
3. Possess a current Red Cross basic first aid card or equivalent.
4. Have an Radio Operator Permit (ROP).

Senior Ground Team Badge
1. Minimum of 3 years continuous tenure after qualification as a GTM.
2. Minimum of one orientation flight to observe the duties of a scanner/observer.
3. Participate in a minimum of of 9 ground team sorties after initial qualification as a GTM.
4. Serve as an assistant GTL or GTL(T) for a minimum of one year.
5. Have a vehicle operators permit as required by CAPR 77-1.
6. Be interview team qualified.
7. Be ELT qualified.
8. Be current in Advanced First Aid/First Responder.
9. Meet all other requirements of the Basic badge.

Master Ground Team Badge
1. Minimum of 5 years tenure after qualification as a GTM.
2. Participate in a minimum of 15 sorties after initial qualification as a GTM.
3. Must be a qualified Ground Operations Officer.
4. Must be qualified in the Flight Line officer specialties.
5. Meet all other requirement of the Senior Badge.

Mike

Quote from: NIN on October 15, 2013, 01:24:16 PM


....But it does not appear to me that the message of "when and where the wear of the full Hawk Mountain uniform is appropriate" is getting correctly inculcated before these people leave the mountain. They show up to their home unit or wing with the ascot, the pistol belt, the whistle, the orange hat, the orange t-shirt and claim it is an authorized uniform. No, it is not
...
Again, I don't have a problem with the stuff that is in 39 - 1: the LL patch, and the ranger tab.  It's the stuff beyond that, and then the attitude that they are doing things correctly , that causes a problem.

A contributor to that problem was the way things went into the 39-1.  The first reference was the un-defining NB reference: (paraphrased) "....authorized to wear all awarded items..." It is my guess some people have never moved on from that. (because we know that everyone in CAP stays on top of reading ALL the regulations and monitors the web daily for any changes.....especially cadets)

However, still not an excuse: I would encourage the polite use of CAPR 39-1, its ICL and the PAWG supp, as reading material to re-orient him in the right direction:

1 has what's allowed everywhere (Tabs and LL patches); 1 has whats allowed just in PA (orange hats and orange T-shirts); and 1 has a reference as to what may be allowed if the Wing/Region Kings says so (ie scarves and pistol belts and LL patch placement)  See if he can figure out which lane he falls into.  (And in none of them have I found any allowance for white laces or whistle chains) 

As mentioned in other threads of the past, there was at one time a Ranger Supplement that detailed the difference between Ranger Parade, Ranger Base and Ranger Field.  According to FW, it was never actually signed off by the PAWG CC, and either way it was published in like 1991, and everything else in CAP has changed including the reg it supposedly referenced (I think it was when ES was a 50's series)

mk

Quote from: sardak on October 15, 2013, 02:37:01 PM

QuoteThe point being, regardless of your opinion on the Ranger program, just like the award of the GTM badge for minimal training at the GT level, I think that either practice (GTM or Ranger) of "dumbing" down the "badge" earning requirements  encourages more badge hunting rather than skill competency.

Speaking of dumbing down the requirements, I found the 1992 rev of 35-6, which added the procedures and requirements for wear of the ground team badge. These were the requirements until the 1999 change.

Basic Ground Team badge:
1. Minimum of 1 year continuous tenure after qualification as a GTM.
2. Participate in a minimum of 3 ground team sorties after qualification as a GTM.
3. Possess a current Red Cross basic first aid card or equivalent.
4. Have an Radio Operator Permit (ROP).

Senior Ground Team Badge
1. Minimum of 3 years continuous tenure after qualification as a GTM.
2. Minimum of one orientation flight to observe the duties of a scanner/observer.
3. Participate in a minimum of of 9 ground team sorties after initial qualification as a GTM.
4. Serve as an assistant GTL or GTL(T) for a minimum of one year.
5. Have a vehicle operators permit as required by CAPR 77-1.
6. Be interview team qualified.
7. Be ELT qualified.
8. Be current in Advanced First Aid/First Responder.
9. Meet all other requirements of the Basic badge.

Master Ground Team Badge
1. Minimum of 5 years tenure after qualification as a GTM.
2. Participate in a minimum of 15 sorties after initial qualification as a GTM.
3. Must be a qualified Ground Operations Officer.
4. Must be qualified in the Flight Line officer specialties.
5. Meet all other requirement of the Senior Badge.

Mike

That was the reference I was looking for..... It actually made the badge(s) something you had to work hard to earn beyond the "minimum" qualification.  I am proud to say the "old way" is how my Basic and Senior badges were earned....

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on October 15, 2013, 03:14:20 PM

However, still not an excuse: I would encourage the polite use of CAPR 39-1, its ICL and the PAWG supp, as reading material to re-orient him in the right direction:

1 has what's allowed everywhere (Tabs and LL patches); 1 has whats allowed just in PA (orange hats and orange T-shirts); and 1 has a reference as to what may be allowed if the Wing/Region Kings says so (ie scarves and pistol belts and LL patch placement)  See if he can figure out which lane he falls into.  (And in none of them have I found any allowance for white laces or whistle chains) 

As mentioned in other threads of the past, there was at one time a Ranger Supplement that detailed the difference between Ranger Parade, Ranger Base and Ranger Field.  According to FW, it was never actually signed off by the PAWG CC, and either way it was published in like 1991, and everything else in CAP has changed including the reg it supposedly referenced (I think it was when ES was a 50's series)

Indeed.

There is no published NER Supplement.  PA Wing doesn't apply to my wing. :)

And my wing hasn't published a supplement, either, that addresses PA Wing/HMRS specific stuff in any event, so its a moot point.

"Its not authorized" should be sufficient.

Quote from: NIN on October 15, 2013, 01:24:16 PM
I
But it does not appear to me that the message of "when and where the wear of the full Hawk Mountain uniform is appropriate" is getting correctly inculcated before these people leave the mountain. They show up to their home unit or wing with the ascot, the pistol belt, the whistle, the orange hat, the orange t-shirt and claim it is an authorized uniform. No, it is not

So then, now that I think of it, maybe the wear of a non 39-1 compliant uniform while they are at Hawk Mountain is actually contributing to the problem. Maybe we should all have a beef with that.

I don't think wearing the non compliant uniform at the event is the issue, I've been to NESA Mission Aircrew School for the last 4 years and I have never felt that a black T-shirt and Khaki shorts were appropriate wear outside of NESA :)

Quote from: Alaric on October 15, 2013, 04:35:16 PM
I don't think wearing the non compliant uniform at the event is the issue, I've been to NESA Mission Aircrew School for the last 4 years and I have never felt that a black T-shirt and Khaki shorts were appropriate wear outside of NESA :)

No offense to NESA, but khaki shorts and a black t-shirt has NONE of the street cred, er, I mean, bling-bling factor, or, uh, hmmm, how about cachet of a beret, or a whistle, or an ascot, or a white pistol belt or ....

8)

.... but imagine the coolness factor of adding all of that to a shorts and t-shirt combo....... sheer awesomeness!!!!!!

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on October 15, 2013, 05:24:35 PM
.... but imagine the coolness factor of adding all of that to a shorts and t-shirt combo....... sheer awesomeness!!!!!!

Awwww... See , this is why we can have nice things

Quote from: NIN on October 15, 2013, 05:05:50 PM

Quote from: Alaric on October 15, 2013, 04:35:16 PM
I don't think wearing the non compliant uniform at the event is the issue, I've been to NESA Mission Aircrew School for the last 4 years and I have never felt that a black T-shirt and Khaki shorts were appropriate wear outside of NESA :)

No offense to NESA, but khaki shorts and a black t-shirt has NONE of the street cred, er, I mean, bling-bling factor, or, uh, hmmm, how about cachet of a beret, or a whistle, or an ascot, or a white pistol belt or ....

8)

But it darn comfy in a cockpit in summer

Quote from: Alaric on October 15, 2013, 06:19:17 PM

Quote from: NIN on October 15, 2013, 05:05:50 PM

Quote from: Alaric on October 15, 2013, 04:35:16 PM
I don't think wearing the non compliant uniform at the event is the issue, I've been to NESA Mission Aircrew School for the last 4 years and I have never felt that a black T-shirt and Khaki shorts were appropriate wear outside of NESA :)

No offense to NESA, but khaki shorts and a black t-shirt has NONE of the street cred, er, I mean, bling-bling factor, or, uh, hmmm, how about cachet of a beret, or a whistle, or an ascot, or a white pistol belt or ....

8)

But it darn comfy in a cockpit in summer

Yeah, if you're in a glider where it is authorized for wear.

Quote from: PHall on October 16, 2013, 01:03:54 AM

Quote from: Alaric on October 15, 2013, 06:19:17 PM

Quote from: NIN on October 15, 2013, 05:05:50 PM

Quote from: Alaric on October 15, 2013, 04:35:16 PM
I don't think wearing the non compliant uniform at the event is the issue, I've been to NESA Mission Aircrew School for the last 4 years and I have never felt that a black T-shirt and Khaki shorts were appropriate wear outside of NESA :)

No offense to NESA, but khaki shorts and a black t-shirt has NONE of the street cred, er, I mean, bling-bling factor, or, uh, hmmm, how about cachet of a beret, or a whistle, or an ascot, or a white pistol belt or ....

8)

But it darn comfy in a cockpit in summer

Yeah, if you're in a glider where it is authorized for wear.

NESA obtains a waiver from NHQ for wear of the t-shirt/shorts combo at the school every year. And it's for wear at the school only. Transit to/from in corporate aircraft = normal uniforms apply.

Quote from: SJFedor on October 16, 2013, 02:08:32 AM

Quote from: PHall on October 16, 2013, 01:03:54 AM

Quote from: Alaric on October 15, 2013, 06:19:17 PM

Quote from: NIN on October 15, 2013, 05:05:50 PM

Quote from: Alaric on October 15, 2013, 04:35:16 PM
I don't think wearing the non compliant uniform at the event is the issue, I've been to NESA Mission Aircrew School for the last 4 years and I have never felt that a black T-shirt and Khaki shorts were appropriate wear outside of NESA :)

No offense to NESA, but khaki shorts and a black t-shirt has NONE of the street cred, er, I mean, bling-bling factor, or, uh, hmmm, how about cachet of a beret, or a whistle, or an ascot, or a white pistol belt or ....

8)

But it darn comfy in a cockpit in summer

Yeah, if you're in a glider where it is authorized for wear.

NESA obtains a waiver from NHQ for wear of the t-shirt/shorts combo at the school every year. And it's for wear at the school only. Transit to/from in corporate aircraft = normal uniforms apply.

Glider Pilots can wear the CAP shirt/shorts/tennis shoes combo year 'round.

Of course the "greenhouse effect" in a glider may have something to do with that! [insert sweaty smiley here]