Civil Air Patrol Rangers

[N Harmon]

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

The National Search and Rescue Manual states that DoD personnel may be available to assist in search operations. First to be considered are Air Force Pararescue personnel, followed by Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams of the US Army, Navy, or Air Force, then US Navy Seal Teams or CAP Rangers.

This page needs....

• A wakeup to reality
• Massive editing

Anybody want to help?

[JohnKachenmeister]

As of a few years ago, the Air Force, it its AFI detailing the relationship between them and CAP refered to our ground team units as "Rangers."

That term was dropped about two years ago, IIRC.

[Smokey]

Now that's going to go to some people's heads!!!!

I can see it now....shades of Rambo

[FW]

Well, if it says it in Wikipedia, it must be an absolute fact 
Seriously, the program has become a wonderful training ground for basic and advanced SAR technique and those that go through the program and, STAY CURRENT, are more than competent as ground team members, leaders and trainers.  And, as they did quite well in an international SAR comp last year in Canada, I wouldn't put the program down.

[Major Carrales]

I've been saving this for just such an occasion as this...

I recall, not too many months back, some here that were hoping to have CAP Cadets join the Sea Cadet's "SEAL" program and other activities.

Now, if there are people pushing for CAP SEAL qualified members, then there can be CAP Rangers (which seem to have a "history" in CAP).

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[BillB]

Of cpourse there is also the U.S. Ranger Corp.

[DBlair]

Putting CAP "Rangers" in the same sentence as Navy SEALS and AF PJs, Oh my...

Why do I get the idea that this was at least partly written by some overzealous high speed wannabe-special ops Cadet?

Perhaps this wikipedia entry could be re-written to more accurately portray the CAP Ranger program. Are CAP "Rangers" well trained? Sure. Do they warrant being considered in the same light as the SEALS and PJs? No way.

[Al Sayre]

If it's a quote from the DOD National Search and Rescue Manual as claimed, correcting Wikipedia isn't going to help much...

[Major Carrales]

Putting CAP "Rangers" in the same sentence as Navy SEALS and AF PJs, Oh my...

Why do I get the idea that this was at least partly written by some overzealous high speed wannabe-special ops Cadet?

Perhaps this wikipedia entry could be re-written to more accurately portray the CAP Ranger program. Are CAP "Rangers" well trained? Sure. Do they warrant being considered in the same light as the SEALS and PJs? No way.

If the term "ranger" is to be used in CAP, it will not (and should not) be some sort of "poser-pretenderist" idea ripping off the Army's Ranger program.  I would say, a better model would be "Forest Service" rangers that are those that can preform in raw terrain (thus, the RANGE) based on doing ES in that envrionment.

Any other use (including ranger "tabs," painted CAMO faces and the like) invites ridicule.

Now, an extrememly well trained CAP Officer or Cadet skilled enough to traverse and survive in woodlands, deserts and the like in support of the mission (and I mean for "real," not just a qual, weekend campout and without the need for trinkets and special garb), I could support the use of the term Ranger.  

[DBlair]

If it's a quote from the DOD National Search and Rescue Manual as claimed, correcting Wikipedia isn't going to help much...

I wonder if the DOD manual actually says that or whether it is a false quote. I'd be surprised if the DOD would even consider allowing it to be phrased like that.

[Al Sayre]

I was wondering that myself, but it's 272 pages and not searchable, so I'm not really that curious...

[DBlair]

I was wondering that myself, but it's 272 pages and not searchable, so I'm not really that curious...

LOL Likewise.

[lordmonar]

Putting CAP "Rangers" in the same sentence as Navy SEALS and AF PJs, Oh my...

Why do I get the idea that this was at least partly written by some overzealous high speed wannabe-special ops Cadet?

That sentance was writted by the USAF in a manual that drove all USAF rescue operations for over a decade.

No where in that wiki page is anyone putting them in the same light as PJ, Seals or othe special foces.  Only here on this board is anyone equating CAP Rangers with them.

[lordmonar]

I downloaded the U.S. Supplement to the IAMSARMAN http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/manuals/Natl_SAR_Supp.pdf dated May 2000....and I did a word search....and I found

2.12.3 DOD resources that may be available to assist include Air Force pararescue personnel, and specialized teams such as Army, Navy, and Air Force explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams, Navy sea-air-land (SEAL) teams, or CAP ranger teams.

emphasis mine.

It's official folks....live with it.

[Major Carrales]

I downloaded the U.S. Supplement to the IAMSARMAN http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/manuals/Natl_SAR_Supp.pdf dated May 2000....and I did a word search....and I found

2.12.3 DOD resources that may be available to assist include Air Force pararescue personnel, and specialized teams such as Army, Navy, and Air Force explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams, Navy sea-air-land (SEAL) teams, or CAP ranger teams.

emphasis mine.

It's official folks....live with it.

Hummmm...seems like maybe we need to "beef up" CAP ground forces.

[RedFox24]

This may be considered off topic, if it is please excuse the post, it is not intended to hijack it.

Back in the mid to late 1970's, when I joined as a cadet, there was a Ranger program and CAP ground teams were called Ranger Teams, or at least they were here in Illinois.  I never heard the phrase "Ground Team" until early to mid 1980's. 

I have, in box in my storage shed, a copy of the Ranger Manual and also a copy of the draft manual with all the editing marks in it given to me by one of the authors in the late 1980's.  Somewhere in those boxes I also have some slides of "Ranger Training" conducted here in Illinois Wing, complete with the old military jeeps, rappelling, and I forget what all else.  Circa 1975-1979 ?? I think. 

A lot of these people had been to Hawk Mountian or a similar program I believe. 

I do not know if this was a nation wide program or just a wing/region program.  I remember that shortly after I joined CAP that the program was winding down as Illinois moved from Sector to Group commands.  At about the same time NCSA offered the first US Air Force Academy Survival Course and PJOC the same year.  I went to PJOC and another cadet in our unit went to the Survival School.  By the time I was ready to go to the Survival School, it wasn't offered anymore.  Hawk Mountian was pushed and so was Blue Beret for Ground Teams............. 

Again I think I remember correctly, that was a long time ago.   Olefido can shed some light on this as well, he joined before I did. 

I am not saying that this is what the original post refers to.  It is just one of those funny things I remember from 30+ years ago when I joined CAP and have kept in my collection of CAP keepsakes that I treasure for some odd reason. 

Maybe the CAP historians can shed some light on this.............

[sardak]

And an earlier version,
National Search and Rescue Manual, Vol I: National Search and Rescue System

CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, Washington, D.C. 20318-0200

Joint Pub 3-50, COMDTINST M16120.5A, 1 February 1991

page 2-10, section 233

C. Air Force pararescuemen are highly trained land SAR personnel and the first considered for supervision of ground search teams. Specialized teams such as Army, Navy, and Air Force explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams, Navy sea-air-land (SEAL) teams, or CAP ranger teams should be considered next.

D. Nonmilitary governmental SAR teams, such as those of county sheriffs, and United States Forest and National Park Services are normally also well qualified. Privately organized, amateur rescue teams active in land SAR exist nationwide. Volunteers may be used for land search missions if appropriate equipment and supervision are provided. Chapter 8 provides guidance for land SRU use.
--------------

Mike

[CAP_truth]

The Pennsylvania Wing's Hawk Mountain was originally named Pennsylvania Ranger School back in the late 60s and early 70s.

[alamrcn]

It's used all over Civil Air Patrol in many ways...



A certain image or mystique implied or not, for us - it's just another name. Just like "tactical", "special", "counter", "operations" and many others that we tack onto our groups, programs or training schools.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

A certain image or mystique implied or not, for us - it's just another name. Just like "tactical", "special", "counter", "operations" and many others that we tack onto our groups, programs or training schools.

Doesn't NAPA have "counter operations"? And can you get parts on "special orders"?

Yip, the words don't always mean the same thing.... 

[RiverAux]

The fact is that this is not a current term in use to describe CAP ground operations units no matter what might have been used in the past. 

[lordmonar]

The fact is that this is not a current term in use to describe CAP ground operations units no matter what might have been used in the past. 

Unless you are in PAWG/FLWG or any other place where they have an active ranger program.

Guys...it's just a word.

No one has a monopoly on the term "ranger" and the only ones trying to equate CAP Ranger with "U.S. Army Ranger" or "Texas Ranger" or "National Park Ranger" are those who seem to think that CAP should not be proud of what we do.

Get over it.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

No one has a monopoly on the term "ranger" and the only ones trying to equate CAP Ranger with "U.S. Army Ranger" or "Texas Ranger" or "National Park Ranger"...

Ford Ranger?

[wingnut55]

POWER RANGER

[Major Carrales]

The fact is that this is not a current term in use to describe CAP ground operations units no matter what might have been used in the past. 

Unless you are in PAWG/FLWG or any other place where they have an active ranger program.

Guys...it's just a word.

No one has a monopoly on the term "ranger" and the only ones trying to equate CAP Ranger with "U.S. Army Ranger" or "Texas Ranger" or "National Park Ranger" are those who seem to think that CAP should not be proud of what we do.

Get over it.

We should be proud of what we do, more so than ashamed of what we do not do.  

I have always warned against comparison between CAP and the other entities that many of our number have been members of.  That includes the USAF, other Armed Services, Fire and Police...yes, we need to honor those professions, but making comparisons is like "apples and oranges."

Notice that everytime someone makes one of these comparisons...it leads to putting down CAP (good works, missions, personnel and all) in favor of some idealized CAP that does not, cannot and likely will not exist.

[JohnKachenmeister]

"Ranger" is from the English, and originally meant a military force capable of operating detached from the main army.  The original Rangers were woodsmen who operated as a recon-in-force during the French and Indian Wars (Rogers' Rangers were the most famous.)  They were known for their knowledge of the terrain, and ability to operate independently.

"Ranger" in World War II was a term resurrected to identify American units trained to act like the "Commando" units of the British Army.  We needed a uniquely American name.  ("Commando," incidentally, was ripped off by the British from the Boer Dutch who called their Ranger units "Commando" companies during the Boer War).

After a brief post-war hibernation, the American Rangers were again reconstituted as an elite assault force.  They remain such a force today.

IF a CAP ground team is capable of self-sustained operations in an austere environment for 72 hours (the standard for GTM-1, by the way) I have no problem calling such teams CAP Rangers.  It is in keeping with the original definition of Rangers, a force that can be detached from the main body to act as a recon force on its own in the wilderness.

[Major Carrales]

"Ranger" is from the English, and originally meant a military force capable of operating detached from the main army.  The original Rangers were woodsmen who operated as a recon-in-force during the French and Indian Wars (Rogers' Rangers were the most famous.)  They were known for their knowledge of the terrain, and ability to operate independently.

"Ranger" in World War II was a term resurrected to identify American units trained to act like the "Commando" units of the British Army.  We needed a uniquely American name.  ("Commando," incidentally, was ripped off by the British from the Boer Dutch who called their Ranger units "Commando" companies during the Boer War).

After a brief post-war hibernation, the American Rangers were again reconstituted as an elite assault force.  They remain such a force today.

IF a CAP ground team is capable of self-sustained operations in an austere environment for 72 hours (the standard for GTM-1, by the way) I have no problem calling such teams CAP Rangers.  It is in keeping with the original definition of Rangers, a force that can be detached from the main body to act as a recon force on its own in the wilderness.

Well written and well reasoned, Kach.  Kudos!!!  Now, let's see who "begs to differ."

[wuzafuzz]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

Granted, the chances of a CAP ground team being arrested for calling themselves "Rangers" is extremely limited.  But why go inviting yet another negative perception? 

The obvious exception is federal employees and military.  Most of the time CAP doesn't qualify.  Aux Off and all that.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

Granted, the chances of a CAP ground team being arrested for calling themselves "Rangers" is extremely limited.  But why go inviting yet another negative perception? 

The obvious exception is federal employees and military.  Most of the time CAP doesn't qualify.  Aux Off and all that.

That's kind of a reach, Eric.  If they were working in a security or quasi-police capacity, sure.  Nobody is likely to mistake a team of CAP Rangers for park rangers, (nor for that matter, Army Rangers), and it certainly is not being done with the intent to perpetuate a fraud. 

[ricks]

So I am totally new here. I was a cadet in the early 1990's and was a ground team member. I don't recall if we called ourselves rangers or not but I do know that the experience was very useful in my career as a US Army Special Operations soldier and eventual team leader in Iraq. The idea that these kids have the opportunity to learn real-world skills like woodsmanship down to understanding the concept of noise and light discipline is terrific. I think however that the emphasis should be more on saving lives than taking them. In the end that is what a soldier does. If you trim all the fat and the MOS away, a soldier is on the line with a rifle. These kids should be taught the importance of disciple and bearing. They should be taught skills that will help them survive in austere environments. They should be taught life saving skills. They should be the best. and when the time comes, if they so decide, they should be prime candidates for PJ or SF 18D. A name is just a name, Ranger or Snake Eater or smores baker matters not, it is what they learn that makes the difference. That should be the debate.

[Hawk200]

"Ranger" is from the English, and originally meant a military force capable of operating detached from the main army.  The original Rangers were woodsmen who operated as a recon-in-force during the French and Indian Wars (Rogers' Rangers were the most famous.)  They were known for their knowledge of the terrain, and ability to operate independently.

"Ranger" in World War II was a term resurrected to identify American units trained to act like the "Commando" units of the British Army.  We needed a uniquely American name.  ("Commando," incidentally, was ripped off by the British from the Boer Dutch who called their Ranger units "Commando" companies during the Boer War).

After a brief post-war hibernation, the American Rangers were again reconstituted as an elite assault force.  They remain such a force today.

IF a CAP ground team is capable of self-sustained operations in an austere environment for 72 hours (the standard for GTM-1, by the way) I have no problem calling such teams CAP Rangers.  It is in keeping with the original definition of Rangers, a force that can be detached from the main body to act as a recon force on its own in the wilderness.

Well written and well reasoned, Kach.  Kudos!!!  Now, let's see who "begs to differ."

No "beg to differ", but a little additional info.

The original Ranger was little more than a scout. Those scouts would "range" the terrain, and report on what was out there. Those reports could include just about anything and everything, from terrain that could be problematic to food and water sources. They became known as "Rangers".

A good read on the subject is a book by John D. Lock called "To Fight with Intrepidity: The Complete History of the U.S. Army Rangers 1622 to Present". I don't normally read military history, but the book is fascinating. Be forewarned, the hardcover is 580 pages! After doing a little research, I found that he has another book, which I'll dig up as soon as I get home.

As to CAP "Rangers", I think it's something that needs to be kept low key, as many folks aren't really aware of the history of the term.  To most of the American public, a Ranger is a hardcore Army guy like Rambo. Not accurate, but difficult to change the minds of millions of people.

[Hawk200]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

I would very much like to see those laws in writing from a reliable source. Telling people that they can't use the word "ranger" in a general sense is rather out there. Some might think of it as unconstitutional.

[alamrcn]

Oh yah, I forgot this one.....



The folks that live near Grand Rapids, Minnesota and on the iron range are called "Iron Rangers" - and the Civil Air Patrol unit there follows suit.

Don't we have several units that refer to themselves as Swamp Rats too?

[swamprat86]

Just me. 

[wuzafuzz]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

I would very much like to see those laws in writing from a reliable source. Telling people that they can't use the word "ranger" in a general sense is rather out there. Some might think of it as unconstitutional.

Here is a reliable source, pertinent to California.  I wasn't just making stuff up.  Sorry about the long post, but I'm not sure a dynamically created URL from a search would work.  

As I mentioned before, it is extremely unlikely a CAP member would actually be cited for the infraction, but a lecture and admonishment to knock it off could happen.  There are better ways to maintain a positive image.  

It's not like the California cops looking for CS laws to enforce, but CAP shouldn't ignore them either.  Now the lawyers can argue the specifics, whether we fall under the federal exclusion, etc.  Better to simply avoid it IMHO.  

CALIFORNIA CODES
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 4021-4022

4021.  Except as otherwise provided, the willful or negligent
commission of any of the acts prohibited or the omission of any of
the acts required by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 4251) to
Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 4411), inclusive, of Part 2 of
this division is a misdemeanor.

4022.  (a) The titles of ranger, park ranger, and forest ranger, and
derivations thereof, may only be used by persons who are peace
officers under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3
of Part 2 of the Penal Code, employees of the Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection, or employees of the Department of Parks and
Recreation classified as State Park Ranger (Permanent Intermittent).
Any person, other than a peace officer or employee of the Department
of Parks and Recreation, as described in this section, or employee
of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, who willfully
wears, exhibits, or uses any authorized badge, insignia, emblem,
device, label, title, or card of a ranger, park ranger, forest
ranger, or a derivation thereof, to identify the person as a ranger,
park ranger, or forest ranger, or who willfully wears, exhibits, or
uses any badge, insignia, emblem, device, label, title, or card of a
ranger, park ranger, or forest ranger, which so resembles the
authorized version that it would deceive an ordinary, reasonable
person into believing that it is authorized for the use  of a ranger,
park ranger, or forest ranger, is guilty of a infraction.
  (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to positions and titles of
agencies of the United States government or to any local agency which
is officially using any title specified in subdivision (a) as of
January 1, 1990.

[openmind]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

Granted, the chances of a CAP ground team being arrested for calling themselves "Rangers" is extremely limited.  But why go inviting yet another negative perception? 

The obvious exception is federal employees and military.  Most of the time CAP doesn't qualify.  Aux Off and all that.

That's kind of a reach, Eric.  If they were working in a security or quasi-police capacity, sure.  Nobody is likely to mistake a team of CAP Rangers for park rangers, (nor for that matter, Army Rangers), and it certainly is not being done with the intent to perpetuate a fraud. 

Just as an FYI, this issue around Legal restrictions on the use of a name has also been a problem in the IT industry.

Somewhere around here I still have the Novell and Microsoft docs from thirteen or fourteen years ago that noted, in bold print, that in States with laws restricting the use of the term Engineer to PEs, the actual meaning of my CNE and MCSE certifications became the initials only, and not the name which they abbreviated.  For instance, my Certified NetWare Engineer became simply CNE with no special meaning.  Otherwise you ran afoul of State laws in various States which severely penalized anyone claiming to be an Engineer who was not actually a PE.

This also means that in some States you simply won't find a job title of 'Sanitation Engineer', the word Engineer in any sense involving a job or position or employment, is strictly regulated.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Ranger is likewise restricted in some States.

Of course, all of this is secondary to whether we even NEED to use the name, regardless of whether it is still found in some old USAF or .gov documents.  I'm not sure why 'CAP Ground Teams' would not be perfectly clear and suitable when mentioned in a news article.  (Hopefully, if the PAO did their job so we got credit from the Media.)

openmind

[DG]

The Ranger Creed

It is my duty as a member of the Rangers of the Civil Air Patrol ground search and rescue service, to save lives, aid the injured, and protect their property.

In order to do this, I will keep myself physically fit at all times.

I will be prepared at all times to perform my assigned duties quickly and efficiently, placing these duties before my personal desires and comfort.

These things I do that others may live....

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

[NIN]

No one has a monopoly on the term "ranger" and the only ones trying to equate CAP Ranger with "U.S. Army Ranger" or "Texas Ranger" or "National Park Ranger" are those who seem to think that CAP should not be proud of what we do.

This guy clearly has not:

[Senior]

I was at Fort Leonard Wood as a cadet.  We were there for Pathfinders
School(This was before the GT Badge and the training we have now).
It was a school to teach the realities of SAR in Missouri.  A cadet had the
red bar "Advanced Ranger" above his name tapes.  He got a lot of attention
from the Regular Army folks.  They thought he was some foreign soldier.
We don't need more tabs that will lead to more uniform additions

[Senior]

Another thought.... Maybe we should get rid of GT title and go to SAR TECH
and be recognized for our abilities.

[wuzafuzz]

Another thought.... Maybe we should get rid of GT title and go to SAR TECH
and be recognized for our abilities.

:clap:

[Stonewall]

It's used all over Civil Air Patrol in many ways...



A certain image or mystique implied or not, for us - it's just another name. Just like "tactical", "special", "counter", "operations" and many others that we tack onto our groups, programs or training schools.

[Senior]

Stonewall those are some cool patches.   :clap:

[alamrcn]

Oh yah, forgot about that one...
And I still have notated on the patch website that I'm waiting for an explanation of that patch from you too!!

Ever see the CAP-SOG patches? They have nothing to do with Civil Air Patrol, but it still makes me chuckle.

Without asking for an "official" term to be greated, what could we call a Ground Team that was either composed of all GTM1/Leaders? Or maybe one with a specific special purpose or highly hones skill.

Remember, National HQ didn't think up the term "Urban Dirrection Finding Team". It's a long name, but maybe better than Electronic Search Rangers or something.

[Stonewall]

Oh yah, forgot about that one...
And I still have notated on the patch website that I'm waiting for an explanation of that patch from you too!!

Thought I sent it to you...

Circa 1989, Jacksonville Composite Squadron 08383, was comprised of cadets who were very much into Ground Team operations along with an absolute fascination of US Army Rangers.  Didn't help that a senior member for several years was on a "green to gold" scholarship at University of North Florida's Army ROTC program.  Prior to ROTC, he was enlisted as a Ranger (Sergeant) at 1st Ranger Battalion, Hunter AAF, GA.  We met at UNF while using their obstacle course.  He volunteered to take us out to the field, rappel, do land nav, etc.  Well, he joined CAP.  2d Lt Melvin Cole Bricker.  He never wore a CAP uniform but did wear his BDUs with Army insignia.  He was a poor college student after all.

Well, since we loved Special Forces and stuff, he inspired us to form a "Recondo/Ranger" team.  We wore the scroll depicted above and held try outs for a special "Recondo" tab that we unofficially wore above the scroll.  And of course, black berets.  Nothing was official, not even the "Ranger Scroll", but we wore them where a squadron patch would go for a couple years.

Note:  We never wore berets at official CAP activities.  We never wore Recondo tabs on any official CAP uniform. 

It was a different time in the 80s, just like it was in the 70s.  We did A LOT of extra curricular (read: outside CAP) activities.  Everything from weekends with the National Guard Special Forces (carrying real weapons) to flying with the Golden Knights during air shows.  So before anyone gets their panties in a wad, this was not a CAP sanctioned uniform.

[Eclipse]

Without asking for an "official" term to be greated, what could we call a Ground Team that was either composed of all GTM1/Leaders? Or maybe one with a specific special purpose or highly hones skill.

How about...Ground Team?

There's no need or warrant for any special term.

[lordmonar]

  (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to positions and titles of
agencies of the United States government or to any local agency which
is officially using any title specified in subdivision (a) as of
January 1, 1990.

Now this may be a stretch....and we are not always an instrument of the US government....but in the context that we are the USAF Auxillary....I think that one could argue that subdivision b would apply to Civil Air Patrol.

[wuzafuzz]

  (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to positions and titles of
agencies of the United States government or to any local agency which
is officially using any title specified in subdivision (a) as of
January 1, 1990.

Now this may be a stretch....and we are not always an instrument of the US government....but in the context that we are the USAF Auxillary....I think that one could argue that subdivision b would apply to Civil Air Patrol.

Arguable at best.  When we are CAP the non-profit / AUX OFF, then what?  Splitting hairs at this point, I think.  The plain ol' "Ground Team" or "SAR TECH" fits the bill without risking the not-so-coveted titles of "whacker," "wanna-be," or any other "who the heck do those guys think they are" type of label.

[JayT]

I would definately prefer 'SARTECH.'

[ol'fido]

Of course, if we used SARTECH we might be accused of trying to "wannabe" the Canadian Air Force combat search and rescue specialists, eh?

Redfox24 is right in saying that most of the local CAP units used the term RANGER for their teams. This was mostly local units that put together a SERIOUS ground search and rescue program and wanted to have a name that reflected that proficiency. The key word here is SERIOUS. These are people who train in search techniques, survival, land nav, and at that time rappelling and rope work was trained for the confidence building factor if not for actual use. Most of my early bivouacs were held at state parks that afforded places to rappel.

I wouldn't mind another term instead of the generic "ground team" . However, if you are going to use a term like "rangers" or "pathfinders", you need to go above and beyond the normal training. Just having all your tasks signed of for ground team is not gonna cut it.

And I do think that using a team designation like Rangers, Pathfinders, or Sartechs could help build esprit de corps and unit integrity. It must have standards though and not become a clique or a good ol' boys club.

[_]

Of course, if we used SARTECH we might be accused of trying to "wannabe" the Canadian Air Force combat search and rescue specialists, eh?

How about being accused of being a "wannabe" NASAR SARTECH.

The SARTECH title is a very well established title in the US that CAP should stay away from unless somehow we start using their program.

[ol'fido]

Of course, if we used SARTECH we might be accused of trying to "wannabe" the Canadian Air Force combat search and rescue specialists, eh?

How about being accused of being a "wannabe" NASAR SARTECH.

The SARTECH title is a very well established title in the US that CAP should stay away from unless somehow we start using their program.

Um... That first bit there was mostly a witty comment directed to our brothers North of the border not a serious observation. Note the "eh" on the end, eh!

[_]

Of course, if we used SARTECH we might be accused of trying to "wannabe" the Canadian Air Force combat search and rescue specialists, eh?

How about being accused of being a "wannabe" NASAR SARTECH.

The SARTECH title is a very well established title in the US that CAP should stay away from unless somehow we start using their program.

Um... That first bit there was mostly a witty comment directed to our brothers North of the border not a serious observation. Note the "eh" on the end, eh!

Saw that.  I was trying to point out that taking the title SARTECH is nothing but co-opting a well established and respected title associated with it's own certification. 

[ThorntonOL]

Wasn't our Ground team training in place before SAR Tech stuff even came into existance?

[JohnKachenmeister]

  (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to positions and titles of
agencies of the United States government or to any local agency which
is officially using any title specified in subdivision (a) as of
January 1, 1990.

Now this may be a stretch....and we are not always an instrument of the US government....but in the context that we are the USAF Auxillary....I think that one could argue that subdivision b would apply to Civil Air Patrol.

Arguable at best.  When we are CAP the non-profit / AUX OFF, then what?  Splitting hairs at this point, I think.  The plain ol' "Ground Team" or "SAR TECH" fits the bill without risking the not-so-coveted titles of "whacker," "wanna-be," or any other "who the heck do those guys think they are" type of label.

Eric:

The language of the CA penal section is pretty clear that there needs to be some level of criminal intent to deceive another into believing that the actor is a law enforcement officer.  And, I think we would come under the exemption that LordM. identified, since we ARE an instrumentality of government some of the time, and most of that time is when we are acting as Rangers. 

[sardak]

Wasn't our Ground team training in place before SAR Tech stuff even came into existance?

If you mean the current national, formalized training with task guides and SQTRs, then SAR TECH™ came first.

CAP began development of the current training programs in 1997. What is now NASAR SAR TECH™ was first developed in 1988-89 and formalized in 1991.

CAP looked at using SAR TECH™ instead of developing its own program. CAP being CAP, money and legal issues played parts in the decision not to use it.

Since 1993 NASAR has inconsistently used the trademark symbol (TM) with SAR TECH™. Anyone can add the (TM) to an item, which does not indicate registration with the US Patent and Trademark Office. However, the (TM) does provide some legal recourse against other usage.

Trying to adopt SAR TECH would not be well received in most of the SAR community, regardless of trademark issues.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being called plain old ground SAR teams, which is what we have.

Mike

[SarDragon]

"SAR TECH" was registered in 1997, with a first use in 1993. It was abandoned in 1999.

More here.

Click the "Trademarks" button on the LH menu.

Click "3 Search TM database (TESS)".

Click "New User Form Search (Basic)", and search for "sar tech" (with the space).

[wuzafuzz]

  (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to positions and titles of
agencies of the United States government or to any local agency which
is officially using any title specified in subdivision (a) as of
January 1, 1990.

Now this may be a stretch....and we are not always an instrument of the US government....but in the context that we are the USAF Auxillary....I think that one could argue that subdivision b would apply to Civil Air Patrol.

Arguable at best.  When we are CAP the non-profit / AUX OFF, then what?  Splitting hairs at this point, I think.  The plain ol' "Ground Team" or "SAR TECH" fits the bill without risking the not-so-coveted titles of "whacker," "wanna-be," or any other "who the heck do those guys think they are" type of label.

Eric:

The language of the CA penal section is pretty clear that there needs to be some level of criminal intent to deceive another into believing that the actor is a law enforcement officer.  And, I think we would come under the exemption that LordM. identified, since we ARE an instrumentality of government some of the time, and most of that time is when we are acting as Rangers. 

I concede your point.  The first paragraph seems to prohibit the use of the title except by persons described.  However I was probably in error by reading that section as standing alone.  It essentially spells out the legislative intent for the actual elements of the infraction described starting with the text "any person."  The legislature doesn't want anyone using the title except peace officers, but implements that intent by specifically prohibiting only the acts described.  I'm out of practice!

Given the common understanding of the term "ranger," I still believe we would better serve our public image by choosing a different title for high-speed, low-drag ground team types.  The use of SARTECH, for instance, would not be co-opting yet another title, provided we use it properly and adhere to the SARTECH standards.  If SARTECH has been abandoned, we shouldn't use that either.  If we don't want to go there we can simply use something different.

In any case I would never suggest we steal, borrow, or use a title that isn't completely accurate and fits our brand.  The last word is the rub.  We don't have a clear brand for CAP.  Instead we have differing visions all over the country that lead to discussions like this.

Regards,

[Major Carrales]

It is obvious, in my opinion anyway, that the ever going "inferiority complex" held by many CAPTALKERS about CAP will create the situation where any term will seems to be "poser/pretenderish."  I mean, really, the use of SARTECH would make people think we were trying to pose as Canadians?  Please!?!  If I didn't know this was posted here I might think that was satire.

I am sure that the term "Ground Team" is the most appropriate...unless one of you thinks its means we are trying to somehow pretend to be the Mission Control Team at ESA's Space Operations Centre (ESOC).

Note the riduculous nature of the matter.  I'm just calling them "CAP Ground Teams" and those in the air "CAP Aircrews."

[swamprat86]

I was called a ground team member since I got qualified in 86.  It's as good of a term as any.  Regardless of what we call our guys, we need to make it consistant across the organization.

[Stonewall]

I was called a ground team member since I got qualified in 86.  It's as good of a term as any.  Regardless of what we call our guys, we need to make it consistant across the organization.

+1 (except for 87)

[RedFox24]

I think the funniest thing of this whole thread is how the use of some words or titles causes the feathers on some to stand up on both sides of the same words.  Titles, initials, contractions, acronyms, conjunctions, descriptions or what ever are not the issue.

I firmly believe that it goes back to being, acting, training and dressing professional.  NO name or title will make up for deficiencies in these areas.

.02 worth and expecting change.

[Flying Pig]

Wow...page after page.  Its a term we no longer use.  There are no "CAP Ranger Teams".  Can we just accept it was used out of context?

[wuzafuzz]

It is obvious, in my opinion anyway, that the ever going "inferiority complex" held by many CAPTALKERS about CAP will create the situation where any term will seems to be "poser/pretenderish."  I mean, really, the use of SARTECH would make people think we were trying to pose as Canadians?  Please!?!  If I didn't know this was posted here I might think that was satire.

I am sure that the term "Ground Team" is the most appropriate...unless one of you thinks its means we are trying to somehow pretend to be the Mission Control Team at ESA's Space Operations Centre (ESOC).

Note the riduculous nature of the matter.  I'm just calling them "CAP Ground Teams" and those in the air "CAP Aircrews."

Why the impression that a bunch of people have an inferiority complex?  It's an honest disagreement over titles and image, not a mental nervous condition.  IMHO some things are simply ostentatious and seem a little out of character for CAP.  I can assure you my opinion is most cetainly not the result of self-loathing, inferiority, or any other similar issue.

Unless there is a NIMS standard description that would be more appropriate, Ground Team and Ground Team Member / Leader is perfectly fine.

I suppose this conversation has exceeded the battery of a deceased equine limits.  Spirited conversation was entertaining though ;-) 

[heliodoc]

Yep

NIMS doesn't recognize "CAP Rangers" anyway 

So why not not stick wiith GTM /GTL

Inferiority complexes??   NAH  Only titles.... time to mode to the 21 st century anyway

Nice to to have memories of the old CAP Ranger daze but its  new era....

[alamrcn]

How about...Ground Team? There's no need or warrant for any special term.

That took FOREVER for you to get in on this! Congrats on Post #5000 by-the-way...

I have no problem with "Ground Team" as the official term. I'm just asking that if there WERE special teams, what acceptable PC'ish language would be available?

Did we have a need to create an "Urban Direction Finding" team? That IS a special skill, so why not one for teams specifically trained for mountainous terrain or extended field time with minimal support, for example.

A CAP Ranger, to me - and it has been mentioned ad nausea here by others  - infers someone trained in woodsmanship and survival skills.

[alamrcn]

So why not not stick wiith GTM /GTL

Whoops, don't forget GTM1, GTM2, GTM3...
So maybe different levels of Ground Teams, with a number to designate their level of training and experience?

[arajca]

Unless there is a NIMS standard description that would be more appropriate, Ground Team and Ground Team Member / Leader is perfectly fine.

Wilderness Search and Rescue Team, Type I -IV.

[ZigZag911]

When the use of the term Ranger originated in PA & NJ back in the early 70s, there were a lot of 'wannabes' involved (senior as well as cadet) that just aggravated those of us who took ES seriously. Many of their actions made CAP look ridiculous in the eyes of professional first responders, as well as the Real Military. The program also tended to be rather aggressive,  both in its training methods and in its relationship with other members (non-Rangers).

I'd have no objection to the renewed use of the term as long as arrogant elitism was left at the door (earned esprit de corps is perfectly acceptable -- as long as any qualified member has the opportunity to earn it!)

[NIN]

Wow...page after page.  Its a term we no longer use.  There are no "CAP Ranger Teams".  Can we just accept it was used out of context?

Clearly, you are not within the gravitational pull of the Keystone State.....

[NIN]

Did we have a need to create an "Urban Direction Finding" team? That IS a special skill, so why not one for teams specifically trained for mountainous terrain or extended field time with minimal support, for example.

Yeah, can I only conduct MOUT with my UDF team?  What happens if I have to visit an airpatch in the 'burbs?  Do we become a "Suburban Direction Finding Team?"  Couple miles later, I need to come up with a "Rural Direction Finding and Direction Giving" team ("Ya'll go up this here road a'piece and at the Smith farm, take that left...")?

[RedFox24]

Couple miles later, I need to come up with a "Rural Direction Finding and Direction Giving" team ("Ya'll go up this here road a'piece and at the Smith farm, take that left...")?

Don't make fun of where I live!!!

And by the way, you take a left where the forked ash tree USE to be................

Yes, I had that given to me once as directions and it is where I live.

[Turtle1]

As a former Ranger back in the 70's, being a Ranger was a good thing, but now in the 21st century it is important that we are unified in our mission.  No more " well I am a Ranger, therefore I am better".  The way Emergency Services is set up, we know that we can work with another person from another state and know they have the same qualifications as we do.  On a final note there is no room for elitism in Civil Air Patrol.

[lordmonar]

On a final note there is no room for elitism in Civil Air Patrol.

So....are you going to take off your rank and just be a SMWOR? Take off your GT badge?  What about all your ribbons?

"Elitism" is a slippery word.

[Flying Pig]

Really?  A GT badge is elite?  Elite is a mindset, not a badge.  You can think you are elite, and not be.  You can be elite and not care, or you can be elite and make sure everyone knows you are. 

[lordmonar]

And that is my point.

Elite...means that you are "better" then someone else....either by birth, education, training, wealth, location, position, ability, rank or any number of different factors.

We as leaders use elitism all the time to help build teams.

Elitsim is not in and of itself a bad thing.

We use it all the time.  If you finish your GT training we give you a badge....you wear it to show the world that you are "better" then the average CAP person.  PAWG uses the ranger program to try to make their GT's even better.

The accusation that elitism has no place in CAP is dead wrong.  Can elitism get out of hand....of course it can...I'm not saying that it can't or does not happen.  We have all seen the guy who lords it over everyone else that he went to hawk mountain/blue beret/got his mitchell and then takes it too far and a break down in local team building happens.

But that is an exaple of how one set of elitism is just interfering with your local set of eltism.

I was just pointing our that all outward displays of teams, ranks, specialties, awards are all forms of elitsm.

We have rank to show and a system of customs and courtisies that that make our higher ranking members more "elite" then our C/ABs.
We give ribbons to honor those who accomplish more so that they can be proud of their work AND to encourage others to work hard.  Fors some ribbons we even adopt addtional benifits that are exclusive to rank and file (Spaatz Assocation, the BSVM/SSVM honor role and on the real military side, saluting MOH recepiants).

All of these are forms of elitism.  We use this elitims to make our program better.  So elitism does have a place in CAP.

[flyerthom]

The bottom line is someone used an outdated term quoted from an outdated source. When a call out is needed I don't care what you call me, Air crew, ground crew, ranger, wing winnie, Bubba the av gas hog,
Just Call me! That's why I'm, and if I may say it, we're all here - to serve our town, state and nation.

[lordmonar]

The bottom line is someone used an outdated term quoted from an outdated source. When a call out is needed I don't care what you call me, Air crew, ground crew, ranger, wing winnie, Bubba the av gas hog,
Just Call me! That's why I'm, and if I may say it, we're all here - to serve our town, state and nation.

+1

[ol'fido]

1. The part about the Canadians was a JOKE!!! Get past it.

2. If you tell anybody in CAP you are with the ground team, they will know what you are talking about. However, if you wish to call your team the Anytown Composite Squadron Ranger Team so what. It doesn't mean that the entirety of CAP has to switch. It's just something you do to set yourself apart from the pack. It's why military units from long ago to the present day seek to distinguish themselves through unit patches, mottos, etc. It should be looked at as something to build unit esprit and team integrity.

3. It should not devolve into a clique or good ol' boy's club. It must have standards and strong leadership that puts the hype into its proper perspective. Anybody that has seen TAPS knows how a group like this can go awry. But that doesn't mean that we should ban them altogether. It just means that the standards and leadership must be exemplary.

4. Again, I'm not saying that CAP as a whole should adopt this type of program or its terminology. This should be a local, group, or wing program with clearly  defined standards, a clear mission, and appropriate checks and balances. There does not even have to be any special patches , badges, or other bling but like "blue berets" or "ranger flashes" they can be a positive thing if done right.

5. The RM does not own the names of their elite units. Not Ranger, not Green Beret, not even Marine. There are military forces all over the world that have these names. If we do adopt any that are used by the U.S. military, I do think we should take care not to be seen as imitators or posers. So no gold/black ranger arcs,etc.

6. Once more since my previous posts apparently didn't make it clear. THE CANADIAN THING WAS A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flyguy06]

This post made me think of something. Its funny, in the army when Ragers come into a room, they like to wear the big, bright "RANGER" shirts wih the buzz cuts and talk about how Hoooah they are. When SF folks come into a room, they usually dont say anything thatlinks them to SF> They dont wear shirts, they dont "broadcast" who they are. And I realized they dont have to. You dont have to broadcast who you are or have a "fancy:" title. if you do your job correctly and professionally people will recognize you.

I really hate to use this example. But look at the USMC vs the Army. In the Army, we have "eliet" units like the 82nd, the 101st, the 75th RGR Regt. and they are usually identified by a different type of headgear than the rest of the army. But look at the USMC. I hate to admit it but they are truly "one" unit. They dont distinqusih each other by wearing something that sets them apart from everybody else intheir organization. A Marine is a Marine is a MArine. Doesnt matter if you are an admin specialist or a Force Recon, They all wear the same uniform and they all look the same. That too me is true brotherhood and esprit de corps. We feel the need to spereate units by headgear and that creates a culture of "elitism" The USMC doesnt do that. If you put three mairmes in a room, the novice could not tell who was the recon, who was the supply guy or who was the cook. I kind of like that attitude.

But I still love my U.S. Army.

[lordmonar]

Unless you are a Marine Aviator or RECON. 

As for SF guys....they do have their own sort of HOORA and elitist bling.  It is just a little different then the Ranger or Airborne sort of elitism.

[flyguy06]

You put a Recon Marine next to a MArine cook , both in uniform, and the avaerage person would not be able to tell who is what. In the army, we wear different colored berets to designate "special" people.

I remember when a bunch of guys came into the day room. They did not have buzz cuts. They wore regular cloths and I found out they were SF. They didnt wear it on their chest though. I just asked and they told me

[ricks]

Unless you are a Marine Aviator or RECON. 

As for SF guys....they do have their own sort of HOORA and elitist bling.  It is just a little different then the Ranger or Airborne sort of elitism.

It usually entails a big faced watch and some WileyX shades and don't forget the ball cap. Most of the SF guys I have worked with were real down to earth. They are the real pros that get good work done. If you ever have a chance to visit the GB Club at Bragg, you will get a history lesson of what it is really all about. It' s not about HOORAH. Its about skill. Fast is slow, smooth is fast. BTW I was a red-headed stepchild, PSYOP Guy.

[flyguy06]

we actually say HUAH not HORAH. THere is no "R"

[ricks]

we actually say HUAH not HORAH. THere is no "R"

In ten years I never figured out why we say Hooah. I have heard a lot of reasons but none that really rang true for me but I was not 11b.

[caplegalnc]

we actually say HUAH not HORAH. THere is no "R"

In ten years I never figured out why we say Hooah. I have heard a lot of reasons but none that really rang true for me but I was not 11b.

It's an 11Bravo thing.  You have to be one to understand.  But seriously, it comes from the early 1800's and one of the lesser known "limited wars" fought by the U.S. Army.

[flyguy06]

I used tobe an 11B, now I am an 11A

[Gunner C]

we actually say HUAH not HORAH. THere is no "R"

In ten years I never figured out why we say Hooah. I have heard a lot of reasons but none that really rang true for me but I was not 11b.

It's an 11Bravo thing.  You have to be one to understand.  But seriously, it comes from the early 1800's and one of the lesser known "limited wars" fought by the U.S. Army.

Except that no one had heard of the word before about 1982 (the first time I heard it and I'd been in the army for almost seven years by that time).  SF, generally speaking doesn't use that word - it sounds pretty stupid conventional army to most of them.  If someone on a team says something like that their team sergeant will probably ask them if they want to go back to the general purpose forces.  The urban legends about that word coming from Turkish, Cherokee, or whatever are so much baloney.  I'd like to see the airborne go back to it's traditional greeting of the day:  (lower ranking initiates salute saying "ALL THE WAY, SIR!;  the higher ranking returns the salute and says "AIRBORNE!"  This was used beginning at jump school and was the greeting of the day in the 82nd, 101st, separate airborne battalions, 173rd Abn Bde, and the ranger battalions].

[RogueLeader]

Except that no one had heard of the word before about 1982 (the first time I heard it and I'd been in the army for almost seven years by that time).  SF, generally speaking doesn't use that word - it sounds pretty stupid conventional army to most of them.  If someone on a team says something like that their team sergeant will probably ask them if they want to go back to the general purpose forces.  The urban legends about that word coming from Turkish, Cherokee, or whatever are so much baloney.  I'd like to see the airborne go back to it's traditional greeting of the day:  (lower ranking initiates salute saying "ALL THE WAY, SIR!;  the higher ranking returns the salute and says "AIRBORNE!"  This was used beginning at jump school and was the greeting of the day in the 82nd, 101st, separate airborne battalions, 173rd Abn Bde, and the ranger battalions].

Still is in 20th En Bde. (Abn) amd 27 En Bn (Cbt)(Abn)

[tarheel gumby]

Heard HUAH first at Ft. McClellan when I was a 95 B, but nobody bothered to explain the origin of the word .

[MIKE]

Typical.