Main Menu

Civil Air Patrol Rangers

Started by N Harmon, March 23, 2009, 10:15:39 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wuzafuzz

Quote from: Senior on March 24, 2009, 06:01:48 PM
Another thought.... Maybe we should get rid of GT title and go to SAR TECH
and be recognized for our abilities. ;)

:clap:
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

Stonewall

Quote from: alamrcn on March 24, 2009, 02:29:36 AM
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.

Serving since 1987.

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.



Ace Browning, Maj, CAP
History Hoarder
71st Wing, Minnesota

Stonewall

Quote from: alamrcn on March 24, 2009, 07:32:31 PM
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.

Serving since 1987.

Eclipse

Quote from: alamrcn on March 24, 2009, 07:32:31 PM
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.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 24, 2009, 04:00:36 PM
  (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.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

wuzafuzz

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 24, 2009, 04:00:36 PM
  (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.
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

JayT

I would definately prefer 'SARTECH.'
"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

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.
Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

_

Quote from: olefido on March 24, 2009, 09:50:32 PM
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

Quote from: Bayhawk21 on March 24, 2009, 11:19:44 PM
Quote from: olefido on March 24, 2009, 09:50:32 PM
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!
Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

_

Quote from: olefido on March 24, 2009, 11:48:02 PM
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on March 24, 2009, 11:19:44 PM
Quote from: olefido on March 24, 2009, 09:50:32 PM
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?
Former 1st Lt. Oliver L. Thornton
NY-292
Broome Tioga Composite Squadron

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 24, 2009, 09:12:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 24, 2009, 04:00:36 PM
  (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. 
Another former CAP officer

sardak

QuoteWasn'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).
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

wuzafuzz

#57
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 25, 2009, 02:47:51 AM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 24, 2009, 09:12:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 24, 2009, 04:00:36 PM
  (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,
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

Major Carrales

#58
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."
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

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.