If anyone is interested, Missouri Wing is standing up the Pathfinder Technical School again. It's running from 28 June - 5 July 2014 at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO. More info on their website...
http://pathfindertechschool.org/index.html (http://pathfindertechschool.org/index.html)
More opportunities for training are always welcome, it's just unfortunate that we have another
area that has chosen affectation over function and made up their own names and quals,
not to mention another SAR school purporting to train medics.
For all it's perceived shortcomings, not to mention the aged date on its cover, the CAP
ES curriculum is fairly comprehensive and covers pretty much everything a member needs
to accomplish the current mission set.
If we all just stuck to >THAT< we'd be better off.
Also, considering there's only 20 open spots and those who intend this year are supposed to be
staff in subsequent years, was this really supposed to be "opened" to other wings and regions?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 03:48:53 PM
More opportunities for training are always welcome, it's just unfortunate that we have another
area that has chosen affectation over function and made up their own names
Not going to comment on the other items, but just as a point of fact, the name Pathfinder has been used in previous CAP activities. From talking with people who were members from the 1970s and 1980s, I remember being told by one previous Spaatz cadet that Missouri used to host a Pathfinder school back in the 1980s. Yes that was the name then. He remember being awarded an orange beret after completion.
We used to do a lot of things "BITD", we don't any more and we'd be best served in standardization vs. creating another
subgroup within a given wing.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 04:06:29 PM
We used to do a lot of things "BITD", we don't any more and we'd be best served in standardization vs. creating another
subgroup within a given wing.
Not necessarily disagreeing. Just simply pointing out that the name was not made up and it holds a historical footnote. Probably the reason why MOWG chose it.
Actually the name of the school isn't really the issue - if you look at the school's currcilum documents,
it created MOWG-only "Pathfinder" ratings, including "Pathfinder Medic".
Unnecessary and inappropriate for CAP.
We already have GTM and Aircrew ratings that are compliant with CAP's mission set.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 04:28:35 PM
Actually the name of the school isn't really the issue - if you look at the school's currcilum documents,
it created MOWG-only "Pathfinder" ratings, including "Pathfinder Medic".
Unnecessary and inappropriate for CAP.
We already have GTM and Aircrew ratings that are compliant with CAP's mission set.
Just playing devil's advocate....GTM may be okay as a vanilla generic mission set....it may not be enough for the situation in MOWG.
So....again no problem with people adding new ratings....so long as they are not chaing CAP ratings.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2014, 04:43:12 PMJust playing devil's advocate....GTM may be okay as a vanilla generic mission set....it may not be enough for the situation in MOWG.
So....again no problem with people adding new ratings....so long as they are not chaing CAP ratings.
Since I still have not looked at the requirements, and quite frankly probably will not, it is possible. The Ozarks can present an interesting challenge in certain areas.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 04:28:35 PM
Actually the name of the school isn't really the issue - if you look at the school's currcilum documents,
it created MOWG-only "Pathfinder" ratings, including "Pathfinder Medic".
Unnecessary and inappropriate for CAP.
We already have GTM and Aircrew ratings that are compliant with CAP's mission set.
I have to agree with Eclipse, unless you never want to leave the Missouri Wing, what is the value add of coming up with your own internal rating, has it been vetted by National?; will it appear on a 101 card?; Why would an IC from an adjoining wing want to use you if your rating is internal only?
Quote from: LSThiker on May 21, 2014, 03:59:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 03:48:53 PM
More opportunities for training are always welcome, it's just unfortunate that we have another
area that has chosen affectation over function and made up their own names
Not going to comment on the other items, but just as a point of fact, the name Pathfinder has been used in previous CAP activities. From talking with people who were members from the 1970s and 1980s, I remember being told by one previous Spaatz cadet that Missouri used to host a Pathfinder school back in the 1980s. Yes that was the name then. He remember being awarded an orange beret after completion.
I would think a "mohawk" haircut would be along the lines of the "Pathfinders" of WWII. A orange beret? Well bless their little hearts indeed 8)
If you look at their pathfinder ratings....you will see that all start with "GTMX"......so if you got a Pathfinder 1st Class....you got a GTM1....so is is useable outside of MOWG.
So again.....what really is the problem here?
Quote from: Private Investigator on May 21, 2014, 05:10:48 PM
I would think a "mohawk" haircut would be along the lines of the "Pathfinders" of WWII. A orange beret? Well bless their little hearts indeed 8)
Pretty much the same thing I said when I heard that. Eh. Oh well. Not my Wing and definitely not my history.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 21, 2014, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on May 21, 2014, 05:10:48 PM
I would think a "mohawk" haircut would be along the lines of the "Pathfinders" of WWII. A orange beret? Well bless their little hearts indeed 8)
Pretty much the same thing I said when I heard that. Eh. Oh well. Not my Wing and definitely not my history.
They do tend to do things a bit differently in "Miss-ou-rah"
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2014, 05:12:53 PM
If you look at their pathfinder ratings....you will see that all start with "GTMX"......so if you got a Pathfinder 1st Class....you got a GTM1....so is is useable outside of MOWG.
So again.....what really is the problem here?
The problem is, as with any non-vetted designation; it implies a difference in training. We are a national organization and we have a training standard. If there is a legitimate need for a skill set not currently covered by, for instance, GTMx; then that needs to be addressed at a national level. If the designation is just because it is Tact-i- kewl, then why bother. To me much like in the corporate world, where is the value add?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 04:28:35 PM
Actually the name of the school isn't really the issue - if you look at the school's currcilum documents,
it created MOWG-only "Pathfinder" ratings, including "Pathfinder Medic".
Unnecessary and inappropriate for CAP.
We already have GTM and Aircrew ratings that are compliant with CAP's mission set.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2014, 05:12:53 PM
If you look at their pathfinder ratings....you will see that all start with "GTMX"......so if you got a Pathfinder 1st Class....you got a GTM1....so is is useable outside of MOWG.
So again.....what really is the problem here?
lord beat me to this. With the PAWG Ranger ratings, they are their own special thing that out of pure coincidence happen to have similarities with the regular ES curriculum. It seems that MOWG on the other hand is taking the preexisting ratings and building on to them in order to make better GTMs. And if you look at the ratings, you'll see not only do they require an equivalent GTM level first, some of the requirements are things that USED TO BE required nationally; things which were taken out, usually because it "took too long"; things which I for one would like to see in the national requirements still. They also include things like Storm Spotter training which is of little to no use to a lot of the country, but absolutely invaluable to a GT operating in Missouri.
Whereas the PAWG Rangers seem to be all about the bling and are pretty useless in actual operations, this school seems to be focusing on 1) getting people trained to the national standard and 2) giving advanced training to help meet local needs. I believe that every wing (except for the northeast where the entire region is probably smaller than one group in some western states >:D) should have a school or training program like this. One where you take people who already have the national baseline training and then give them the added training needed to meet local demands. Maybe that local training is in the form of Storm Spotter training, or disaster relief after a major tornado, or maybe it's wilderness survival in snow conditions, or even surviving in a swamp.
So, other than the name and the chance of some bling (which wasn't even broached in any of the material I saw on the website), what is the problem?
ETA:
Quote from: Alaric on May 21, 2014, 05:43:31 PM
The problem is, as with any non-vetted designation; it implies a difference in training. We are a national organization and we have a training standard. If there is a legitimate need for a skill set not currently covered by, for instance, GTMx; then that needs to be addressed at a national level. If the designation is just because it is Tact-i- kewl, then why bother. To me much like in the corporate world, where is the value add?
Who says this wasn't vetted? How do we know that this wasn't coordinated at the Region and National levels? Also, how can you honestly say that because Idaho doesn't need Storm Spotter training, Missouri can't do it. Every area is different and there are local training needs that are going to be needed in one area that aren't needed in others.
I agree that if the sole purpose of the Pathfinder 1/2/3 is to be tactikewl, then it's pointless; but if that were the case, they probably wouldn't worry about making the GTM ratings a part of the training requirements. If, on the other hand, those ratings get people to engage in advanced training to serve their local communities and state, then I say more power to them.
So again, where is the problem in this?
Quote from: jeders on May 21, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
So, other than the name and the chance of some bling (which wasn't even broached in any of the material I saw on the website), what is the problem?
Because, don't you listen to the news? Everything has to be a national standard, and if it's not, it's defective per se. Local concerns detract from a national focus.
So, by God, they need to teach high-altitude mountain survival in FLWG, and you better believe that NDWG better get their hurricane awareness training...not to mention HIWG's blizzard survival curriculum.
>:D
Quote from: Alaric on May 21, 2014, 05:43:31 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2014, 05:12:53 PM
If you look at their pathfinder ratings....you will see that all start with "GTMX"......so if you got a Pathfinder 1st Class....you got a GTM1....so is is useable outside of MOWG.
So again.....what really is the problem here?
The problem is, as with any non-vetted designation; it implies a difference in training. We are a national organization and we have a training standard. If there is a legitimate need for a skill set not currently covered by, for instance, GTMx; then that needs to be addressed at a national level. If the designation is just because it is Tact-i- kewl, then why bother. To me much like in the corporate world, where is the value add?
No.....if locally you need or may need specialized training...it is local training.....why does it need to be addressed at a national level? Let's say for instance here in NVWG we determine our aircrews need desert survival....we don't need NHQ to vet it....it is a local requirement. So long as we are not adding it to the MO/MP/MS requirments it does not cross National's Stream.
If the only reason why you are against it is because the have a "Tact-i-Kewl" name....then you are just as bad as those who think they are "all that" just because they went to a school with a cool name.
Value added? a) Additional specialized training. b) Physical Fitness Tests c) advanced SAR skills.
Over all a Pathfinder 1st Class has more training then your GTM1.....so the value added is that he is better trained.
If they were just doing GTM1 and calling it something special....you may have an argument. But they are special...because they got more training then your average GTM1.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2014, 08:59:59 PM
If the only reason why you are against it is because the have a "Tact-i-Kewl" name....then you are just as bad as those who think they are "all that" just because they went to a school with a cool name.
No, you're trying to get people to adopt common sense, and think about the external appearance as well.
"Missouri Wing ES Academy" or "Missouri Wing SAR School" raise zero eyebrows, nor does simply adding
ancillary training, as needed, to the curriculum.
As soon as you start coming up with Tacti-Kewl names, your credibility starts being impacted inversely.
Same goes for the wings that come up with an code name every time someone goes to the head.
"Operation Over Water Drop", etc.
What we need is good training and meaningful missions, not a bunch of meaningless affectation.
So you are upset......because you are focusing on the affections......and not the training.
You are guilty of the thing you are mad about!
Just because they call it "Pathfinder" you hate it. End of story.....forget about anything else.....they are "posers" because they want a "kewl" name.
You can't have it both ways.....if it is a meaningless affection......it is meaningless....ergo any heart burn you have over it.....is disingenuous at best.
As for "cool" operational names....really....."Operation SPRING FLING" is interfering with may SAREX?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 09:08:11 PM
No, you're trying to get people to adopt common sense, and think about the external appearance as well.
"Missouri Wing ES Academy" or "Missouri Wing SAR School" raise zero eyebrows, nor does simply adding
ancillary training, as needed, to the curriculum.
As soon as you start coming up with Tacti-Kewl names, your credibility starts being impacted inversely.
Same goes for the wings that come up with an code name every time someone goes to the head.
"Operation Over Water Drop", etc.
What we need is good training and meaningful missions, not a bunch of meaningless affectation.
Wait, I thought you said:
QuoteActually the name of the school isn't really the issue
So why are you focusing on the name and not the real issue?
It's not just the name, but the name is a big part of the issue, and an unnecessary distraction.
Our national process already has the allowance for adding CERT qualifications to the 101 card,
and disavows CAP "medics", yet we have a new school which presents an unnecessary MOWG-only rating
including "Pathfinder Medics".
The collateral indicates this is a wing-sponsored activity, being brought back after a 10-year hiatus.
If the name has ingrained tradition, so be it, but like Blue Beret, it likely harkens a different CAP era
which has little relevance to today's CAP ES.
The additional training is fine if the wing has a need for it, but the special ratings and the "medics"
are a problem.
Being a "pathfinder" will have no more meaning in another wing then being a "Hawk" or a "Beret",
either you're a GTMx, or you're not, but the Tacti-kewl connotation could well be an issue
for those expecting their "special" to be recognized elsewhere, or even within the wing itself.
It's not like I expect anyone to care that "Eclipse has an issue..." but if it gets posted here,
with public curricula, it's fair game for comment.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 10:34:45 PM
a new school which presents an unnecessary MOWG-only rating
including "Pathfinder Medics".
What is their intent of the medic curriculum? How do you know this rating is unnecessary or a problem? What task is unnecessary on the "medic" task list? What task is inappropriahat is their intent of the medic curriculum? What task is beyond basic first aid or wilderness first aid? Perhaps having a person with wilderness first aid would be an advantage in some of the remote areas of the Ozarks? Have you hiked the 230 mile Ozarks trail?
>Any< task or training that purports to call someone a "medic" in a CAP context is inappropriate.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 11:40:26 PM
>Any< task or training that purports to call someone a "medic" in a CAP context is inappropriate.
So based on the name, which is not really the issue according to you, the program is inappropriate and unnecessary? So without judging the program or curriculum you have already determined this program to be unnecessary for MOWG simply because the program is called "medic"? Where does this program purport to calling someone a "medic"?
Let's not play semantic games, k?
See the website for details.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 11:50:35 PM
Let's not play semantic games, k?
See the website for details.
I am not playing any semantic games. Since you are the person making the claim, you are responsible for providing the evidence. "See the website for details" is not providing evidence.
Therefore, I ask again:
What is their intent of the medic curriculum? How do you know this rating is unnecessary or a problem? What task is unnecessary on the "medic" task list? What task is inappropriate? What task is beyond basic first aid or wilderness first aid? Perhaps having a person with wilderness first aid would be an advantage in some of the remote areas of the Ozarks? Have you hiked the 230 mile Ozarks trail?
Are you serous?
CAP does not have medics and disavows people who try to play that game.
Basic first aid is all CAP gets involvd in, and PER REG is not allowed to provide that training.
Basic First Aid doesn't make you a "medic", and anything more is verboten.
The term should NOT be used in a CAP training context.
Ever.
Quote from: jeders on May 21, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
...
lord beat me to this. With the PAWG Ranger ratings, they are their own special thing that out of pure coincidence happen to have similarities with the regular ES curriculum. It seems that MOWG on the other hand is taking the preexisting ratings and building on to them in order to make better GTMs. And if you look at the ratings, you'll see not only do they require an equivalent GTM level first, some of the requirements are things that USED TO BE required nationally; things which were taken out, usually because it "took too long"; things which I for one would like to see in the national requirements still. They also include things like Storm Spotter training which is of little to no use to a lot of the country, but absolutely invaluable to a GT operating in Missouri.
Whereas the PAWG Rangers seem to be all about the bling and are pretty useless in actual operations, this school seems to be focusing on 1) getting people trained to the national standard and 2) giving advanced training to help meet local needs. I believe that every wing (except for the northeast where the entire region is probably smaller than one group in some western states >:D) should have a school or training program like this. One where you take people who already have the national baseline training and then give them the added training needed to meet local demands. Maybe that local training is in the form of Storm Spotter training, or disaster relief after a major tornado, or maybe it's wilderness survival in snow conditions, or even surviving in a swamp....
I know I am biased here as a HMRS person, but have you looked at their skill sheets? GTM qualification at the comparable level is a requirement for a ranger rating. The skills added into the Ranger Ratings are exactly the same thing as you mention above. Enhanced ground team skills and local requirements/needs; Wilderness/Outdoor skills, increased navigation ability and rope/low angle rescue. Given there is a large number of the students who attend the school from out of state and will not need the rope skills in their local area, but a large number SAR calls I have been on in PA (in or out of CAP) required some sort of rope/low angle rescue skills either for access or actual rescue of a victim or body recovery.
MK
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 10:34:45 PM
It's not just the name, but the name is a big part of the issue, and an unnecessary distraction.
The only one distracted seems to be you.
QuoteOur national process already has the allowance for adding CERT qualifications to the 101 card,
and disavows CAP "medics", yet we have a new school which presents an unnecessary MOWG-only rating
including "Pathfinder Medics".
Okay...I'll buy that one.
QuoteThe collateral indicates this is a wing-sponsored activity, being brought back after a 10-year hiatus.
If the name has ingrained tradition, so be it, but like Blue Beret, it likely harkens a different CAP era
which has little relevance to today's CAP ES.
If....hanging a cool name...or even some useless bling...onto a program helps the aims and goals of that program.....where is the harm?
QuoteThe additional training is fine if the wing has a need for it, but the special ratings and the "medics"
are a problem.
I will grand you the medic part....but what is really wrong with the special ratings? You have GTM3s and you have Pathfinder 3s (GTM3 plus extra training)......they are different...and ergo should have different names. Arial Photographers are not just called Scanners.....no they are scanners with additional training.
QuoteBeing a "pathfinder" will have no more meaning in another wing then being a "Hawk" or a "Beret",
either you're a GTMx, or you're not,
Yeah.....and? Being a MP has no meaning outside of CAP, so what's your point?
Quotebut the Tacti-kewl connotation could well be an issue for those expecting their "special" to be recognized elsewhere, or even within the wing itself.
Seems like a problem for MOWG.....if it is going to be a problem at all. This is the same old line we get about Hawk Mountain and NBB (and NHGA to an extent). "They are all going to come back with an ego and make me respect their 'autharatay!'" A. Other then a few anecdotal stories about some 16 year old with an attitude.....it is not really a common problem....and for the few bad apples.....it should take about 30 seconds for a leader adjust said attitude.
QuoteIt's not like I expect anyone to care that "Eclipse has an issue..." but if it gets posted here,
with public curricula, it's fair game for comment.
Sure thing....it's fair game....no problem with you saying "this is wrong". And I agree with you the "medic" rating does go against CAP policy of us NOT being a medical provider and should be eliminated.
But beyond that......hating for the sake of hating.....and that is exactly what you are doing.....is just wrong. I don't know this program beyond what is on their web page. I don't know if there is a legitimate need for this sort of training. But really......your problem with them is simply their name and the medic thing. You need to be honest with yourself........what is in a name? Those who finish all the requirements for MOWG special ground team training could just as easily be GTM1 and MOWGGTM1s........what a mouthful....or we can just say pathfinder 1st.
Nope....I think you are just jealous that anyone would think of upping their game and maybe even reveling in the fact that they are a little better then all those GTM1s out there.
Instead of knocking them down.....maybe you just steal their program. Tailor it for your wing and have your own pathfinder school.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:00:03 AM
Basic first aid is all CAP gets involvd in, and PER REG is not allowed to provide that training.
You have a reference for this "per reg" because CAPR 160-1 states the general duties of the HSO is:
QuoteProvide or arrange for the provision of training in first aid, CPR and other life-saving measures by a certifying agency (American Red Cross, American Heart Association, American Safety and Health Institute, National Safety Council, etc.).
Basic first aid is all CAP gets involved in is correct. So what task on the skill sheet is beyond basic first aid? Perhaps the use of the term "medic" is a bad choice, but that is not to say the program is unnecessary for MOWG.
It appears that your only argument is that the course is unnecessary simply because they call it "medic" as you have provided zero argument otherwise.
For the record....I agree with Eclipse that we need to drop all the "medic" ratings......HMRS and at this Pathfinder School....as well as at NESA.
That does not mean we should not be offering advanced first aid courses.....so long as they stay in the area of lay person skills.
But when you start making a "medic" rating as a stand alone rating....then that implies that you are going to be doing the duties of a "medic" which to the lay person is someone who provides medical services to others in the field....which we are forbidden to do.
We are not a medical provider.....and "medic" implies that we are.
So.......by all means let's do the advanced/wilderness/First Responder First Aid courses.....but let's not have a rating that says "medic" because we can't do that.
P.S. I think CAP needs to get off the dime on this issue and write some rules so we can be a medical/emt/medic provider......it is pretty lame where you say you are SAR agency who can't treat anything that is not life threatening. YMMV/
I call it as I see it.
CAP is awash with affectation, inappropriste training and setting inappropriate expectations for its members.
Its a big problem we need to eradicate, not encourage.
When it starts firing a n a few cylinders via anything but random chance, it can worry
about adopting hardkewl nomenclature. Until then it all just wasted theater and makes us look silly
both internally and out.
LST
If it says "medic" it's a nonstarter, period.
As to HSOs or anyone else, if they are doing First Aid training, it has to be under the auspices of a different organization
while the PowerPoint's are running.
Members are not allowed to provide First Aid training as members.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:13:40 AM
For the record....I agree with Eclipse that we need to drop all the "medic" ratings......HMRS and at this Pathfinder School....as well as at NESA.
That does not mean we should not be offering advanced first aid courses.....so long as they stay in the area of lay person skills.
But when you start making a "medic" rating as a stand alone rating....then that implies that you are going to be doing the duties of a "medic" which to the lay person is someone who provides medical services to others in the field....which we are forbidden to do.
We are not a medical provider.....and "medic" implies that we are.
So.......by all means let's do the advanced/wilderness/First Responder First Aid courses.....but let's not have a rating that says "medic" because we can't do that.
P.S. I think CAP needs to get off the dime on this issue and write some rules so we can be a medical/emt/medic provider......it is pretty lame where you say you are SAR agency who can't treat anything that is not life threatening. YMMV/
I have no problem with dropping the term "medic" and agree that medic is a bad choice for terminology. However, judging a program or curriculum based on the term "medic" and calling it unnecessary is inappropriate.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:18:31 AM
LST
If it says "medic" it's a nonstarter, period.
As to HSOs or anyone else, if they are doing First Aid training, it has to be under the auspices of a different organization
while the PowerPoint's are running.
Members are not allowed to provide First Aid training as members.
You have evidence that is not what they are doing?
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 12:11:52 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:00:03 AM
Basic first aid is all CAP gets involvd in, and PER REG is not allowed to provide that training.
You have a reference for this "per reg" because CAPR 160-1 states the general duties of the HSO is:
QuoteProvide or arrange for the provision of training in first aid, CPR and other life-saving measures by a certifying agency (American Red Cross, American Heart Association, American Safety and Health Institute, National Safety Council, etc.).
Basic first aid is all CAP gets involved in is correct. So what task on the skill sheet is beyond basic first aid? Perhaps the use of the term "medic" is a bad choice, but that is not to say the program is unnecessary for MOWG.
It appears that your only argument is that the course is unnecessary simply because they call it "medic" as you have provided zero argument otherwise.
Minor quibble......"BASIC" first aid......is not all CAP gets involved in. "First Aid" is what CAP gets involved in. As a "lay person" responder to an emergency we as individuals (by regulations) to render any and aid to save a life up to our level of training. So a person with EMT training can do what ever an EMT can do. if all you got is ARC Community Health and Safety.....that's all you got....if you got wilderness first aid....well you got a little more.
Now...having said that....some levels of training by their nature crosses the line into "professional" level treatment. Doctors, Nurses, and some EMTs cross that line into "professionals" and are held to a different set of standards depend on where they are and what they are doing....i.e. if you are Doctor in California you may not be licensed to practiced in Nevada and so you may not be able to do anything. Also...in some states simply holding the training may incure a "duty to act" which means CAP regs counter what the state laws say.
One of the reasons why CAP is NOT in the medical provider buisness is because the laws from state to state are so different....so they just opted out of it all together.
But......bottom line. CAP can provide first aid training. We are free to use any and all skills to save a life. We should not be advertising ourselves as a medical provider.....so CAP Medic, CAP EMT, CAP First Aid Provider.....are all titles that could imply that we are medical providers....and we should avoid doing that.
The regs are clear that members can't provide training internally to others members.
To comply with requirements, you have to get it externally.
I'm no fan of the "Super Troop" schools. All too often the prestige of graduation becomes the goal over learning and gaining tools for your Emergency Services toolbox. I believe the Katrina AAR made pointed references about one specific wing who hosts a well known SAR school being sent home packing because they couldn't play well with others despite all their ascots and special ratings.
We had a Pathfinder thread on here years ago that I was involved in, IIRC the school was known for taking casualties due to the intense training. I do remember at least one fatality attributed to the training there, but that was back WIWAC and after and I've slept since then...
Now taking a look at the curriculum of Pathfinder: There's some good training that can be had. I also like the agility test, although even in my GTM/GTL prime could never do one pullup and nowhere in most wings would one need to walk 10 miles with full 24 gear. That said, I'd rather see this kind of training get implemented at National for a better distribution of training than kept locally at the Wing level. Much of this training should be done at NESA or at least offered as additional classes, especially the mantracking. That alone could be its own course at Atterbury.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:15:16 AM
I call it as I see it.
CAP is awash with affectation, inappropriste training and setting inappropriate expectations for its members.
Its a big problem we need to eradicate, not encourage.
When it starts firing a n a few cylinders via anything but random chance, it can worry
about adopting hardkewl nomenclature. Until then it all just wasted theater and makes us look silly
both internally and out.
Good thing you are not in charge then. :)
I challenge you to show that any of this training (not the titles...but the training) is inappropriate.
I would like to know what expectations this Pathfinder Program are inappropriate?
To what right do you get to claim to be the arbitrator of when this program if firing on a few cylinders? If this were ILWG...and you were the DO....maybe....but MOWG? Think not. If you got specific information about this program....even a "I once knew a guy, who dated a girl, who's sister saw....." story that showed there is a "problem" with this training and/or program.....i would love to hear it.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:28:15 AM
The regs are clear that members can't provide training internally to others members.
To comply with requirements, you have to get it externally.
Quote please.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:24:02 AM
But......bottom line. CAP can provide first aid training. We are free to use any and all skills to save a life. We should not be advertising ourselves as a medical provider.....so CAP Medic, CAP EMT, CAP First Aid Provider.....are all titles that could imply that we are medical providers....and we should avoid doing that.
See above to this point. I agree that medic is an inappropriate use, but judging the whole program simply because of a title is inappropriate.
Also, our advertising ourselves as search and RESCUE implies that we are medical providers to some people and we should also avoid doing that as well (not being sarcastic about that).
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 12:19:24 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:13:40 AM
For the record....I agree with Eclipse that we need to drop all the "medic" ratings......HMRS and at this Pathfinder School....as well as at NESA.
That does not mean we should not be offering advanced first aid courses.....so long as they stay in the area of lay person skills.
But when you start making a "medic" rating as a stand alone rating....then that implies that you are going to be doing the duties of a "medic" which to the lay person is someone who provides medical services to others in the field....which we are forbidden to do.
We are not a medical provider.....and "medic" implies that we are.
So.......by all means let's do the advanced/wilderness/First Responder First Aid courses.....but let's not have a rating that says "medic" because we can't do that.
P.S. I think CAP needs to get off the dime on this issue and write some rules so we can be a medical/emt/medic provider......it is pretty lame where you say you are SAR agency who can't treat anything that is not life threatening. YMMV/
I have no problem with dropping the term "medic" and agree that medic is a bad choice for terminology. However, judging a program or curriculum based on the term "medic" and calling it unnecessary is inappropriate.
Oh...I'm right with you! Eclipse jumped the gun about it....he's got a point about the "medic" name....but the training or expectations being unnecessary or inappropriate is hypocrisy at its best!
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:28:15 AM
The regs are clear that members can't provide training internally to others members.
To comply with requirements, you have to get it externally.
Again, you have evidence that the program is not using an external source?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:18:31 AM
LST
If it says "medic" it's a nonstarter, period.
As to HSOs or anyone else, if they are doing First Aid training, it has to be under the auspices of a different organization
while the PowerPoint's are running.
Members are not allowed to provide First Aid training as members.
as a side bar conversation: I can t seem to find that reference in the CAPR's.
Maybe you could help direct the rest of us
(I agree members cant make up their own training... ie" I am an EMT so im gonna teach ya'll a few things.....")
mk
60-3 quoted about a centillion times here.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:24:02 AM
But......bottom line. CAP can provide first aid training. We are free to use any and all skills to save a life. We should not be advertising ourselves as a medical provider.....so CAP Medic, CAP EMT, CAP First Aid Provider.....are all titles that could imply that we are medical providers....and we should avoid doing that.
See above to this point. I agree that medic is an inappropriate use, but judging the whole program simply because of a title is inappropriate.
Also, our advertising ourselves as search and RESCUE implies that we are medical providers to some people and we should also avoid doing that as well (not being sarcastic about that).
I agree with you....CAP needs to fix that...and at least work our some way that we can be a true Rescue organization and provide at least EMT level treatment......but as I said elsewhere....the laws governing that are so varied...we would have to invest in a couple of full time professionals to work that out....and there is just no money for it.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on May 22, 2014, 12:29:20 AM
nowhere in most wings would one need to walk 10 miles with full 24 gear.
I understand that you said most wings, but for states that have long distance hiking trails (JMT, Ozarks, PCT, etc), it is entirely possible if CAP were to get agreements with the Park Services.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
60-3 quoted about a centillion times here.
Although I am sure it will be debated, the quote does not say it is required, just that it is expected and normally given by external agencies. It does not say CAP cannot.
QuoteNote: Certain tasks and the associated training are expected to be provided by external agencies. For example NIMS and First Aid training will normally be provided by another agency.
Lots of things are "possible", most, like hiking 10 miles for a SAR in CAP are highly unlikely.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
60-3 quoted about a centillion times here.
I just looked.....and nowhere did I find that says that CAP CAN"T provide first aid training.
What it does say.......is that First Aid Training is "normally" given by outside agencies......"normally" implies that in other then "normal" situations then it can be given by indie agencies.
No definition of what a normal or abnormal situation is......so I guess they leave it up to squadron ES training officers.
:)
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:43:37 AM
Lots of things are "possible", most, like hiking 10 miles for a SAR in CAP are highly unlikely.
Since I am not a member of MOWG, perhaps they get called in often to help with the Ozarks trail and the Mark Twain National Forest. So for MOWG, it may be likely.
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 22, 2014, 12:33:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:18:31 AM
LST
If it says "medic" it's a nonstarter, period.
As to HSOs or anyone else, if they are doing First Aid training, it has to be under the auspices of a different organization
while the PowerPoint's are running.
Members are not allowed to provide First Aid training as members.
as a side bar conversation: I can t seem to find that reference in the CAPR's.
Maybe you could help direct the rest of us
(I agree members cant make up their own training... ie" I am an EMT so im gonna teach ya'll a few things.....")
mk
Actuallly....they can.
Quotef. First Aid and Emergency Medical Care. CAP is not an emergency medical care or paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such. CAP will not be the primary provider of medical support on missions or training events though qualified personnel can be used to support such activities. The only type of medical aid that should be administered by CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable treatment deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering. This treatment must be executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level. When first aid or higher medical training is required for qualification in a particular specialty, the expectation is that the qualification course includes both knowledge and practical skills training; first aid courses taken on-line only are not acceptable; though members are not considered employees when supporting operations, courses are expected to meet the National Guidelines for First Aid in Occupational Settings available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf) or ASTM F 2171-02(2009), Standard Guide for Defining the Performance of First Aid Providers in Occupational Settings. CAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage, and any care provided is at the members own risk. Though medical supplies and equipment are not normally provided to responders, any reasonable supplies used on training or actual missions may be submitted for reimbursement as long as sufficient justification is provided.
Anyone can write a first aid program.....and if it meets these guidelines.....it is good to go.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 12:43:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
60-3 quoted about a centillion times here.
Although I am sure it will be debated, the quote does not say it is required, just that it is expected and normally given by external agencies. It does not say CAP cannot.
QuoteNote: Certain tasks and the associated training are expected to be provided by external agencies. For example NIMS and First Aid training will normally be provided by another agency.
See Page 18 for the actual >requirments< for the training. Then read the OSHA regs.
It is not possible to comply unless you are trained and registered by a certifying body (I.e.ARC, etc) and it
is a violation of the instructor regulations of these bodies to provide instruction that is not
Certified under their rules.
Ergo.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:49:29 AM
See Page 18 for the actual >requirments< for the training. Then read the OSHA regs.
It is not possible to comply unless you are trained by a certifying body (I.e.ARC, etc) and it
Is a violation of the instructor regulations of these bodies to provide instruction that is not
Certified under their rules.
Ergo.
You still have not answered my question, you have evidence they are not using an external source for this course?
On the 10 mile thing.....if you TEST at 10 miles....you now have an upper limit of what your Pathfinder can handle.
If your typical mission IS 10 miles....then I would TEST at 20 miles.
Kind of like pilot training.......normally we never have an engine out.......but sometimes we do....so guess what's on the test?
Plan for the worst, hope for best.....live with what you got!
I used to be an ARC CPR/First Aid/Swimming/Lifeguard instructor. I have literally certified thousands of people in CPR.......maybe....maybe 10 have ever had to use it. So we train and test for worst case scenario and move on from there.
Also on the PT test thing....I really do think that it is a good idea and should be implemented nationally. Passing the GT Physical Ability Assessment should be a per-req for starting GTM3 training.
YMMV
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:13:40 AM
For the record....I agree with Eclipse that we need to drop all the "medic" ratings......HMRS and at this Pathfinder School....as well as at NESA.
That does not mean we should not be offering advanced first aid courses.....so long as they stay in the area of lay person skills.
It may be semantics, but the course at NESA is not a "medic" course, but an ECSI Wilderness Advanced First Aid course.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 12:43:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
60-3 quoted about a centillion times here.
Although I am sure it will be debated, the quote does not say it is required, just that it is expected and normally given by external agencies. It does not say CAP cannot.
QuoteNote: Certain tasks and the associated training are expected to be provided by external agencies. For example NIMS and First Aid training will normally be provided by another agency.
See Page 18 for the actual >requirments< for the training. Then read the OSHA regs.
It is not possible to comply unless you are trained and registered by a certifying body (I.e.ARC, etc) and it
is a violation of the instructor regulations of these bodies to provide instruction that is not
Certified under their rules.
Ergo.
No...not ERGO.....you said it was "CLEAR" In that I would not have to know the ins and outs of OSHA regs and the intricacies of provider agreements etc, and so forth........so.....it is NOT clear. And if.....IF Senior Member XMAN, certified by the We Provide First Aid Training INC....the issue is not between CAP and Senior Member XMAN....but Mr XMANd and WPFAT, inc.
Also remember.......GTM3 requires you to receive the training.......it does not say be certified. :) Remember that argument?
drift right....
I would be interested in seeing how this school works out. This school had a pretty impressive reputation WIWAC and my early senior years. The curriculum I saw at the time filled a void that it seemed was lacking; the limited info from the skill sheets seems to be comparable.
Purely out of curiosity, I would like to see an expanded explanation of the some of the specific skills.
Skill specific-what are the basic and advanced knots. Low angle rope rescue, is this a "Pathfinder" provider course or something they are obtaining from another source? Same thing for Confined Space Awareness (since it doesnt have an "agency" reference)
MK
Quote from: husker on May 22, 2014, 12:58:55 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:13:40 AM
For the record....I agree with Eclipse that we need to drop all the "medic" ratings......HMRS and at this Pathfinder School....as well as at NESA.
That does not mean we should not be offering advanced first aid courses.....so long as they stay in the area of lay person skills.
It may be semantics, but the course at NESA is not a "medic" course, but an ECSI Wilderness Advanced First Aid course.
Yes I know....but when I went there in 2006 they all called it the "medic" course....that may have changed.....and will stand corrected if so.
Yes. When the course was first started, it was referred to as a "First Responder" medic course. After discussions very similar to what is occurring in this thread, the course name and curriculum were changed to the more appropriate Wilderness Advanced First Aid curriculum. I may be wrong, but I believe the change happened in 2008.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 12:43:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
60-3 quoted about a centillion times here.
Although I am sure it will be debated, the quote does not say it is required, just that it is expected and normally given by external agencies. It does not say CAP cannot.
QuoteNote: Certain tasks and the associated training are expected to be provided by external agencies. For example NIMS and First Aid training will normally be provided by another agency.
See Page 18 for the actual >requirments< for the training. Then read the OSHA regs.
It is not possible to comply unless you are trained and registered by a certifying body (I.e.ARC, etc) and it
is a violation of the instructor regulations of these bodies to provide instruction that is not
Certified under their rules.
Ergo.
So if an certifying body grants Education Center status to a CAP unit (wing, group or squadron, your call) are instructors CAP members or XYZ certifying body. (Hint: I am an AHA instructor in ACLS, my teaching center is the Emergency Medicine Institute of LVHN, I am an agent of LVHN not the AHA when I teach)
Quote from: husker on May 22, 2014, 01:05:25 AM
Yes. When the course was first started, it was referred to as a "First Responder" medic course. After discussions very similar to what is occurring in this thread, the course name and curriculum were changed to the more appropriate Wilderness Advanced First Aid curriculum. I may be wrong, but I believe the change happened in 2008.
I stand corrected....good on them.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:59:12 AM
No...not ERGO.....you said it was "CLEAR" In that I would not have to know the ins and outs of OSHA regs and the intricacies of provider agreements etc, and so forth........so.....it is NOT clear. And if.....IF Senior Member XMAN, certified by the We Provide First Aid Training INC....the issue is not between CAP and Senior Member XMAN....but Mr XMANd and WPFAT, inc.
Also remember.......GTM3 requires you to receive the training.......it does not say be certified. :) Remember that argument?
I apologize if reading the regs thoroughly is too much to ask.
This is the problem - people read until they see a shiny penny, or right to the edge of what they want to do, but
not the whole thing, then they get upset when staffers, commanders, or some goober on the internet holds them to
the whole standard, not just the first place the issue was found in the document using F3. You honestly don't want
to know how many conversations I had with outside bodies, OSHA people, and NHQ staffers on this issue trying to
make it simple to understand. At least the first two provided consistent answers.
The standard is "x" - want to comply? Read, heed, and meet the standard - no different then being a pilot, which is also an external thing.
I remember all the arguments. It's easy, we just keep having the same 10 over and over, like Bill Murray in Groundog Day.
Quote from: husker on May 22, 2014, 01:05:25 AM
Yes. When the course was first started, it was referred to as a "First Responder" medic course. After discussions very similar to what is occurring in this thread, the course name and curriculum were changed to the more appropriate Wilderness Advanced First Aid curriculum. I may be wrong, but I believe the change happened in 2008.
Looking at the NESA site, is that a course option this year?"
Aging, wondering: How many schools/wings out there have a "medic" course? I count PA (HMRS), TX (LESA), NY (SARTAC), NESA and now MO (Pathfinder)
mk
Yes, it still is an option. It is listed under the ICSS site.
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 22, 2014, 01:07:07 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 12:43:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
60-3 quoted about a centillion times here.
Although I am sure it will be debated, the quote does not say it is required, just that it is expected and normally given by external agencies. It does not say CAP cannot.
QuoteNote: Certain tasks and the associated training are expected to be provided by external agencies. For example NIMS and First Aid training will normally be provided by another agency.
See Page 18 for the actual >requirments< for the training. Then read the OSHA regs.
It is not possible to comply unless you are trained and registered by a certifying body (I.e.ARC, etc) and it
is a violation of the instructor regulations of these bodies to provide instruction that is not
Certified under their rules.
Ergo.
So if an certifying body grants Education Center status to a CAP unit (wing, group or squadron, your call) are instructors CAP members or XYZ certifying body. (Hint: I am an AHA instructor in ACLS, my teaching center is the Emergency Medicine Institute of LVHN, I am an agent of LVHN not the AHA when I teach)
Now here is where Eclipse will say....."you better not be in a CAP uniform when you do it!".....at least that is what he said last time we debated this issue.
CAP could...and should IMHO write their own first aid course....certify our own instructors.....and just press on. Heck.....we could just pick an existing agency...I have always like NOLS Wilderness First Aid.....we would send our people to NOLS to get certified as instructors, cut a deal with them to be able to teach the course for the cost of books......and be done with it. Then there would be none of this back and forth.
Bottom line.....60-3 says....the first aid course....can be any first aid course that meets OSHA standards. It says that it is "normally" done by outside agencies.......but that is it.
Now back to Pathfinder......I like it.....I think the added stuff is all good. I have always liked the idea we use Kewl names and (with in reason) bling to encourage our members to go above and beyond.
My problem with HMRS....is not the bling.....but the amount of bling.....ranger tab....okay. Ranger Tab, ascot, pistol belt, orange t-shirt, etc, et al....little much.
Egos and attitudes....I get those from people comming back from encampment (doolies even) so I can handle a teen age with an over inflated sense of self worth. :)
Good luck with Path Finder.....I too would like to see the curriculum for your low angle rescue, confined space, etc training.
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 22, 2014, 01:07:07 AM
So if an certifying body grants Education Center status to a CAP unit (wing, group or squadron, your call) are instructors CAP members or XYZ certifying body. (Hint: I am an AHA instructor in ACLS, my teaching center is the Emergency Medicine Institute of LVHN, I am an agent of LVHN not the AHA when I teach)
Per your instructor agreement and training, you are representing, and therefore protected by, the organization which certified you and tracks the students.
Providing the copywritten curriculum and instruction from any of these organizations without also tracking the students properly
is a violation of that agreement, and nulls the training as far as their certification, thus not meeting CAP's standards, nor will CAP
indemnify you for providing that training outside of your status as a "non-member, other-org instructor".
I've done this dance, too. No way around it without either looking the other way, risking your instructor certification, or putting yourself or the organization
as unnecessary risk.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:23:05 AMNow here is where Eclipse will say....."you better not be in a CAP uniform when you do it!".....at least that is what he said last time we debated this issue.
Already did.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:23:05 AM
CAP could...and should IMHO write their own first aid course....certify our own instructors.....and just press on. Heck.....we could just pick an existing agency...I have always like NOLS Wilderness First Aid.....we would send our people to NOLS to get certified as instructors, cut a deal with them to be able to teach the course for the cost of books......and be done with it. Then there would be none of this back and forth.
Agree 100%, or we simply create a curriculum that is certified by OSHA and move on.
Something to bear in mind, the ARC, AHA< etc., makes a fair amount of money on these course and have no incentive to simply turn over their
expensive curriculum to save CAP members money.
The problem is that done in-house, that puts CAP on the block for liability when the training is used, something CAP has no interest in.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:23:05 AM
Bottom line.....60-3 says....the first aid course....can be any first aid course that meets OSHA standards.
Corect, a standard impossible to meet without the certification of a formal organization.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 01:18:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:59:12 AM
No...not ERGO.....you said it was "CLEAR" In that I would not have to know the ins and outs of OSHA regs and the intricacies of provider agreements etc, and so forth........so.....it is NOT clear. And if.....IF Senior Member XMAN, certified by the We Provide First Aid Training INC....the issue is not between CAP and Senior Member XMAN....but Mr XMANd and WPFAT, inc.
Also remember.......GTM3 requires you to receive the training.......it does not say be certified. :) Remember that argument?
I apologize if reading the regs thoroughly is too much to ask.
I'm sorry if you don't know what the word "clear" means.
QuoteThis is the problem - people read until they see a shiny penny, or right to the edge of what they want to do, but
not the whole thing, then they get upset when staffers, commanders, or some goober on the internet holds them to
the whole standard, not just the first place the issue was found in the document using F3. You honestly don't want
to know how many conversations I had with outside bodies, OSHA people, and NHQ staffers on this issue trying to
make it simple to understand. At least the first two provided consistent answers.
The standard is "x" - want to comply? Read, heed, and meet the standard - no different then being a pilot, which is also an external thing.
I remember all the arguments. It's easy, we just keep having the same 10 over and over, like Bill Murray in Groundog Day.
I have read......and my interpetaton of the regulation is......CAP can do First Aid Training....so long as it meets OSHA standards....that does not say anything about an "outside" agency. The whole point of the OSHA standard is for agencies to IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT to do the training IN HOUSE.....so your entire argument that the OSHA standard forces us to use OUTSIDE agencies.....is wrong. It does the complete opposite.
60-3 does say.....what ever training you get.....from who ever you get it from (normally and outside agency) it MUST have a hands on component....and it must meet OSHA standards. And that is all 60-3 says about first aid training.
Sure....just like Bill Murry in ground Hog Day......he kept repeating his mistakes until he learned that he was wrong and fixed the errors of his ways. To be clear.......You are Bill Murry. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:30:55 AM
I have read......and my interpetaton of the regulation is......CAP can do First Aid Training....so long as it meets OSHA standards....that does not say anything about an "outside" agency. The whole point of the OSHA standard is for agencies to IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT to do the training IN HOUSE.....so your entire argument that the OSHA standard forces us to use OUTSIDE agencies.....is wrong. It does the complete opposite.
So who will create and certify the curriculum?
NHQ? Oh, right, THEY DON"T WANT TO BE INVOLVED.
Use the ARC's? Nope - copyright law prohibits that.
NHQ could simply drop the "OSHA" requirement and require whatever they want, but the OSHA standard is a handy way to
reach for readily available training - training the average person in a workforce environment gets regularly, and that has to be
provided by SOMEONE ELSE.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 01:30:32 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:23:05 AMNow here is where Eclipse will say....."you better not be in a CAP uniform when you do it!".....at least that is what he said last time we debated this issue.
Already did.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:23:05 AM
CAP could...and should IMHO write their own first aid course....certify our own instructors.....and just press on. Heck.....we could just pick an existing agency...I have always like NOLS Wilderness First Aid.....we would send our people to NOLS to get certified as instructors, cut a deal with them to be able to teach the course for the cost of books......and be done with it. Then there would be none of this back and forth.
Agree 100%, or we simply create a curriculum that is certified by OSHA and move on.
Something to bear in mind, the ARC, AHA< etc., makes a fair amount of money on these course and have no incentive to simply turn over their
expensive curriculum to save CAP members money.
The problem is that done in-house, that puts CAP on the block for liability when the training is used, something CAP has no interest in.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:23:05 AM
Bottom line.....60-3 says....the first aid course....can be any first aid course that meets OSHA standards.
Corect, a standard impossible to meet without the certification of a formal organization.
CAP is on the block for the performance of our people in the field anyways......taking on First Aid is not going to add one penny to our insurance liability.
As for ARC or AHA turning over their curriculum....you maybe right.....and it would be the wrong curriculum anyways. We need wilderness first aid not ARC or AHA first aid....their paradigms are just not right for us. But I bet the U.S. Army would give us their combat life saver's course....and we could cut and paste what we need out of that. :)
And once again....the OSHA standard is there for employers to develop their own in house training or other enterprises/individuals to develop products for those employers to use if they go out of house for their training. So....again....your assertion that it is impossible to meet the OSHA standards with out going to outside agencies is a wrong reading of what the standards are telling you.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 01:26:16 AM
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 22, 2014, 01:07:07 AM
So if an certifying body grants Education Center status to a CAP unit (wing, group or squadron, your call) are instructors CAP members or XYZ certifying body. (Hint: I am an AHA instructor in ACLS, my teaching center is the Emergency Medicine Institute of LVHN, I am an agent of LVHN not the AHA when I teach)
Per your instructor agreement and training, you are representing, and therefore protected by, the organization which certified you and tracks the students.
Providing the copywritten curriculum and instruction from any of these organizations without also tracking the students properly
is a violation of that agreement, and nulls the training as far as their certification, thus not meeting CAP's standards, nor will CAP
indemnify you for providing that training outside of your status as a "non-member, other-org instructor".
I've done this dance, too. No way around it without either looking the other way, risking your instructor certification, or putting yourself or the organization
as unnecessary risk.
HMRS certifies students in first aid and CPR (and MFR for the medic course) via ECSI. There is no "stealing" the curriculum. HMRS is a Teaching Center of ECSI, teaching an ECSI course using ECSI materials and texts. But, HMRS is the Education Center.
so it is CAP members providing training to CAP members
mk
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 01:33:09 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:30:55 AM
I have read......and my interpetaton of the regulation is......CAP can do First Aid Training....so long as it meets OSHA standards....that does not say anything about an "outside" agency. The whole point of the OSHA standard is for agencies to IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT to do the training IN HOUSE.....so your entire argument that the OSHA standard forces us to use OUTSIDE agencies.....is wrong. It does the complete opposite.
So who will create and certify the curriculum?
NHQ? Oh, right, THEY DON"T WANT TO BE INVOLVED.
Use the ARC's? Nope - copyright law prohibits that.
NHQ could simply drop the "OSHA" requirement and require whatever they want, but the OSHA standard is a handy way to
reach for readily available training - training the average person in a workforce environment gets regularly, and that has to be
provided by SOMEONE ELSE.
Normally. :) Your argument breaks down right there. You keep asserting that CAP regulations clearly say it must be an outside agency.......but it does not say that.
It says the the training must meet OSHA requirements.....there is NO OSHA certifying agency......that's not how OSHA works.....if they come to inspect......"Does your First Aid Training meet our requirements 2171-02? " "Sure does! Here is the curriculum for your perusal." You don't have to submit it for per approval or certification by some other agency. I'm the shop safety monitor for my Project.....I know how it works.
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 22, 2014, 01:44:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 01:26:16 AM
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 22, 2014, 01:07:07 AM
So if an certifying body grants Education Center status to a CAP unit (wing, group or squadron, your call) are instructors CAP members or XYZ certifying body. (Hint: I am an AHA instructor in ACLS, my teaching center is the Emergency Medicine Institute of LVHN, I am an agent of LVHN not the AHA when I teach)
Per your instructor agreement and training, you are representing, and therefore protected by, the organization which certified you and tracks the students.
Providing the copywritten curriculum and instruction from any of these organizations without also tracking the students properly
is a violation of that agreement, and nulls the training as far as their certification, thus not meeting CAP's standards, nor will CAP
indemnify you for providing that training outside of your status as a "non-member, other-org instructor".
I've done this dance, too. No way around it without either looking the other way, risking your instructor certification, or putting yourself or the organization
as unnecessary risk.
HMRS certifies students in first aid and CPR (and MFR for the medic course) via ECSI. There is no "stealing" the curriculum. HMRS is a Teaching Center of ECSI, teaching an ECSI course using ECSI materials and texts. But, HMRS is the Education Center.
so it is CAP members providing training to CAP members
mk
No....no....no.....it is an ECSI Instructor Illegally wearing a CAP uniform teaching CAP members. :)
But seriously.....sure.......instructor provider agreements are important....ARC certifies you as and instructor....they want their money and they want you to follow their rules......AHA not so much....at least when I was an AHA instructor in the military (the ARC started demanding "cost recovery" from military unit instructor providers). So I know how that works.
But again.......this issue is not CAP saying you can't do it....but the Certifying agencies telling their instructors they can't do it.
Once again.....not "clear" that CAP can't provide first aid training.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:23:05 AM
My problem with HMRS....is not the bling.....but the amount of bling.....ranger tab....okay. Ranger Tab, ascot, pistol belt, orange t-shirt, etc, et al....little much.
In HMRS's defense, other than the tab, all the other bling (ascot, pistol belt, orange t-shirt, orange "keystone" caps, etc.) are strictly for use at HMRS only. Once you get out of HMRS, the only bling you're authorized to wear on your BDUs/BBDUs is your ranger tab and the Hawk Mountain activity patch.
Quote from: Panache on May 22, 2014, 05:40:10 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 01:23:05 AM
My problem with HMRS....is not the bling.....but the amount of bling.....ranger tab....okay. Ranger Tab, ascot, pistol belt, orange t-shirt, etc, et al....little much.
In HMRS's defense, other than the tab, all the other bling (ascot, pistol belt, orange t-shirt, orange "keystone" caps, etc.) are strictly for use at HMRS only. Once you get out of HMRS, the only bling you're authorized to wear on your BDUs/BBDUs is your ranger tab and the Hawk Mountain activity patch.
Sorry not true.......at least policy is that they are only at HMRS....we all know that it does come off the mountain. Second......even if it stayed on the mountain......It still is too silly for words.....I'm a bling guy....I got nothing against showing off in front of your peers and the girls love a man in uniform.....but really.....all that stuff is just too much. You can't defend it in my eyes.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 06:10:18 AM
Sorry not true.......at least policy is that they are only at HMRS....we all know that it does come off the mountain. Second......even if it stayed on the mountain......It still is too silly for words.....I'm a bling guy....I got nothing against showing off in front of your peers and the girls love a man in uniform.....but really.....all that stuff is just too much. You can't defend it in my eyes.
Speaking from personal experience as somebody who's
in PAWG and has no particular love for HMRS, I've
never seen anybody wearing "Hawk Bling" other than the activity patch and ranger tab when "off the Mountain". So, no, we all don't know that it comes off the mountain.
And, again, I tend to agree with you about the ascots and pistol belt being silly at HMRS, but, hey, it seems to work at getting people there. So why not?
Quote from: Panache on May 22, 2014, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 06:10:18 AM
Sorry not true.......at least policy is that they are only at HMRS....we all know that it does come off the mountain. Second......even if it stayed on the mountain......It still is too silly for words.....I'm a bling guy....I got nothing against showing off in front of your peers and the girls love a man in uniform.....but really.....all that stuff is just too much. You can't defend it in my eyes.
Speaking from personal experience as somebody who's in PAWG and has no particular love for HMRS, I've never seen anybody wearing "Hawk Bling" other than the activity patch and ranger tab when "off the Mountain". So, no, we all don't know that it comes off the mountain.
And, again, I tend to agree with you about the ascots and pistol belt being silly at HMRS, but, hey, it seems to work at getting people there. So why not?
The "off the mountain" usually happens outside of PAWG.....and yes I too don't get too bent over all of the bling....because as you say....it gets people there.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 12:13:40 AM
For the record....I agree with Eclipse that we need to drop all the "medic" ratings......HMRS and at this Pathfinder School....as well as at NESA.
That does not mean we should not be offering advanced first aid courses.....so long as they stay in the area of lay person skills.
But when you start making a "medic" rating as a stand alone rating....then that implies that you are going to be doing the duties of a "medic" which to the lay person is someone who provides medical services to others in the field....which we are forbidden to do.
We are not a medical provider.....and "medic" implies that we are.
So.......by all means let's do the advanced/wilderness/First Responder First Aid courses.....but let's not have a rating that says "medic" because we can't do that.
P.S. I think CAP needs to get off the dime on this issue and write some rules so we can be a medical/emt/medic provider......it is pretty lame where you say you are SAR agency who can't treat anything that is not life threatening. YMMV/
NESA, offers a Wilderness Advance First Aid course, it does not turn out "Medic's" Nor does it claim to create field medics.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 12:43:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 22, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
60-3 quoted about a centillion times here.
Although I am sure it will be debated, the quote does not say it is required, just that it is expected and normally given by external agencies. It does not say CAP cannot.
QuoteNote: Certain tasks and the associated training are expected to be provided by external agencies. For example NIMS and First Aid training will normally be provided by another agency.
See Page 18 for the actual >requirments< for the training. Then read the OSHA regs.
It is not possible to comply unless you are trained and registered by a certifying body (I.e.ARC, etc) and it
is a violation of the instructor regulations of these bodies to provide instruction that is not
Certified under their rules.
Ergo.
So, your definition of "CAP Regulations Clearly Prohibit this" is:
CAP regulations point to some other regulations, which point to OSHA regulations which point to a number of certified providers, which, if you read their agreements with their instructors, prohibits this.
I would suggest that you and I have vastly different definitions for "clearly"
Quote from: JeffDG on May 22, 2014, 01:17:47 PM
So, your definition of "CAP Regulations Clearly Prohibit this" is:
CAP regulations point to some other regulations, which point to OSHA regulations which point to a number of certified providers, which, if you read their agreements with their instructors, prohibits this.
I would suggest that you and I have vastly different definitions for "clearly"
OK, that's fair - it's not "clear" in the general sense of the term and that's been my beef with NHQ on this for 15 some years.
It should say "You must do 'x'. it expires in 'y', and only 'q' may provide the training. I agree.
With that said, an adult charged with understanding this, i.e. commanders, ESO, etc. can pretty easily follow the
dots and clarify it for those who can't be bothered. The problem as I said above is that people accept
CAP membership, they want to have the cool badge, the mantle of responsibility, and the air or being
"in the game", yet as soon as things get "hard", they disengage, or stop reading as soon as they find the
first sentence that "sorta, kinda says what I want it to say, pretty much, hopefully, if no one else reads the whole thing."
then they get indignant when someone else hits the F3 key twice more.
So it's not a 1st grade primer on first aid requirements, but it is also there if you can be bothered. CAP
refers to other documents and standards all the time, it's part and parcel of membership from the AFIs that
establish the organization, through drill manuals and up into pilot training. That's how it works. Unfortunately,
we're so short handed, poorly and inconsistently trained, and triple-billeted all over the place that most members
can't take the time to comprehensively read the regulations, especially with an eye towards intent vs. expediency.
"Whatever gets this done quickest, I already know the material, anyway..."
But again, since we have to acknowledge that anything in more then 160 characters is "TL:DR" NHQ needs to
fix these regs and clarify the expectation, not assume people "get it", or worse, as is clearly the case here and
elsewhere, leave it purposely ambiguous to avoid "sad people".
So....since I read the same regulation and come up with a different answer then you......I am lacking in responsibility?
No, just comprehension.
The belief that you can self-certify a home-grown first aid curriculum "because", especially
considering the totality of NHQ's stance on this is more then a small leap.
At least you read it. We still have far too many people submitting certificates from AED orientation seminars
and staff officers approving them as acceptable first aid training.
Then there's the issue of retraining, which is part of the standard, and a requirement of the program,
not to mention every other task in ES, except somehow FA isn't? Ridiculous.
The whole thing can be cleared up with two sentences, yet it's left for people to "interpret",
then we wonder why we can't get things done. I don't frankly care which answer is correct,
but there should be only one, with no place for interpretation by anyone. But again, clear rules
mean someone will be left standing alone or having to do "work", and that makes people sad.
Much better to just leave it as-is, since that's clearly "working". Oh, wait...
It is working here.
I've had no problems at all.
What problems are you seeing?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 04:08:29 PM
What problems are you seeing?
Lack of training.
Lack of proficiency.
lack of understanding of the seriousness of the responsibility.
Lack of consistency in application of expectations and requirements.
Since this is a >National< problem, it's only working "there" because people choose to look the other way and/or ignore the problems.
After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group. Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school? Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.
Quote from: AALTIS on May 22, 2014, 06:59:58 PM
After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group. Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school? Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.
"Mohawks" for the Cadets and Staff would be tactikewl in the tradition of WWII Pathfinders. 8)
Quote from: AALTIS on May 22, 2014, 06:59:58 PM
After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group. Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school? Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.
So far no "real concerns" about the training or curriculum have been presented. The only concern that has been raised in direct relation to the school is the fact it is called "medic" and "pathfinder". Before I cast any judgment on this new program, I would like to see more information on the training. From the basic information on the website, it sounds like it could be some nice additional training for MOWG.
+1 on the "Mohawks" hairstyle. Although I am sure the Missouria tribe would not like that :)
Quote from: AALTIS on May 22, 2014, 06:59:58 PM
After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group. Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school? Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.
Nope....like it. Want to see the training curriculum to see if I can replicate it here in NVWG. I think it is a great idea.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 22, 2014, 07:32:38 PM
Quote from: AALTIS on May 22, 2014, 06:59:58 PM
After reading everybody's thoughts about Pathfinder Technical School, I have one question for the group. Has anybody that has real concerns with what is being taught contacted the school? Perhaps they might welcome your thoughts or even your help.
So far no "real concerns" about the training or curriculum have been presented. The only concern that has been raised in direct relation to the school is the fact it is called "medic" and "pathfinder". Before I cast any judgment on this new program, I would like to see more information on the training. From the basic information on the website, it sounds like it could be some nice additional training for MOWG.
+1 on the "Mohawks" hairstyle. Although I am sure the Missouria tribe would not like that :)
Correctamundo, that is why, "Medic" training is on the agenda. 8)
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 22, 2014, 01:00:04 AM
....
Purely out of curiosity, I would like to see an expanded explanation of the some of the specific skills.
Skill specific-what are the basic and advanced knots. Low angle rope rescue, is this a "Pathfinder" provider course or something they are obtaining from another source? Same thing for Confined Space Awareness (since it doesnt have an "agency" reference)
MK
I re-iterate; as this is a topic of conversation at and regarding the skills taught by PAWG at HMRS, I do wonder about these curriculum items and what they are using as their training program.... DoD/Fire Dept; are they CAP instructors, or outside agency seperate from CAP, who owns the equipment etc etc.... or since they arent "rappeling" are they just teaching abstract concepts (ie skirting a grey area based on semantics)
MK
We can rappel now.....just have to get approval from wing and/or region IIRC.
As the person that is heading up the Pathfinder training group I think that I will weigh in on some of the topics here.
1- The course name of Pathfinder Technical School is from a school that we had for many years in Missouri Wing. Members from over 40 wings had attended the course over the years. We decided to use the name as honor to those who had both taken the training and those who had led the training. I know that some will argue the use of just about anything we would name it. That is their right. I invite them to create a course and name it whatever they wish!
2- The course is being taught using both CAP and DOD instructors. It just so happens that several of the instructors also teach outside CAP in their paying jobs. I teach in the fire, ems and industrial safety worlds. Each instructor is fully qualified in the area that they are teaching. We are using standard curriculum that is nationally recognized. Take for instance the confined space awareness course. It is a course that meets OSHA requirements for anybody that works around (not in) confined spaces. This was selected because of the role that our wing is taking in working around disaster areas. It is being taught by an instructor that teaches it for a living.
3- The medic course seems to have a lot of contention. First what is wrong with teaching life saving skills as long as they are being taught by qualified instructors with recognized and approved curriculum that would be within their scope of practice within the State of Missouri? It will be taught by EMTs and Paramedics when it is offered. We are not starting a CAP ambulance service. We are teaching how to deal with an emergency. Those who say that CAP is not an emergency service agency clearly have never been on a real search for real victims. A missing person search is an emergency. The person may have injuries. CAP gets called to missing person searches. Therefore we need to have members that can administer basic medical care and recognize when they need higher level of care. Everything within the course is being taught within the confines of CAP regulations. Further each person who attends will be given copies of the regulations that deal with first aid and medical care. As far as the name of the course...you have something better? I'm open to suggestions.
CAP's role in emergency services is changing. We used to do ELT searches all the time. That job is drying up. Granted, we will still be doing searches for ELTs, but we are also taking on new roles. In Missouri Wing we are beginning to do ground photography for disasters. There can always be missing persons searches, which is something that we need to do a better job in both training for and advertising that we can do. The standards for training were created some time ago. While I'm not saying that we don't need them, we need to keep up with what our clients need from us. This course adds to the basics. As someone pointed out that in Florida, hurricane training is important there. In Missouri the training at PTS is important.
If you would like further information, please just ask. I would love to speak to any of you about our school. We have a long way to go to get the school to where we want it, but it is worth it!
You can email me direct at aaltis@pathfindertechschool.org
Capt Altis,
First.......GOOD JOB!
Second.....I don't think anyone has any problem of what you are teaching.....again good job. I still want to see the curriculum I want to steal it!
Third......good job!
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2014, 09:53:01 PM
We can rappel now.....just have to get approval from wing and/or region IIRC.
This is new to most people, but we have been able to rappel and do "high angle/rope rescue" for years, if my fuzzy memory is correct its been at least since the change from 55 to 60 series that the provision has been in the regs. (I think that was late 90's) its only the rappelling as a cadet activity that has been rife with "issues" (the process for approval is more than hey I have some rope stuff, but it is doable; I used to have Rope Rescue on my 101 card....added by wing)
I was just more interested in the curriculum they are teaching. Be it really just basic rappelling or more of a ropes and rigging type course (knots, anchors, hauling and lowering systems for use in steep terrain ie <45 deg slope, vs high angle techniques....the later you need to rappel, the first not so much) and the standards they use, specifically are they teaching a certifiable course (HMRS in the past has actually issued state fire academy course completion certification for its course) or are they using just a Pathfinder course "completion".
MK
Yep.
I think that all GTMs should know basic "low angle" rescue techniques.
Basic Knots, inspecting/caring/handling ropes, setting anchors, setting up and minding prusiks, belaying, setting up a low angle rig for a stokes litter, descending and ascending on a low angle with a litter, traverse a ravine or stream.
GTM1 should also know some medium and high angle rescue techniques....so that they could assist a High Angle Team.....I am NOT suggesting we be trained to be able to do a high angle pick off....but we can assist with guide lines, prusiks monitoring, assisting with belays.
Not that I will ever entirely agree with Eclipse, but as you dig down into his reply's there is a point I find useful. Lack of standardization. The more "local" schools that crop up, rangers, pathfinders, Recon, SAR commandos or whatever, they each have the same lofty goal: Advanced training beyond what the national standard stipulates to meet some specific (real or imagined) local ES need. I think it would be to nationals advantage to find a way to bring some standardization to these schools. IF in at least regardless of names, come up with some sort of policy that at least guides what type of advanced specialty qualification schools can train towards and how these specialties can be utilized by IC's if qualified personnel are available. And how they would be documented in the ES qual system.
I will agree that it does an IC no good to have a "Ranger Team" or "Recon Team" (especially if outside of the home state) if he has no idea what they can actually do or if they have to try and explain what they can do that the average GTM cant.
MK
Quote from: AALTIS on May 23, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
3- The medic course seems to have a lot of contention. First what is wrong with teaching life saving skills as long as they are being taught by qualified instructors with recognized and approved curriculum that would be within their scope of practice within the State of Missouri?
Good job with the offer for additional training. Hope it works out well for MOWG and it does not turn into an ego driven school like others in the past and present.
I would be interested in the proposed skill set for the medic course. You can PM me about it if you do not want to post them.
Again, have fun and hope everything works out for you.
Quote from: AALTIS on May 23, 2014, 12:22:35 PM
3- The medic course seems to have a lot of contention. First what is wrong with teaching life saving skills as long as they are being taught by qualified instructors with recognized and approved curriculum that would be within their scope of practice within the State of Missouri? It will be taught by EMTs and Paramedics when it is offered. We are not starting a CAP ambulance service. We are teaching how to deal with an emergency. Those who say that CAP is not an emergency service agency clearly have never been on a real search for real victims. A missing person search is an emergency. The person may have injuries. CAP gets called to missing person searches. Therefore we need to have members that can administer basic medical care and recognize when they need higher level of care. Everything within the course is being taught within the confines of CAP regulations. Further each person who attends will be given copies of the regulations that deal with first aid and medical care. As far as the name of the course...you have something better? I'm open to suggestions.
The "you have something better?" response is what comes out when a plan or idea doesn't necessarily hold up to the "second question".
Whether or not someone has "something better" is 100% irrelevant when discussing if something is a good idea, especially in the context
of a national organization which has a set standard, a >very< specific lane of operation, and clear guidelines as to what it can, or cannot do.
CAP does not have "medics". Period. If your wing CC believes they should, the avenue is to address it through the CSAG, not create a local school
and just call them what you will. Anything else exhibits either a fundamental misunderstanding of CAP and the ES program (and process for changing it)
or a disregard for the unintended consequences of training "medics" in a CAP context. If this is the basic first aid appropriate for CAP members,
then they will not be "medics", any more then anyone else in CAP. Calling them that is affectation and puffery.
If they want to be legitimate medics, there are lots of other organizations which can make good use of their time, whether paid or volunteer, but as actual
"medics", they will find themselves increasingly frustrated with CAP's role, which ultimately defeats the intended purpose.
CAP does not do rope rescues, nor is CAP a first-responder, lone-wolf agency on missing person's searches. Assuming we are called,
we're part of a larger effort and LEA and EMS resources are generally involved directly and nearby - when we find someone, we stand and point, and call EMS.
There is nothing on a 101 card, nor within the scope of the curriculum or response MOUS which would allow that to happen, and no local agency in their right mind would allow it either. Ropes training is considered an HAA, nothing more, nothing less. If that's the level you're operating on, fine, but to present anything else is disingenuous to the participants.
CAP already has an avenue for recording CERT training on the 101 card, a separate "pathfinder" rating is unnecessary affection and puffery.
The key sentence above is the need to insure everyone has the regulations about what is, and isn't allowed in a CAP context.
When you provide training "by-the-book", those things are unnecessary as there is no risk of misunderstanding. It's only when people
start to "extend and enhance" that you start seeing the issues.
As a matter of fact, CAPs ES role
isn't evolving, it is, in fact, degrading when compared to the national curve of actual disasters and response.
What's happening is that members are trying to force an evolution from the ground up, and that's not how this works.
There has not been an update to the curriculum in a decade, and while the need for DR response is increasing each year, CAP's all-too-typical
attitude is "no time for backup, shoulder role through the door" - allowing members to respond more and more with less and less training,
including going into DR AO's with nothing but a wet GES or a UDF rating.
With that said, any change needs to come through national as part of a standardized program, not forced from below based on
what "sounds cool".
What every wing and region
needs is a SAR school that teaches >the< curriculum and >only<
the curriculum and then further stresses
using that in real-world situations. What we have today is "check the box and sit by the phone". What we don't need is another place with a cool name,
meaningless ratings, and wasting precious CAP training time on things the members aren't allowed to use and never will.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 04:17:41 PMCAP does not do rope rescues - when we find someone, we stand and point, and call EMS. There is nothing on a 101 card, nor within the scope of the curriculum
or response MOUS which would allow that to happen, and no local agency in their right mind would allow it either. Ropes training is considered an HAA, nothing more,
nothing less. If that's the level you're operating on, fine, but to present anything else is ingenuousness to the participants.
I will agree that we currently do not have an ES rating that says we do rope rescue. But to say that we aer not allowed to do it.....I would have to say "cite please".
Sure we should not be doing anything we are not trained to do.....looks like MOWG is solving that issue.
QuoteCAP already has an avenue for recording CERT training on the 101 card, a separate "pathfinder" rating is unnecessary affection and puffery.
There you go again.....getting bent over a name.
QuoteThe key sentence above is that the need to insure everyone has the regulations about what is, and isn't allowed in a CAP context.
When you provide training "by-the-book", those things are unnecessary as there is no risk of misunderstanding.
:) That which is not forbidden is allowed. :)
QuoteAs a matter of fact, CAPs ES role isn't evolving, it is, in fact, degrading when compared to the national curve of actual disasters and response. There has not been an update to the curriculum in a decade, and while the need for DR response is increasing each year, CAP's all-too-typical attitude if "no time for backup, shoulder role through the door" - allowing members to responded more and more with less and less training,
including going into DR AO's with nothing but a wet GES or a UDF rating.
So when a wing decides that we should plan and train now......you call it unnecessary affection and puffery.
QuoteWith that said, any change needs to come through national as part of a standardized program, not forced from below based on
what "sounds cool".
Highly disagree. In fact if you look at how CAP runs NCSA development.....it is completely the opposite. NHQ wants you to develop it locally and run it a few times before they open it up as a full on NCSA. Same thing can be said about ES stuff. Work it our. Conduct your training, develop the program.....then if it makes sense.....a national SQTR and Task Guide can be sent out to rest of the world. Trying to develop new training program to "national" needs is something too big for most people with a good idea.
QuoteWhat every wing and region needs is a SAR school that teaches >the< curriculum and >only< the curriculum and then further stresses using that in real-world situations.
Again disagree....or as someone pointed out we will be conducting over water training to COWG and requiring all those low lander wings to have Mountain Fury training. Regional and Wing SAR schools are the ideal place to teach additional and advanced training that only have local applications to meet THEIR mission requirements.
QuoteWhat we have today is "check the box and sit by the phone". What we don't need is another place with a cool name,
meaningless ratings, and wasting precious CAP training time on things the members aren't allowed to use and never will.
a) It is our time to waste. b) Cool names are cool. c)Meaningless ratings?
Quotef. First Aid and Emergency Medical Care. CAP is not an emergency medical care or paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such. CAP will not be the primary provider of medical support on missions or training events though qualified personnel can be used to support such activities. The only type of medical aid that should be administered by CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable treatment deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering. This treatment must be executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level. When first aid or higher medical training is required for qualification in a particular specialty, the expectation is that the qualification course includes both knowledge and practical skills training; first aid courses taken on-line only are not acceptable; though members are not considered employees when supporting operations, courses are expected to meet the National Guidelines for First Aid in Occupational Settings available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf) or ASTM F 2171-02(2009), Standard Guide for Defining the Performance of First Aid Providers in Occupational Settings. CAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage, and any care provided is at the members own risk. Though medical supplies and equipment are not normally provided to responders, any reasonable supplies used on training or actual missions may be submitted for reimbursement as long as sufficient justification is provided.
This is what the reg says about "medics". We are not an Emergency Medical Provider nor a Paramedic organization. Nor should we be advertising ourselves as one. So I agree that the rating "medic" as a stand alone specialty gives the impression that those individuals are the there to provide medical assistance. That is the only "unnecessary" rating I can see in the pathfinder program.
So....beyond the medic....what is really wrong with the training? CERT....we already got that. Confined Space Awareness.....that's a good idea for URBAN DR. Low Angle Rescue......definitely a good idea for GT if you do any SAR in mountainous terrain. Human Tracking......sure thing we need that. Advanced Land Nav......yep can always use that. CPR......sure thing not currently required by GTM3. Wilderness Survival.....I think that is a good idea.
Pathfinder rating is a way to get our members to want to get more training. If the only thing you dislike about it is the name......I say this again....you are just as bad as all those guys who only get the training to wear some bling and act above their station.
All of this training helps up to support our community, state and nation in times of natural disaster and other emergencies. What is wrong with that?
You've got far too many mixed issues to respond directly (plus your quotes are broken).
You're also confusing what would be "CAP should do" with what "CAP does".
As to the forbidden comment - nice try, you know that's not how this works.
What's wrong with it? Nothing I guess, since clearly "form over function" is the new mantra of CAP.
Sadly that fixes nothing, generates member disquiet, and generally just makes things worse, both
internally and externally, but this is a lesson CAP not only doesn't learn, but actively ignores.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 04:57:49 PM
You've got far too many mixed issues to respond directly (plus your quotes are broken).
You're also confusing what would be "CAP should do" with what "CAP does".
SEARCH AND RESCUE......I'm pretty sure that's what CAP does.
QuoteAs to the forbidden comment - nice try, you know that's not how this works.
Really?
QuoteWhat's wrong with it? Nothing I guess, since clearly "form over function" is the new mantra of CAP.
Sadly that fixes nothing, generates member disquiet, and generally just makes things worse, both
internally and externally, but this is a lesson CAP not only doesn't learn, but actively ignores.
Who said anything about form over function? The Pathfinder Rating ADDS FUNCTION.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
If this is the basic first aid appropriate for CAP members,
then they will not be "medics", any more then anyone else in CAP. Calling them that is affectation and puffery.
Going back to his question that you misunderstood, since CAP does not have medics, what would be a good name to call the course?
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 05:57:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
If this is the basic first aid appropriate for CAP members,
then they will not be "medics", any more then anyone else in CAP. Calling them that is affectation and puffery.
Going back to his question that you misunderstood, since CAP does not have medics, what would be a good name to call the course?
Wilderness First Aid?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 06:19:29 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 05:57:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
If this is the basic first aid appropriate for CAP members,
then they will not be "medics", any more then anyone else in CAP. Calling them that is affectation and puffery.
Going back to his question that you misunderstood, since CAP does not have medics, what would be a good name to call the course?
Wilderness First Aid?
That would be what I would recommend, but do not want to confuse it with the NOLS wilderness first aid course
There are many entities offering wilderness first aid courses and NOLS as good as they are was not the first to offer the training.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 06:50:51 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 06:19:29 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 05:57:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
If this is the basic first aid appropriate for CAP members,
then they will not be "medics", any more then anyone else in CAP. Calling them that is affectation and puffery.
Going back to his question that you misunderstood, since CAP does not have medics, what would be a good name to call the course?
Wilderness First Aid?
That would be what I would recommend, but do not want to confuse it with the NOLS wilderness first aid course
Do a Google on wilderness first aid.....NOLS is not the only one who offers that type of training.
Modified---Isuhawkeye beat me to the punch. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 06:19:29 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 05:57:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
If this is the basic first aid appropriate for CAP members,
then they will not be "medics", any more then anyone else in CAP. Calling them that is affectation and puffery.
Going back to his question that you misunderstood, since CAP does not have medics, what would be a good name to call the course?
Wilderness First Aid?
Or advanced first aid, disaster preparedness, pretty much anything that didn't imply that you're training EMTs.
^ This, or simply "First Aid Training".
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 05:36:56 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 04:57:49 PM
You've got far too many mixed issues to respond directly (plus your quotes are broken).
You're also confusing what would be "CAP should do" with what "CAP does".
SEARCH AND RESCUE......I'm pretty sure that's what CAP does.
I'm pretty sure CAP hasn't "rescued" anyone in a long time, and certainly not in enough quantity
to actually count that as a capability. Unless you consider the below "rescuing":
(http://copierleasemiami.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/stockfresh_id55165_happy-business-man-pointing-at-copyspace_sizeXS_caaaaa-300x230.jpg)
The nearest most CAP people get to a "litter carry" is the FOD walk at an air show.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 05:36:56 PM
The Pathfinder Rating ADDS FUNCTION.
No, the extra training adds the functionality. The rating adds nothing since it means nothing in a CAP context.
If anything the "Pathfinder" and "Medic" nonsense detract from what is likely otherwise a good effort.
It is always interesting to see how simple words provide such a great divide within CAP. Many here are hung up on the term Medic and its scope. I went to Webster's and here is the definition of
medic : a person engaged in medical work
I do not see a reference to license or certification here. I don't see an implication of a specific certification or credential. I also do not see a mandate for medical oversight or direction from a certifying body or agency. I simply see a reference to a person who provides some form of medical care. If I place mole skin on a team mate's blister does that make me a medic? If I am the designated well educated bystanders who will provide first aid and call 911 if needed does that make me a medic? Does it put me at odds with laws or rules?
Even when everyone on the team has the same level of medical training many teams will designate a medic from within its members to ensure that everyone knows their responsibility and job during the mission. This designation may not imply any greater skill set or equipment than anyone else, it simply designates the duties that they are expected to perform when called upon. Many teams designate radio operators, scribes, drivers, team leaders, medics, navigators, and other duties as needed/
If members have mastered the base curriculum and have attained the certifications and training that is required to meet the minimums why wouldn't you encourage them to attain more knowledge and skills even when you know the restrictions that your team operates within.
Whether it's a ranger school, a pathfinder school, a medic school, a beret program, or other cool school these individuals have met the baseline and are working on greater knowledge sets. No IC needs to know the difference between a ranger, a beret, or a pathfinder because the missions don't call for the additional skills.
The most people in the USAF get to dropping a bomb is doing a FOD walk after the airshow.........your point?
SAR is what CAP does....one of the many things it does.
So my point that all the training listed in the pathfinder ratings all apply to SAR and/or DR.....and there fore are not unnecessary skills.
And CAP has rescued people. I was GBD for a team of CAP cadets (and on senior member who was NOT the team leader) who effected the rescue of an injured hiker.
So....it happens....and we train for it.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on May 23, 2014, 08:12:46 PM
It is always interesting to see how simple words provide such a great divide within CAP. Many here are hung up on the term Medic and its scope. I went to Webster's and here is the definition of
medic : a person engaged in medical work
I do not see a reference to license or certification here.
If the term weren't "important", then the activity planners would not have selected it. Words mean things.
It's always humorous to see people defending a given term or name for something when others
take exception in the vein of "who cares, it's just a name", but not considering >why< those names
or terms were chosen. in this case it is purely for the inference of more capability then allowed.
Cadet 1: "I'm a GTM1."
Cadet 2: "I'm a Pathfinder Medic."
Cadet 1: "Whoa, cool. Does that mean you go out on calls and stuff I can't go on?"
Cadet 2: "No.
Cadet 1: "soooo.....
But to that end:
Wikipedia:
Medic (sometimes medico) is a general term for a person involved in medicine; a physician, medical student, or military medical corpsman. In the UK, the term "medic" amongst doctors indicates that someone has followed a "medical" career path accredited by the MRCP such as cardiology or endocrinology. This is in contrast to a surgical branch of specialisation in postgraduate professional training.med·i·cal adjective
1. of or pertaining to the science or practice of medicine: medical history; medical treatment.CAP people are decidedly >not< "involved in medicine". Our role, in the most extreme circumstances, is
stabilization of a patient to prevent death. We do not treat or diagnose.
When coming upon a victim with a deep wound, a CAP person's only role is going to be stopping the bleeding to prevent death
and / or getting help.
A medic could very well stitch or otherwise treat the wound on site.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on May 23, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
There are many entities offering wilderness first aid courses and NOLS as good as they are was not the first to offer the training.
Yes of course. I should have clarified. My point is unless it meets the curriculum standards of agencies such as BSA and ACA, then the use of "wilderness first aid" should also be limited as it implies those students are trained and certified in an approved wilderness first aid (or wilderness advanced first aid) course. Otherwise, we run into the same situation as the term "medic" which has no legal definition, but rather a social definition. Unless of course, that is what they are doing such as NESA.
What I would suggest would be either remote advanced first aid or simply remote first aid or even more sexy advanced SAR first aid.
I'm now wondering if the term "Medic" would only apply to treating the members of the team, kind of like a corpsman. Basic first aid care of team member's boo-boos? That's about all we can provide, so I'm just askin'....
Isuhawkeye,
The issue with the term "Medic" is that like you said....the dictionary says it is a person engaged in medical work. So....it implies that the "medic" is a medical provider....something that 60-3 says we can't be doing and should not be advertising as something we can do.
They don't have a down loadable skill sheet for a Pathfinder Medic....so I don't know what the qualifications are......but....and here is the key......there is no reason why we should not be getting the training (assuming it stays at the First Responder level and below).
Sure most teams designated sub-job....the Navigator has the map and GPS, the radio operator has the radio.....if the "medic" is the guy carrying the first aid kit and litter....no problem with that.
It is the rating....not the training.....that crosses the line as far as how I read the regulation. An outside agency seeing that we have "medics" may imply that we are an Emergency Medical Provider or Paramedic organization....which 60-3 says we are not.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 08:24:08 PMor even more sexy advanced SAR first aid.
No...we can't have sexy names.....it may give us airs. 8)
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:17:14 PM
And CAP has rescued people. I was GBD for a team of CAP cadets (and on senior member who was NOT the team leader) who effected the rescue of an injured hiker.
From what I understand, we bombed some subs, too. It happens.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 23, 2014, 08:24:12 PM
I'm now wondering if the term "Medic" would only apply to treating the members of the team, kind of like a corpsman. Basic first aid care of team member's boo-boos? That's about all we can provide, so I'm just askin'....
No....look at 60-3.
QuoteThe only type of medical aid that should be administered by CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable treatment deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering. This treatment must be executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level.
Reasonable treatment deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffer.
We can do medical stuff...in the field.....to others.....up to our level of skill level.
It is this sentence
QuoteCAP is not an emergency medical care or paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such.
that makes in improper for us to qualify "medics". It gives the impress that we are a medical care or paramedic organization.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 08:28:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:17:14 PM
And CAP has rescued people. I was GBD for a team of CAP cadets (and on senior member who was NOT the team leader) who effected the rescue of an injured hiker.
From what I understand, we bombed some subs, too. It happens.
Yes?
Check the logical fallacies list. :)
In my community the term "Medic" does not imply Paramedic organization.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on May 23, 2014, 08:39:21 PM
In my community the term "Medic" does not imply Paramedic organization.
As a military person....If you said "I'm the medic" I would assume that you are some sort of EMT level guy and that your JOB is to provide medical assistance in the field.
Ergo....if that is your job....but we can't advertise ourselves as a medical provider....do you see where the disconnect is.
Yes...it is kind of a stretch....but one that goes against the regulation. And since I'm regs sort of guy.....I think that we can still do the training, still have our people go out into the field with the training.....we just don't advertise ourselves as a medical provider.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:45:11 PM
As a military person....If you said "I'm the medic" I would assume that you are some sort of EMT level guy and that your JOB is to provide medical assistance in the field.
Disagree. I have been in units that used the term "medic" to refer to the 68W medic or the general CLS qualified person.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:35:27 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 08:28:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:17:14 PM
And CAP has rescued people. I was GBD for a team of CAP cadets (and on senior member who was NOT the team leader) who effected the rescue of an injured hiker.
From what I understand, we bombed some subs, too. It happens.
Yes?
Check the logical fallacies list. :)
While we still
search for plenty of things and sometime people,
we "rescue" them these days about as often as we bombed subs BITD
and the current level of expectation in the training reflects that.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:45:11 PM
As a military person....If you said "I'm the medic" I would assume that you are some sort of EMT level guy and that your JOB is to provide medical assistance in the field.
Disagree. I have been in units that used the term "medic" to refer to the 68W medic or the general CLS qualified person.
CLS is well above the expectations of CAP Basic First Aid.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:35:27 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 08:28:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:17:14 PM
And CAP has rescued people. I was GBD for a team of CAP cadets (and on senior member who was NOT the team leader) who effected the rescue of an injured hiker.
From what I understand, we bombed some subs, too. It happens.
Yes?
Check the logical fallacies list. :)
While we still search for plenty of things and sometime people,
we "rescue" them these days about as often as we bombed subs BITD
and the current level of expectation in the training reflects that.
And this prevents us from raising those expectations in what way?
If you don't train for it....you can't do it.
Back in the day.....we spotted how many subs? But it was what we did.....because we trained for it.
So we do in fact do SAR.....we just thankfully don't have to do it very often.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:45:11 PM
As a military person....If you said "I'm the medic" I would assume that you are some sort of EMT level guy and that your JOB is to provide medical assistance in the field.
Disagree. I have been in units that used the term "medic" to refer to the 68W medic or the general CLS qualified person.
It doesn't matter what you think or lord thinks or I think the name means. The general public and our customers are likely going to see people in uniforms and here the term medic and think about someone with EMT/paramedic type training. THAT is where the problem comes in and that is why the term medic should not be used anywhere in CAP as far as ratings.
Give the training, please. Just find a different name for the rating (or don't give an actual rating). Like Eclipse said, words matter.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 09:01:32 PM
CLS is well above the expectations of CAP Basic First Aid.
Re-read my post. Did I say anything about CAP?
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:45:11 PM
As a military person....If you said "I'm the medic" I would assume that you are some sort of EMT level guy and that your JOB is to provide medical assistance in the field.
Disagree. I have been in units that used the term "medic" to refer to the 68W medic or the general CLS qualified person.
Note I said "I"....but still a 68W is in fact a medic....his job is to provide medical care in the field. CLS qualified person would be some other MOS person who's "additional duty" is to provide medical care in the field.
Which is my point.....a "medic" is generally thought of as someone who's job is to provide medical care in the field.....which is something that 60-3 says we should not be advertising ourselves as.
To Eclipse.......what expectations are those?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 09:09:06 PM
Note I said "I"....but still a 68W is in fact a medic....his job is to provide medical care in the field. CLS qualified person would be some other MOS person who's "additional duty" is to provide medical care in the field.
Which is my point.....a "medic" is generally thought of as someone who's job is to provide medical care in the field.....which is something that 60-3 says we should not be advertising ourselves as.
I know the job duties. You stated if a person said "I'm the medic" I would assume that you are some sort of EMT level guy". However, depending on the unit, medic does not refer to EMT level guy in the military. It can be a nebulous term to refer to a person that is a 68W, CLS qualified, or simply the person tasked to hold the wound while others are providing security. My point is, even in the military, "medic" can be undefined qualification. Just like a person saying "doc". Does that mean the person is really an MD/DO or simply the medic/corpsman?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 09:09:06 PM
To Eclipse.......what expectations are those?
Well more then anything CAP trains for, and as jeders says, in the minds of the public,
and let's not kid ourselves, the reason the term is used in used, is the connotation
of military field medic or civilian paramedic level of training and ability.
This isn't difficult. We can spend all day discussing what should be, can be, could be or was.
I prefer to spend my CAP time dealing with what is, and being realistic about the letter and
spirit of the regs.
Drs and HSOs ion CAP do not provide medical treatment or do anything the average member can't do.
neither do members with first aid, etc. The totality of the situation is clear, especially taken
together, if people choose to ignore that, they do so at the risk of their own reputation and
good will of those in their AOR, at a minimum.
What should be is addressed through channels, not via islands of training in a given unit or wing.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 09:09:06 PM
Note I said "I"....but still a 68W is in fact a medic....his job is to provide medical care in the field. CLS qualified person would be some other MOS person who's "additional duty" is to provide medical care in the field.
Which is my point.....a "medic" is generally thought of as someone who's job is to provide medical care in the field.....which is something that 60-3 says we should not be advertising ourselves as.
I know the job duties. You stated if a person said "I'm the medic" I would assume that you are some sort of EMT level guy". However, depending on the unit, medic does not refer to EMT level guy in the military. It can be a nebulous term to refer to a person that is a 68W, CLS qualified, or simply the person tasked to hold the wound while others are providing security. My point is, even in the military, "medic" can be undefined qualification. Just like a person saying "doc". Does that mean the person is really an MD/DO or simply the medic/corpsman?
Yes....that's my point.....when you get technical it a medic may mean several different thing.....he could be an EMT, and IDMT, or a number of different levels of qualifications.
But to the lay person......I was using me in my example in the military context......Medic means someone who provides medical care in the field.
And providing emergency medical care or paramedic services is something we don't do nor should we be advertising ourselves as doing.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 09:06:41 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 09:01:32 PM
CLS is well above the expectations of CAP Basic First Aid.
Re-read my post. Did I say anything about CAP?
No - but you clearly are trying to infer that the military's confusion on the topic is relevent to this discussion which
is about CAP. Otherwise why raise it?
Heh - it is kind of funny to see Lord and I basically agreeing and disagreeing on the same points in the same thread.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 09:28:11 PM
What should be is addressed through channels, not via islands of training in a given unit or wing.
Eclipse.....a give unit or wing.....are channels. :)
And on this point I have always agreed with you.
We should not be certificating "medics". It is not what CAP does....as clearly.....very clearly in this case 60-3.
It is all the rest of the things you have said about the Pathfinder Ratings that I disagree with. :0
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 09:30:53 PM
No - but you clearly are trying to infer that the military's confusion on the topic is relevent to this discussion which
is about CAP. Otherwise why raise it?
No I was not. I did not raise it. I was merely addressing Lordmonar's point of medic as a military person.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 09:30:04 PM
But to the lay person......I was using me in my example in the military context......Medic means someone who provides medical care in the field.
Yes, but not necessarily at the EMT level, which is my point.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 09:39:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 09:30:04 PM
But to the lay person......I was using me in my example in the military context......Medic means someone who provides medical care in the field.
Yes, but not necessarily at the EMT level, which is my point.
Okay...granted I may be wrong about it....but MY impression of the term medic says "EMT" which again to me means a "professional" i.e. paid.....level of expertise.
Sure....it could mean "he's the only guy who brought a first aid kit"....or it could mean "he's an Emergency Trama Surgeon"
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 09:52:03 PM
Okay...granted I may be wrong about it....
Which helps prove the point that the term "medic" should not be used. Here we have a difference between Army and Air Force in our perceptions on the term. :)
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 09:01:32 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 23, 2014, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 08:45:11 PM
As a military person....If you said "I'm the medic" I would assume that you are some sort of EMT level guy and that your JOB is to provide medical assistance in the field.
Disagree. I have been in units that used the term "medic" to refer to the 68W medic or the general CLS qualified person.
CLS is well above the expectations of CAP Basic First Aid.
Actually CLS is the perfect comparaison to what "medic" programs in the CAP context should be about. In the Army sense of things there is nothing magical about the CLS program. They are non medical soldiers that perform a secondary mission as needed. Basically bridging between self aid and buddy care and the interventions of a regular medic. The only skills they have beyond every other soldier is oral airways and iv starts and fluids (and from what I am told that portion is going away) the rest of their skills and training center around improving on and refining the basic TCCC skills every soldier gets... oh and bonus they get to carry an extra 10 pounds of medical supplies.....
The key is soldier first and foremost doing their primary job, first aid second, and only if their primary duty is not needed. I can't speak about anyone elses program but until you meet the requirements to be a CAP HSO, that's exactly what HMRS medical program is about. They use emergency medical responder as the base certification, but the scope and expectation is the role of the CLS.
As a paramedic and long time military medic I too have some heartache over using the term medic.....in addition to the CAP "bad" context....
MK
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 23, 2014, 11:29:03 PM
The only skills they have beyond every other soldier is oral airways and iv starts and fluids (and from what I am told that portion is going away) the rest of their skills and training center around improving on and refining the basic TCCC skills every soldier gets
The IV was eliminated in 2008/2009 timeframe. Too many Soldiers giving it too much attention to IVs. However, the first time I got a nasopharyngeal airway was exhilarating. In addition, you forgot the tension pneumothorax treatment. However, yes, the CLS course is really not much more than a glorified first aid course geared towards the equipment the Army uses. Of course, that is not too say it is not important or useless. It is a good course for every Soldier to go through.
I could direct my EOD friend who served a couple tours in Iraq as a medic to this thread. She might have a few stories that would turn your hair gray.
I knew IV was going i just couldn't remember when it was supposed to happen. I didn't mention chest decompression because its one of the TCCC skills we were teaching everyone.... but I can't remember if that was a SOCOM specific component or everyone....
MK
I tend to agree with one of the earlier posts that the "pathfinder" requirements include some worthwhile material that probably do fall within the realm of knowledge that it is probably good for our ground teams to have.
I also agree that the "Pathfinder" name has the potential to cause problems, but like with the Ranger school in the grand scheme of things these problems are fairly minor. Probably best avoided, but I'm not going to have heartburn over it.
Oh, I didn't see anything in there that would really make the overall course something that is needed because of special conditions in Missouri. Even the storm spotter training can be applied everywhere -- its not like tornadoes only happen in the midwest.
Am I worried that this introduces non-standard stuff? Not really, IIRC, our current ES curriculum started out as something that Maryland Wing designed and then NHQ adopted (maybe MD Wing was a test case of a NHQ program?). So, perhaps this could help build some momentum towards raising our GT standards a bit.
Why worry about introducing nonstandard stuff?
So long as the standard GRM stuff is still there and they are not adding to the ＧＴＭ SQTR
What's wrong with adding?
^ Adding "extra" wastes everyone's time and set incorrect expectations.
Most members don't want to spend time, effort, and money training in skills they have no use for.
CAP is not proficient on its core competencies, it should focus there and not waste its time doing things
it will never get called for.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 24, 2014, 03:22:20 AM
^ Adding "extra" wastes everyone's time and set incorrect expectations.
Most members don't want to spend time, effort, and money training in skills they have no use for.
CAP is not proficient on its core competencies, it should focus there and not waste its time doing things
it will never get called for.
If you don't train for it.....you definitely will never get called for it.
Please stop saying things like "CAP is not proficient at its core competencies". It is simply not true. I say again it is simply not true!
As for wasting everyone's time......it is our time to waste.....AFAIK no one in MOWG is making all their GTMs get their pathfinder ratings....Has anyone seen that? Can anyone from MOWG confirm or deny if this required to participate in ES in MOWG?
If we want to talk about wastes of time that will never get used......let's kill all the NCSAs.
Also a question about "setting incorrect expectations"......what exactly do you mean by that? What expectations? Expectations for who? The trainees? The customers?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 24, 2014, 03:32:00 AM
Please stop saying things like "CAP is not proficient at its core competencies". It is simply not true. I say again it is simply not true!
Cite, seriously.
We are so far from "proficient", it's not funny. Firefighters train every day, most CAP members make a best effort pass
one time across the SQTR, check the boxes, and then never get called, those that get called use such a small subset
of their equipment and training it's again not funny, and then once every few years they wander around the SQTR again.
CAP's successes are anecdotal and not in any way connected to a strategic plan or managing the problem. Never.
Every major operation is run on a shoestrig, as if it was the first time anyone there ever went to a mission,
with whoever is off that day or knows the IC, qual'ed or not, and then the people who go are run into the ground reinventing
the wheel until they leave or the mission is over.
We spend hundreds of hours and thousands or federal dollars training, and then when it hits the fan,
many times the most experienced people are sidelined because NHQ doesn't want to spend gas money to get them
to the AO, so you wind you with "whomever is there" running things. When they are successful, it's through
brute force and happy circumstance, and when they fail, no one seems capable of figuring out "why", or even
making a note for next time.
Well intentioned? Yes. Trying their best, sorta. Proficient? Not even close.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 24, 2014, 03:32:00 AM
If we want to talk about wastes of time that will never get used......let's kill all the NCSAs.
The majority of the NCSAs are orientation-level introductions to a career field or otherwise not
involved in purporting to be ES training. Just NESA and HMRS do that, and both have "issues".
Quote from: lordmonar on May 24, 2014, 03:32:00 AM
Also a question about "setting incorrect expectations"......what exactly do you mean by that? What expectations? Expectations for who? The trainees? The customers?
The member - they spend their time and money training to do something, they expect to do it, and when they
don't get to use those new skills, they get frustrated and often quit. It happens today with the core ES and aviation quals,
let alone anything outside the SQTRS.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 24, 2014, 03:46:31 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 24, 2014, 03:32:00 AM
Please stop saying things like "CAP is not proficient at its core competencies". It is simply not true. I say again it is simply not true!
Cite, seriously.
We are so far from "proficient", it's not funny. Firefighters train every day, most CAP members make a best effort pass
one time across the SQTR, check the boxes, and then never get called, those that get called use such a small subset
of their equipment and training it's again not funny, and then once every few years they wander around the SQTR again.
CAP's successes are anecdotal and not in any way connected to a strategic plan or managing the problem. Never.
Every major operation is run on a shoestrig, as if it was the first time anyone there ever went to a mission,
with whoever is off that day or knows the IC, qual'ed or not, and then the people who go are run into the ground reinventing
the wheel until they leave or the mission is over.
We spend hundreds of hours and thousands or federal dollars training, and then when it hits the fan,
many times the most experienced people are sidelined because NHQ doesn't want to spend gas money to get them
to the AO, so you wind you with "whomever is there" running things. When they are successful, it's through
brute force and happy circumstance, and when they fail, no one seems capable of figuring out "why", or even
making a note for next time.
Well intentioned? Yes. Trying their best, sorta. Proficient? Not even close.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 24, 2014, 03:32:00 AM
If we want to talk about wastes of time that will never get used......let's kill all the NCSAs.
The majority of the NCSAs are orientation-level introductions to a career field or otherwise not
involved in purporting to be ES training. Just NESA and HMRS do that, and both have "issues".
Quote from: lordmonar on May 24, 2014, 03:32:00 AM
Also a question about "setting incorrect expectations"......what exactly do you mean by that? What expectations? Expectations for who? The trainees? The customers?
The member - they spend their time and money training to do something, they expect to do it, and when they
don't get to use those new skills, they get frustrated and often quit. It happens today with the core ES and aviation quals,
let alone anything outside the SQTRS.
I'm just going to leave this here. :(
Quote from: RiverAux on May 24, 2014, 01:29:30 AMAm I worried that this introduces non-standard stuff? Not really, IIRC, our current ES curriculum started out as something that Maryland Wing designed and then NHQ adopted (maybe MD Wing was a test case of a NHQ program?). So, perhaps this could help build some momentum towards raising our GT standards a bit.
Pretty good memory. Here is an excerpt from a written account of the first face-to-face meeting of the ES Curriculum working group in 1998:
The ES Curriculum working group met at National HQ over the Memorial Day weekend. There were 13 members, representing all regions, in addition to John Desmarais and Pete Kalisky, both of HQ DOS. Col. Parkhurst [CAP-USAF/CC] welcomed us at a BBQ Friday evening.
As a starting point, we used the Maryland Wing Ground Team Leader and Member manuals. This was done out of convenience as much as any other reason. The MD wing reps had extra copies and no one else had anything prepared. Needless to say though, by the end of the weekend the MD personnel were not exactly happy, as the contents of their manuals got thrashed.Mike
Hi everybody... Read the first few posts here, only because it is a subject I am interested in.
TL:DR= "Oh, No, another activity, geared not solely to our anticuated ways and missions... Kill it! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!"
Yeah, Pathfinders will be something new, which I understand most of the old farts pilots brass on the ops side of this house can not, for the love, tolerate. My advice...
Get over yourselves. If you cannot/will not be a positive contributor to a new idea, shut your worthless trap. You, along with the lawyers, pilots, and insurance salesman, are what is wrong with this program.
"Oh, no, they might train differently than me." As far as the other folks, and I, involved in this course are concerned, there is ONE standard to train for existing GT Quals. That is the G&UDFT task guide book. Outdated, yes. trains for a mission that is slowly dying, Yes! Doesn't train for our newer/DR mission profiles, YES, YES, DOG, YES!!! But, as many of you have said, it is REGULATION.
Well, riddle me this, buttman: What is the training profile for Ground Damage Assesment Photography? How about Health & Wellness Checks? Or, for us hayseeds in "mizourah" (gee, that's original), what about Logistic Staging Area Management?
If you answered, "derp, I dunno." you may be a winna!(typed in my best Ed McMahon voice.)
Break, Pause for effect.
The point of this Sacred-Cow-Stomping is if you aren't going to offer anything constructive, and you insist on being a naysayer/we-never-did-it-that-way spokesman/mission pilot, go troll on another thread; as you can see by yours truly, we got all the bat poop crazy we need.
Now, anyone wanna discuss some of the good that we plan to bring about by this trainiing evolution?
Nice 'tude.
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 03:50:31 AM
Well, riddle me this, buttman: What is the training profile for Ground Damage Assesment Photography? How about Health & Wellness Checks? Or, for us hayseeds in "mizourah" (gee, that's original), what about Logistic Staging Area Management?
There is none, which means that it is arguable as to whether we should be involved in those activities until there
is doctrine and training.
That's how organized, structured resources and groups enhance and grow their missions and purpose,
not run out the door with their shoes untied hoping to figure it out by the time you get there. The fact that
this is how CAP essentially operates is the
problem.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 24, 2014, 03:22:20 AM
^ Adding "extra" wastes everyone's time and set incorrect expectations.
Most members don't want to spend time, effort, and money training in skills they have no use for.
CAP is not proficient on its core competencies, it should focus there and not waste its time doing things
it will never get called for.
Did you read the site? Can you read? The GTM garbage is a PREREQUISITE for our little slice of life. Any one walking in, expecting to learn about GTM/GTL/UDF nonsense, have nobody to blame, but yourselves. SAR/DFing are going Bye bye. 406mhz has shrunk our SAR/UDF mission here, and DR has risin in frequency. We were prepping to roll out the Ground DA Photography last year, when Moore, Ok was flattend, and OK TX and KS wings got to beat us to it.(P.s. don't get me started on the you're to far for us to pay for your fuel bs).
CAP isn't proficient, because the GT/UDFT Taskbook is out dated like marrige. I will assume you are a GTL, there, Eclipse, and when was the last time you set up a Helo LZ, so an injured survivor could be picked up, and wisked away by the meat wagon, ON A AF ASSIGNED MISSION? How about actually setting up a shelter, from your 24 hr kit, and staying overnight, in the field, on an actual mission?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 03:55:59 AM
Nice 'tude.
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 03:50:31 AM
Well, riddle me this, buttman: What is the training profile for Ground Damage Assesment Photography? How about Health & Wellness Checks? Or, for us hayseeds in "mizourah" (gee, that's original), what about Logistic Staging Area Management?
There is none, which means that it is arguable as to whether we should be involved in those activities until there
is doctrine and training.
That's how organized, structured resources and groups enhance and grow their missions and purpose,
not run out the door with their shoes untied hoping to figure it out by the time you get there. The fact that
this is how CAP essentially operates is the problem.
My attitude is poor, because of yours.
"we don't do that, so lets not learn how to do that."
If you are content to let someone else develop standard, fine, stay at home. I have been working with others in our program to develop those ideas...
Show up in June, you might learn something.
and as for my attitude, mind your own business, and stay out of our way.
Edit: Health and wellness checks were conducted by MSWG boots on the ground in '05 following Katrina... so there.
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 04:14:13 AM
Edit: Health and wellness checks were conducted by MSWG boots on the ground in '05 following Katrina... so there.
Really? I wasn't aware of that...
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 04:17:53 AM
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 04:14:13 AM
Edit: Health and wellness checks were conducted by MSWG boots on the ground in '05 following Katrina... so there.
Really? I wasn't aware of that...
:clap:
And whose fault is that, Sir?
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/files/Katrina.AAR.pdf (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/files/Katrina.AAR.pdf)
Ignorance is as powerful as you allow it.
P.S. try to get past trolling their Squadron patch. Tempting, I know.
Someone pass the popcorn. Were about to rehash "THE BIG ONE"!
Wow, if Capt. Kenyon is on staff .. and this attitude is the way things are going to be, this is really going to be a heck of a weekend.
No thanks, I'll pass. Talk about a mouthful.
You should update your profile, too. It's not MO-140 anymore.
Quote from: a2capt on May 25, 2014, 04:27:30 AM
Wow, if Capt. Kenyon is on staff .. and this attitude is the way things are going to be, this is really going to be a heck of a weekend.
No thanks, I'll pass. Talk about a mouthful.
You should update your profile, too. It's not MO-140 anymore.
Nah, sounds to me that unless you're "not getting in their way/stfu", or are not a pilot, things should go swell!
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 04:28:58 AM
Quote from: a2capt on May 25, 2014, 04:27:30 AM
Wow, if Capt. Kenyon is on staff .. and this attitude is the way things are going to be, this is really going to be a heck of a weekend.
No thanks, I'll pass. Talk about a mouthful.
You should update your profile, too. It's not MO-140 anymore.
Nah, sounds to me that unless you're "not getting in their way/stfu", or are not a pilot, things should go swell!
Yeah, I got a big mouth, and tact is overrated. But really, WTF is with the "we've never done it that way" attitude in this program? So, our course is new and different. How does trollling it help ANYONE?
And, a2acapt, you're right, and how do you know it isn't 140 anymore? pm me your id, or give up your manhood!!!
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 04:25:07 AM
Someone pass the popcorn. Were about to rehash "THE BIG ONE"!
I had a meme for that, but I am such noob/old, i can't post it...
and yes, as long as you aren't a pilot, we will get along ok.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 03:55:59 AM
Nice 'tude.
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 03:50:31 AM
Well, riddle me this, buttman: What is the training profile for Ground Damage Assesment Photography? How about Health & Wellness Checks? Or, for us hayseeds in "mizourah" (gee, that's original), what about Logistic Staging Area Management?
There is none, which means that it is arguable as to whether we should be involved in those activities until there
is doctrine and training.
That's how organized, structured resources and groups enhance and grow their missions and purpose,
not run out the door with their shoes untied hoping to figure it out by the time you get there. The fact that
this is how CAP essentially operates is the problem.
Bob.......MOWG......is establishing the doctrine and training.....and you are POO-POOing it as an affection and puffery.
NHQ is not the only one who can come up with a good idea. Baby Steps Ellie.
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 04:35:01 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 04:28:58 AM
Quote from: a2capt on May 25, 2014, 04:27:30 AM
Wow, if Capt. Kenyon is on staff .. and this attitude is the way things are going to be, this is really going to be a heck of a weekend.
No thanks, I'll pass. Talk about a mouthful.
You should update your profile, too. It's not MO-140 anymore.
Nah, sounds to me that unless you're "not getting in their way/stfu", or are not a pilot, things should go swell!
Yeah, I got a big mouth, and tact is overrated. But really, WTF is with the "we've never done it that way" attitude in this program? So, our course is new and different. How does trollling it help ANYONE?
And, a2acapt, you're right, and how do you know it isn't 140 anymore? pm me your id, or give up your manhood!!!
Seriously...are you 18?
Physically, I am 31... don't ask about my state of mind though.
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 05:15:08 AM
Physically, I am 31... don't ask about my state of mind though.
You must be a joy to be around. I bet people underestimate your age a lot.
Yeah, my intelligence too.
Heaven forbid, we are exposed to sharp tongues, and uncomfortable situations.
Fires of Hades, we may be compelled to change or learn.
Quote from: Matt Kenyon on May 25, 2014, 04:22:46 AM
Ignorance is as powerful as you allow it.
You have no idea how funny that is.
Well, since all I'm getting are attacks, and no points of contention, What does that say?
What are you doing to improve our mission skill set? Heck, Eclipse, you started a post, pointing out we should use global warming as an opportunity to develop and recruit.
My language, an "'tude" has struct a cord. Cry over it. Did I get my point across, or just break your collective feels?
Let's see, what do we have here.
We tromp on someone's idea, and he reacts. Badly. But can you blame him? I'm not defending his attitude, but if I had a product, and people s*** on it, I think I might do the same.
Quote from: Matt Kenyon on May 25, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
Well, since all I'm getting are attacks, and no points of contention, What does that say?
It says no one is interested in a shouting match with someone poorly informed on who they are trying to "school".
Ideas live and die on their merits, generally the more defensive people are, the less thought through their plan is.
If you choose to do things outside the norm, you should expect dissension.
Quote from: Matt Kenyon on May 25, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
My language, an "'tude" has struct a cord. Cry over it. Did I get my point across, or just break your collective feels?
The only cord you've struck is the all too common occurence of members coming in here with a head of
steam and doing themselves more harm then could with their attitude and demeanor.
I can't allow you to say standing PF back up is my idea, but I am trying to help get it back off the ground.
And I'll admit, I have made assumptions about those that attack new, or newer ideas, but tell me I.m wrong. Point out my mistakes in assumptions, don't dismiss the idea, because you are the Belle of Captalk. Bring somehing to this table.
As for doing it outside the norm, that is a cop out. How is CAP suppose to change, if we, the members don't offer possibilities?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 04:53:47 PM
Quote from: Matt Kenyon on May 25, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
My language, an "'tude" has struct a cord. Cry over it. Did I get my point across, or just break your collective feels?
The only cord you've struck is the all too common occurence of members coming in here with a head of
steam and doing themselves more harm then could with their attitude and demeanor.
Hey, my guy came to inform you of a new course available, and the first reply, YOUR reply, instantly dismissed him.
And you are still just attacking my post, as opposed to answering what I put up there. Boo hoo, we never did it that way, waah!
I am the curmudgeon, Lordmonar is the belle...
I have been blasted, ran over hot coals, and otherwise been lambasted here. I have no "feels" left. However, I will say this. You're in for a long fight if you choose to stay and defend yourself and opinion. Program aside, you are new here and are not going to win any friends or influence anyone with that attitude. It's not like we are baking your babies in a microwave or anything.
Want to re-make the ES program? Great. Fine. Do it. If it works for you, great. If National gets hold of it and says "This will be our new standard!" then by all means, break your arm patting yourself on the back. You deserve it. Get yourself a ComCom. Great initiative. :clap: Seriously. Kudos to you for stepping up.
However, since you've admitted that you stirred up the coals and have no remorse for it, I can't really back you up any further than I have. Stomping into a room and denouncing the discussion loudly and making a jack-wagon of yourself isn't a good idea. My personal advice, for what it's worth, is to back up, take a deep breath, and just...not continue this anymore. Leave it be. I know, you're probably only here to defend your program and position and probably will not be an active participant in this board, and the threat of being blocked will probably be laughed off, but remember you are a professional. Cadets read this, as well as various wing, region, and national staffers. You're really not doing yourself or your program any favors by acting this way.
Flame me, if you wish. Break out the harsh words and attack at will. I don't care. At the end of the day, you had an idea, decided to publicize it, it was discussed, trashed, over-baked, whatever, and you chose to act the way you have, and not professionally. If that's the way you act on a mission or at meetings, in person, I'd have to say I'm glad I left Arkansas, and the possibility of ever having to do a joint mission with you, behind me.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 05:05:03 PM
I am the curmudgeon, Lordmonar is the belle...
Good to see, at least you have a sense of humor.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 25, 2014, 05:22:46 PM
I have been blasted, ran over hot coals, and otherwise been lambasted here. I have no "feels" left. However, I will say this. You're in for a long fight if you choose to stay and defend yourself and opinion. Program aside, you are new here and are not going to win any friends or influence anyone with that attitude. It's not like we are baking your babies in a microwave or anything.
Want to re-make the ES program? Great. Fine. Do it. If it works for you, great. If National gets hold of it and says "This will be our new standard!" then by all means, break your arm patting yourself on the back. You deserve it. Get yourself a ComCom. Great initiative. :clap: Seriously. Kudos to you for stepping up.
However, since you've admitted that you stirred up the coals and have no remorse for it, I can't really back you up any further than I have. Stomping into a room and denouncing the discussion loudly and making a jack-wagon of yourself isn't a good idea. My personal advice, for what it's worth, is to back up, take a deep breath, and just...not continue this anymore. Leave it be. I know, you're probably only here to defend your program and position and probably will not be an active participant in this board, and the threat of being blocked will probably be laughed off, but remember you are a professional. Cadets read this, as well as various wing, region, and national staffers. You're really not doing yourself or your program any favors by acting this way.
Flame me, if you wish. Break out the harsh words and attack at will. I don't care. At the end of the day, you had an idea, decided to publicize it, it was discussed, trashed, over-baked, whatever, and you chose to act the way you have, and not professionally. If that's the way you act on a mission or at meetings, in person, I'd have to say I'm glad I left Arkansas, and the possibility of ever having to do a joint mission with you, behind me.
Well put. Yes, I may have burnt bridges here. So be it. This attitude in our Org of "We cant' do that, because we never did," is detrimental.
If we are to expand into DR, we have to develop new curriculum.
As for professionallism, I must say, you are dreaming. This is a volunteer program, run on the shoulders of volunteers. Nobody that gets the job done at the squadron level, is a professional. WE ARE VOLUNTEERS. Garibaldi, sincerely, thank you for pulling me back into check, and actually making a point.
Quote from: Matt Kenyon on May 25, 2014, 05:39:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 05:05:03 PM
I am the curmudgeon, Lordmonar is the belle...
Good to see, at least you have a sense of humor.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 25, 2014, 05:22:46 PM
I have been blasted, ran over hot coals, and otherwise been lambasted here. I have no "feels" left. However, I will say this. You're in for a long fight if you choose to stay and defend yourself and opinion. Program aside, you are new here and are not going to win any friends or influence anyone with that attitude. It's not like we are baking your babies in a microwave or anything.
Want to re-make the ES program? Great. Fine. Do it. If it works for you, great. If National gets hold of it and says "This will be our new standard!" then by all means, break your arm patting yourself on the back. You deserve it. Get yourself a ComCom. Great initiative. :clap: Seriously. Kudos to you for stepping up.
However, since you've admitted that you stirred up the coals and have no remorse for it, I can't really back you up any further than I have. Stomping into a room and denouncing the discussion loudly and making a jack-wagon of yourself isn't a good idea. My personal advice, for what it's worth, is to back up, take a deep breath, and just...not continue this anymore. Leave it be. I know, you're probably only here to defend your program and position and probably will not be an active participant in this board, and the threat of being blocked will probably be laughed off, but remember you are a professional. Cadets read this, as well as various wing, region, and national staffers. You're really not doing yourself or your program any favors by acting this way.
Flame me, if you wish. Break out the harsh words and attack at will. I don't care. At the end of the day, you had an idea, decided to publicize it, it was discussed, trashed, over-baked, whatever, and you chose to act the way you have, and not professionally. If that's the way you act on a mission or at meetings, in person, I'd have to say I'm glad I left Arkansas, and the possibility of ever having to do a joint mission with you, behind me.
Well put. Yes, I may have burnt bridges here. So be it. This attitude in our Org of "We cant' do that, because we never did," is detrimental.
If we are to expand into DR, we have to develop new curriculum.
As for professionallism, I must say, you are dreaming. This is a volunteer program, run on the shoulders of volunteers. Nobody that gets the job done at the squadron level, is a professional. WE ARE VOLUNTEERS. Garibaldi, sincerely, thank you for pulling me back into check, and actually making a point.
No problem.
Your points, have focusedon DR for the most part. That, from what you listed has little to do with Medics or Pathfinders. So which is the focus of the school? Do you see the reason for the questions regarding those terms?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 05:43:36 PM
Your points, have focusedon DR for the most part. That, from what you listed has little to do with Medics or Pathfinders. So which is the focus of the school? Do you see the reason for the questions regarding those terms?
Yes, I do. It will all be a focus, for those interested. Another idea we are trying to bring about is to have more specialized training for idividual team members. GTM/GTL/UDF training is great, but rather generalized. ICUT has merits to get people started in Comms. We've already determined that the only limitiation to Medical care is the Members level of CURRENT training, and local laws (samaritan laws, etc.) We want to expand on each of these, and more, while also offering more training toward a chosen field. Think of the Jack of all Trades, he is a master of none. But, if he has is basic levels of training, and then picks a field to be better at, he is still the Jack of all Trades, but is now a master of one.
This summers course is going to be a basic course, dealing with the mission training needed, that CAP doesn't have. That is your DR. We can find lost airplanes all day every day, we've been doing that since '41. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. But, maybe now that we have these high-speed, low-drag, Yokohama radials, maybe we aught to think about inventing the axel to put that wheel on.
Professionalism has nothing to do with being paid or not being paid....aka being a volunteer...... Especially in the world of public safety. Learn that lesson sooner rather than later and you will be impressed with how many more doors are open rather than shut.
MK
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 05:43:36 PM
Your points, have focusedon DR for the most part. That, from what you listed has little to do with Medics or Pathfinders. So which is the focus of the school? Do you see the reason for the questions regarding those terms?
Medics aside...the Pathfinder Rating is heavy on DR stuff. Confined Space, CERT, etc....is all DR centric as opposed to traditional SAR.
So the focus of the school....seems to me....to be to take SAR qualified personnel and add some advanced SAR and DR centric skills.
I'm a JoAT at work. Seems to work just fine. GTM is GTM. Everyone should know the job of everyone else. If every PFC/Corporal is expected to be able to take charge of the Platoon in a SHTF situation, then "specialization" in an already "Specialty" field is going too deep.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 06:09:51 PM
I'm a JoAT at work. Seems to work just fine. GTM is GTM. Everyone should know the job of everyone else. If every PFC/Corporal is expected to be able to take charge of the Platoon in a SHTF situation, then "specialization" in an already "Specialty" field is going too deep.
Right, but you have to admit, a person that can do everything okay can't do anything great. We are'nt talking about cadets taking over a ground team, or the like. We are talking about a member that can set up the HF radio's or mobile repeaters in a low power, no power environment, like can be found in a disaster area, maintain them, and keep a net up. How about members that know all there is to know about Photographing damaged buildings, uploading the images and GPS data, and sending a finished product to SEMA, FEMA, or NGIA.
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 25, 2014, 06:03:46 PM
Professionalism has nothing to do with being paid or not being paid....aka being a volunteer...... Especially in the world of public safety. Learn that lesson sooner rather than later and you will be impressed with how many more doors are open rather than shut.
I take your point, but don't agree. Maybe I'm not savvy enough to put it into words, but CAP doesn't, and never has, struck me as a professional organisation.
MK
[/quote]
JoAT is what kills this organization sometimes. Lack of bodies forces many units to dual hat too many members. (Or triple or quadrouple hat) How can you focus on staying up to date and capable on GTM tasks for the once a year mission when you spend more time worrying about this weeks testing, next months trip to the air museum, promotion boards, getting the vans brakes changed and getting into that CLC course so you can get promoted.
The many other organizations I have volunteered my self in that are ES related (fire and EMS) the rank and file member worries about one thing: training for and responding to the emergency they are there waiting for....even if it only actually happens a few times per year.
The best run organizations I have seen are ones that keep a well defined split between administration and operations. If you need someone to keep track of the finances, find someone who wants to do it and likes to do it, not someone who wants to fly a search aircraft that can also balance a checkbook. There will always be people that can do both and times that they should do both, but that should be the minority not the majority.
MK
Eclipse, You are wrong again. You do not know what you are talking about. I wish you would stay quiet and have your keyboard taken away.
Pathfinder Tech School started in Missouri to teach the realities of SAR in Missouri. It has a long and proud history
training members in Missouri and many other states with a common sense approach to SAR.
In the very earliest days orange berets were awarded but WIWAC we wore a blaze orange ball cap while at the activity. We were permitted by the Missouri Wing Commander to wear an orange shoulder chord with blues. You were allowed to wear a patch on your OD green shirt and then later the Woodland BDU upon completion of the course.
The school always had a small amount of students. It was never intended to be a large encampment type of event.
Pathfinders, WIWAC was before NESA or any National level courses or curriculum. It is a good idea to have smaller Wing or Region schools that allow training year round and are more economical.
The school never had an attitude of arrogance, bling or "we are special". It was always taught with the idea that we trying to help the victim in the best way possible.
I know some of the leadership for the current school. I don't think it will turn into a Ranger Program with all thier problems.
The medic training is interesting. Boy Scout Explorers in my area have medical specific Explorer Units. What would be wrong with having medical professionals demonstrate or talk about that field. We go to PJOC and are told "don't try this at home", so what is wrong with expanding the knowledge of motivated cadets as long as it preached that we can't do this in CAP.
Missouri Wing received a National Commander's Commendation for all the SAR,DR work we did in 2011. So we do a lot in Missouri Wing. So to our detractors (in Illinois) and others please do some research before commenting.
Aaaand Suspended. Lol
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 26, 2014, 02:41:11 PM
Aaaand Suspended. Lol
Sorry to be tardy to the hanging party, but why?
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 26, 2014, 03:42:13 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 26, 2014, 02:41:11 PM
Aaaand Suspended. Lol
Sorry to be tardy to the hanging party, but why?
We're not allowed to tell Eclipse he's wrong. >:D
Probably a same IP.. as if the original Jackwagon episode didn't result in the ban-hammer.
Yes, suspended because I told someone to be quiet.
Eclipse should still have his keyboard taken away.
Just the responses I expected from some members on this board not surprised at all.
If he's suspended...why is he posting? Lol
Because there's "suspended" and "SUSPENDED". >:D
Quote from: JeffDG on May 21, 2014, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: jeders on May 21, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
So, other than the name and the chance of some bling (which wasn't even broached in any of the material I saw on the website), what is the problem?
Because, don't you listen to the news? Everything has to be a national standard, and if it's not, it's defective per se. Local concerns detract from a national focus.
So, by God, they need to teach high-altitude mountain survival in FLWG, and you better believe that NDWG better get their hurricane awareness training...not to mention HIWG's blizzard survival curriculum.
>:D
Only if HIWG had a SAR mission to Mauna Kea on the Big Island... :)
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on June 03, 2014, 08:01:29 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 21, 2014, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: jeders on May 21, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
So, other than the name and the chance of some bling (which wasn't even broached in any of the material I saw on the website), what is the problem?
Because, don't you listen to the news? Everything has to be a national standard, and if it's not, it's defective per se. Local concerns detract from a national focus.
So, by God, they need to teach high-altitude mountain survival in FLWG, and you better believe that NDWG better get their hurricane awareness training...not to mention HIWG's blizzard survival curriculum.
>:D
Only if HIWG had a SAR mission to Mauna Kea on the Big Island... :)
If I'm ever reported missing in HI, I've managed to find a way to stow away in one of the domes up there and have hijacked the CFHT or something similar.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on June 03, 2014, 08:01:29 PMOnly if HIWG had a SAR mission to Mauna Kea on the Big Island... :)
No, it would be back to the Slab.. lets see if you'll sign up for that one ;-)
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2014, 04:43:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2014, 04:28:35 PM
Actually the name of the school isn't really the issue - if you look at the school's currcilum documents,
it created MOWG-only "Pathfinder" ratings, including "Pathfinder Medic".
Unnecessary and inappropriate for CAP.
We already have GTM and Aircrew ratings that are compliant with CAP's mission set.
Just playing devil's advocate....GTM may be okay as a vanilla generic mission set....it may not be enough for the situation in MOWG.
So....again no problem with people adding new ratings....so long as they are not chaing CAP ratings.
I know that's the case in Virginia. The Civil Air Patrol curriculum for GTM3 doesn't even come close to meeting the State Certification requirements for a Field Team Member. As a Result the Virginia Wing in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management host a Ground Search and Rescue college every year. The graduates are CAP qualified at GTM1 and state certified as a Field Team Member. They let CAP members from other wings attend and it's not terribly expensive, really all you're paying for is the Barracks and Food.
Quote from: SARDOC on June 07, 2014, 07:49:40 PM
I know that's the case in Virginia. The Civil Air Patrol curriculum for GTM3 doesn't even come close to meeting the State Certification requirements for a Field Team Member. As a Result the Virginia Wing in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management host a Ground Search and Rescue college every year. The graduates are CAP qualified at GTM1 and state certified as a Field Team Member.
And has this resulted in a large number of GT-centric missions the wing would have otherwise not been involved with?
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 09:15:43 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on June 07, 2014, 07:49:40 PM
I know that's the case in Virginia. The Civil Air Patrol curriculum for GTM3 doesn't even come close to meeting the State Certification requirements for a Field Team Member. As a Result the Virginia Wing in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management host a Ground Search and Rescue college every year. The graduates are CAP qualified at GTM1 and state certified as a Field Team Member.
And has this resulted in a large number of GT-centric missions the wing would have otherwise not been involved with?
And if it hasn't? Some places don't get many GT centric call outs....but one would assume that CAP would in Virginia would get ZERO call outs if they don't meet Virginia's Field Team Member requirements.
So long as Virgina Wing is not making the extra training a requirement to get GTM1....then what exactly is the problem?
Who said it's a problem?
However if they aren't getting missions because of the training, what's the point?
The message indicated GTM wasn't enough to be state certified. There's no reason to care unless it
brings missions.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 09:15:43 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on June 07, 2014, 07:49:40 PM
I know that's the case in Virginia. The Civil Air Patrol curriculum for GTM3 doesn't even come close to meeting the State Certification requirements for a Field Team Member. As a Result the Virginia Wing in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management host a Ground Search and Rescue college every year. The graduates are CAP qualified at GTM1 and state certified as a Field Team Member.
And has this resulted in a large number of GT-centric missions the wing would have otherwise not been involved with?
Yes, It has. VDEM wouldn't call Civil Air Patrol unless they needed an Airplane. Other than that, our Ground Teams were never requested until our members started getting certified with the state.
Quote from: SARDOC on June 08, 2014, 01:49:56 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 09:15:43 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on June 07, 2014, 07:49:40 PM
I know that's the case in Virginia. The Civil Air Patrol curriculum for GTM3 doesn't even come close to meeting the State Certification requirements for a Field Team Member. As a Result the Virginia Wing in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management host a Ground Search and Rescue college every year. The graduates are CAP qualified at GTM1 and state certified as a Field Team Member.
And has this resulted in a large number of GT-centric missions the wing would have otherwise not been involved with?
Yes, It has. VDEM wouldn't call Civil Air Patrol unless they needed an Airplane. Other than that, our Ground Teams were never requested until our members started getting certified with the state.
I've heard of similar issues in other states I've worked in. Once, in Arkansas, I even was told flat out that "CAP would never be called out by the ________ Department of Emergency Management. Their training is not on par with what we need, and their program is a joke." Even with a SARTECH II rating, ground team members wouldn't be called upon to assist in anything, not even to run donuts for the ICP.
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 08, 2014, 07:52:27 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on June 08, 2014, 01:49:56 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 09:15:43 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on June 07, 2014, 07:49:40 PM
I know that's the case in Virginia. The Civil Air Patrol curriculum for GTM3 doesn't even come close to meeting the State Certification requirements for a Field Team Member. As a Result the Virginia Wing in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management host a Ground Search and Rescue college every year. The graduates are CAP qualified at GTM1 and state certified as a Field Team Member.
And has this resulted in a large number of GT-centric missions the wing would have otherwise not been involved with?
Yes, It has. VDEM wouldn't call Civil Air Patrol unless they needed an Airplane. Other than that, our Ground Teams were never requested until our members started getting certified with the state.
I've heard of similar issues in other states I've worked in. Once, in Arkansas, I even was told flat out that "CAP would never be called out by the ________ Department of Emergency Management. Their training is not on par with what we need, and their program is a joke." Even with a SARTECH II rating, ground team members wouldn't be called upon to assist in anything, not even to run donuts for the ICP.
Our lack of standardization in equipment, training and team make-up really hurts us.
The requesting agency has no idea what they will get.
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 08, 2014, 07:52:27 PM
I've heard of similar issues in other states I've worked in. Once, in Arkansas, I even was told flat out that "CAP would never be called out by the ________ Department of Emergency Management.
The issue there is that unless the "xEMA" is the agency that calls CAP out, it's irrelevant whether or not they like us.
In my wing, there is a lot of rhetoric about the state, but the missions all come from the local relationships.
If there is value to CAP for extra training, etc., so be it. If it's just another card to carry in your wallet, then the
direct questions have to be asked about our involvement.
I've had a lot of conversations with a lot of people who love to have lots of cards in their wallet, none which
ultimately mean anything in a CAP context.
First post here, so prepared to duck after hitting enter.
Read this entire thread. The interesting thing that has not been mentioned is: the creator of the MOWG Pathfinder School was a member of the National Emergency Services Curriculum Committee. Pathfinder is not a new curriculum, by rather is THE curriculum, plus some. While I would agree if the minimum standards are not met for GTM there is an issue, but if the standard is met and exceeded what's the problem?
I have been to the classroom portion instructed by the author and it was excellent training that is 100% compatible with the current curriculum. I've been to NESA twice (GSAR both times), and there is very little difference and the differences adds not detracts from the National Standard. My hat is off to the staff that took the time and effort to put this together, implement, and plan for it's future continuance.
The biggest issue we deal with is the folks who come back thinking they are 'special' or 'elite' because of the training. That leads to a breakdown of the concept of TEAM.
This frequently happens despite the claims from the school organizers that they discourage that mindset. Allowing special bling above that for other NCSA's only adds to the problem.
The main complaint about this particular activity has been the name Pathfinder. That implies a special or elite qualification. If it were the MOWG Ground SAR School, nothing implies anything special.
^ Yep.
The biggest issues we have behaviorally and attitudinally, especially with cadets, but also far too often with seniors,
is when you take something standard, give it a fancy name or special badge, and add nothing to the mission capability or ability.
You also can't add to the curriculum and then expect members to not want to use those skills.
As Arajca said, you then have people walking around thinking they are "special", when in fact their relevent mission
experience and ability may be less then those "not special". If a particular wing wants to deal with that nonsense,
so be it, but CAP deploys for major incidents on a regional and national scale, including encampments and NCSAs,
etc, which solicit members from all over the country, bringing with them their "not-special-special", and for some
reason Wing CCs are reluctant to require the "non-special-special" be left at home.
CAP has a singular mission set and skill level, set by NHQ and dictated by the customers. Those wings with
terrain, weather, or other local challenges can address them with supplements that live and die within
their borders and don't require "special".
CAP, as an organization, would be much better off if it would learn this lesson and spend the time wasted on
the "not-special-special" working with the agencies who could actually get it work. The majority of members
would trade their "not-special-special" for real decorations related to actual SAR and DR work.
I agree somewhat, people do return from some activities with a superiority complex. Look for instance, at returnees from NBB and Hawk Mountain. Personally, I can deal with it, for the amount of time the ego takes to deflate. And, generally the member (cadet or senior) is normally a better member for having attended.
If you all remember the early GTL SQTR's (ca 2000-2001), qualification required more than basic first aid/CPR. This requirement was eased, in my opinion because of the difficulty and expense in receiving this training.
I think every Wing should be tasked with implementing a Wing ES training academy. NESA is a super activity (like I said I've been twice), but the expense and distance inhibits broad attendance. My issue with CAP has never been over-training or worrying about how some training infates someones ego, but rather the incessant pencil whipping of qualifications. And not only in ES but on specialty track qualifications and yes even on cadet promotions.
Once again I applaud these guys, and disdain those that sign people off because they are buddies or are worried about political consequences. As long as they are doing it correctly and by the standard, let them have the name and bling or a little ego. Believe me you eventually tire of all these things.
In another thread I read an entry talking about patting yourself on the back while pointing fingers at others. This attitude more than any matches what CAP seems strive for. I hope we're not teaching our cadets this skill. I learn a lot on CAP Talk, but seems like there are lots of arguments about very little. When major issues go un-noticed.
A school where you actually have to pass, and demonstrate skill is a good thing. I think it's in line with the core values to recognize success of this magnitude. And this is a huge success, and movement toward competence is a huge stride in the right direction. If that means they get to call themselves a Ranger or Pathfinder or get to wear a blue beret, I'm okay with that.
QuoteIf you all remember the early GTL SQTR's (ca 2000-2001), qualification required more than basic first aid/CPR. This requirement was eased, in my opinion because of the difficulty and expense in receiving this training.
The qualification was "Complete Advanced First Aid or equivalent." It was dropped as a requirement because the only Advanced First Aid was that which the Red Cross taught, and the Red Cross was phasing it out. CAP itself was also evaluating what first aid training was really necessary. CPR as a separate certification was not required for GTL or GTM.
Mike
^ +1.
Other then removing the CPR requirement, nothing has changed in regards to what CAP considers "advanced first aid".
Your typical 1-day community-level class has always met the requirement.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2014, 04:25:55 PM
^ +1.
Other then removing the CPR requirement, nothing has changed in regards to what CAP considers "advanced first aid".
Your typical 1-day community-level class has always met the requirement.
Not so. At the time the ARC (and a few others) offered specific basic and advanced first aid courses. The basic course was 16 hours and was well....basic. The advanced class was an additional 16 ( if I remember correctly), id have to look at my old books to see what "advanced" skills were taught. I think there were sections on backboarding, oral airways, tomas half ring splints, the notched board traction splint, and more in depth discussion about different medical emergencies.
The problem for CAP was two-fold.a you could only get the cool badge by meeting the additional requirements. Not just any old GTL. b-the ARC was phasing out the advanced first aid course in favor of the emergency responder course-basically a 40 hour DOT curriculum first responder course (including a new and more expensive text) More cost and more time made the additional training cost prohibitive. Next thing you know gtm gets broken into 3 levels and you get the badge for either one at the lowest level possible.
MK
As a graduate of Pathfinders in the 90s, I am thrilled that they are starting this again. Yeah we did feel "special" and it was an honor to wear the Orange shoulder cord but when we went out on SAREXs those with the Pathfinders patch were held to a higher standard. We typically were trained better than the others and were considered leaders in ES. That is not to say others were not equally trained or even better than us but it was a sense of pride and accomplishment that was well respected in the MO Wing. I only hope they can bring back the level of training and respect that the Pathfinders school once represented. I most certainly applaud the effort and wish them all the best.
:clap:
Capt Ammon Hoover
COWG Valkyrie Cadet Sqdn
Spaatz# 1315
Quote from: SPAATZ1315 on August 11, 2014, 10:08:33 PM
....We typically were trained better than the others and were considered leaders in ES. That is not to say others were not equally trained or even better...
An oxymoron... How can you even say that you were trained better than other groups, but that other groups were equally trained?
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
It is similar to saying "one of the best". It is a contradiction of terms as by definition there can only be one best.
I know what he means to say, but the way he is saying it is demeaning the others...
Is there a winter pathfinder school?