CAP Rangers

[arajca]

If you look at the resource typing for wilderness SAR, HMRS 2nd year courses meet the objectives to support a type II team.  Which as far as I know, no other CAP SAR school does.  Specifically the medical and backcountry thechnical and patient evac requirements

mk

The medical and pt evac requirements are activities CAP is prohibited from doing. The technical stuff is permitted if your wing commander will sign off on it and the member provides the training and equipment.

[sarmed1]

All the more reason CAP needs to re-evaulate its medical care requirements if it wants to play in the big NIMS compliant world.

mk

[arajca]

One major reason for the restriction is the plethora of different requirements for each state and, in some cases, within each state. Plus the whole Physician Advisor issue.

[fyrfitrmedic]

One major reason for the restriction is the plethora of different requirements for each state and, in some cases, within each state. Plus the whole Physician Advisor issue.

Neither of those is insoluble.

[arajca]

One major reason for the restriction is the plethora of different requirements for each state and, in some cases, within each state. Plus the whole Physician Advisor issue.

Neither of those is insoluble.

True, but given the problems getting an HSO track put together and approved, I don't see either of these being tackled anytime soon.

[fyrfitrmedic]

One major reason for the restriction is the plethora of different requirements for each state and, in some cases, within each state. Plus the whole Physician Advisor issue.

Neither of those is insoluble.

True, but given the problems getting an HSO track put together and approved, I don't see either of these being tackled anytime soon.

Perhaps; the initiative shouldn't be abandoned IMHO.

[MIKE]

Thread split.  New thread here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1997.0

[CAPLAW]

Idea   why dont we just rename CAP rangers, something like SAR TECHS

[RiverAux]

Because then they would be aping another title that they don't really deserve based on this activity. 

[ZigZag911]

I sense that a majority of the problem comes from the influence of seniors.  After all, cadets are impressionable and will often take after their leaders' example.  If a leader tells a young pup that this is the only way to do it and it is definitely the cool way, well then of course, cadets will follow suit. 

I think you've hit the nail on the head....unfortunately the heritage runs back to the late 60s or early 70s, which is decades worth of an elitist philosophy....the right senior leadership, given a few years, could turn this around....but that would require  commitment and support from the highest echelons and grass roots alike in Pennsylvania Wing....sadly, the PA folks, who have a wonderful commitment to the ES mission, simply don't recognize or won't acknowledge that this aspect of the Ranger program damages their wing's reputation with much of the rest of CAP.

As an activity that draws cadets, some minimal 'bling' is almost a necessity -- but it needs to be scaled back to something less reminiscent of Manhattan doormen!

[mikeylikey]

As an activity that draws cadets, some minimal 'bling' is almost a necessity -- but it needs to be scaled back to something less reminiscent of Manhattan doormen!

Maybe the Hawk MTN Patch would suffice??

[sarmed1]

simply don't recognize or won't acknowledge that this aspect of the Ranger program damages their wing's reputation with much of the rest of CAP.

come on when you have (or had as the case was) a Wing Commander who decides that he can change the location of a patch as directd by CAP regs because that's what he thinks it should be (or as I was told ...because he was on the "uniform committe") and puts out an official memo authorizing the change what do you expect.  Who exactly do you complain too?  Obvioulsly the region commander didnt have issue with it either 'cause it has yet to be rescinded...
or a NHQ staff that usue HMRS photos but photoshoped out the unauthorized T-shirt colors....yet no cease and desist memo from NHQ....

If no one from the wing commander to the National staff is going to say no...how exaclty do you propose to change the culture?   

Ask any of the nay sayers to HMRS bling (we'll call them anti-rangers..sorry) from PA.  What happens if you buck the HMRS system in PA?
For a while back in the late '90's my squadron was more into SAR than what we got out of HMRS, we dropped all "bling" except the school patch; GTM badges, black T-shirts and BDU caps, did a lot of work with non-CAP SAR and disaster teams.  We scheduled our own training that frequently coincided with HMRS weekends or went to civilian SAREX's.  One mission came up with CAP particiapation (missing person search)  it was during a HMRS weekend.  The school commander at the time sent a senior member LTC from HMRS to the mission base with specific instruction to prevent our team from taking any taskings until a school specific ranger team could get there (I am not assuming, it was a friend of mine and he leveled with me exactly why he was sent ahead of the team).

mk

[sarmed1]

Because then they would be aping another title that they don't really deserve based on this activity.

You could apply that to the majority of CAP "Ground Teams" as well.

GTM3 is not a SAR qualification, the training program wouldnt even cut it to pass the SARTECH III exam.
GTM1 graduates would be hard pressed to pass the SARTECH II exams as well.

Being both a SARTECH II and GBD and an advanced ranger I can tell you that the HMRS program comes closer to preparing the student for actual land SAR than most CAP training I have seen.

mk

[CadetProgramGuy]

Idea   why dont we just rename CAP rangers, something like SAR TECHS

Ummm.....Being a SARTECH II, I vote for heck no.

If you really want to then eliminate the ranger tabs, authorize the NASAR SARTECH patches.

There is much more to learn as a SARTECH than a GTL2 or 3

[sarmed1]

....authorize the NASAR SARTECH patches.

ummm..they are table 6-4 #25.....
block 1 NASAR qualification patches
block 2 embroidered
block 3 on the right sleeve 1/2 inch below shoulder seam of BDU or field uniform shirt, BDU field jacket, utility uniform or flight suit.

Back before the NB decision 2006 there was discussion of re-designing a HMRS patch for wear in accordance with the regulation that had rockers that were placed above the patch indicating the Ranger Rating (like NASAR) with Staff or Medic underneath.....when TP said tabs are ok the re-design went out the window

mk

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have stayed OUT of the Ranger/Hawk Mountain/Berets/Bling/etc. discussion because I really am not interested in trying to look like a Frenchman.  But...

My head is starting to hurt with all the NIMS/SARTECH/MEDIC requirements vs. CAP Rangers.  I want a solution that will make the folks happy, not make us look like idiots, and is simple and fair in its application.

So:

1.  What WE as CAP guys do is unique.  We operate ground teams to aid in searches conducted by aircraft.  They are trained in coordinated searches with an aircraft, communication (with and without radio) with a search aircraft.  Our GT guys are trained in basic fieldcraft, and rely on external support for their operations.  They can be tactically employed in two ways:

     a.  As separate teams, consisteng of CAP members only, and operating with a CAP airplane.

     b.  As a liaison element with another agency's SAR ground team, to provide coordination with a CAP airplane (Not at all unlike the Air Boss in an infantry unit who is an Air Force officer and pilot who coordinates the air support).

2.  The Air Force, in its own AFI, identifies these CAP ground-pounding people as "Rangers."  We limit that term to HM grads, and guys who complete a HM curriculum in Florida and elsewhere, but the AF does not.

3.  The cadets like berets.  We can't get around that.  Officers look pretentions in them, but the cadets love them.

So...  Proposed solution for discussion:

1.  GTM-3 requirements will be unchanged, and upon qualification as a GTM-3 , the GT badge will be awarded.

2.  GTM-2 requirements will be enhanced to include a minimum 3-day (2-nights) training bivouac in the field.  The training should fill the three days, be challenging, and mission-related.  At the conclusion of GTM-2 a beret will be awarded to cadets, but without a beret flash.

3.  GTM-1 completion gets the cadet a generic beret flash.  Maybe just a modified wing-and-prop cadet cap insignia.

4.  NBB and Hawk grads go directly to the beret, but with a distinctive flash, one for NBB and a different one for HM.

5.  GTM-3 and GTM-2 will be designated "Ranger Trainees" and GTM-1's, NBB grads, and HM grads will be designated "Rangers."

6.  Officers get the GT badges, but should not wear the beret unless they are instructing at NBB/HM, and once the class ends they put the BDU patrol cap on.

7.  NO OTHER BLING.  No patches, belts, bibs, whistles, sabers, sidearms, pins, funny hats, nothing!

Flame away.

[Gunner C]

Sabers?  Hmmm.  Maybe bling ain't so bad.  That would look great with my mess dress. 

GC

[Trung Si Ma]

Flame away.

No flame - I like it.

[mikeylikey]

argh......Johny, MORE BLING?? 

[JohnKachenmeister]

argh......Johny, MORE BLING?? 

Actually, my proposal would be a net REDUCTION of blingage.