Venting about attitudes

[floridacyclist]

^ Difference between the phrase "Boy Scout" and "Scout".  No Difference between "Ranger" and "Ranger".  How dare hawk grads call themselves "Ranger".  I also have never found any reference to "Ranger Grade" in any CAP manual/ reg.  Other than what PAWG puts together, which is crappy by the way there is no reference. 

Most Scout troops drop the Boy part unless it is in something official. Funny how most folks with issues with the name were never in the US Army Rangers yet the RealRangers@ seem to have no problem judging by their offer of help. Yet another case of other CAP folks taking us much more seriously than we take ourselves.

You don't need a regulation for an unofficial achievement that carries no more weight than the title of "encampment honor cadet" (which is similarly reg-less). Without the GT* credentials to back it up (which pretty closely parallel the Ranger Levels with certain additions thrown into the Ranger testing), the Ranger card doesn't do you much good unless you laminated it and needed an improvised ice-scraper. Either way, NHQ has accepted the program, and so have several other programs as evidenced by the passage

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

in the  U.S. National Search and Rescue Supplement to the IAMSAR Manual .

I guess it just gets rather tiresome to have to put up with flak from one or two people every time the "R" word gets mentioned; it's like we're supposed to hide our association with this group. You know, secret midnight meetings on New Moon nights etc.

If I was up here singing praises and shouting that Rangers walk on water, I could understand some of the animosity, but considering my laid-back attitude towards this whole affair, I just don't get it. All I know is that the kids that we work with are enjoying themselves, they are excited to be in CAP, they are learning leadership in real-world situations, and as long as we stay within the regs, I don't see a single cotton-picking thing that we're doing wrong. To me that is certainly no reason for this ungentlemanly and distinctly non-officer-like conduct that is displayed any time the "R" word gets mentioned no matter what the context is.

Some folks must be pretty unhappy with their situations if they have all this free time and energy to go looking for other folks to bash on rather than accepting that it takes all kinds of rowers to make the boat go forward.

[SJFedor]

^ Difference between the phrase "Boy Scout" and "Scout".  No Difference between "Ranger" and "Ranger".  How dare hawk grads call themselves "Ranger".  I also have never found any reference to "Ranger Grade" in any CAP manual/ reg.  Other than what PAWG puts together, which is crappy by the way there is no reference. 

Most Scout troops drop the Boy part unless it is in something official. Funny how most folks with issues with the name were never in the US Army Rangers yet the RealRangers@ seem to have no problem judging by their offer of help. Yet another case of other CAP folks taking us much more seriously than we take ourselves.

I won't sing mikey's list of achievements, but if he's upset about it, he's earned the right to be rightly so.

Personally, the only issue I have is that, at least, last that I heard, they're not teaching the national standard ES training at Hawk towards the GT ratings that are what really matter, therefore, like you said, the training they're doing is worth no more than an ice scraper in a pinch.

I just don't understand why we can't find one national program to teach the standard, so you don't get people from one wing, with their program, trained differently then those from another wing, with another program, mixed together at a big event, and end up having conflict that interferes with the mission. Please understand I'm, by no means, bashing on what FLWG does, because it sounds like, from the things I've heard, you guys find a nice harmonious mix of the two.

Also, that's really sweet that you guys are getting the RealRangers involved with you guys.

[floridacyclist]

There's no reason to trust what others say about the training standards at Hawk, they're online at http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm
You'll recognize most of them as much of the national curriculum has been incorporated into the training.....not too bad considering that Hawk has had actual training standards a lot longer than CAP has had them.

As far as teaching it, most kids come back from a Ranger event at least a GT grade or so higher than they went in, so somebody's teaching something.

We are working on a National Ranger Curriculum, but part of the issue is that some of the training is region-specific; while the kids may enjoy the ropework at Hawk (and it is definitely a treat to my kids), it holds very little practical relevance here in the swamp. By the same token, swamp and marsh operations would mean very little to CO wing. I was told the other day that we can work on incorporating stuff into the curriculum although I'm not really clear yet what effect that would have on inter-wing acceptance of credentials; right now, my sign-offs are good in PA and vice versa. To put it another way, if we decided to replace mountain survival skills with swamp survival for local training and someone here signed off on his Advanced or Expert, would  that still carry over to PA wing or would he have to accomplish the PA-specific tasks for his rating to be any good there? In a sense, none of this matters as a Ranger card will not get you onto a mission base anyway, but some folks do care about the bling they earn (I'm just not one of them).

Perhaps the best situation is where it seems to be headed now where we have a standard National CAP Curriculum to ensure a basic level of consistency between all folks ES, with the Ranger programs in various states and regions allowed to develop terrain-specific additional training (rappelling in the mountains, swamp and jungle training in FL, desert ops in AZ etc) based on the higher standards of a basic National Ranger Training Curriculum.

Incidentally, I have never said anything out of the way to Mikey, so I fail to see how he has earned the right to say anything of the sort to me.

[Tubacap]

So I've pretty much stayed out of the Ranger discussion for a long time now, but I'd like to add my comments now.  My first impression with Hawk was when a cadet from my squadron came back from it and was the most stuck up cadet I have ever met in my life.  That was an initial distaste in my mouth.  The next was just a few weeks later at an encampment where I was a TAC and I had an entire squadron staff of Hawk staff members.  This was similarly a frustrating experience.  So far, my views were not good at all.

Then, the next year at encampment (and the subsequent 3) were all with Hawk staffs as my Squadron Staff, and I started to take a liking to them.  They were gung-ho for sure, and just needed a little more redirection on the differences between staffing a ranger school, and staffing a basic encampment.  After my brain finally comprehended that, it was much easier to harness their energy and training and use it for good!

Last year, I sent one cadet to Hawk, and this year two.  They have been coming back without the attitude that I had expected, but with a, man that was awesome, can we do some of this in our squadron attitude.  I like that.   I'm not sure if that is something that they are changing as far as indoctrination at the school, or whether it is me as a Squadron DCC knowing how to immediately deal with the situation to make their training more productive for the school in general. 

As far as training standards go.  They still do have the Ranger Grades.  Although I'm not ecstatic about them, I think that they have a fair motivational affect on the cadets, and so therefore have a place.  As everyone else has said though, the training very closely parallels the GT levels now.  In fact, the tasks should be entered into eServices within a few weeks of the schools ending.  If they are not, they get a list of the things that they have accomplished which includes task specific GT level achievements.  In addition, it goes above and beyond and REQUIRES IS 100,200,700,800 before entering the course depending on the level you are attending at.

I myself have never been there.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure whether I will ever go or not.  I had a real bad taste in my mouth about it the first few years I was in CAP.  The product that has been coming back though the last few years has been great, and I really like the way that they have reworked the program to start becoming NIMS compliant while maintaining the current CAP quals as well.  Maybe in a few years I'll head out and spend a summer in the woods again.

So I guess my diatribe is that the poor attitude on my part was earned by Hawk awhile back.  Whether it was isolated or not, it was my personal experience with them.  Now however, I am starting to get a more positive attitude and am not nearly as leary of sending cadets or for that matter seniors to the courses there.

[floridacyclist]

A quick thought on my last post about standards: Maybe a National certification with endorsements for major terrain types? I know the USA Rangers go through desert, jungle, woodlands, and mountain training; that might be an idea I should run up the flagpole to see if it flies. Have all levels up to Ranger 1st Class on a standard national curriculum and anything higher with a standard curriculum plus at least one terrain endorsement.  This would allow me to earn Advanced or Expert (with a swamp endorsement) here in FL, but if I want the mountain endorsement, I have to go where there are mountains etc etc. I just bounced that off Maj Cason and he wants me to write it up and send it in so he can see what PA Wg thinks of it.

I understand your attitudes. I had a really bad experience with a few Hawk Mountain cadets who came down to help us start our first FL Ranger school. Now to be honest, these kids gave up Christmas at home with their families and came down with Maj Cahalen and Maj Riley so they could help us, and for that I am grateful. That said, you are right: they were stuck up, disrespectful and downright unmilitary. I agree that this is something that we have to deal with, and something that I have talked to every wannabe Ranger cadet that has come through our activities. Rangers are NOT special, they do NOT walk on water, nor are they ES GODS. It is a fun way to study ES and an awesome leadership activity, but neither the program nor it's grads are there to save CAP or the free world and the school staff needs to reinforce that. If anything, the best payoff of programs like this seems to come from training cadets in advanced ES and leadership skills and then sending them home with orders to "go ye forth and preach the gospel of HOO-RA" LOL

One thing to understand is that this is very personal to me. A while back, I found myself defending the Ranger program to our Deputy Group CC who was offended by the name and was saying that we distracted the kids from other more important issues like getting their Mitchell or encampments. He couldn't stop us because it was a wing activity, but I wanted him on our side.I wrote an email and ended up saving is as a webpage because it said a lot about where I'm coming from without having to repeat it over and over.

Incidentally, that young man who had the spiked black mohawk and a penchant for skipping school was just officially appointed as Cadet Commander and is dragging the squadron back up from almost disbanding to the point where we sent out an email saying that Tallahassee will set the pace for the group and wing and it didn't sound all that unbelievable. His brother, who was named as the honor cadet from the Hawk Staff training Squadron went on to attend SUPTFC and was Honor Rookie in band camp.

The Dep Gp CC has since apologized, changed his tune and asked me to help set up a GSAR curriculum for the Group.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I also never attended the Hawk Mountain School for Wayward Cadets, and so I have stayed out of any of the Ranger discussions.  I also stayed out because I have no horror stories to share.  I never saw any HM grads with the negative attitude desribed.  I'm sure some exist, I just never saw any.

But, as far as use of the term "Ranger," I want to point out a fact or two.

The Army doesn't own the term "Ranger."  They actually didn't have any rangers for most of their history.  You've got to go back to the French and Indian Wars, when our Army was a British Colonial force, to find them.  Rogers' Rangers was a force of 5 companies of troops trained to operate independently from a force, to conduct recon-in-force, ambushes, small raids, and generally make life miserable for the French.

After the French and Indian Wars, the Rangers were disbanded, and while we had units that did similar jobs, none were called "Rangers" until World War II.

William Darby suggested an elite raiding unit be organized in the US Army, to be employed like the British Commandos.  He was not comfortable with the term "American Commandos" that was picked up, so he called his force the "Rangers" bringing back the old Rogers Rangers aura.  ("Commando" was also stolen by the British from the South African units that they faced in the Boer War)

After a few postwar fits and starts, (not a whole lot different from our own organizational history in the postwar years) the US Army Ranger program settled into permanence, with rangers being trained to accomplish certain objectives:

1.  To maintain battalion-level assault forces that can strike without extensive external support and seize key terrain objectives in advance of a larger force.

2.  To train officers and NCO's in the tactics of the attack, including movement to contact.

3.  To integrate ranger-trained persons into conventional units to ease interoperability and to provide unit-level trainers in critical infantry tasks.

So, if WE want to have a force that we call "Rangers," and our rangers exist to:

1.  Provide trained rescue teams capable of operating for extended periods in austere conditions without external support.

2.  Provide trained rescue personnel to integrate into conventional CAP rescue units as trainers and cadre, and,

3.  Provide trained rescue personnel to assist CAP leaders at all levels in training Emergency Service force personnel...

Then they are the Rangers! 

And, by the way, Big Mother Blue recognizes them as such in some AFI I read once.

[floridacyclist]

So, if WE want to have a force that we call "Rangers," and our rangers exist to:

1.  Provide trained rescue teams capable of operating for extended periods in austere conditions without external support.

2.  Provide trained rescue personnel to integrate into conventional CAP rescue units as trainers and cadre, and,

3.  Provide trained rescue personnel to assist CAP leaders at all levels in training Emergency Service force personnel...

Then they are the Rangers! 

And, by the way, Big Mother Blue recognizes them as such in some AFI I read once.

Excellent training goal statements Maj Kach. May I steal them? Or did you already steal them from someone else?

[Skyray]

Glad to see the Everglades Ranger School has spread its pollen to Tallahassee.  When I got canned by the Supreme Leader I was teaching fieldcraft in the forerunner of that school at Homestead.  After I was gone, two of my Homestead companions started the school with the blessing and help of Hawk Mountain.  One of my attempts to return found me associated with the Everglades school for a few weeks until the leadership cadre found out what was up and denied my re-entry.  I was pretty impressed with what they were doing and how far they had come with the concept since Homestead.

As for arrogant, has it occurred to anyone that they may not be arrogant?  They just may be that good.  Now we need to teach them humility.

[floridacyclist]

Humility is a good lesson to learn, especially if we want others to invite us to their parties. It is also a good sign of maturity, which we owe it to these youngsters to teach. I have always tried to teach my kids (both my own and those I work with) to let their actions speak for them rather than trying to gain attention through clothes or actively trying to draw it to them.

[mikeylikey]

Is this the official spot to vent my attitudinal hatred for people?  If so......

Thanks floridacyclist for calling me out.  I don't think I attacked you.  I made a comment about Hawk and Rangers, but like I always thought, Hawk Grads and Rangers can't sit still and take some criticism or listen to someone say they don't like the program.  You made the point so very clearly.  Also, I must make it perfectly clear that I did NOT bash you, [redacted by admin].  I can say anything I want about Hawk, Rangers or any other subject.  Don't make this a personal issue, because in the end you only look like an idiot. 

So for everyone to read, I will NEVER say anything more about the Ranger program or Hawk MTN again.  If I do, I am afraid the Rangers may show up at my door, drag me to that MTN and hunt me down like they do to those poor Innocent rabbits.  Please someone whatever happens SAVE THOSE RABBITS!

[Skyray]

You know, it is really hard to eat rabbit once you have made friends with a few.

[mikeylikey]

^  Hahaha.......It would be like taking the family cat outside and making stew.  Can't do it.  How can you eat something so cute and furry.  Tell your five year old son or daughter that they have to eat the easter bunny and see what happens. 

[docspur]

I'm getting "Blue Beret" flashbacks on this.  One of the main reasons we discourage our cadets to go to Blue Beret is the attitudes they have when they come back.  We did send 2 cadets to Hawk this summer...they had a blast one one took top honors.  Waiting to see if an attitude crops up from that but so far so good.

Quick question though... Are there any regs concerning the cadets wear of the Ranger tab?  I know that they cannot wear the Blue Beret because it is not considered an actual part of the uniform.

[Skyray]

I used to really enjoy duck hunting until my wife a daughter started carrying on about murdering Daffy.

[mikeylikey]

Quick question though... Are there any regs concerning the cadets wear of the Ranger tab?  I know that they cannot wear the Blue Beret because it is not considered an actual part of the uniform.

I think TP wrote a blanket approval for all of the specail activity patches, tabs, hats, ascots, whistles, boots, belts, shirts, shorts, underwear and challenge coins.  I don't know if it was approved by an "official" approving authority.  There is a policy letter on the subject located that the NHQ site.

[JC004]

There's no reason to trust what others say about the training standards at Hawk, they're online at http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm
...

Black backgrounds, light text...I don't maintain that section, btw.   

[mikeylikey]

^ Colgan......no one will believe you don't maintain that section.  It is a link off the PAWG website.  People are saying "Wow this page is crap, I will send the webmaster a hate email".  In fact, I just sent you one!

[jb512]

I'm getting "Blue Beret" flashbacks on this.  One of the main reasons we discourage our cadets to go to Blue Beret is the attitudes they have when they come back.  We did send 2 cadets to Hawk this summer...they had a blast one one took top honors.  Waiting to see if an attitude crops up from that but so far so good.

Quick question though... Are there any regs concerning the cadets wear of the Ranger tab?  I know that they cannot wear the Blue Beret because it is not considered an actual part of the uniform.

That's an area that I would disagree with most on.  I think that "beret, tab, special patch" competitive, winning attitude is a good thing and something that can be directed.  The blue beret, GSAR, hawk mountain type of person "kicks ass".  If the cadet comes back thinking he's better than everybody and sets himself apart, then put him in his place but If he/she comes back as a role model for other cadets to look up to, you can create that and encourage it.

I say give them all of the tough looking uniform items you can, as long as they earn it.  I've seen the GSARSS and they're the ones I want looking for me if my plane crashes.

[JC004]

^ Colgan......no one will believe you don't maintain that section.  It is a link off the PAWG website.  People are saying "Wow this page is crap, I will send the webmaster a hate email".  In fact, I just sent you one!

but...but...

It JUST got moved there from .gov anyway (to which I don't have access since I'm not the wing POC for .gov)

[Major Carrales]

It is obivous that the term "Ranger," would have its own meaning in CAP.  Now, what should that meaning be?  I think that is the question.

Unless you nix the HM Ranger School, the issue will have to be addressed.  Personally, I think evey Region should have one INTENSE "ecosystem" ADVANCED ENCAMPMENT/ Survival School.  They should be regulated by National Standards with an OPS PLAN that take into account local needs.  Additionally, I think they should have an ES focus...thus, completion of the "RANGER SCHOOL" should see a cadet come away a GT1, or if so qualified, a GTL.

If it does not have that purpose, that good is it?

[Tubacap]

I'm pretty sure pending some pre-requirements for Hawk, that you do come out with GTM1 from the Summer School.

[Major Carrales]

I'm pretty sure pending some pre-requirements for Hawk, that you do come out with GTM1 from the Summer School.

I should very much like for that to be one of the focused objectives.

[floridacyclist]

It pretty much is. Both my kids went in with UDF and came back with all of GTM3 and most of GTM2 and 1 signed off. With a few more weekends since then, they now have all of GTM and most of GTL as well as MRO, CUL, MSA etc..starting to look for new challenges since they have just about ran out of things they can do as minors. They've been working on learning to teach (we actually have a DEM class on teaching this weekend) so they can help their squadron members. To me, this is what the program is all about.

[JohnKachenmeister]

So, if WE want to have a force that we call "Rangers," and our rangers exist to:

1.  Provide trained rescue teams capable of operating for extended periods in austere conditions without external support.

2.  Provide trained rescue personnel to integrate into conventional CAP rescue units as trainers and cadre, and,

3.  Provide trained rescue personnel to assist CAP leaders at all levels in training Emergency Service force personnel...

Then they are the Rangers! 

And, by the way, Big Mother Blue recognizes them as such in some AFI I read once.

Excellent training goal statements Maj Kach. May I steal them? Or did you already steal them from someone else?

Nope.  I made them up based on what HM Rangers are supposed to do.  If you want them, they are all yours.

[LittleIronPilot]

Well this thread has been entertaining...good think I am an old hand at forums and para-military units, or I, as a new member here and in the CAP, would be wondering what the heck I have gotten myself into.

BTW...I never heard of the HM Ranger program...but as a former Paratrooper and LRS member, I LOVE the idea.

[Skyray]

O.K. you guys, play nice.  I happen to agree with both of you.  Sometimes the arrogant attitude instilled in students at R<redacted> School is irritating.  The training, however, is invaluable.  As I commented a little earlier, we need to concentrate on instilling humility.

[Stonewall]

Gene,

Not that I've said the "R" word in a few months, but as long as I've been a senior member, going on 16 years now, I have never ever needed to use a special title, i.e. "Ranger", to motivate cadets to advance through CAP's ground team standards.  I just don't see the need for it.  You say if it motivates cadets and doesn't violate any regulations, then why not.  I ask, why?  Isn't working towards, earning and then excelling as a cadet ground team member/leader enough?  Once qualified, you do what?  Hone your standard skills and begin teaching newer members who are still striving to achieve GTM/GTL.  It's that simple to me.

I can go on and on and on about my experiences up in DC wing with several different squadrons.  Never once did we call ourselves "Rangers" or use some other title to boast our capabilities.  It's like knot tying.  I'm sure there are some "Ranger standards" to knot tying that exceed the standard GT requirement.  Why call it a Ranger thing, why not just call it training.  Semantics is all it is.  The success that I've seen within the ground operations community as it relates to cadets has always been from within the standardized program.  It has so many avenues to teach, motivate, re-train, enhance skills and evolve that there just isn't a need for anything else.

I remember showing up to my first MER SAR College in like 1993.  When we showed up to sign in, there were these cadets from another wing lined up with some sort of ascot around their neck and a rigid squadron hat.  It screamed "I'm Special".  It was, in fact, some sort of self-initiated ranger program.  Naturally, the head dude from the activity spoke to their senior representative and told them to knock it off.  Halfway through the weekend we learned those "Rangers" had no concept of CAP ground team operations.  All they had was some wanna-be senior member trying to re-live the days of when they weren't a Ranger.  Pathetic if you ask me.  We always prided ourselves in showing to outside wing activities as plain looking as possible.  No squadron hats, t-shirts, bells, whistles, or anything.  The only thing we had was our standardized gear.  We showed up to numerous ES missions and training exercises with other wings and often out-searched them.  No berets, no nothing.  Always getting comments on the cadets' discipline and professionalism.  It's easy.

I just don't understand the need to call anything a special program like Ranger, or whatever.  I have no issue with the term "Ranger" as it relates to the Army.  That's irrelevant to me.  I take no offense to it and could care less.  My point is using any special name.  Recondo, Ranger, Sapper, Mike Force, Tree Hugger, whatever.  Those were things from my cadet days, when I was a young cadet, trying to be more than just another Ground Team Member.  The future showed me one thing, and that was I wasn't even a good ground team member.  But things have changed since then.  We have a national standard.  Who cares if it isn't regionally specific based on terrain.  You know what you do?  You simply modify the training to fit your needs.  No need to re-invent anything or create some goofy title for yourself.  Just be a "Ground Team", except you're a Florida Ground Team, not a Colorado Ground Team.  I think the locals won't expect a North Dakota Ground Team to be proficient in Swamp Operations or a Virginia Ground Team experts in Desert SAR.  It's just common sense to me.

I have had lots of experience with Hawk Mountain folks.  From cadets in my wing to actually attending Winter Hawk in 2002.  It's a good venue for ground team training.  It's really good for region specific mountain training.  If I were king, I'd take away all the bells and whistles and simple make it Hawk Mountain SAR School.  But that's me.  Sort of like the National Guard's Mountain Warfare School in Vermont.  It's a 4 week school, 2 summer weeks and 2 winter.  Guess what you get out of it?  TRAINING!!!!  Sure, there is some unofficial badge that isn't authorized by the Army, but other than a certificate, you get some awesome training.  That's the way I think schools should be in CAP.

Screw Everglades Ranger School, call it Florida Ground Operations School.  Motivate cadets and seniors through a good solid training program, probably something you guys already have.  But do away with the name.  Again, I don't have an issue with the word "Ranger", it just happens to be the term you used.  Throw away white belts, ascots, tabs and whatever else you use as identifiers.  The ultimate goal should be the coveted GTM badge, Senior and Master.  Then EMT badges.  Nothing gets me more than getting a task signed off and then never using it again.  You can tie a bowline knot enough to pass the test, but are they tying in the performance of a simulated exercise, at night, randomly during round robin training?  GTM is not s stepping stone to being Ranger qualified, it's the end result.  Then, as a GTM, you hone, polish, and master the GTM skills.  Want to go to Hawk?  Great, more training, but when you come back, you're still a GTM.  There's no MOS designator and you don't get to wear a boonie cap.

I just don't think we, CAP as a whole, has mastered the art of ground search and rescue to the point where we're bored and need some special qualifications.  Using cadets is an awesome thing.  Personally, I consider ES a major aspect of a cadets' experience.  To me, there is no cadet program without emergency services; it's a motivator.  That being said, I don't think there is any one squadron, ground team, cadet ground team member, that truly is an "expert".  It is said it takes 8 years for a person to become a good, safe driver.  People drive every day and spend as many as 2 or 3 hours in their car, every day.  But cadets, and most senior members, are merely volunteers.  Cadets, who are a part of CAP should only be dedicated about 1/3 of their efforts towards ES.  It's an extra curricular activity with some bonus features, like getting called out on a Friday night to help search for a missing person, non-distress ELT, or quite possibly, if they're out of school, hang out in hurricane stricken community and pass out water.  All cool stuff that I loved as a kid.  But I'm grown up now, I see a bigger picture.  I grew out of the days of thinking berets were necessary or a special program was the only way to go.  I learned a lot from watching the good guys up in NATCAP wing, guys that didn't sport a white pistol belt, upside down survival knife on their gear or boonie caps.  These guys were just good at ES, Air Ops, Ground Ops, Cadet Programs, Moral Leadership, Aerospace Education and running encampments. 

I like the idea of state (wing) specific GSAR training.  It's an idea that's been spoken about for as long as I've been in CAP.  It's great that someone is doing it.  I just don't see the need for special titles.  It's a waste; a false sense of superiority.  That one cadet, Gene, you know who I'm talking about, when she walked into the squadron meeting and was the only one wearing Ranger garb out of 17 cadets, I felt embarrassed for her.  Her starched BDU cap that looked like a dog dish, white pistol belt, whistle, ascot and whatever else she wore, man, I wondered who told her it looked good, professional.

Well, that's my two page opinion based on 20+ experience in CAP, as an EMT, HAZMAT Technician, Cop, Soldier, Airman, Lt Col, Hawk attendee, SERE graduate, First Aid/CPR Instructor, Field Training Officer, NGSAR Advanced Course Commandant, 6 MER SAR Colleges, being a Ground Branch Director, and a GTM/GTL in two different wings/regions. 

I have listened and thought about it for years.  I've even played devil's advocate.  But I just can't bring myself to believe there is a need for a "Ranger program".  I say just be the best [darn] ground team you can be, for your specific geographical region, and never quit training.  Memorize basic skills and pass them on to others.

[Stonewall]

Col Bowden, you posted while I was finishing up with this. If you don't mind, I'll start the new thread with your message and leave this one be.

Whatever floats your boat.  I'm easy.  Don't tell my wife.

[RiverAux]

I think I've only come across a few Hawk graduates, but it was years after they had gone and they were seniors when I met them.  No attitudes observed at that time, but can't vouch for right after they got back.

For cadets in particular, they get pretty exicted to do regular ground team training so I don't think having a "special" camp or name is necessary to keep them motivated.   

Don't see any real reason to change the name -- its been around more than long enough to qualify as "tradition" in my book even if apparently they aren't doing much beyond what is in the regular GT curriculum.

[floridacyclist]

Col Bowden,

You and I agree on a lot of stuff. Like the fact that we don't need a special name, or special uniforms. You and I have talked before about that, and those are a couple of aspects of the program I would like to see changed, at least locally; I don't have any hopes of changing the PA wing program, but for now I seem to have at least a small voice in the FL program. You say a lot of things that make sense and I do agree with you on much of it...and even understand what you mean on the things that I disagree with you on. You said a lot and there is much to digest and discuss...we can probably go for a while replying to your message and analyzing it; I know that a quick reply would not do justice to the amount of thought and feeling that went into it, but I will not be able to put that much time into it on this sitting. I will hit a couple of key points and let some others have at it while I head home.

Yes, I too feel bad about "She who shall not be named"; we have spoken on a couple of occassions and if she is still wearing that stuff to squadron meetings, I would seriously question her judgement. It is one thing to come back from Hawk, show off your bling a little to the younger cadets, then quietly put it away to be taken out again for the next trip to the mountain. It is another to continue to wear it when people over you, both in and out of the program have told you it is not cool. You and I are in almost total agreement on the uniform bling...I don't know how you feel about the BTDT patch, but I personally see no harm in it or on the orange ballcaps since they make good sense in an ES environment.

As I said in the email I referenced earlier (link in the last thread), the name itself is not that important, but with 50 years on the sign, we are probably not going to get it changed. Like RiverAux just said, it's been around long enough (almost as long as CAP) to qualify as tradition. This brings up the question of whether there is an advantage to being associated with a nationally-recognized program or if we should do it on our own. I will leave that part open for discussion...I am sure there are some interesting thoughts on it.

My own thought is that if you're going to do something above the minimum, that is not covered in teh standard-issue books, then having some kind of "brand recognition" is a good thing...especially if everyone agrees that the training itself is good and that by offering the same training in different locations, you can act as a force multiplier rather than a competitor. If you remember, that was what made franchising so big was consistency; in some ways, I see us as being in the same boat.

As covered in that email, my kids have made huge strides, not just in CAP but in school as well since becoming involved in the program; you yourself said it was a good experience. I'm not so sure why having the same program offered at home so that they can work on their skills etc before they go back is such a bad thing. Without the local school, they would not have had the experience of being in staff training this past Summer. I believe I mentioned that the 15yo made honor cadet; he wasn't even aware as he left 2 days early to catch a Greyhound to MS for AF SUPTFC. If we had been offering the same training under the title of "Tallahassee Ground Team Training" that would not have happened. By the same token, our 13yo C/SSgt buddy would not have been able to go to A) Any other NCSA due to his age, or B) Hawk Mountain if he hadn't attended one of our local schols and been bitten by the bug.

Actually, we could not have offered the same training as I have only recently been appointed ES officer and prior to that, we had no ES program or functional ES officer (She - my ex-GF, was MIA). After coming back from Glades and expressing frustration to Maj Cason about the lack of training opportunities here, Maj Cason suggested that our squadron host a Ranger weekend, which was promptly shot down as the group and squadron commander (the same person) felt that we did not have the resources to host anything (like how many resources do you need to go camping in the woods?). Maj Cason then made me the Wing Ranger Training Officer and we went ahead on our own, hosting the first GT training Tallahasssee had seen in a couple of years, and a rather successful one at that (see tall tales).

You are right, we don't NEED Ranger training, but it has made CAP life a little more bearable for some of us at times. I admit, I enjoy it (I have been accused of forgetting that I'm no longer a cadet LOL) and the entire squadron loves how everyone is coming back to life now that we have 3 Ranger cadets on cadet staff and running the show if not like Hawk, at least in a much more motivated fashion than the last C/CC asked for.

By the same token, you talk about how cool you thought it was at their age....you have to keep in mind that they are still at that same age. We can't look at their world through our eyes, but at the same time we do owe it to them to put the training into perspective and help them understand how best to use it to benefit themselves and CAP.

On time spent doing ES vs other stuff, I agree. I have been asked a rather interesting question twice now by two seperate people: The old DCC asked why didn't I plan more Cadet activities, to which I replied that was the DCC's job - (he has since been replaced...by my wife who does a much better job at keeping the cadets busy doing cadet things), and the new CC said that I needed to plan more Senior activities , to which I suggested that he speak to the DCS, but that I was already running the OTS and upcoming SLS.

You and I are much closer in thought than you realize. We mainly seem to disagree on the advantages of identifying with a national institution or not for our advanced training. As far as the advanced training goes, not everyone wants to be even remotely familiar with swamp operations, and for them the standard GT quals work great....but some want more of a challenge, and it can be rather fun trying to give it to them. I agree that the standards should come first...and with two kids who have completed almost every qualification allowed at their age, I don't think you will see me disagree.

Time to go home..my wife is coming from dance class to pick me up. Have a good one and we can talk about this some more.

Gene,

Not that I've said the "R" word in a few months, but as long as I've been a senior member, going on 16 years now, I have never ever needed to use a special title, i.e. "Ranger", to motivate cadets to advance through CAP's ground team standards.  I just don't see the need for it.  You say if it motivates cadets and doesn't violate any regulations, then why not.  I ask, why?  Isn't working towards, earning and then excelling as a cadet ground team member/leader enough?  Once qualified, you do what?  Hone your standard skills and begin teaching newer members who are still striving to achieve GTM/GTL.  It's that simple to me.

I can go on and on and on about my experiences up in DC wing with several different squadrons.  Never once did we call ourselves "Rangers" or use some other title to boast our capabilities.  It's like knot tying.  I'm sure there are some "Ranger standards" to knot tying that exceed the standard GT requirement.  Why call it a Ranger thing, why not just call it training.  Semantics is all it is.  The success that I've seen within the ground operations community as it relates to cadets has always been from within the standardized program.  It has so many avenues to teach, motivate, re-train, enhance skills and evolve that there just isn't a need for anything else.

I remember showing up to my first MER SAR College in like 1993.  When we showed up to sign in, there were these cadets from another wing lined up with some sort of ascot around their neck and a rigid squadron hat.  It screamed "I'm Special".  It was, in fact, some sort of self-initiated ranger program.  Naturally, the head dude from the activity spoke to their senior representative and told them to knock it off.  Halfway through the weekend we learned those "Rangers" had no concept of CAP ground team operations.  All they had was some wanna-be senior member trying to re-live the days of when they weren't a Ranger.  Pathetic if you ask me.  We always prided ourselves in showing to outside wing activities as plain looking as possible.  No squadron hats, t-shirts, bells, whistles, or anything.  The only thing we had was our standardized gear.  We showed up to numerous ES missions and training exercises with other wings and often out-searched them.  No berets, no nothing.  Always getting comments on the cadets' discipline and professionalism.  It's easy.

I just don't understand the need to call anything a special program like Ranger, or whatever.  I have no issue with the term "Ranger" as it relates to the Army.  That's irrelevant to me.  I take no offense to it and could care less.  My point is using any special name.  Recondo, Ranger, Sapper, Mike Force, Tree Hugger, whatever.  Those were things from my cadet days, when I was a young cadet, trying to be more than just another Ground Team Member.  The future showed me one thing, and that was I wasn't even a good ground team member.  But things have changed since then.  We have a national standard.  Who cares if it isn't regionally specific based on terrain.  You know what you do?  You simply modify the training to fit your needs.  No need to re-invent anything or create some goofy title for yourself.  Just be a "Ground Team", except you're a Florida Ground Team, not a Colorado Ground Team.  I think the locals won't expect a North Dakota Ground Team to be proficient in Swamp Operations or a Virginia Ground Team experts in Desert SAR.  It's just common sense to me.

I have had lots of experience with Hawk Mountain folks.  From cadets in my wing to actually attending Winter Hawk in 2002.  It's a good venue for ground team training.  It's really good for region specific mountain training.  If I were king, I'd take away all the bells and whistles and simple make it Hawk Mountain SAR School.  But that's me.  Sort of like the National Guard's Mountain Warfare School in Vermont.  It's a 4 week school, 2 summer weeks and 2 winter.  Guess what you get out of it?  TRAINING!!!!  Sure, there is some unofficial badge that isn't authorized by the Army, but other than a certificate, you get some awesome training.  That's the way I think schools should be in CAP.

Screw Everglades Ranger School, call it Florida Ground Operations School.  Motivate cadets and seniors through a good solid training program, probably something you guys already have.  But do away with the name.  Again, I don't have an issue with the word "Ranger", it just happens to be the term you used.  Throw away white belts, ascots, tabs and whatever else you use as identifiers.  The ultimate goal should be the coveted GTM badge, Senior and Master.  Then EMT badges.  Nothing gets me more than getting a task signed off and then never using it again.  You can tie a bowline knot enough to pass the test, but are they tying in the performance of a simulated exercise, at night, randomly during round robin training?  GTM is not s stepping stone to being Ranger qualified, it's the end result.  Then, as a GTM, you hone, polish, and master the GTM skills.  Want to go to Hawk?  Great, more training, but when you come back, you're still a GTM.  There's no MOS designator and you don't get to wear a boonie cap.

I just don't think we, CAP as a whole, has mastered the art of ground search and rescue to the point where we're bored and need some special qualifications.  Using cadets is an awesome thing.  Personally, I consider ES a major aspect of a cadets' experience.  To me, there is no cadet program without emergency services; it's a motivator.  That being said, I don't think there is any one squadron, ground team, cadet ground team member, that truly is an "expert".  It is said it takes 8 years for a person to become a good, safe driver.  People drive every day and spend as many as 2 or 3 hours in their car, every day.  But cadets, and most senior members, are merely volunteers.  Cadets, who are a part of CAP should only be dedicated about 1/3 of their efforts towards ES.  It's an extra curricular activity with some bonus features, like getting called out on a Friday night to help search for a missing person, non-distress ELT, or quite possibly, if they're out of school, hang out in hurricane stricken community and pass out water.  All cool stuff that I loved as a kid.  But I'm grown up now, I see a bigger picture.  I grew out of the days of thinking berets were necessary or a special program was the only way to go.  I learned a lot from watching the good guys up in NATCAP wing, guys that didn't sport a white pistol belt, upside down survival knife on their gear or boonie caps.  These guys were just good at ES, Air Ops, Ground Ops, Cadet Programs, Moral Leadership, Aerospace Education and running encampments. 

I like the idea of state (wing) specific GSAR training.  It's an idea that's been spoken about for as long as I've been in CAP.  It's great that someone is doing it.  I just don't see the need for special titles.  It's a waste; a false sense of superiority.  That one cadet, Gene, you know who I'm talking about, when she walked into the squadron meeting and was the only one wearing Ranger garb out of 17 cadets, I felt embarrassed for her.  Her starched BDU cap that looked like a dog dish, white pistol belt, whistle, ascot and whatever else she wore, man, I wondered who told her it looked good, professional.

Well, that's my two page opinion based on 20+ experience in CAP, as an EMT, HAZMAT Technician, Cop, Soldier, Airman, Lt Col, Hawk attendee, SERE graduate, First Aid/CPR Instructor, Field Training Officer, NGSAR Advanced Course Commandant, 6 MER SAR Colleges, being a Ground Branch Director, and a GTM/GTL in two different wings/regions. 

I have listened and thought about it for years.  I've even played devil's advocate.  But I just can't bring myself to believe there is a need for a "Ranger program".  I say just be the best [darn] ground team you can be, for your specific geographical region, and never quit training.  Memorize basic skills and pass them on to others.

[floridacyclist]

I think I've only come across a few Hawk graduates, but it was years after they had gone and they were seniors when I met them.  No attitudes observed at that time, but can't vouch for right after they got back.

Mine were pretty cool about it. Very hyed about getting to do stuff in the mountains that htey don't get to do here. Very confident about how they can help the squadron rebuild

For cadets in particular, they get pretty exicted to do regular ground team training so I don't think having a "special" camp or name is necessary to keep them motivated.   

Yes, but if each advanced team has it's own standards, then you have to start from scratch any time you visit another team. If it's standardized (just like the basic national curriculum) then you can visit and build your skills at your convenience..and the signoffs count when you return to Hawk.

Don't see any real reason to change the name -- its been around more than long enough to qualify as "tradition" in my book even if apparently they aren't doing much beyond what is in the regular GT curriculum.

Hawk is about much more than GT training, it is an excellent leadership lab. Folks tend to forget that and focus in on the Signoff sheets (similar to SQTRs) and forget what the kids are learning about leadership and motivation in the process.

I have yet to see a GT training event outside of Hawk that involved a formal uniform inspection or written test (very similar to the SARTECH exam).

Speaking of SARTECH, one of our goals is to get everyone up to Type III WSAR standards. We would have a hard time doing that as an independent squadron GT...we're simply not big enough, and not enough folks outside our squadron are even aware of what NIMS typing is or why they should meet it. yet when we have a Ranger event, we get 30 people from around the region who are there expecting hard training. Needless to say, we have a lot of fun at these.

[MIKE]

Col Bowden, you posted while I was finishing up with this. If you don't mind, I'll start the new thread with your message and leave this one be.

Rather than have yet another thread... Topics merged.

[fyrfitrmedic]

 Along with humility, it's necessary to embrace a concept that Zen practicioners refer to as "beginner's mind".

There are many who should take this to heart, no matter where they are in CAP an no matter their opinions.

[Stonewall]

Sorry, I type like 70 words per minute and I can type just as fast I think, probably faster than I talk.  I don't expect a whole bunch of folks to read this, but I typed it anyway...

Look at a fire department as an example.  You're a firefighter, that's cool; I used to be a volunteer for about 1 1/2 years.  Loved it!  But I was a firefighter.  I went to extrication school.  When I came back, I was a firefighter.  I went to an engineer course.  What was I when I got back?  A firefighter.  I went to EMT; again, a firefighter.

Same goes for a police department, excluding SWAT (a different mission than regular beat cops).  I went to breath test operator's course, I'm still a plain cop.  I went to patrol rifle course, same thing.  I went "vehicles in combat", still, just a cop.

The Army is a little different in some ways.  As an infantryman, you go to Ranger school, you're still an infantryman when you get back to your platoon/company, but you're sportin' a tab.  But your mission and job function doesn't change.  

Same should go for CAP.  Go off to Hawk, NESA, PJOC, CSS, or "Glades".  All great training, but when you come back, you're still a ground team member/leader.

You speak of your kids being in CAP and having basically gotten signed off on all the tasks as a GTM.  That's cool, but "getting signed off" is easy.  But to master the skills is another task altogether that isn't tracked until it's time to gett'em signed off again when you need to renew.  When cadets get to the point of being a GTM, then they need to work on GTL skills, even if they aren't of age.  The whole "train your replacement thing".  After all, the cadet program is a leadership lab, right?  And like you, I believe from the bottom of my heart that ES is the best venue to use as a leadership lab.  Then, once they've mastered the skills of GTL, they better be teaching classes on the basics, to future GTMs.

I got tired of seeing only seniors teach stuff at MER SAR College (ground ops school).  One year we blew their (the other 6 wings in the region) minds.  We managed the program (I was commandant) and had senior cadets teach people from 7 wings basic ground team skills.  Cadets were teaching cadets and seniors alike.  Teaching, to me, is the best way to become the resident SME (subject matter expert) on a topic, task, or skill.  Had them prepare their one or two classes months in advance.  Had them practice giving their classes to their cohorts.  Then we critiqued them and offered advice.  Some didn't cut it, but we used them as support staff.  It was awesome.  To me, I saw that as thinking out of the box at a region activity.  That was their next step once they mastered the standard skill base for GTMs.

Not tooting my horn or throwing out an "I'm better than you", because I'm not and would never say that, but I never had an issue with teaching cadets, motivating them, or seeing them get bored.  There are so many GTM tasks that I don't see how you could get bored and master them all, even after a couple years.  Every FTX was different and usually managed, from start to finish, by someone different.  If we had a newer project officer, one of the more experienced ones would shadow them.  Everything we did was outside the box, but based solely on basic ground team tasks.  I can't imagine a 13 year old cadet is bored with standard GTM skills.  My assessment of that would be that someone in charge isn't using others' ideas or maybe doesn't have enough folks trained and willing to take lead in planning and executing training exercises.  I've heard horror stories from cadets who say "it's just another stupid DF exercise where a SM drives the van and we sleep in the back until we get a signal.  Then we find the simulated ELT, shut it off, and eat lunch at BK".  Nothing blows more than 90% of the training resources going to aircrews and one unlucky guy is stuck holding the bag for training the ground pounders.

If you aren't incorporating water survival (drown proofing) into your basic GTM training, you shouldn't be "advancing" to a new program called "Ranger".

If you aren't doing survival training within the scope of CAP ES, then you shouldn't be attending some superman ground team course.

If you aren't spending at least 3 FTX's a year focusing on air/ground communications using voice and non-voice signals, then you shouldn't call yourself elite.

If you don't have K-9 SAR folks involved with your basic ground ops FTX once or twice a year, plus a standard orientation, then you have no right to begin training as a SAR A-Team.

If you think knowing 10 knots vs 3 makes you something special and warrants a new title, you're wrong.

How many ground team FTXs and training weekends do most members, specifically cadets, attend in one year?  Enough to make them "experts" or have an "advanced" tab on their uniform?  I know of groups that thought they were the bee's knees but when asked how often they trained outside of regular meetings, it was something like 3 or 4 times a year.  Heck, we had several different specific training exercises a year just to maintain minimum standards.  1.  Winter Exercises  2. Mountain Exercise.  3. Tactical Communications Exercise. 4. Disaster relief exercise.  5. Standard DF exercise.  6.  USAF Eval prep.  7. USAF eval.  8. Survival.  Not to mention what, one or two classroom training weekends for new folks; comms, basic GTM skills, first aid/CPR quals, advanced training for GTLs.  That about covers 12 weekends (1 a month) of training.  Didn't even mention color guard, AE, model rocketry, parades, air shows, tours, and all the other standard activities CAP does outside of ES.  And don't forget, summer time when lots of cadets are on vacation, at special activities or at encampment.

I remember my cadet daze very well.  I remember having very little guidance and supervision.  Only one guy stayed with us through the almost 5 years I spent as a cadet, one guy, a Vietnam Vet Marine Officer and Helicopter Pilot.  Also a former Mitchell cadet.  Lots of times we'd have an old WWII vet "baby-sit" us but they had no clue.  So yeah, I remember very well wanting to start a "Recondo" SAR program.  Wanted to and did wear berets, but never at meetings or real CAP events.  We did lots and lots of unofficial CAP activities, from rappelling to going to Camp Blanding with Army Guard Special Forces for an entire weekend.  Different times back then, before CPPT and real supervision.  But if we had guys like me and the handful of quality seniors that I worked with in NATCAP, I would probably have been able to see beyond that stuff.  In fact, the cadets under my supervision did see beyond berets and boonies.  If I can do it, so can a lot of others.  It's not that hard, it just takes setting the right example, holding yourself to the real CAP standards, not those of a "Ranger program".  Not to mention offering varied training of basic ground team skills through well-thought out scenario based exercises.

My opinion still stands, I don't think specialized ground team programs that call themselves something other than Ground Teams is a good idea.  Just me, and that's cool.  Not looking for anyone's vote to become National Commander or anything.  I've tried to agree with it, I just can't.

[Stonewall]

Along with humility, it's necessary to embrace a concept that Zen practicioners refer to as "beginner's mind".

I am open and eager to new things, including advanced training.  I don't care for creating a new title for training that should already be accomplished based on our current doctrine.  I don't feel there is a need for eliteness, special accouterments, or titles.  If I weren't open to these things I wouldn't have gone to Hawk instead of basing my opinion on preconceived notions or heresay.  Opinions don't make people right or wrong and it doesn't mean I wouldn't stand beside you while you carry my arse up a mountain in search of a lost tree hugger.  Just because I don't agree with some things doesn't mean I don't agree about others.  And for certain, it doesn't mean I wouldn't let you buy me a drink.

[culpies]

From what I know of CAP "Ranger" courses, the training seems to be solid.  Good schools that pass on good knowledge.  Where I think the problem comes in is when you take an adolescent mind and let them start thinking that they are "special", "better", or "elite". 
As a cadet I Went to PJOC (back in the day when it was offered in WV if you can date that).  I came back feeling all special, and wanted everyone to know that I was special so I sewed that big silver signal panel looking PJ flash patch right on the pocket of my BDU's.  I walked into the next squadron meeting strutting a bit, and luckily there was my DCC to smack me back down to earth.  The patch came off and I settled back to earth.  The term silent professional was instilled in my head.  I quit trying to make myself stand out as "better" or "special"and instead focused on the team.  My badge of pride was my senior GTM badge, and my solid core GT skills.
I am currently enlisted in the Air Force and am serving as a PJ.  You know what the same thing happens.  When a new PJ graduates, he's been told he invincible and how virtually impossible the training he just completed was.  Put a beret on his head, now he feels "special", and "elite".  When they get to their first unit, one of the first thigns to happen is to remind them that they are just a piece of the machine, no more important than any other part, not "special".
There in lies the problem I have with telling someone they are special.  It's hard to control, the focus needs to be on teamwork not individualism.  No one strives to stand out, it is up to the whole team to succeed or fail.  A cadet who went to as ES school in Maine, should be on the same page as someone who went to one in Florida or New Mexico (allowing for minor changes due to environment)  Then when your GT members have solid core skills and experience, it's time to to take that professionalism up a notch and become the teacher.  If it fits in between all of that you go to advanced skill courses.  Let's all just remember to keep our egos in check, put the team before self, and core skills before advanced. 
On a side not the bling has got to go, a 13 year old in BDU's already is hard to take seriously, throw in ascots, white pistols belts and whistles and people start having flash bacsk to Major Payne.  Keep it clean, simple, professional.  If it helps CAP says I can't wear my PJ beret in my CAP uniform, I'm not complaining about that.

[floridacyclist]

I was just reading some of this stuff and a thought hit me where we're looking at this totally differently.

It is assumed that we identify ourselves as "Rangers".

I don't think of myself as a Ranger...a CAP member, all positions up the ground and comm side to IC2(t), Personnel Officer, PAO, ES Officer, cadet parent...all of those, but I have never thought of myself as a Ranger. I tried putting "Ranger Level 1" in my sig line a few times, but it seemed pretentious, so I dropped it. I feel odd claiming "Commander" staus for NFRS, but the wing put me in the job so I might as well learn to wear the pants.

Still, I'm just a CAP member with some Ranger training.

I just asked my wife how she thought the kids saw themselves, specifically "Do they see themselves as Rangers?". Being totally oblivious to this conversation she replied that they are proud of what they have done, but they don't see themselves as Rangers but cadets who have had the privilege of Ranger training. I too see myself as having had the privilege of Ranger training and I've earned some of the bling that goes along with it (and I've even been known to wear some of it at Ranger activities, because frankly nobody else cares elsewhere), but it doesn't make me a Ranger...just a CAP member who is learning stuff and having fun. Maybe we can try to pass this attitude on to the folks we work with.

[Skyray]

There is no doubt that the Ground Teams need more training.  Recently two wings looked for an itinerant signal on 121.5 and gave up after two days.  The news article said that one of the teams got close enough to hear voices, and since the voices weren't discussing distress matters, they abandoned the search.  Some years ago two ground teams in a red cap searched for an interfering signal for eight hours without finding it.  Turned out the local air force base had been testing their fifty watt backup guard transmitter and inadvertently left it on.  And it took CAP more than eight hours to find it!  That is totally unacceptable performance.

[Sgt. Savage]

I've met 2 Cap Rangers. The first came back Cocky and arrogant. At 15 Y/O he tried to "School" me about the land. He says " Hold on Sgt.... This is the way we do it at Hawk"

I quickly locked him up at Parade Rest and lifted my BDU shirt pocket, where I wear my Ranger Tab. I had to let him know under no uncertain terms that his "Tab" didn't give him the authority to correct every trainer he encountered as though he were omnipotent and that if he ever disrespected me in my class again, he would not attend one.

The second CAP Ranger I met left as a good cadet and returned as a good, well trained cadet. He knew me before he left and has never gotten pompous with anyone regarding their individual accomplishments. He is a GOOD example.

I guess it's about the individual and their understanding of schools and hierarchy. Some use the training, some abuse the title.

[Al Sayre]

There is no doubt that the Ground Teams need more training.  Recently two wings looked for an itinerant signal on 121.5 and gave up after two days.  The news article said that one of the teams got close enough to hear voices, and since the voices weren't discussing distress matters, they abandoned the search.

If you are referring to the one in the Memphis area last week, there were actually two signals, the one that they heard voices on was playing childrens cartoons and assumed to be interference, as it was bleeding over from 121.3 to 121.7 and not stable enough to get a DF lock, it was turned over to the FCC.  The actual 121.5 signal was tracked to a large FEDEX warehouse area south of Memphis about 15 miles straightline distance from the interference signal, but it went "missed pass 3" and died before the ground team could get their hands on it.  Suspect it was unit being shipped for repair or battery replacement that got set off in a shipping container.

[Stonewall]

Doug.

Not sure where that happened but I agree, that seems unacceptable.  Not having been there or familiar with that situation, I truly can't speculate on whether or not that particular team(s) screwed the pooch or simply had some technical difficulties.

We can probably all tell stories of finding an ELT/EPIRB in a matter of minutes while other teams on the same mission were led astray by ghost signals or a lack of training.  That happens, man.  It may be the newest GTL leading a team of the newest GTMs on a simple DF missions, but you know what, you have to get experience some how.  Can't ding someone for getting out there and trying, even if their training and experience is limited.  At one time, all of our training and experience was limited.

As a GTM in FL (cadet daze) I showed up ot NATCAP not knowing about the handy-dandy Jetstream radios you can get at Radioshack for $14.  I was at Hyde Field in Maryland breaking out the DF mast when some super high speed 14 year old pulled out this little tiny toy of a reciever, did a body knoll, and had the ELT found in like 2 minutes.  21 year old senior member with 5+ years GTM experience gets taught a lesson from a 14 year old GTM(T).  How's that for humble pie?

[Skyray]

Well, Al told us what happened on one of them.  When I was driving planes for a living we used to get a lot of intermod interference.  That sounds like what that may have been in Memphis.  The signal from the shipping company reminds me of when we had one in a moving van and the MC called the state police to get the van stopped.  He told them that there was a device in the van "radiating" and they rolled the nuclear response team.

The little kid with the Radio Shack radio is a great story.  You can really do a lot with a body null.  Down here in the sailboat marinas it is about the only way to find something, since the signal bounces off the masts and seems to come from everywhere.

The guard radio that was left on was a problem because of no modulation.  None of the people looking for it knew haw to tell if you had a signal if you couldn't hear a sweep.  Training would solve that.

[floridacyclist]

The guard radio with no tone sounds like Tyndall..we used to go down there all the time, till PC got their own ground team. Now I just call the radio shop and ask them to turn it off.

The hardest DF I had was a no-tone signal at Ft Lauderdale Commercial. I was down that way for Glades and had a van full of PA Wing Hawk Mountain Rangers for a crew. All we had was a scanner and no air support. After checking the airport the first time (and the tower confirming no signal on the field) we spent several hours driving up and down the streets of Ft Lauderdale in the actual area of the merges. Just as I was about to candcel as a safety issue (lack of sleep) we were given orders to make one more sweep of the airport. With everyone else asleep, I was driving in and out of the little backroads around the perimeter with the squelch off when the radio got quiet. Disconnecting the antenna brought a burst of static which reconnecting killed.

We ended up body-blocking by listening for the MOST noise and using that as an indicator of the weakest signal, therefor pointing behind us. We called security and told them it was one of "those 3 airplanes" so they opened the gate and let us walk up to them with no antenna on the radio; only one airplane made it go quiet again.

We got called out for one more mission after that and it was a total fiasco with cadets disobeying orders, arguing with me, telling me what I should do, trying to get out and run around the FT Lauderdale Int'l terminal in BDU pants and orange t-shirts while waving antennas over their heads. At several points, I considered calling Col Martin and terminating the mission due to their nearly uncontrollable behavior. To top it off, we finally tracked it down to a maintenance area near the FBO and they only allowed one adult in with two kids, so I sent my younger SM in with them. They turned down the offer of my  scanner as a backup because it was "too old-school, plus we have an Elper now".  15 min later as they sheepishly returned looking for batteries, Col Herlihy showed up from the other direction to let me know that he had found it and turned it off.

That's my story about my bad experience with HM cadets..and an indicator of why I feel so strongly about fixing the problems rather than abandoning the program.

[Skyray]

The guard radio with no tone was a mobile GCA unit at Homestead.  It had an old fashioned "Transmit" toggle switch for testing, and it was left on.  When they finally got me on the case, I narrowed it down to the antenna, then followed the feed line to the trailer, which had an emergency contact number on the door.  After a h--- of an argument with an Air Force staff sargeant, I convinced him I knew what I was talking about, and he came out and turned off the transmitter.  He was a bit chagrined when he found the toggle switch on.

Sorry you had a problem with our cadets.  Some of them are spectacular, and some of them, especially the ones who have been spoiled by organizational favoritism, need severe discipline.  We had an incident a while back where one of the favorites disobeyed a direct order from a Spaatzen Captain, and Tony reduced the Captain to First Lieutenant for placing the cadet on restriction.  He had time in grade, so we promoted him right back to Captain as soon as Tony's back was turned.  Another reason some of the "leadership" down here doesn't like me.  You never know what damage is being done, though.  I saw the (now) former Captain at the Dade County Fair, and he is not even a member of CAP any more.  I better shut up before Horning jumps on me and drags this thread off topic, too.

[alamrcn]

I guess it's about the individual and their understanding of schools and hierarchy. Some use the training, some abuse the title.

Exactly.

If a cadet comes back cocky after Hawk - it wasn't the schools fault, as I know <been there> they do not teach that. They teach that being an "individual" (ie. selfish and egocentric) is the worst thing you can do as part of a SAR team.

Send the same cadet to NGSAR and he'll come back cocky. Promote him to Staff Sergeant among a bunch of Airmen and he'll be cocky.

Remember, a cadet has to have his commander and wing commander's approval before attending any National Activity or activity outside the wing. Most wings have extra hoops to jump through, like selection boards. It is all of their jobs to make sure the cadet has the aptitude and attitude to attend this type of activity, and to use the experience and training in a beneficial manor to the rest of his/her unit when he/she returns.

-Ace

[Pylon]

This thread has been restored following the removal of some serious unsportsmanlike conduct.  Serious folks, you can disagree with other peoples' points of view without being unprofessional about it. 

This thread should not come near that line again, should anybody wish to continue discussing it.  I don't need to spend my spare time wading waist deep through people's posts and removing objectionable content, name calling, and the like.

[mikeylikey]

I am sorry.   

I will try to be nice to everyone!  Except General Colgan.     I still can't log into the E-learning site!  I would like to vent some attitude about that, but may get banned. 

[JC004]

I am sorry.   

I will try to be nice to everyone!  Except General Colgan.     I still can't log into the E-learning site!  I would like to vent some attitude about that, but may get banned. 

That's because you did it wrong.  And because I banned you. 

[Stonewall]

As a cadet I Went to PJOC (back in the day when it was offered in WV if you can date that).  I came back feeling all special, and wanted everyone to know that I was special so I sewed that big silver signal panel looking PJ flash patch right on the pocket of my BDU's.  I walked into the next squadron meeting strutting a bit, and luckily there was my DCC to smack me back down to earth.  The patch came off and I settled back to earth. 

I've been dying to post this and I know he'll kill me, but I have to.  I forgot where he mentioned the "big PJ patch" and now it suddenly popped back up..... Thanks, Mike!

[mikeylikey]

I am sorry.   

I will try to be nice to everyone!  Except General Colgan.     I still can't log into the E-learning site!  I would like to vent some attitude about that, but may get banned. 

That's because you did it wrong.  And because I banned you. 

Be prepared for MAJOR ATTITUDE, to arrive in the form of a burning bag of poop. 

Back to venting.......I hate the fact that AAFES operators give attitude when a CAP member calls catalog sales to order uniform junk.  Like we are second class citizens.

I hate the attitude my SQD members get from the 19 year old gate guard when they try to attend meetings. 

I hate the attitude the Marine Corps 20 year old private gives to CAP members when they try to drive onto Willow Grove NAS in Philly.  Needless to say there is nothing of great importance at that facility, glad they are shutting it down.  BLAH Marine Corps.

I hate the attitude some PAID employees at NHQ give to members calling up to make them aware of mistakes they made that impeded the normalicy of operations. 

I hate the fact that the AF site lists the CAP link at the VERY bottom of the links section when it really should fall in front of Defense Commissary Agency.

I hate the fact that Vanguard is charging more for shipping from CAP members than they charge from service members when ordering from the Military side of the web store.  Then they give attitude and say "maybe order more stuff instead of a 70 cent item, then shipping will be worth it".

I hate the fact that Wing Vice Commanders AUTOMATICALY become Wing Commanders.  Why are we not voting for our Wing and Region Leadership?

DONE FOR NOW!

[SJFedor]

I hate the attitude the Marine Corps 20 year old private gives to CAP members when they try to drive onto Willow Grove NAS in Philly.  Needless to say there is nothing of great importance at that facility, glad they are shutting it down.  BLAH Marine Corps.

Everytime I went in there, the gate guards were US Navy SP's, not Marines. But, it's been a while since I've been there. If it was during the day time, I always went in the AF side entrance and dealt with the rent-a-cop (cuz the AF SF's are too cool to sit at the gate)

As for me, I can't think of anything I hate right now. I'll get back to you all on that.

[fyrfitrmedic]

 I'd like to say that the attitudes and behaviors I've vented about in the past have changed for the better. Unfortunately, I'd be wrong.

[smgilbert101]

I quickly locked him up at Parade Rest and lifted my BDU shirt pocket, where I wear my Ranger Tab. I had to let him know under no uncertain terms that his "Tab" didn't give him the authority to correct every trainer he encountered as though he were omnipotent and that if he ever disrespected me in my class again, he would not attend one.

It's good to see other professional ground pounders out there.  I think that you also answered a questions I've had about the tab and CAP uniforms (it's not authorized <grin><grrr>).

Pride or arrogance... those of us who are former/active military have seen this before.  When I was active duty, the more seasoned team members were fairly quick to keep the cherries heads out of the clouds.  IMHO, this is a leadership issue.  Yes, I believe that there should be some form of recognition for those cadet and senior members who wish to go "above and beyond" the basic GT tasks.  It can be a very strong motivator.  It also needs to be tempered with another one of our core values: "Mentoring".  In our group, I tell cadets that with their advanced training (Hawk, etc.) comes the responsibility to pass on those skills to more junior members.  I set an example for them to follow.

Through our Group CAC, the cadets have set up a SAR school.  Luckilly, I have not seen any of the "Hawk" attitude.  I have seen that they are very serious about what they do and what they teach.  I have seen that they wish to continue their ES training well above and beyond the very basic tasks taught in CAP. These are cadets who are about to transition into careers, into the senior program, who are looking to take the next step.  If they want to make ES their chosen profession, I say, go for it. If they want to go to one of the academies or become a PJ, I say go for it!  Isn't the point of the cadet program to teach young men and women how to excel?

In my on and off relationship with CAP (spanning over 30 years) The only gripe from the cadets I have seen is that the senior members do not take them seriously, the senior members do not "practice what they preach".  In several wings, I have seen ground teams (far too frequently) whose leadership is managed by a senior member whose waist line is several times larger than their inseam, yet they wear their GT "master blaster" badges and call themselves experts.  I've seen more than a few SM's with ego's ten miles wide tell wild stories about their exploits in SAR who couldn't last more than a few minutes "in the bush".  Then their are the cofeeholics who preach GSAR and spend ALL of their time in mission base on training missions instead of passing on their skills and mentoring more junior members.  Am I venting, yes, a little.

I keep hearing that they/we don't practice enough to be anything special.  Whose fault is that?  There is no rule that prevents this.  We encourage all this this extra effort in our honor guards and drill teams.  They are given props.....special uniforms/uniform items, etc.  Why is this discouraged in reference to ground teams?

Like all of the specialty areas our cadets can get into, we need to keep ego's in check.  We should also be encouraging our cadet to excel in whatever interests them.

In terms of our core mission areas..."Be All You Can be" (Sorry I just couldn't help it <grin>) instead of "Be All They'll Let You Be".

Airborne!

[floridacyclist]

From the best that I understand, the CAP Ranger tab is authorized over the US Civil Air Patrol tape and under the badge. I simply choose not to wear mine and encourage my cadets not to wear their's either, but rather to let their actions speak for them.

Even if they do wear it, It still doesn't make them "special".

[mikeylikey]

^ I have given up trying to understand that issue.  We see it approved, there is no written guidance, the leadership is seen wearing it, THUS we assume it is legitimate.  There are people who tell us "don't wear them", or "Do wear them".  I could care less now.  My major problem is there is no GUIDANCE from NHQ.  A simple letter saying "it was approved, it is still being incorporated, an Interim Change Letter is scheduled for release on.....". 

I have been outspoken on the whole Ranger thing, but this is an issue that goes beyond that.  Communications from NHQ and our senior leadership is lacking.  I do think with new leadership we will see better communication to the masses. 

Lets get some pressue on NHQ to write a Interim Change Letter, and lets get a new 39-1 out NOW!  How long were those letters supposed to sit around?  Like NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS before it was to be incorporated into the Reg's.

Yikes right?

[floridacyclist]

Gen Pineda was at our squadron meeting not long ago and was asked exactly what the policy was. He said flat-out that once the board approved it, it was good to go and that folks could wear whatever they had been awarded at Hawk or NBB with their BDUs.

[mikeylikey]

Got it.  Perhaps he could take 5 minutes and type up the letter.  I was unable to attend your SQD meeting that night (along with 43,000 other members, give or take 5,000)   

Seriously, things like that are a disservice.  At the board meeting they could have added "pending written guidance from NHQ, the special activities who award uniform items will publish uniform wear for those specific items in 30 days". 

[JC004]

Got it.  Perhaps he could take 5 minutes and type up the letter.  I was unable to attend your SQD meeting that night (along with 43,000 other members, give or take 5,000)   

Seriously, things like that are a disservice.  At the board meeting they could have added "pending written guidance from NHQ, the special activities who award uniform items will publish uniform wear for those specific items in 30 days". 

The National Board gave a blanket approval (Aug 06) of any/all items awarded at these activities (Hawk and NBB).  This gives basically unlimited authority to the activity commander to make up whatever they they feel like and add it to the uniform.  Tabs and all aside, I am not OK with that.

[mikeylikey]

Got it.  Perhaps he could take 5 minutes and type up the letter.  I was unable to attend your SQD meeting that night (along with 43,000 other members, give or take 5,000)   

Seriously, things like that are a disservice.  At the board meeting they could have added "pending written guidance from NHQ, the special activities who award uniform items will publish uniform wear for those specific items in 30 days". 

The National Board gave a blanket approval (Aug 06) of any/all items awarded at these activities (Hawk and NBB).  This gives basically unlimited authority to the activity commander to make up whatever they they feel like and add it to the uniform.  Tabs and all aside, I am not OK with that.

Is that why I see the Hawk MTN Commander wlaking around with hard rank on his orange ball cap, a keystone patch on his pocket and a prototype beret (brownish color BTW)?

So, I will give him a call and ask him to invent some pink gloves to be worn with the uniform.  That would be ok right?

[smgilbert101]

Actually, my tab comment referred to a US Army Ranger tab, sorry for any confusion.

[Duke Dillio]

Is that why I see the Hawk MTN Commander wlaking around with hard rank on his orange ball cap, a keystone patch on his pocket and a prototype beret (brownish color BTW)?

So, I will give him a call and ask him to invent some pink gloves to be worn with the uniform.  That would be ok right?

This thing with the brownish beret might be the last straw for me.  I can't tell you how angry a couple of us were when the Army went to the black berets while I was still on active duty.  I shut myself in my office and didn't want to talk to anyone.

Here is my take on CAP "Rangers."  While I understand that there is some form of tradition in the whole thing, i.e. it's been around for so long, etc., those who graduate must understand that they are not Rangers.  If anyone wants to argue this point with me, have at it.  As a tabbed and scrolled former active duty Army Ranger, I can assure you that a Hawk Mountain patch or qualification tab means diddly to me.  The few HM grads that I have had the displeasure to meet were cocky and couldn't DF a practice beacon in the middle of an open field.  I am sure that there are great people out there who have graduated HM and know quite a bit about being on a Ground Team.  I haven't met any of the good, only the bad.  Perhaps this is something else that should be brought up at Hawk.  It is simply a title, not a status.

That having been said, I don't personally have a problem with anyone who wants to be a Ranger.  It is a noble goal.  I will not be so pleasant when I meet the CAP "Ranger" comes up to me touting his "Ranger" qualification.  I will probably keep it simple with something like, "How long did it take for you to get that?" before I start with the stories of banging on a tree thinking it was a soda machine, or dragging my rifle for a couple miles through the swamp on its dummy cord because I was too tired to realize it wasn't in my hands.  If anyone wants to create a 61 day CAP Ranger school which tests the physical limits of GT members through extreme sleep deprivation and hunger, be my guest.  If you want to equip them with 100 lb rucksacks, go for it.  I don't think you will find anyone that would willingly attend it.  I went, against my better judgement, because I thought that I would be the roughest, toughest MOFO in the valley.  When I graduated, I was 60 pounds lighter, slept for three days, and no different than any of the other guys in my unit who went through it, like LTC Bowden said before.  No one ever really asked me about the tab after that which meant I couldn't tell all my funny stories from the course.  It didn't make me any better at my job but it did lead to a healthier "adult" life.  (Women tend to swarm toward the tab...)  And that's all I have to say about that...

[floridacyclist]

Refer back to http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2662.msg49297#msg49297

Ranger to me is not a noun, or at least not a pronoun, it is the name of a training program and an adjective describing the training at the school. Sometime it is simplest to refer to those who have done the training and earned some level of achievement as "rangers" but I would always preface that with what type of "ranger" (a CAP ranger). That doesn't make them any more special than a forest ranger, a Texas ranger (baseball), a park ranger, or a Royal Ranger. It is just a name and the important thing is not that someone is a "Ranger" but that they have fun, learn some GT, leadership, and teamwork skills and are excited and motivated about being part of CAP. It's mostly all in fun and I honestly think that a lot of people (including some "rangers" who aren't part of our program) take themselves much more seriously than we do.

This takes me back to the very first post in this thread. All I was asking for is folks not using the R word as an excuse to make snide remarks or other comments not befitting an officer. We all enjoy our CAP time in different ways, none better than others. In the same manner that I don't poke fun at pilots, I'd appreciate the same courtesy and consideration. I am actually in agreement with many of y'all about the attitudes and such of many so-called "Rangers", but I think that the best way to affect them is from within, by addressing the training and acknowledging that "advanced training" and youthful testosterone are sometimes not the greatest combination. I think we should accept that these kids are rightfully proud of themselves while continuing to educate them on what it really means; they are no better or worse than anyone, but they should still try to spread their enthusiasm without letting it all go to their heads.

Somewhere in the middle there is a good compromise between shooting these kids down in flames vs harnessing their youthful energy and motivation for a good cause. I think it is up to us to try to find that.

[Dragoon]

In reference to the argument "the Army doesn't have a copyright on the word 'RANGER' " - that may be true.

But

If you ask a guy off the street what comes to his mind when a dude in BDUs is identified as a "ranger"....

.....he'll tell you that the guy must be  some kind of beady eyed killer commando.

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of it, "military" + "ranger" = commando, in almost everyone's eyes.  Nobody's thinking of "Park Rangers" when BDUs and LBEs are involved.

Which is the best reason to change the name.  Not only because our rangers aren't "real rangers", but because none of us are killers of any sort!

[JC004]

...
Which is the best reason to change the name.  Not only because our rangers aren't "real rangers", but because none of us are killers of any sort!

tell that to the Hawk rabbits.      and Florida rangers...alligators?   

[floridacyclist]

You said it there...don't get between me and a plate full of fried gator tail I heard a recipe the other day for gator gumbo that I'd love to try out.

[afgeo4]

I don't know what streets you're asking on, but I've asked a handful of people here in New York and only 1 said "Army". The others said "Park" and "Ford".

Now... why does everyone assume that this program has anything to do with the Army Rangers?

That's like assuming that the Army Rangers were patterned on the Forest Rangers (they were around far longer).

The word "Ranger" comes from the word Range. It means someone who feels comfortable or is from a range type of environment... outdoors... out on the range kind of people. That's all it means. Stop reading so much into it and you'll find yourself comfortable with the term's use by CAP.

Also, please stop applying US Army Ranger creed and mission requirements to CAP. For the last time, WE ARE NOT THE MILITARY!  We have no combat objectives. We do NOT place the mission before the man. We have our own missions and parameters and they are needed by our nation just as much as the military is, but... it's not the same thing!

[JC004]

You said it there...don't get between me and a plate full of fried gator tail I heard a recipe the other day for gator gumbo that I'd love to try out.

mmm, in that case, if I were a ranger, I would wish to be a Florida kind...

[BillB]

Go back in history and you'll find the first use of the word Ranger was Rogers Rangers in the Revolutionary War. Obviously prior Ford Ranger or Park Ranger. To most Americans, their exposure toi "Ranger" came from the World War II and post war movies about the Army Rangers.

[afgeo4]

Go back in history and you'll find the first use of the word Ranger was Rogers Rangers in the Revolutionary War. Obviously prior Ford Ranger or Park Ranger. To most Americans, their exposure toi "Ranger" came from the World War II and post war movies about the Army Rangers.

Are you assuming or is this verified research data? Because you know what they say about assumptions...

[afgeo4]

here's what I got from Wikipedia:

Ranger may mean a keeper, guardian, or soldier who ranges over a region to protect the area or enforce the law ("range" meaning "travel around an area"). In Britain, the term has long been associated with a keeper of a royal forest or park. Likewise, in the US the term has meant a warden employed to maintain and protect a natural area, such as a government forest or park. Since at least the 18th Century, the term has had the military meaning of a commando or guerrilla soldier proficient in raids and ambushes. Sports teams have been avid in adopting the mystique of the name.

I don't see the U.S. Army or CAP mentioned anywhere... all I'm seeing is "Britain", "forest", "park", "US" "natural area", etc. I see references to commandos and gurrilla soldiers, but nothing specific to the US Army or CAP.

I'm gonna guess the term is a general term that refers to many things, none being specific to either of those two enteties. If you disagree, I'll book you a trip to meet some of the Irish Rangers (UK Army elite unit that patrolled Belfast and Northern Ireland). They'll be all too happy to argue with you.

[floridacyclist]

Maybe if most Americans served in the Army they might assume you mean Army Ranger, but the vast majority don't. If you tell the average American that your nephew is a Ranger, I doubt they're going to assume he wears camo facepaint and carries an M-4.

Either way, we don't pretend to be Army Rangers even though we've been known to coordinate training with them. If our upcoming survival school had not run afoul of the chain of command (it broke somewhere over my head), we would have conducted next weekend's 3-day survival school at Eglin AFB's Camp Rudder...also known as the Battallion HQ of the 6th Army Ranger Training Battallion and the Jungle Warfare Training Center. They didn't seem to have a problem with us being there, in fact the XO said that if his people didn't have other commitments, they would have been able to help with the training as far as survival instruction and supervision of the hands-on portion.

[afgeo4]

I wonder if it would be possible to create a survival summer activity aligned with the SERE course at Fairchild AFB?

[floridacyclist]

I wonder if it would be possible to create a survival summer activity aligned with the SERE course at Fairchild AFB?

According to the SERE instructors who were supposed to be teaching our course, the folks at Fairchild work with outside groups all the time.

[afgeo4]

I wonder if it would be possible to create a survival summer activity aligned with the SERE course at Fairchild AFB?

According to the SERE instructors who were supposed to be teaching our course, the folks at Fairchild work with outside groups all the time.

I don't have the pull to make this happen... and I'm on the other coast. Can someone ask around about this? I think it'd be a very popular activity and since the USAF is looking for all airmen to go through SERE in the near future, they may be interested in financing it to some degree insuring that CAP cadets who enter the Air Force in the future will already be somewhat familiar with the concept.

[Stonewall]

As I stated in my original post in this discussion, my "problem" has nothing to do with the word/title "ranger".

I wish we could get beyond that argument.... Please....  It's so irrelevant.

[Sgt. Savage]

This thing with the brownish beret might be the last straw for me.  I can't tell you how angry a couple of us were when the Army went to the black berets while I was still on active duty.  I shut myself in my office and didn't want to talk to anyone.

Sua Sponte SARGRUNT

I was gone before the blasphemy took place. I still have the original Black Beret w/ 3Batt and my crest...

You know, this whole thing really makes me angry. Take a bunch of kids, insert idealism that now their "Rangers", add lack of surevision. Stir.

It's a recipe for accident and attitude.

It doesn't matter one [darn] bit what "America" in general thinks a "Ranger" is; each and every cadet in the organization associates the term "Ranger" with the U.S. Army.

Try this. Change the Cessna 182 and call it an F-18. Go to a military base and try to pass yourself off as an F-18 pilot. Sure, the Navy hasn't cornered the market on the term "F-18". You can use it any way you want. It doesn't make you right, nor does it make the real Hornet Drivers very happy that some overweight, half bald civilian is posing as a pilot. Now, start acting like you're better than everone else because you fly an F-18.

And mind you, if I ever see a Hawk Mountain staffer wearing a Beret, I'll personally ....

I need to go calm down.

[Stonewall]

I need to go calm down.

Gear down big shifter.  It'll be okay.  So far, I haven't seen any CAP folks calling themselves "Ranger" wearing a beret of any color.  However, in Virginia Wing there were a group of seniors calling themselves a "Ranger Squadron" that wore the old WWII Ranger patch seen below...



Not sure if those guys are still around, but let me say, the bore no resemblence to that of a WWII Ranger or one of today.  In fact, one overweight (they all were) "Ranger" became a heat casualty during a July 4th search for a missing airplane.  Go CAP Rangers....

I did see a Cadet Captain wearing a maroon beret who completed PJOC.  He told me they had a "pararescue unit" in their CAP squadron....

[floridacyclist]

If I ever see a Hawk Mountain staffer wearing a beret, I'll probably puke. Remember, I'm the one with two Hawk Mountain staffers living under his roof. There was a little resistance at first when I told them they couldn't wear their ascots and white belts to the meetings, but they realized the point I was trying to get across and have given me no more problems. Most of the Hawk cadets I've worked with are good kids, but they do need their youthful enthusiasm and energy controlled and directed rather than allowed free reign; either way, I see that as more of an indictment of their leadership (or lack of) than the program.

[Dragoon]

Again

Use the word "Ranger" alone, and some folks will think "Park Ranger"

But use the word "Ranger" and attach a guy in BDU's to it, and the image the comes to mind is "killer."

After all, why would the kiddies be so attached to it if it didn't have that warrior connotation?

My guess is that if we made all Hawk graduates wear Park Ranger uniforms instead of BDUs, they'd be screaming to change the name....

[floridacyclist]

As I've pointed out before, the name itself doesn't really matter. It's just been around a lot longer than almost any of us have been in CAP and there's no way we're going to get it changed. In the meantime, have fun and enjoy the training and worry about things you can change....like bringing CAP's training in line with FEMA and NIMS standards.

[smgilbert101]

As a mentor, I judge people by their actions, not what they wear.  I adjust my expectations (cadet or senior member) based on an individuals training and experience.  

Personally, I don't care if they wear the beret if they were awarded it as part of a challenging course. Although it was hard to really, really swallow at first, the Army decided long ago that the beret just a hat.  I retired my "real beret" in the mid-80's when I hung up my Army uniform for the last time.  Cadets in other organizations (ROTC, military schools, blah, blah) wear berets all the time.  Army ROTC has had a "Ranger" program for cadets for a very long time.  As an instructor of that particular program, I can assure you that they were most certainly not up to Army Ranger standards or qualifications.  It is a program designed to teach leadership/field skills to cadets.  Although I prefer that they do not use the term "Ranger", can can learn to live with it. I've learned to live with the pizza boys in the black berets <grrr>.

In CAP, I just ask that they do not:

1. Wear an Army Ranger tab.
2. Wear any patches, flashes or crests that either belong to or have belonged to military Ranger programs.  There isn't a CAP program in existence that comes close.

(My head would probably explode....)

As for Hawk mountain, I personally have mixed feelings about the program.  If they want patches fine, hats, whatever.  Just pick something and stick to it.  The so-called Hawk mountain arrogance is a leadership issue.  Personally, I haven't seen much of it at all.  Let's be honest, the arrogance appears in other cadet activities as well.  Is anyone really going to tell me that members of a cadet honor guard / drill team can't be arrogant?  Isn't arrogance a fairly common trait among aircrew?!?

They may not be anything more than CAP merit badges to some, but they are excellent motivators.  Cadets should be allowed to be proud of their accomplishments.  If you want well trained, well educated, members there needs to be some sort of recognition.  Who's going to spend hundreds of dollars to attend courses that have no meaningful reward later.  

The military has a long standing tradition of awarding badges/patches for accomplishments. Why can't we? Like the military, our uniforms are our resumes.

[Duke Dillio]

Sua Sponte SARGRUNT

I was gone before the blasphemy took place. I still have the original Black Beret w/ 3Batt and my crest...

I need to go calm down.

A "Hollywood Ranger" here SGT Savage.  I served from 1995-1998 before getting injured on a jump.  Couldn't hold jump status anymore so they moved me to bright, sunny Korea.  Then, I went to Fort Carson where the "blasphemy" took place.  I still wear my scroll under my BDU pocket.  Shhhh, don't tell anyone.

[afgeo4]

Again

Use the word "Ranger" alone, and some folks will think "Park Ranger"

But use the word "Ranger" and attach a guy in BDU's to it, and the image the comes to mind is "killer."

After all, why would the kiddies be so attached to it if it didn't have that warrior connotation?

My guess is that if we made all Hawk graduates wear Park Ranger uniforms instead of BDUs, they'd be screaming to change the name....

hmmm... you may be onto something, but I don't care about the name. It doesn't bother me. I wouldn't care what they were called because a famous english guy once said that a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.

[alamrcn]

No one mentioned the "Course Ranger" ... as in Golf? You know, the guy/gal that comes around on a supped-up cart and tells you to put your shirt back on or to stop peeing in the woods.

Since the term "woodsmanship" was used so often at Hawk, I took the title "CAP Ranger" to have more a kin to a National Park Ranger. Would wearing one of those hats be so bad?!!  But please, not the shorts and over-calf socks.

Welcome to the Dam tour, I'm your dam guide... Mr Ranger.

-Ace

[afgeo4]

Plus I think everyone is forgetting the Powerpoint Rangers. They're a huge influence on CAP, probably more so than Hawk Mountain ones.

[JC004]

Plus I think everyone is forgetting the Powerpoint Rangers. They're a huge influence on CAP, probably more so than Hawk Mountain ones.

Absolutely.  I'm making fancy new CAP themed PowerPoint templates for various uses.  My biggest fear is that they will be abused and we will have to suffer more PowerPoint.

[floridacyclist]

I told the cadets at Comm Camp that I was sentencing them to death....by Powerpoint.

I had several of them tell me that course was every bit as tough as Hawk only academically so. They all passed though.

[Dragoon]

I think the name does matter, and is part of the problem of "attitude"

By equating a wilderness SAR course with commandos, you create perhaps a little more of the macho warrior stuff than you really need.  Ranger = bada$$ and all that.

At least when Army JROTC and ROTC units use the term for advanced training, they are actively trying to promote that kind of attitude - after all. they are feeder systems for the U.S. Army.  Today's Army cadet may be tomorrow's killer.

But CAP isn't in that business.  We don't need a warrior ethos.  We need a SAR professional ethos.  Speaking as a soldier,I think  the two are a little bit different.

Some have said "we can't change the name - deal with it."  Well., the name almost died a few years back - the first time PA wing came forward to ask the NB to approve all their bling.  They not only got shot down, they had to change the name of the school to omit the term "ranger."

But, of course, our current Commander kind of backpedaled on that one.  And also on the issue of our SP-beret wearing Oshkosh plane parkers.

But things that are done can be undone.  There's still hope.

[floridacyclist]

You wouldn't get any argument from me about changing the name as long as we could still train to the same level and standards. I don't see any reason to change it (No, I don't see my kids acting like Billy bad-boys...if anything, they really cleaned up their acts), but I really don't care either.

Incidentally, I still have my beret...but I earned it.

[afgeo4]

I completely agree with Dragoon on this one.

[Dragoon]

Advanced training is a good thing.  In fact, I think that's where the whole GTM 3 through 1 ratings got started - a way to convince folks to come back to NESA more than once and get better and better.

The implementation may suck, but the concept is valid.  Set a minimum operational standard to make sure you have enough people to do the job, then offer advanced traing and motivate folks to go beyond the minimum

I'd even go as far as to play around with the GTM badge to reflect the three levels.  We could even have multiple levels of team leader to motivate folks to do advanced GTL training.

But better to work within a single system (GT) than to create a competing system.

[floridacyclist]

It actually doesn't compete. Considering that the Ranger program had established standards long before CAP in general got around to them, they've done a pretty good job of incorporating the CAP standards in and combining them with what they had in place that in many instances goes beyond the bare minimum required by the standard GT training. When we do our weekends, we try to set a goal of one level increase in GT training plus the extra stuff required by Hawk...we just have to train a lot harder, stay up later, and get up earlier. Nothing happens at a slow pace; from the time you get here until the time you leave we try to keep things at a blur and keep the pressure on. Real-world ES can be stressful so there's no reason not to train that way, plus that's how we git 'r dun with limited time.

The second aspect that we ephasize at the trainings is how to teach and evaluate. I hate pencil-whipping, so we spend at least one class session each weekend going over how to properly evaluate...the meanings of the little P/F sections in the back of the taskguides, CAPF112, 113, and a few others or when it might be OK to deviate from the precise written evaluation protocol; folks still have to meet the performance standard, but sometimes we may allow a slight difference in the setup according to circumstances. We tell them that when they return home, whether folks like or hate the Ranger program, they will still be a bona fide GTM/L with more than the normal share of training and will be expected to spread the love.

When my two kids went to Hawk for the first time, they came back with GTM3 done and most of GTM2 and 1. I don't think they were in a competing system if they accomplished that much.  Of course, the teamwork and leadership training aspects can't be ignored either as these are emphasized much more strongly than in regular run-of-the-mill GT training. I've seen the results and changes in my own kids from this program and I am a convert. I also believe strongly that like any piece of higher-performance machinery, extra care has to be taken to control and direct their energy and enthusiasm or you will have an obnoxious spoiled brat who thinks their defecation is odorless and that's not what we want either.

Both have since attended staff training at Hawk and the 15yo was named the honor cadet - which he was unaware of at the time since he was on a Greyhound enroute to SUPTFC. They are  properly directed as I promised to remove them from the program if they were the least bit uppity. Since this past Summer, they (along with another cadet they dragged back to Hawk with them) have all done an awesome job of moving into leadership positions at the squadron level and contributing heavily to the rebirth of our squadron.

Change the name if you want, but we're having a blast with the program itself the way it is.

[ZigZag911]

Has any thought been given to completing NASAR SARTECH 3 qualifications?

I know there is an expense issue, and the title is not as supercharged as 'Ranger'....but it might be more descriptive of what our GTs actually do.

[floridacyclist]

We're working on a SARTECH II class in Pensacola next month

[davedove]

Has any thought been given to completing NASAR SARTECH 3 qualifications?

I know there is an expense issue, and the title is not as supercharged as 'Ranger'....but it might be more descriptive of what our GTs actually do.

I personally took the SARTECH II exam, just to take it.  That is just a basic knowledge qualification though.  You get into the real meat when you get SARTECH II qualification, although the skills are much the same as CAP's GT training.  I do want to get the SARTECH II some day, when my schedule permits.

[floridacyclist]

I understand that the compass course is a lot tougher. A field of poles with numbers on each of them...you have a list of bearings and distances. As you reach each place you believe to be a checkpoint, you write down the number of the pole you think you're supposed to hit and then follow the next course...after it's all over, they check your list.

Miss one and the rest are wrong too.

[isuhawkeye]

Another advantage of SAR Tech is that the evaluation is un biased. 

I got my eyes opened when we sent a group to test. 

We were not nearly as proficient as we thought we were

[floridacyclist]

Anohter of our goals is to be able to field a NIMS-types WSAR team. I'm pretty sure we can stand up a type III team...and can support a type II. We just need to get some SARTECH testing out of the way first. I think the key will be getting one of our people instructor-certified so we can do our own testing.

Same thing with medical...I'm hoping to go to SC in November for Wilderness First Responder. To me, that class not only makes sense from the SAR standpoint, but also for anyone who spends any appreciable time in the woods with kids, or even in the case of a societal-collapse..what some might call TEOTWAWKI - The End Of The World As We Know It. It simply sounds like the most bang for the buck for dealing with emergencies when medical help is not immediately available.