Hawk vs NESA

[Eclipse]

Eclipse, I was going to go down the same path there (again in quasi agreement....)
I as a proffesional (or volunteer if you want to make such a distinction) medical provider would never put my trust in the Good Sammaritan Laws if I am doing anything more than stopping along the side of the road to help sort of deal.....

I'd wager that if you show up wearing a uniform because someone was lost/hurt, you had a badge (or a duty status....HSO, Nurse officer, medical officer etc etc.....) that says EMT/RN/MD (CAP trained or not) and whipped out your hopital in a bag....someone (or a good lawyer) would say there was some kind of expectation of a duty to act on CAP's part

mk

That's what is so frustrating about the whole situation.  We have professionals and adults with common sense who see this from all sides, including the risk to our members leaving things gray.

Yet things are left gray.

[sarmed1]

I actually worry more about senior members in these types of cases than cadets..... Cadets tend to know their place, even if you have to tell it to them, they grumble but listen;  seniors not always so compliant.........

mk

[Eclipse]

Sadly agree, even to the point of overt insubordination in some cases.

(i.e. "You can't tell me what to do..." or my personal all time favorite "I don't read regs, I read FARs...")

[Nathan]

Why does CAP allow cadets to do anything in a "ES" realm.  They are either supervised or not supervised.....Who is liable if a cadet destroys evidence on a search?  If a cadet loads a piece of equipment wrong on the van/trailer etc and it falls off and causes an injury?  Fails to pass on a piece of information recieved by phone/radio/runner critical to the mission?  They can either be trusted to do the job or they cant...it shouldnt matter what that job is.....the consequences of "screwing up" can be just as bad as a poor medical decision.......

As has been pointed out, CAP trusts people to do the job when they have gone through the training that CAP has authorized as adequate. If a CAP member (cadet or senior) has a GTM badge, and has therefore met CAP's standards for being on that mission, then CAP is legally responsible for how they perform in the field. If they suck, that's going to require a review of the training standards.

As we well know, Hawk does NOT seem to try to meet these standards intentionally. That's not to say that they have bad training. It's just saying that Hawk training is not something that CAP has yet been willing to say is "good enough". In the case of "medics", if CAP doesn't train medics, then no medical skills are authorized to be used in the field. That's not saying it's always a bad idea to use them, but if you do, CAP ha no obligation to take responsibility for your actions, because they don't have any "sanction" over such things.

Let's take it to an extreme example. Say that some school decided to start training members in "SAR martial arts." Officially, CAP has no authorization to use any sort of force on a crash scene, but like medical situations, we can all imagine situations where we might HAVE to (ie, a crazy guy shows up with a knife). Now, if we ever have a situation where said combat skills are used, and the cadet gets in trouble, CAP will certainly get flak due to the uniform association, but they CAN claim that they never authorized martial arts to be used during operations, and therefore, this member was acting outside of their assigned duties in CAP. Now, that member is under the bus, despite the "blind eye" argument.

It's really no different. The fact is that CAP is perfectly fine with both cadets and seniors participating in missions using skills they have authorized, namely because they have gone to lengths to ensure that if the rules and skills are observed, then the chance for a real screw-up is low. When you start to add riskier skills and scenarios, like medical situations or crash-site-kung-fu to the mix, then that's a situation that CAP feels carries too much risk, and the member is alone.

I have to reiterate: I am not against CAP members using medical skills on principle. But so long as CAP is not willing to protect the members for using medical skills, then doing so is an "at your own risk" situation. Giving cadets a medic tab and telling them they're ready to go be a SAR medic is irresponsible if they don't decide to also drill into the cadet's head the likelihood that within one or two actual uses of their medical skills in a real mission, they are likely to end up in court, and CAP will have as little to do with the situation as humanely possible.

If adults want to risk it, fine. But allowing a cadet to assume that kind of risk is well outside the bounds of responsible leadership, especially when the parents are not likely being informed that their children are risking the family's well-being trying to play medic with a week's worth of training.

[sarmed1]

No there is a big difference between medical care and crash site kung-fu.  There is no, not even a gray area, that allows defensive tactics by CAP personnel.  Were there some vague you can defend yourself line in a regulation you might have an argument for comparison.  On the other hand CAP has a provision for medical care (feel free to look it up in the 60-3 for the whole thing)

.....reasonable treatment deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering. This treatment must be executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level. When first aid or higher medical training is required for qualification in a particular specialty, the expectation is that the qualification course includes both knowledge and practical skills training

They are saying you can do it, it must be within your level of training...and more over that where qualification dictates it as a requirement, the training must meet a certain (though very broad)  standard.  Now before you fire off a speedy reply....

CAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage, and any care provided is at the members own risk.

So there is the blind eye/grey area.  CAP is going to say you must have the training, you can go ahead an use it (within certain restrictions) but even though they know you are going to run the risk of being in a situation that you may need to use the training , you are on your own if you screw up.

Emergency first aid care is allowed under regualtions...Lifesaving/silver medal of valor if it goes good; slap on the hand and a good luck with your law suit if it goes bad.......crash site kung fu 2b if it goes badly;  if it goes good and you save your life and everyone else' still 2b.


mk

[sarmed1]

Lets move off of the medical thing, though HMRS seems to have a market corner on this one, its by far a problem unique only to them...back to more of the training/curriculm & activity comparison in the spirit of the OP....

As we well know, Hawk does NOT seem to try to meet these standards intentionally. That's not to say that they have bad training. It's just saying that Hawk training is not something that CAP has yet been willing to say is "good enough".

I'm not sure what standards you are refering to.  If its GTM standard, yes they do.  (I will agree not in the entirety, and they make it seem that GTM qualification is secondary in some cases) however having seen past skill sheets for the various ranger grades, the most recent ones actually ID individual tasks by GTM task, and from what I was told that was to remove the redundancy in testing the same (or mostly the same) skills. It does also happen (and I cant speak to if this was on puropse or by accident) bring the R/grades more in line with their equivilent GTM quals. Somewhere I think I did a breakdown of Ranger grade by tasks vs GTM training....if I recall correctly the only thing missing from each ranger grade vs the GTM quals was the mission participation requirements (but dont hold me to that...cant find the chart on my lap top)

Actually I would go so far as to say not that CAP isnt willing to say HMRS training is "good enough" but rather they havent figured out why its any better.  Personally speaking (even as a one time CAP HMRS staff memeber, R/adv etc etc) I dont see what the benefit is to having a "Ranger" qual appear on the 101.
the things I see that seem to come out of the training program not covered in regular GTM quals.... 1) an emphasis on 72hours self sustainment (geared toward the wilderness environment) 2)  Mobility skills for the wilderness/mountainous environment 3) basic understanding (at the lower level) of rope skills/steep terrain evac and actually competency in their operations (at the higher levels) 4) they have held onto some of the skills that fell away from the GTM program, basic knots/ropes (as mentioned) and the pateint packaging skills.
These are not areas that are unique to the Ranger program, anyone could teach them to their ground team and they certainly dont make a member or the team anything elite or special......

mk

[Eclipse]

If its GTM standard, yes they do.  (I will agree not in the entirety, and they make it seem that GTM qualification is secondary in some cases)

This is where most of us would have the heartburn and which causes most of the issues.  Participants can spend the time, do the work, believe they
are now CAP assets, and then be told they can't even play.

Fix that and a lot of the angst disappears over night.

As a GBD, I have no way to use an HMRS grad who hopes to someday complete GT3, but I can make all kinds of use of a GT3 who is also am HMRS grad.

Now here's a question fer 'ya.  Are HMRS grads in PAWG allowed to participate in missions, real or training, based on it saying "ranger on the 101" vs.
an nationally accepted qualification?

If they are, that's dead wrong, and if they aren't, then what are they training for?

[sarmed1]

Now here's a question fer 'ya.  Are HMRS grads in PAWG allowed to participate in missions, real or training, based on it saying "ranger on the 101" vs.
an nationally accepted qualification?

If they are, that's dead wrong, and if they aren't, then what are they training for?

Based on the last SAREVAL I conducted for PAWG (given I was the comm and logistics evaluator, but......) all personnel must present a valid 101 for the position they are occupying (or SQTR verified for a trainee position)

so for anything outside of the school, GTM quals trump ranger quals (ie an R/1 with just GTM 3 is still a GTM 3)

mk

[sarmed1]

ok here's the excel sheet that shows what GTM skills are completed for each ranger grade level.

There are a few holes that I will point out to the stan/eval folks:
The downside is even though the basic summer school should train a student to Ranger 2nd level, there are 1 or two tasks that are not covered under that level that are required for the GTM 3/2 (distress beacon bearing, locate distress beacon and BCUT) I would also argue that the medical/first aid tasks are missing 1 or two area that I would want covered under complete basic first aid

On the up side a Ranger First class (regardless of the fact the HMRS sheet says must have 101 GTM 3) complete's all the skill requirements for GTM1 (some of the HMRS tasks are also GTL tasks)

The other I attached is the cummulative R1 skills that are not found in the GTM qual program

mk

[Spaceman3750]

How is it that you can progress to Ranger 2 without ever having determined a distress beacon bearing or complete a 2 hour BCUT class?

Given that on a national level that's the guts of what our ground pounders do it seems to be a glaring omission.

[Ned]

I haven't really been following this thread, but let me jump in here and suggest the following:

1.  There is no "gray area" when it comes to non-emergency medical care provided by CAP folks to members or non-members.  The regulation could not be clearer.  It is simply and clearly forbidden.  For all the reasons we have discussed in countless other threads.  No really; all non-emergency medical care is totally and absolutely forbidden.

2.  Although Good Sam laws vary by state, I have not found a single one that would protect a member acting in their CAP capacity.  More importantlly, none will protect CAP, Inc. from a errors and omissions by a CAP member.

3.  The rules are the same for cadets and seniors in this arena.  (I.e., neither can provide non-emergency medical care.).

4.  These rules have been effect for many, many years. 

5.  It is just as silly to suggest that CAP will somehow be liable for training cadets in first aid as it is to suggest that we will be liable for teaching them basic flying skills if they later have an accident as an airline pilot.

Now back to dicussing the relative merits of Hawk and NESA.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[sarmed1]

I haven't really been following this thread, but let me jump in here and suggest the following:

1.  There is no "gray area" when it comes to non-emergency medical care provided by CAP folks to members or non-members.  The regulation could not be clearer.  It is simply and clearly forbidden.  For all the reasons we have discussed in countless other threads.  No really; all non-emergency medical care is totally and absolutely forbidden.
.....

For once, we were actually (or at least thats were I thought the conversation was) discussing ony the emergency first aid part...

How is it that you can progress to Ranger 2 without ever having determined a distress beacon bearing or complete a 2 hour BCUT class?

Given that on a national level that's the guts of what our ground pounders do it seems to be a glaring omission.

I dont know, its on my list to ask the stan/eval dude.
You cant look at GTM3, 2, 1 as the same as R/3, 2, 1...think R/3 the same as GTM3 trainee....  Under the old ranger rating system R/2 was the minimum competency level, it would seem probabale that was never updated with the addition of actual skills to the R3 level....but thats just my guess based on experience...could be that some one at HMRS has a reasoning behind it.....

mk

[BillB]

This gets us back to the problems of cadets from Kansas, Florida or Delaware training to be "Rangers" at HMRS. Most all of the Hawk training revolves about mountains which is useless for the coastal and flat states. A Florida cadet doesn't need to know how to rappel off an I-95 overpass. In almost all cases a medical helicopter is less than a half hour away so no need for "Ranger Medics".
However, each Region should have a Survival course and training for ground teams. Can a cadet from Montana recognize a coral snake? Setting up a Survival School in most Regions would train cadets for wilderness activity in their geographical areas. And such training should follow the requirements of SQTRs for GT1 or GT2 including BCUT. SER might be able to train at Eglin AFB where USAF trains Special Ops etc. It might be possible to get U.S. Army aviation support from Ft Rucker's helicopter schools.
Hawk Mountain is great for cadets from that geographical area, but useless for most of the country. Training at the bRegion Survival Schoolws and Hawk should aim to have the cadets earn GT1 or GT2, not courses that do not apply to the average cadet in this country.
Thje other arguement against Hawk is the bling that the cadet come back to his home unit with. While authorized in PAWG, most other Wings do not allow it (even if the Natl Board gave an OK whiich still is not in print)

[jks19714]

Well, a cadet might use their high angle skills if a plane crashes on Mount Trashmore, the growing landfill on the east side of Wilmington.    Otherwise, not so much.

[Eclipse]

1.  There is no "gray area" when it comes to non-emergency medical care provided by CAP folks to members or non-members.  The regulation could not be clearer.  It is simply and clearly forbidden.  For all the reasons we have discussed in countless other threads.  No really; all non-emergency medical care is totally and absolutely forbidden.

Is this where I should post the photos of cadets at encampments and other activities wearing stethoscopes and manning the "medical flights"?
There may be no "gray area" of regulation, but there is certainly a significant amount of negligence of enforcement.

How many Form 79's are active right now which reference activity medical officers (most who aren't MD's as required), or similar "sick call", etc.
We could start making phone calls there.

5.  It is just as silly to suggest that CAP will somehow be liable for training cadets in first aid as it is to suggest that we will be liable for teaching them basic flying skills if they later have an accident as an airline pilot.

I never said their involvement in other organizations brings liability because of training, I'm saying CAP training brings the liability on itself during CAP activities and missions.

Is it silly to think a member "trained" by CAP who hurts someone during a CAP activity or mission, in a CAP uniform, would get CAP some liability?
How about a fellow member hurt or killed by a "medic" we trained?

Airline pilot? Obviously not.  But it is not out of the realm of possibility that a member trained as a pilot could cause property damage or injury to another aircrew member, and his "training" would absolutely be considered.  Cadets can be aircrew, and hurt the rest of the crew, not to mention those below him, or even the no-so-stretch that having a new(ish) cadet mission pilot on a sortie slowed the search and resulted in the death of victims. 

[arajca]

Thje other arguement against Hawk is the bling that the cadet come back to his home unit with. While authorized in PAWG, most other Wings do not allow it (even if the Natl Board gave an OK whiich still is not in print)

Actually, the argument is not so much the bling, it's the attitude they bring back.

[Eclipse]

Thje other arguement against Hawk is the bling that the cadet come back to his home unit with. While authorized in PAWG, most other Wings do not allow it (even if the Natl Board gave an OK whiich still is not in print)

Actually, the argument is not so much the bling, it's the attitude they bring back.

+1 though the conversation generally starts with "You can't wear that...", continuing into "You can't make me...".

[sarmed1]

This gets us back to the problems of cadets from Kansas, Florida or Delaware training to be "Rangers" at HMRS. Most all of the Hawk training revolves about mountains which is useless for the coastal and flat states.

Just curious, what publication, course sylabus, school schedule or learning objectives do you derive "most all" from?

The fact that its called Hawk Mountain?

Given I did post that 2 of the 4 differnces between Ranger capabilites and GTM's revolve around wilderness/moutainous mobility and rope skills. (but those are in addition to the rest of the standard GT capabilities)

2)  Mobility skills for the wilderness/mountainous environment 3) basic understanding (at the lower level) of rope skills/steep terrain evac and actually competency in their operations (at the higher levels)

Perhaps you missed downloading the two documents I uploaded on Ranger specific additions and GMT skills included by Ranger level.  (My math skills show that 1/2 dozen skills and a 5 mile hike out of 70 some skills could not equte to "most all of")

mk

[ol'fido]

1.  There is no "gray area" when it comes to non-emergency medical care provided by CAP folks to members or non-members.  The regulation could not be clearer.  It is simply and clearly forbidden.  For all the reasons we have discussed in countless other threads.  No really; all non-emergency medical care is totally and absolutely forbidden.

Is this where I should post the photos of cadets at encampments and other activities wearing stethoscopes and manning the "medical flights"?
There may be no "gray area" of regulation, but there is certainly a significant amount of negligence of enforcement.

How many Form 79's are active right now which reference activity medical officers (most who aren't MD's as required), or similar "sick call", etc.
We could start making phone calls there.

5.  It is just as silly to suggest that CAP will somehow be liable for training cadets in first aid as it is to suggest that we will be liable for teaching them basic flying skills if they later have an accident as an airline pilot.

I never said their involvement in other organizations brings liability because of training, I'm saying CAP training brings the liability on itself during CAP activities and missions.

Is it silly to think a member "trained" by CAP who hurts someone during a CAP activity or mission, in a CAP uniform, would get CAP some liability?
How about a fellow member hurt or killed by a "medic" we trained?

Airline pilot? Obviously not.  But it is not out of the realm of possibility that a member trained as a pilot could cause property damage or injury to another aircrew member, and his "training" would absolutely be considered.  Cadets can be aircrew, and hurt the rest of the crew, not to mention those below him, or even the no-so-stretch that having a new(ish) cadet mission pilot on a sortie slowed the search and resulted in the death of victims.

I have no heartburn with teaching cadets first-aid and CPR in the context of GT training or just as general life skills that everyone should know. I think though that we should make it clear that they are in no way "medics" who will treat victims of SAR/DR operations or in any way "in the name of CAP." The first aid training should be taught in the context of self-aid or buddy aid until a senior can be alerted or EMS called.

About 10-11 years ago at Summer Encampment, we had a cadet squadron commander who was also a First Responder. We found out that instead of letting his cadets go to the MO or sick call he was treating them himself. After numerous members of the chain of command tried to talk some sense into him, he was directed to leave the encampment. He had it in his head that this was a "cadet run" activity and that the seniors should not be telling him how to deal with his cadets. He also felt that as a FR he had a "duty" to treat these [boo boos]. The part about "cadet run,but Senior supervised" just didn't seem to sink in no matter how many ways it was explained to him. Plus the fact that if he screwed up and hurt a kid either through action or inaction, he wasn't the one Mom and Dad's lawyers were going to come after.

[sarflyer]

You know I read the first page and just stopped at that point.  There have been a lot of stupid comments made about Hawk and honestly if they want to run their own program I say more power to them.  It's local which makes it easier for their members to get what they need.  I have the same attitude about the recent start up a couple of years ago of LESA in Texas.  It's a long way to Indiana for some and having something close is a good thing.  I can even mention RIGSAR in Rhode Island which ran an awesome program. 

I've met great cadets with ranger tabs and really poor cadets with ranger tabs.  I'm blaming that on the individual person and who they are.

This was my fourth year on staff at NESA and I am the webmaster for it.  I am also a 35 year veteran of the program and have run three squadrons including one I started from scratch.   My first year at NESA I went for week one and found the quality of the training to be so above and beyond what I have had in the program I took and additional week off from work and stayed for the advanced.   I have never attended Hawk training because it was always more portrayed to me as a survival school than at GTM school.   So the only negative thing I can say about it is some of it's graduates have returned with some not so great ideas of doing things.  All activities have these problems based on our being a volunteer organization.

I can tell you from my experience from NESA that the majority of the people that go there enjoy it and walk out truely qualified.  In my school "pencil whipping" someone's qualifications is not tolerated.  And if we don't think they can handle the qual they are training for they will not be signed off.

We had an awesome team of instructors and staff this year and we have all been invited back for next. 

It would be my hope like someone said on page one, forget the political BS and go have fun.  It's a plus if you can come home with a skill to pass on to the other members of your unit!

"Just my two cent"