The Firing Line Forums
Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > S.W.A.T. Magazine

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 6, 2005, 06:01 PM   #1
Kilroy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 1998
Posts: 117
Training article photos

The article by Rob Pincus in the August issue was good in addressing reality based training. However the photos are not as they show force on force training, absent throat protection for participants, which is critical for safety in these kinds of events. While the photos may be staged, or no marking rounds present, showing the absence of throat protection is also a form of training. Showing the "wrong way" can lead to someone in the class or your readers to determine that what they see is correct.

The article presents some very good points. It should be accompanied by photos that demonstrate proper administration of a training exercise.



Kilroy...
...was here
Kilroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6, 2005, 07:59 PM   #2
Rob Pincus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Hotels
Posts: 3,677
Mea Culpa... Excellent point...

I will, for what it's worth, point out the following:

The officer with the K-9 is wearing throat protection (the edge can be seen under the collar of his uniform).

The student on the phone was in a scenario where he was not being engaged with any projectile weapon, it is a standard run that we do for the CCW holders to reflect an unarmed intruder in the home and the best way to handle it (ie- stand by and call the police if you can, not just shoot because the law says you "can").

I am the goof with the bite sleeve and no throat protection with the officer. No good excuse for that except to admit that that picture was a staged recreation of actual training and I goofed the set-up.



Thanks for reading the magazine and your feedback on the article..
I will pay more attention to the pics accompanying the next one!
Rob Pincus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6, 2005, 11:15 PM   #3
Kilroy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 1998
Posts: 117
I have run a few races with the administrative beast in regards to training. Nothing like being in court over aspects of training to get one to pay attention to administration.

I developed a matrix by which to administratively evaluate training efforts with an eye toward future oversight/second guessing. One important aspect is how your training is viewed, literally, in a photographic record. In this instance, visible exposure of the throat would be enough to call a cease fire until that potential training danger was resolved.

Getting a few helmet dents over training issues is one good way to evaluate what you do and how you do it, then apply that to your staff and monitor their performance. The better ones are not afraid of talking about their performance, so thanks for this opportunity.

Last edited by Kilroy; September 7, 2005 at 07:40 AM.
Kilroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7, 2005, 06:43 PM   #4
Rob Pincus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Hotels
Posts: 3,677
Sure.. I always quote Alan Brosnan from TEES, who says that if you shoot 1000 rounds in a day and you miss the X-ring with one shot... that was your one opportunity to learn from.

At any rate, I understand what you are saying and agree that we have to learn from mistakes.. mine here was certainly not taking a closer look at how the photos would be viewed and not staging the recreation properly.

As a side note, I had to call "SAFE" today to stop an active Force-on-Force because a student had jammed a gun muzzle (sim) between my throat guard and helmet and was about to stamp my chin with a UTM round. During the Extreme Close Quarters Shooting courses at VTC, there is no way to abide by standard "acceptable distance" protocols and actually train realistically. My students love the course, it is probably our most popular offering, it is generating most of the interest from the high end military students we have and is not likely to go away because I am concerned about how others might view the safety protocols. They satisfy me, the owner of the facility, our insurance people and the students, how they look to a third party isn't a good litmus test.

Thanks for reminding us, on the magazine side, that we should consider explaining or avoiding inconsistencies with the "status quo."

EDIT:

I just re-read your post, particularly the part about "an eye toward future oversight/second guessing" and should mention that I think training NEEDS to be developed for what happens in the street or during any critiical incident, not for what happens in court. Our duty is to make people safer, not to make them (or our training) court-proof. This is not "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" bravado.... Politically Prepared Combatives Training that worries about court and cost before lives and effectiveness gets people hurt by causing hesitation, inefficiency and delayed response to in real situations.
Rob Pincus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25, 2005, 12:06 PM   #5
Kilroy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 1998
Posts: 117
Rob:

The court I refer to was in relation to how training was conducted, not the final result. It appears that you have run the two together, but then I was not real clear either.

"Our duty is to make people safer, not to make them (or our training) court-proof." I certainly agree on the safer part, but would add that our goal is make them technically and tactically proficient. After you have been in a few court rooms, you'll come to realize that nothing is "court-proof."

"an eye toward future oversight/second guessing" refers to administration of training, with a small nod towards what the courts might say. Of importance is how the training is executed and it's relevance to the real world. The best training won't be worth much if it fails review by users at various levels.

Let me clarify with some examples and explanation.

The most realistic training in the world, if poorly executed or administered, won't have a chance of remaining a viable program. Quite aside from the court room, the training provider that causes second thoughts in the administrative chain hurts themselves, and other providers. There is a good chance that that provider will lose their audience for cause.

Let's say, for example, a national provider of high quality training fails to address some very real client concerns on the execution of their training products. A client's administrator believes in the quality of the training provider, so goes to great lengths to insure that previous shortcomings are addressed and not repeated. That administrator meets with the highest echelon of the providers administration and gets assurances of better future performance. The providers administration becomes truly concerned over these past problems, acknowledging that they'd be a PR & legal nightmare for the provider. Thus assured, the client administrator goes to great lengths to sell the providers programs to their employer and contracts for multiple training products. The program is promoted via compatibility to the existing training and standards, certifications provided, commonality on a national basis, accepted by CLEOs around the US, positive public perception and a foundation palatable to risk management folks.

The training is provided. Quality skews to both ends of the spectrum. Previous problems return. Provider cannot even honor their own contract.

They missed the X-ring. They didn't learn from it.

Client determines to spend their training dollars elsewhere in the future.

Client representatives are part of a national discussion group that brings training clients together. This group represents the higher echelons of training administration and purchasing authority. Members depend on each other for a frank and honest appraisal of training providers. The provider in the above example comes up for discussion. The client administrator who went to bat for the provider is asked to comment on their experience.

What do you think those comments will/should be?

Even though the provider appears to represent a good product, they are not likely to be invited back to certain training venues. Those that continue to use such training vendors now have prior knowledge of their shortcomings.

I have long been a champion of real world relevant training. I have required additional education for instructors, challenged instructors to improve their program (and themselves) and always given them ownership and interest in those efforts. It was always essential that an instructor be able to defend their product to some of those mentioned above, which if one can, the court room becomes much easier when that time rolls around. Administrators of training are under no less a burden.

You have my agreement on:
Quote:
Politically Prepared Combatives Training that worries about court and cost before lives and effectiveness gets people hurt by causing hesitation, inefficiency and delayed response to in real situations.
But don't get lost in that. Realize also that good training that is ineffectively delivered, is still going to be ineffective.



Kilroy...


...was here
Kilroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2, 2005, 11:55 AM   #6
Rob Pincus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Hotels
Posts: 3,677
Why don't you come take a class?
Rob Pincus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3, 2005, 07:28 AM   #7
Kilroy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 1998
Posts: 117
It's on my list of things to do. Reviews of your facility, the web site and an on site visit by one of our staffers are enough to draw anyone's interest.
Kilroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Page generated in 0.07220 seconds with 7 queries