Using Cover

[orionz06]

How are crashes handled? Are there ever impossible scenarios? This is sounding a lot like the *good* FoF I've experienced and learned the most from.



Would splitting this into another thread make sense?

[GJM]

How are crashes handled? Are there ever impossible scenarios? This is sounding a lot like the *good* FoF I've experienced and learned the most from.



Would splitting this into another thread make sense?

There are a bunch of different simulators, bunch of different instructors, and a bunch of different pilots, so you know how it goes with words like "ever" or "never."

I am sure a standard check ride might seem impossible for a poorly trained and prepared pilot.

The simulator is very authentic with the normal flight envelope. Where I have crashed, is pushing the envelope with things that get the simulator out of the normal envelope, like practicing 50 knot crosswind landings, where you catch a wing tip, or looping the jet and the simulator falls off its motion base.

As a general rule, impossible scenarios don't end themselves to increasing flight crew confidence, and are avoided. Now, if you had a cocky pilot that didn't get it, I am sure they may have crashed with the assistance of the instructor, as part of teaching them something about their limits and abilities.

[Mr_White]

That was the only scenario that left me confused as far as my response. I did my best MUC routine with the two unknowns and the crazy guy with the bat. I was continually moving, keeping them in front of me as much as possible. The guy with the bat made me very nervous obviously. I had my hand on the heater early on but never drew until the two silent unknowns closed and began to attempt to flank me. I took their actions as hostile even though they voiced no threat or displayed weapons.

Supposedly these two were simply curious bystanders, who instead of staying off to the side, stayed in the mix. I couldn't get them to respond verbally though and the stupid black helmets remove facial feedback unfortunately. Had I the option, I would've just GTFO of there but we were supposed to stay on the mat.

I was chastised a little for putting my hand on the gun but again, 3 unknowns to my one? Darn right I'm going to shorten my drawstroke time. I guess the object was to demonstrate that sometimes there are no good answers.

The rest of the scenarios were all based on the proper use of cover and the biggest problem I had was getting behind it w/o losing sight of the aggressor, which in this case, always meant even more trouble.

It did emphasize the fact that I need to sharpen my shootin' and movin' skills and looking at that darn front sight, even if I'm under fire.

The bolded parts strike me as a mismatch – curious bystanders who won't respond to you verbally, won't allow their hands to be seen (from your previous post), move to follow you and counter your evasive movements, close distance and flank you, again with no verbal interaction, then when you produce a weapon and move away from them, they take positions of cover and dive into a gunfight with you. I think it's a stretch to represent that that is how curious bystanders act. Maybe...but I think that behavior better represents encroachment and dominant positioning conducive to an assault or robbery.

To follow on to GJM's comments – and I don't have any experience with flight simulation – in defensive training, there are a few different philosophies that drive how scenarios are run.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the student can never be allowed to fail under any circumstances – I've seen that taken to an absurd extreme where trainees weren't allowed to be shot (sims) even when they did everything wrong. There can be a fine line there, but having the students fail epidemically isn't going to help build them up to a point where they have confidence and take timely and correct action. I definitely don't subscribe to the idea that the instructors or role players should be simply trying to beat the students.

Unwinnable situations might exist in reality, but I don't think they are a very productive thing to be represented in formative scenario training. Scenarios need to have a point. What you want is for the scenario to reward correct action by the student. The scenario needs to be constructed so that doing what the students have been instructed to do, if adhered to, leads to a successful outcome. It's important that the scenario and program of instruction accurately represent real or potentially real situations. Garbage in, garbage out is a real danger. As GJM said of flight simulation, the goal is to increase confidence and model correct behavior.

Never say never though. I pretty well described a 'scripted scenario' philosophy. It is possible to run unscripted scenarios, as Craig does, and have them be very creative and productive. But you need a person like Craig, who can administrate an unscripted scenario in a productive way, and that takes a very finely developed sense. You also need role players who can go along with that. Done with a less developed sense, unscripted scenario training is when all kinds of ridiculous stuff happens and then the student is left scratching their head as to what they should learn from it or what they should have done to succeed. If that happens, confidence may be undermined within the student, possibly leading to an ineffective response in real life – treating two guys maneuvering for a robbery like they are just curious bystanders – or simple self-doubt, hesitation, and acting too late to be useful.

To bring it back to the bolded example, if I were going to have two role players not respond to you verbally, not allow their hands to be seen, move to follow you and counter your evasive movements, close distance and flank you, again with no verbal interaction, there would be two big things I'd be looking for there.

Number one is for the student to recognize the threatening pattern of behavior and immediately evade/escape/challenge. A more introductory level scenario might center on giving the student the chance to do that, and if they did model the correct instructed behavior – evade/escape/challenge – then the role players would have been directed to disengage or allow escape at that point, leading to a successful outcome for the student.

Secondly, a more difficult version of that same scenario might involve the role players not being dissuaded from their encroachment and dominant positioning, and the student would need to recognize the boatload of preassault cues and act on them preemptively or else find themselves at gunpoint, or entangled, or in some other disadvantaged position. And if they allow it to get there, then maybe they have to deal with it. As the training/students gets more advanced, they need to deal with scenarios that are more difficult and contain more potential for failure. But they should be built up to that.

It is also worth recognizing a difference between scenario training, which will tend to center around a context represented as realistic, and awareness, decisionmaking, and tactics, and a competitive force-on-force exercise where it is simply a physical contest between the various parties. Those are a different thing. Sometimes the line between the two gets blurred, sometimes successfully and other times it just muddies the waters.

I guess I can't stay away from the walls of text, oh well!

[Mr_White]

Have you ever done any force on force with the different ways you tried? And if so what are your thoughts on the pros and cons?

I tried to run plant shoot also but it seemed way to slow and it ended up being, why don't I just keep running. I thought the one-handed shooting to be the best balance but it has limits to that I couldn't control. i.e. how well the bad guy shoots. However I never tried it extensively in force on force.

I've used draw/run/shoot in scenarios a little bit, but not extensively, in addition to more conventional static shooting and move/plant/shoot. Draw/run/shoot isn't always the answer, usually because I was either constrained by space (need at least a little open area) or because the angle between me, threat(s), cover, and/or bystanders was already optimal and I didn't want to change it. At this point, I look at optimizing that relationship as one of the biggest controlling factors in whether to shoot static, shoot on the move, or move/plant/shoot. The opponents likely skill level can be estimated but can't be known with certainty. Space is confined enough in many interior environments that draw/run/shoot is actually more like draw-and-run-and-shoot/plant/shoot because space runs out. That's the con, you need some space and a lot of spots in the world won't physically allow for it.

If the envisioned scenario is a generic one of open space and the defender is facing an initiative deficit, in addition to misdirective tactics that might be used to help get out of that deficit, draw/run/shoot (esp. with immediate, accurate head shots) is a pretty big lever to reverse that initiative deficit. Depends on distance to threat though. If it's close enough, a hands on solution may be better. It's great in that no man's land where you are a couple steps outside arms reach but still close enough that an unskilled but aggressive person can go cyclic and probably hit something.

When you refer to one-handed shooting, do you mean this in the context of a right handed person running left or am I reading you wrong there?

[KevinB]

One issue I have with AirSoft - is sometimes you can outrun the "bullet"

I for one do not really understand the point of the scenarios - as your needing to create space - and you don't have the option, which I guess could be found in real life in a parking garage or alley. However in a scenario like that I fall back into a bad decision well implemented is better than no decision, and think aggressive action is better than none. Two dudes closing on me and non-responsive result in Mr. Pistol being presented, and them being given very specific instructions.

[JustOneGun]

I've used draw/run/shoot in scenarios a little bit, but not extensively, in addition to more conventional static shooting and move/plant/shoot. Draw/run/shoot isn't always the answer, usually because I was either constrained by space (need at least a little open area) or because the angle between me, threat(s), cover, and/or bystanders was already optimal and I didn't want to change it. At this point, I look at optimizing that relationship as one of the biggest controlling factors in whether to shoot static, shoot on the move, or move/plant/shoot. The opponents likely skill level can be estimated but can't be known with certainty. Space is confined enough in many interior environments that draw/run/shoot is actually more like draw-and-run-and-shoot/plant/shoot because space runs out. That's the con, you need some space and a lot of spots in the world won't physically allow for it.

If the envisioned scenario is a generic one of open space and the defender is facing an initiative deficit, in addition to misdirective tactics that might be used to help get out of that deficit, draw/run/shoot (esp. with immediate, accurate head shots) is a pretty big lever to reverse that initiative deficit. Depends on distance to threat though. If it's close enough, a hands on solution may be better. It's great in that no man's land where you are a couple steps outside arms reach but still close enough that an unskilled but aggressive person can go cyclic and probably hit something.

When you refer to one-handed shooting, do you mean this in the context of a right handed person running left or am I reading you wrong there?

Sorry I wasn't clear on that. I am referring to moving off line as I draw but instead of planting and shooting I just practiced continuing to move at near full sprint and shoot one-handed. As you point out it is easier to move left and and shoot one-handed. Not so easy moving right and shooting right.

The little FoF where I practiced this it seemed that with practice I could draw while moving and get my shots off in close to the same amount of time if I was doing so moving left and shooting right handed. Moving right and shooting right was basically moving backwards after the step and shooting two-handed was the best for me. The middle ground answer is that it might work best to simplify and sidestep with a continued backwards movement for both left and right movement. This might allow for full speed two-handed shooting with minimal practice while at least gaining some distance. Continued training could allow the developing student to move faster and faster according to their particular ability.

This distance is great if you can get it but you are still lessening the odds of getting shot by the BG's rounds. You are increasing your luck but you are not getting rid of the risk (the recent Force Science experiments at traffic stops come to mind). As you point out it also depends on an uncontrolled variable, the BG's ability to shoot.

This relates to the OP scenarios. Many instructors are in the move camp and others the plant and shoot camp. Sometimes the scenarios are geared towards one outcome or another to teach a point. It doesn't mean the point is correct, just teachable depending on the roll players predetermined action.

I have often thought that the side step with the draw and moving backwards as fast as you can without disturbing your ability to fire at full speed is a valid default concept to train as an initial action. You mentioned going towards the BG being an option. It has worked in the past but for the average civilian it might not be a great thing to train as a basic technique. As Tom Givens stats show, contact is rare and usually not intended in the civilian world. I thought I heard Force Science was going to do some studies on distance and tunnel vision with the idea that perhaps many officers are thinking that they are a lot closer to the BG and then being unable to close the distance fast enough they are walking into a number of bullets. I'm not sure I got the premise right or what the outcome was, but it would be interesting.

[Robinson]

OP, this is a very interesting thread -- thanks for starting it. There is an upcoming FOF class available in my area from an instructor I know and trust from previous classes -- I think I will try to sign up for it.

[NETim]

OP, this is a very interesting thread -- thanks for starting it. There is an upcoming FOF class available in my area from an instructor I know and trust from previous classes -- I think I will try to sign up for it.

By all means, do it. There's nothing like interacting with a live adversary to hammer home key concepts, like the reality of incoming fire (even if it is only Airsoft) and the notion of uncooperative, sometimes unpredictable targets that move, run and shoot back.