PDA

View Full Version : simulated friendly fire in FoF evolutions



abu fitna
10-28-2013, 11:37 PM
I am seeking some additional perspectives from folks involved in training, including those working with force on force exercise problems. Others here are of course encouraged to offer their own thoughts as they might see fit. Some details are omitted to protect the guilty, and to hopefully focus the discussion.

The other day, had a situation arise in which a blue on blue incident occurred during a FoF evolution in a shoot house. The incident resulted in only simulated effects rather than any actual harm, thanks to proper safety discipline in advance. But two elements crossed into the same uncleared space from two doorways and the second man of the first element engaged the lead man of the second element, with a very tight double tap to the high center chest clearly shown with simunitions (less than three yards, so something one feels - but perhaps not as much as the one who pulled the trigger feels later.)

The incident itself was addressed contemporaneously to the satisfaction of participants, but was definitely a learning experience. Describing the incident is however merely background to the point I would like to raise:

* How do folks usually handle friendly fire failures in other than live fire training exercises? *

We assume that there is a crawl - walk phase in advance of real showtime, and is a needed learning element along the way to prevent this from ever happening with hot weapons.

Had this been live fire, the consequences of course would be very different. As it was, the shoot was adjudicated a vest save, and element continued exercise evolution to completion. The shooter bought dinner, and will be buying adult beverages under appropriate circumstances for the engaged party for a very long time to come. (For the record, the engaged party reacted with good humor, far better perhaps than I might have). Substantial additional training cycles will be invested by all parties.

The old tradition of signing the hostage target for missed shots in shoot house exercises is a good one, but has fallen out of use for the most part given the influx of IPSC / IDPA stage designs. Even so, one cannot sign a comrade in arms. This gave rise to a very intensive discussion of what traditions are appropriate for such cases. Such errors are going to be a very memorable event for all involved, but is there a need for such things to be institutionally recognized as such? On the one hand, there can be talk of sanctions - but again, in a walk / crawl phase there needs to be the freedom to make the kinds of mistakes one learns from. What makes a mistake a learning experience, rather than just a memorable one?

There was some talk of having the shooter and the element's senior lead both write a letter to the engaged party's widow. The very prospect is no doubt sobering enough, and I am sure more than a few folks thought about that letter more than once in the days that followed. A hot wash and subsequent formal AAR / LL writeup to lay out a case study also seems appropriate. (One may view this discussion even as a step towards that end, although the informal debrief that occurred over dinner surfaced just about every angle on the incident itself that might have been raised.)

There was also some discussion of the qualitative difference of such an incident during a fully competitive simunitions evolution, when compared with even a laser unit evolution (as is frequently done with SIRT training pistols during technical demonstration / discussion and crawl phase semi-cooperative evolution.) I am also not quite sure that even airsoft would have had the some cognitive impact on the participants, but that is a somewhat different question (and one that needs its own discussion, given the importance of airsoft as an alternative to those who face acquisition challenges in sustaining a reliable supply of simunitions equipment).

Because folks will no doubt ask, a few additional details that have no bearing on the question of how to handle these incidents in a manner that enhances training outcomes, but might provide additional lessons learned on risk factors to be aware of in future training evolutions. The engagement occurred in near total darkness, when a 4 man stack split into two, 2 man pairs to sweep through a complex unknown architecture area with multiple known adversaries. Participants had varying experience in solving tactical problems involving dynamic movement in confined spaces, ranging from over 20 years to something less than 5 years, with all but one participant having had OCONUS deployments under varying degree of intensity. (This non deployed participant was not however the shooter). Weapons were simunitions modified Glock 17s, with no WMLs. Handheld lights were not used during the immediate engagement. No radio comms were available to individuals within the elements. The shooter had approximately five minutes earlier in the exercise been engaged by a hostile role-player at grappling ranges, and literally shot the attacker off of a charge into the stack. The problem scenario required the elements to continue movement through the unknown facility. Additional contributing factors were the fact that these particular elements had not worked together in many months, although they had executed clearing problems as a team in the past on multiple occasions before that point time. The shooter was also back less than 24 hours from an OCONUS activity involving nearly 12 hour time zone difference (admittedly suffering jet lag), and about the same kind of flight time (under the current climate of exceptional budget austerity). This was the third structure problem of the day for the elements, conducted on a near continuous basis (breaks of no more than ten minutes between stages involving several dozen rooms, passageways, stairwells, as well as building exteriors and vehicles). The shooter's element had been directly addressed by an attending RO immediately prior to making entry to the space in which the engagement occurred, where the second element was simultaneously entering through a second doorway at at immediate 90 offset to the first element after sweeping an annex type area adjacent to the main, larger space. Interaction by the RO was theoretically intended to highlight continued tactical need for speed of flow through the space consistent with scenario objectives, but was in reality also driven by the administrative need to encourage rapid completion of the evolution to ensure that all participants could finish the problem, as the planned timeline for the overall exercise event was running behind schedule.

It should be noted that none of the above factors excuses the inappropriate decision by the shooter to engage a target that had not been fully identified. But these are factors that are important to consider as elements of risk that can be recognized and hopefully controlled for in future training evolutions.

Chuck Haggard
10-29-2013, 06:06 AM
The engagement occurred in near total darkness, when a 4 man stack split into two, 2 man pairs to sweep through a complex unknown architecture area with multiple known adversaries. Participants had varying experience in solving tactical problems involving dynamic movement in confined spaces, ranging from over 20 years to something less than 5 years, with all but one participant having had OCONUS deployments under varying degree of intensity. (This non deployed participant was not however the shooter). Weapons were simunitions modified Glock 17s, with no WMLs. Handheld lights were not used during the immediate engagement

Wait, what?

You have a scenario being run in "near total darkness", and without lights?

BLR
10-29-2013, 07:12 AM
Space based EM pulse destroys all electronics, including RMR, lasers, and lights in preparation for alien invasion.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

abu fitna
10-29-2013, 08:11 AM
Heh, nothing so exotic. I could have phrased those factors better. But I like the creativity in interpretation (grin).

Overall illumination varied throughout the structure consistent with scenario in which building power had been disrupted, including multiple types of emergency lighting mounts and fixed battle lanterns, plus sporadic flare / chemlight drops, and other light sources.

The engagement itself occurred in near total darkness due to the geometry of the room problem and participant choices. Handheld lights were available (but not WML) although these were not used by the participants in the immediate engagement, likely due to speed of the incident (but they had been at other points in clearing the structure).

The larger of the areas of connected space was under emergency wall mount lighting that may be charitably described as consistent with third world standards, providing less than 20% illumination. The smaller area of the annex like space received almost none of this illumination due to the configuration of the doorway. The shooter from the first element was backlit by this doorway, but had limited visibility into the much darker annex space where the engaged party of the second element was moving.

The shooter had been required to manipulate the door of the larger space for entry, using the offside hand. No lanyard, ring or other fast retention device was used for the handheld light. The shooter had been stowing his light in an open cargo pant pocket, but the light was not consistent oriented or clipped to avoid fumbling on access. The shooter did not comment contemporaneously on whether the light was intended to be used, but not fast enough to access, or if the shooter simply reacted only using the tools literally in hand within the engagement window.

ROs were chemlight designated as well for safety control. Participants were not so designated, although chemlights were available in the environment should participants have wished to use these for other purposes - none did so throughout any of the evolutions.

ToddG
10-29-2013, 08:59 AM
Addressing mistakes is important.

Obsessing over mistakes is dangerous.

It sounds to me like everyone knows an error was made and everyone understands more training is required. More and better training > hazing and make-believe.

Chuck Haggard
10-29-2013, 09:13 AM
In training we look at mistakes under two different microscopes, one for if the mistake was something unforeseen that we can analyze and learn from, one for if the guy just pulled a momentary bone head, and one for if the mistake was a violation of established TTPs and was stupid negligent.

This sounds like it might be #1, and thus busting the guy's balls isn't the way to handle it.

nwhpfan
10-29-2013, 09:44 AM
On my team, it would be your last day. If you "miss" a target while training - shooting at this color paper vs. that, we can work on that..that is training where mistakes are corrected. But if you think a good guy is a bad guy and you light'em up; your done. Sorry, just can't have those kind of mistakes. If you do it in training where you know there isn’t “real” bad guys; how should anyone expect you'd react in the real thing where things are actually amp'd up. And what if this was a shoot-house with live ammunition! Is this guy operational, does he go to work that night, that week; is he on the call-out board?

Sorry, but I find the op’s write-up full of justifications and excuses. Then again, I've only got 13 years of Tactical experience and only knew one person accidently killed by a teammate.

ToddG
10-29-2013, 10:13 AM
In training we look at mistakes under two different microscopes, one (1) for if the mistake was something unforeseen that we can analyze and learn from, one (2) for if the guy just pulled a momentary bone head, and one (3) for if the mistake was a violation of established TTPs and was stupid negligent.

I agree with all eleventy of your points!

Seriously, that is what needs to be analyzed here, though.

What led to this FF shooting? If the "victim team" was dressed up like extras from Rambo III and the guys are used to always being in ninja costumes, that's an institutional issue that needs addressing, not just an individual one. If the guys have heretofore only trained against 100% threat targets where PID wasn't necessary, that's very much an institutional issue.

Ditto the light thing: why were two associated teams moving through an indoor structure in low-light without flashlights? What training scar led both teams to enter a room where it was so dark they couldn't identify one another? Why didn't someone turn on a freakin' flashlight? You said the guys had lights in their hands earlier... what led everyone on both teams to think they'd be in bright light the rest of the time they were in this building where "power had been disrupted?"

Chuck Haggard
10-29-2013, 10:40 AM
I agree with all eleventy of your points!

Seriously, that is what needs to be analyzed here, though.



Hey, I edited to add # three, and forgot to then add.............

Chuck Haggard
10-29-2013, 10:42 AM
I agree with all eleventy of your points!

Seriously, that is what needs to be analyzed here, though.

What led to this FF shooting? If the "victim team" was dressed up like extras from Rambo III and the guys are used to always being in ninja costumes, that's an institutional issue that needs addressing, not just an individual one. If the guys have heretofore only trained against 100% threat targets where PID wasn't necessary, that's very much an institutional issue.

Ditto the light thing: why were two associated teams moving through an indoor structure in low-light without flashlights? What training scar led both teams to enter a room where it was so dark they couldn't identify one another? Why didn't someone turn on a freakin' flashlight? You said the guys had lights in their hands earlier... what led everyone on both teams to think they'd be in bright light the rest of the time they were in this building where "power had been disrupted?"

^This^


I get all twitchy when looking at so many LE FoF scenarios because I see so very many bad scenarios being played out/set up.

Josh Runkle
10-29-2013, 02:13 PM
I agree with all eleventy of your points!

Seriously, that is what needs to be analyzed here, though.

What led to this FF shooting? If the "victim team" was dressed up like extras from Rambo III and the guys are used to always being in ninja costumes, that's an institutional issue that needs addressing, not just an individual one. If the guys have heretofore only trained against 100% threat targets where PID wasn't necessary, that's very much an institutional issue.

Ditto the light thing: why were two associated teams moving through an indoor structure in low-light without flashlights? What training scar led both teams to enter a room where it was so dark they couldn't identify one another? Why didn't someone turn on a freakin' flashlight? You said the guys had lights in their hands earlier... what led everyone on both teams to think they'd be in bright light the rest of the time they were in this building where "power had been disrupted?"

This depends upon the role of the team. LE/civ and SOF have different needs. Was this an LE team or .mil?

If your goal is to seek out and kill the enemy as a predator yourself, the roles of light usage are a lot different than killing as a last resort.

Josh Runkle
10-29-2013, 02:30 PM
I am seeking some additional perspectives from folks involved in training, including those working with force on force exercise problems. Others here are of course encouraged to offer their own thoughts as they might see fit. Some details are omitted to protect the guilty, and to hopefully focus the discussion.

The other day, had a situation arise in which a blue on blue incident occurred during a FoF evolution in a shoot house. The incident resulted in only simulated effects rather than any actual harm, thanks to proper safety discipline in advance. But two elements crossed into the same uncleared space from two doorways and the second man of the first element engaged the lead man of the second element, with a very tight double tap to the high center chest clearly shown with simunitions (less than three yards, so something one feels - but perhaps not as much as the one who pulled the trigger feels later.)

The incident itself was addressed contemporaneously to the satisfaction of participants, but was definitely a learning experience. Describing the incident is however merely background to the point I would like to raise:

* How do folks usually handle friendly fire failures in other than live fire training exercises? *

We assume that there is a crawl - walk phase in advance of real showtime, and is a needed learning element along the way to prevent this from ever happening with hot weapons.

Had this been live fire, the consequences of course would be very different. As it was, the shoot was adjudicated a vest save, and element continued exercise evolution to completion. The shooter bought dinner, and will be buying adult beverages under appropriate circumstances for the engaged party for a very long time to come. (For the record, the engaged party reacted with good humor, far better perhaps than I might have). Substantial additional training cycles will be invested by all parties.

The old tradition of signing the hostage target for missed shots in shoot house exercises is a good one, but has fallen out of use for the most part given the influx of IPSC / IDPA stage designs. Even so, one cannot sign a comrade in arms. This gave rise to a very intensive discussion of what traditions are appropriate for such cases. Such errors are going to be a very memorable event for all involved, but is there a need for such things to be institutionally recognized as such? On the one hand, there can be talk of sanctions - but again, in a walk / crawl phase there needs to be the freedom to make the kinds of mistakes one learns from. What makes a mistake a learning experience, rather than just a memorable one?

There was some talk of having the shooter and the element's senior lead both write a letter to the engaged party's widow. The very prospect is no doubt sobering enough, and I am sure more than a few folks thought about that letter more than once in the days that followed. A hot wash and subsequent formal AAR / LL writeup to lay out a case study also seems appropriate. (One may view this discussion even as a step towards that end, although the informal debrief that occurred over dinner surfaced just about every angle on the incident itself that might have been raised.)

There was also some discussion of the qualitative difference of such an incident during a fully competitive simunitions evolution, when compared with even a laser unit evolution (as is frequently done with SIRT training pistols during technical demonstration / discussion and crawl phase semi-cooperative evolution.) I am also not quite sure that even airsoft would have had the some cognitive impact on the participants, but that is a somewhat different question (and one that needs its own discussion, given the importance of airsoft as an alternative to those who face acquisition challenges in sustaining a reliable supply of simunitions equipment).

Because folks will no doubt ask, a few additional details that have no bearing on the question of how to handle these incidents in a manner that enhances training outcomes, but might provide additional lessons learned on risk factors to be aware of in future training evolutions. The engagement occurred in near total darkness, when a 4 man stack split into two, 2 man pairs to sweep through a complex unknown architecture area with multiple known adversaries. Participants had varying experience in solving tactical problems involving dynamic movement in confined spaces, ranging from over 20 years to something less than 5 years, with all but one participant having had OCONUS deployments under varying degree of intensity. (This non deployed participant was not however the shooter). Weapons were simunitions modified Glock 17s, with no WMLs. Handheld lights were not used during the immediate engagement. No radio comms were available to individuals within the elements. The shooter had approximately five minutes earlier in the exercise been engaged by a hostile role-player at grappling ranges, and literally shot the attacker off of a charge into the stack. The problem scenario required the elements to continue movement through the unknown facility. Additional contributing factors were the fact that these particular elements had not worked together in many months, although they had executed clearing problems as a team in the past on multiple occasions before that point time. The shooter was also back less than 24 hours from an OCONUS activity involving nearly 12 hour time zone difference (admittedly suffering jet lag), and about the same kind of flight time (under the current climate of exceptional budget austerity). This was the third structure problem of the day for the elements, conducted on a near continuous basis (breaks of no more than ten minutes between stages involving several dozen rooms, passageways, stairwells, as well as building exteriors and vehicles). The shooter's element had been directly addressed by an attending RO immediately prior to making entry to the space in which the engagement occurred, where the second element was simultaneously entering through a second doorway at at immediate 90 offset to the first element after sweeping an annex type area adjacent to the main, larger space. Interaction by the RO was theoretically intended to highlight continued tactical need for speed of flow through the space consistent with scenario objectives, but was in reality also driven by the administrative need to encourage rapid completion of the evolution to ensure that all participants could finish the problem, as the planned timeline for the overall exercise event was running behind schedule.

It should be noted that none of the above factors excuses the inappropriate decision by the shooter to engage a target that had not been fully identified. But these are factors that are important to consider as elements of risk that can be recognized and hopefully controlled for in future training evolutions.

Interesting topic. I'll ask something about the pre-scenario training: what is the perceived penalty for a miss? For example, in classes the goal is to hit the target. Missing by an inch or two on paper is a learning moment. I place a "perceived penalty" on students for hitting a stand or not contacting any part of the target. It costs them $20. They are told to bring lots of cash to class, they have fun with it and it's never in any intro-level class. I use the money after class to buy food/drinks for students. The "perceived penalty" causes a lot of hesitation and stress. They slow down when they shoot the same target just fine at a higher rate of speed. The "game" training allows them to go faster than they would in reality because a world without consequences is a world without hesitation, and that hesitation has a dramatic affect on performance.

When sims are involved, it's very hard not to "game" it. You want to be the victor. In reality, though, you need to be afraid of the target and be afraid of missing and hitting a bystander or teammate. I would have very, very strict "perceived penalties" beforehand. If people are on an active, working team, the penalties should be something like: anyone who does something that would kill a teammate should either know beforehand that they will be kicked off of a team or sign the deed to their vehicle over to the range or guy who got shot. It should be that serious. You can't "learn" from that shit unless the conditions are similar to real life. That's the point of sims. Bringing the training as close to reality as possible. There can't be any "reality" without consequences. The "consequences" of shooting a teammate in real life are self-evident: someone doesn't come home. They should be similarly strict AND laid out BEFORE training.

Missing a target and hitting a wall is entirely different, and is a teachable moment. Identifying movement that may be dangerous, etc, etc is another, and many, many more lessons can be learned. I'm simply saying target identification and things like basic safety violations. Those are learned at the most basic of basic classes. Not at the high-speed level of an active team. If they're still learning it there, they're unqualified to do the job. There are grandmothers who can do that shit (remember basic safety rules like knowing your target and what is beyond) all day and night and might need a walker, but they wouldn't shoot a teammate.

abu fitna
10-29-2013, 02:52 PM
An interesting spread of reactions, broadly consistent with other discussion following the event. (Which is why this one led to much animated conversation).

To respond to a few points raised here:

There are no excuses made here, and I am sorry if any were read into the narrative. The factors identified are solely out of the philosophy that no incident occurs in isolation, but is rather the product of a chain of events. Controlling other events in the chain is important as well when seeking to eliminate future incidents. (For example, although not discussed, some participants' individual conditioning was identified as an area for improvement by the evolution as a whole - but was not seen as a specific factor in this incident). Ultimate responsibility still lies with the shooter who pulled the trigger.

Participants were in street clothes. A couple a bit more towards the tactical tuxedo spectrum than might be seen where they routinely travel, but definitely within normal boundaries for walking around in say NOVA or Seattle. Hostile roleplayers were also in common clothing styles.

Without getting into too much detail, the scenario is best understood as a combined multiple active shooter and enraged crowd problem modeled on some real world incidents over the past several years. Participants had a limited set of objectives to complete against the backdrop of this problem, but these were not the typical raid or rescue tasks. The key objective was of course to ensure that everyone would come home.

It should be noted that these participants were not full time at the headbanger's ball. They have other day jobs that involve different types of requirements, and the scenario represents one of the worst case outcomes someone in role such as that could face. The skillsets to deal with this kind of thing are something that are cultivated and encouraged, in order that they may be available when needed. Again, the evolution was intended to be a walk type phase, as an integrating scenario across multiple tasks under a bit more stressful and complex environmental conditions.

I appreciate very much the consideration that institutional discussion of an incident should not devolve into hazing of an individual. Some of the responses in offline conversations were a bit more of that flavour than many folks would be comfortable with. And certainly what some folks may revert to out of their own backgrounds, such as cycling the element in hard PT until a given physiological reaction occurs, is not quite appropriate in the same way for other professionals as may be assumed for uniformed ranks (at least in terms of translating to learning outcomes).

As I understand it, the two elements entering the specific area where the incident occurred was the result of the mistake made by both sides. This mistake was in that they were each sucked into trying to address uncleared space in a quite complex area which led both elements to lose track of the other's position. The geometry of the problem was such that essentially only the two parties in the FF were visible to each other. One can discuss personality factors and the temptation to push forward on the advance rather than sustaining a blocking position, but this is also a bit of a challenge as most of the folks are used to being on their own a bit more than in this scenario, which assumed a degree of cooperation (deliberately, and appropriate to the needs of the situation, but perhaps not something that comes naturally to these folks in the same way that would be seen for an LE element.)

Thanks for the thoughts and reactions. I find other perspectives quite helpful, and as always appreciate the chance to hear from y'all.

abu fitna
10-29-2013, 03:27 PM
Interesting topic. I'll ask something about the pre-scenario training: what is the perceived penalty for a miss?

...

There can't be any "reality" without consequences. The "consequences" of shooting a teammate in real life are self-evident: someone doesn't come home. They should be similarly strict AND laid out BEFORE training.

...

Missing a target and hitting a wall is entirely different, and is a teachable moment. Identifying movement that may be dangerous, etc, etc is another, and many, many more lessons can be learned. I'm simply saying target identification and things like basic safety violations.

--

.

Sorry for the immediate double post, as I didn't address this above due to it coming in as I was composing my last reply.

To answer the question - folks involved had varying degrees of pre-scenario training that emphasized target identification aspects to differing degrees. Participants had previously had shoot / no shoot training objectives incorporated routinely across multiple activities, using the usual range of techniques. Consequences in those cases ranged from downselection against formal qualification thresholds if mistakes were made, to simply pointing and mocking bad hits on paper and associated bad rankings in timed and scored drills. (I assume that many other folks have similar experiences of widely differing consistency on this question, particularly when drawing across the entirety of one's career).

You have hit upon the crux of the question. At present, the consequences are essentially the old "instructor expresses administrative disapproval for ...", coupled with allocated additional training cycles (not to mention the informal pressures placed on the individual, albeit in this case one might say quite mildly due to the good natures of those involved.) The discussion raised whether this was sufficient for this kind of simulation that was intended, or if there needed to be additional factors to reinforce the learning outcomes. From this point, it is also a question not only of how to consider consequences for individual performance; but also how to emphasize the issue in order to avoid others walking down that same chain of mistakes. Where do we draw the line in such an evolution between action as drill and action as test?

Josh Runkle
10-29-2013, 09:09 PM
Sorry for the immediate double post, as I didn't address this above due to it coming in as I was composing my last reply.

To answer the question - folks involved had varying degrees of pre-scenario training that emphasized target identification aspects to differing degrees. Participants had previously had shoot / no shoot training objectives incorporated routinely across multiple activities, using the usual range of techniques. Consequences in those cases ranged from downselection against formal qualification thresholds if mistakes were made, to simply pointing and mocking bad hits on paper and associated bad rankings in timed and scored drills. (I assume that many other folks have similar experiences of widely differing consistency on this question, particularly when drawing across the entirety of one's career).

You have hit upon the crux of the question. At present, the consequences are essentially the old "instructor expresses administrative disapproval for ...", coupled with allocated additional training cycles (not to mention the informal pressures placed on the individual, albeit in this case one might say quite mildly due to the good natures of those involved.) The discussion raised whether this was sufficient for this kind of simulation that was intended, or if there needed to be additional factors to reinforce the learning outcomes. From this point, it is also a question not only of how to consider consequences for individual performance; but also how to emphasize the issue in order to avoid others walking down that same chain of mistakes. Where do we draw the line in such an evolution between action as drill and action as test?

Drill or test is irrelevant. This is a violation of safety (know your target...). How would you treat this if they were live rounds into a vest?

Most important: What is done BEFORE training to differentiate that sims represent real drills/tests that are as close to live rounds as possible, rather than paintballing fun?

Shellback
10-30-2013, 11:08 AM
Most important: What is done BEFORE training to differentiate that sims represent real drills/tests that are as close to live rounds as possible, rather than paintballing fun?

What happened immediately following the engagement? Were the participants carrying an IFAK? Did they utilize them, attempt to administer first aid? Did they stay "in character" or did everything devolve from there in to swearing, apologies and wiping the sweat off their brows?

If the training evolution ended with dude getting shot and everyone holstering up and calling it a day I think everyone missed out on a great opportunity for training. If that's the case than it sounds like paintball fun to me.

I'm not a police officer and I don't know what typically happens in such incidents, maybe nothing. But to me it sounds like a waste of time if you don't play through the scenario as it unfolds.

Josh - I quoted you due to the paintballing analogy.

Josh Runkle
10-30-2013, 12:57 PM
What happened immediately following the engagement? Were the participants carrying an IFAK? Did they utilize them, attempt to administer first aid? Did they stay "in character" or did everything devolve from there in to swearing, apologies and wiping the sweat off their brows?

If the training evolution ended with dude getting shot and everyone holstering up and calling it a day I think everyone missed out on a great opportunity for training. If that's the case than it sounds like paintball fun to me.

I'm not a police officer and I don't know what typically happens in such incidents, maybe nothing. But to me it sounds like a waste of time if you don't play through the scenario as it unfolds.

Josh - I quoted you due to the paintballing analogy.

I think that's an excellent point of something that could be added to a scenario, addressed beforehand, etc. Obviously I'm a little harsher about penalties/consequences (which should be laid out beforehand) but your point about continuing the drill/training is an excellent one.

Shellback
10-30-2013, 01:17 PM
I think that's an excellent point of something that could be added to a scenario, addressed beforehand, etc. Obviously I'm a little harsher about penalties/consequences (which should be laid out beforehand) but your point about continuing the drill/training is an excellent one.

My frame of reference is from the military and doing various drills so it may not be applicable. In training we were taught to work through any evolving problems, casualties, etc. on the fly as if things were really going down. Unless someone was seriously hurt, you roll with the punches and deal with Murphy, cause he ain't taking a day off when the real deal happens.

Just my thoughts... If you're participating in an evolution like this and somebody goes down due to "friendly fire", or it's the bad dudes, then medical aid should be rendered or whatever SOP is, otherwise you're just playing Cowboys & Indians. If you mistakenly just shot your fellow officer, what would you do?!?!

If Billy got shot in real life would you yell "Cease fire!" and dissect what just happened? Or would you attempt to eliminate any immediate threats, regroup, set up a perimeter of sorts, assess Billy's condition and render aid if possible, and then have the rest of your guys go through the building in a more methodical manner? To me it makes much more sense to treat your actual drills as if they were real life situations with real life consequences, like you'd mentioned.

I'm assuming that most people don't train this way and maybe for some it's a little bit over the top. Do police ever train to patch holes while trying not to get smacked with a Sims round? Maybe there's merit to it and things should be reevaluated? Or maybe I'm in left field... That happens on occasion. :)

nwhpfan
10-30-2013, 01:38 PM
I think IRISH makes a great point; If you eff it up, at least do what you would do if you actually did it....

But I think the OP was refering to what to do with the shooter in terms of the safety and common sense gun use violations they made.

But I also want to know; who are these people? Are they law enforcement, military, security, fantassy SWAT camp, paint-ball club?

ToddG
10-30-2013, 03:47 PM
For all of the "they should have treated him as if he'd killed a teammate" folks: You're essentially saying no one should engage in FOF training until he's reached a point where he's ready to go operational.

Think about that for a second. The OP clearly stated this wasn't the final exercise for a well oiled team. This was training. That's where we want the mistakes to happen. But you want to hold the student to a standard he may not have achieved yet.

The mere fact that it was Sims rather than cardboard/steel in a shoot house isn't enough to determine what kind of background or training the student had, nor how much more training he was likely to get before anyone expected him to be competent. Plenty of training programs begin using FOF very early and they cannot simply deep six every student who blunders.

Ditto for the "react to the wound" idea: did the students have training in how to do that yet? Did the handlers/instructors understand what happened right away? Was it better to address the mistake ASAP than run through a separate unplanned exercise? Again, the answers to these questions are going to depend on where the team was in the training cycle.

I think a lot of folks get "FOF" and "final exam" mixed up, but the two aren't always synonymous.

TGS
10-30-2013, 05:14 PM
In my FoF training, blue on blue usually occurred in the heat of the moment when there was still a vicious fight going on.

Thus, we never bothered treating the casualty, as pushing the fight at that point was the priority. Buddy aid is a luxury that usually is not afforded.

But, I agree that staying in character is important. We did, and it was addressed as a learning point afterwards.

I'll also argue that zero-defect mentalities have little place in training....well, if you want anything resembling learning to realistically occur, that is.


I think a lot of folks get "FOF" and "final exam" mixed up, but the two aren't always synonymous.

Very succinct!

Dropkick
10-30-2013, 05:56 PM
Another thing to think about:
With the stuff that I've done, I've typically notice two groups of people: First is people who screw up in training and as a result train more & harder. And second, people who screw up in training and don't seek improvement. (I checked that box; that's not what I'm good at; etc.)

So, I would think that tailoring how to correct a error might be as personal as the person who committed the error.

Josh Runkle
10-30-2013, 07:09 PM
For all of the "they should have treated him as if he'd killed a teammate" folks: You're essentially saying no one should engage in FOF training until he's reached a point where he's ready to go operational.

Think about that for a second. The OP clearly stated this wasn't the final exercise for a well oiled team. This was training. That's where we want the mistakes to happen. But you want to hold the student to a standard he may not have achieved yet.

The mere fact that it was Sims rather than cardboard/steel in a shoot house isn't enough to determine what kind of background or training the student had, nor how much more training he was likely to get before anyone expected him to be competent. Plenty of training programs begin using FOF very early and they cannot simply deep six every student who blunders.

Ditto for the "react to the wound" idea: did the students have training in how to do that yet? Did the handlers/instructors understand what happened right away? Was it better to address the mistake ASAP than run through a separate unplanned exercise? Again, the answers to these questions are going to depend on where the team was in the training cycle.

I think a lot of folks get "FOF" and "final exam" mixed up, but the two aren't always synonymous.

Would you allow a student to participate in a class and draw from the holster if they couldn't follow a basic safety rule? Knowing your target and what is beyond is a basic safety rule. He didn't "miss" and make a mistake which hit a teammate (learning that should take place), instead he violated a basic safety rule and didn't identify his target.

I don't think he should be profaned, I just think that someone who can't follow basic rules: 1) needs remedial training on basic rules 2) shouldn't be operating at a level that he can't handle (he can't follow basic safety...would you want a guy on a team that couldn't keep his finger off the trigger?) 3) "perceived penalties/consequences" are useless afterward, they need to be addressed beforehand, because they shape the way that people treat the scenarios and they affect the way that people shoot and hesitate while shooting.

Shellback
10-30-2013, 07:30 PM
Ditto for the "react to the wound" idea: did the students have training in how to do that yet? Did the handlers/instructors understand what happened right away? Was it better to address the mistake ASAP than run through a separate unplanned exercise? Again, the answers to these questions are going to depend on where the team was in the training cycle.

1) I don't know. 2) I don't know. 3) I don't know.

My reason for presenting what I did and asking questions was to further the conversation and whether those ideas were relevant to that type of training. I wasn't attacking the OP, the participants or their actions.

ETA - Several people, both publicly and via PM, have thanked me for bringing the topic up so I would think it's relevant to the thread.

ToddG
10-30-2013, 08:59 PM
Would you allow a student to participate in a class and draw from the holster if they couldn't follow a basic safety rule?

"Couldn't follow" implies an unwillingness or inability to conform to accepted norms after the error has been identified and communicated. So no, in that instance I would not allow someone to continue.

Do I kick people out of class the very first time I see them trigger check in a ready position? No, I do not. Nor do I know any other trainer who does so, though I have no doubt someone will come along and claim otherwise.

My job is to teach people, not judge them.

Furthermore and more importantly, the analogy is a poor one because violating safety rules with lives guns actually endangers others while making mistakes with Sims or similar guns does not. That's the entire reason Sims exists... so people can do things, learn things, try things in a way they couldn't with live weapons.

There are Hollywood movie "weapons/prop masters" who train actors folks 100% using Sims specifically so that accidents aren't deadly. I'm sure they don't kick people out the first time they point a gun in an unsafe direction, either.

I've been to major USPSA and IDPA matches were people got DQd for safety reasons... but they didn't get banned from the sport.

Etc., etc.

Josh Runkle
10-31-2013, 01:00 AM
"Couldn't follow" implies an unwillingness or inability to conform to accepted norms after the error has been identified and communicated. So no, in that instance I would not allow someone to continue.

Do I kick people out of class the very first time I see them trigger check in a ready position? No, I do not. Nor do I know any other trainer who does so, though I have no doubt someone will come along and claim otherwise.

My job is to teach people, not judge them.

Furthermore and more importantly, the analogy is a poor one because violating safety rules with lives guns actually endangers others while making mistakes with Sims or similar guns does not. That's the entire reason Sims exists... so people can do things, learn things, try things in a way they couldn't with live weapons.

There are Hollywood movie "weapons/prop masters" who train actors folks 100% using Sims specifically so that accidents aren't deadly. I'm sure they don't kick people out the first time they point a gun in an unsafe direction, either.

I've been to major USPSA and IDPA matches were people got DQd for safety reasons... but they didn't get banned from the sport.

Etc., etc.

I wouldn't kick someone out of a class either, but I also wouldn't let someone run and draw from a holster if they continually keep their finger on the trigger. That is how accidents happen. I would focus on remedying the situation before furthering the lesson. Walking before running, so to speak.

Identifying a target is basic skill, and if we were talking about actors in Hollywood, this would be perfectly fine. Unfortunately, we're talking about someone who does this one thing in real life on an active team (as it appears). How many times do you think "identify your target" (or some form of that) has been drilled into that guy's head? It's not a training mistake. It's a lapse in basic safety. While you might let someone continue in a class with some restrictions if they had some lapses in safety (you'd watch closer, you'd correct more often, you might not let them shoot all of the drills, you might even send them home), you're telling me that a lapse in safety by someone who works on an active team should instead be brushed off and require no restrictions?

Kevin B.
10-31-2013, 01:43 AM
It's a lapse in basic safety.

While I do not think the shooter acted appropriately, I think that is an oversimplification of the issue.

An unfortunate result of placing student in more complex problems is that the mistakes they make have more serious consequences. As Todd points out, failure is a part of training. The question here is whether or not this particular failure is one we would reasonably expect of an individual with the shooter's level of training and experience under the circumstances.

If the answer is "Yes," then we should address the causal factors, especially the shooter's failure to PID his target, and remediate the shooter/team as appropriate. If the answer is "No," then the shooter probably needs to seek employment elsewhere.

Josh Runkle
10-31-2013, 01:45 AM
While I do not think the shooter acted appropriately, I think that is an oversimplification of the issue.

An unfortunate result of placing student in more complex problems is that the mistakes they make have more serious consequences. As Todd points out, failure is a part of training. The question here is whether or not this particular failure is one we would reasonably expect of an individual with the shooter's level of training and experience under the circumstances.

If the answer is "Yes," then we should address the causal factors, especially the shooter's failure to PID his target, and remediate the shooter/team as appropriate. If the answer is "No," then the shooter probably needs to seek employment elsewhere.

I agree with all points wholeheartedly. Absolutely.

abu fitna
10-31-2013, 09:50 AM
Folks, I very much appreciate the robustness of this discussion. I think this definitely mirrors much of the offline conversation around this class of issue, and brought out much the same degree of intensity and polarization.

Suffice it to say, this wasn't just paintball - and the expectations for those involved were calibrated as such through pre-briefs and definition of training outcomes objectives. These are working professionals whose selection was for hard to acquire skills and personality traits relevant to other areas, and where tactical skills are a set of competencies that are needed due to the environments in which these folks may find themselves. The different participants have acquired those skills over varying prior careers and through ongoing training experiences, but ultimately these are "additional duties as assigned", which many also augment through personal training and practice on their own dime and clock. How they come together for a job, and how they work over time apart and as a unit, also differs from some of the models that are more routinely seen. As a result, the LE oriented team stand up and individual certification or decertification concepts aren't quite applicable in the same way - although there is definitely a series of behaviors which would result in an individual not being placed into a potentially hostile situation ever again, including being encouraged to find another line of work.

There is routinely a class of training for some folks that is designed to push participants through some very worst case scenarios, exactly to see at what point the wheels come off for a variety of skillsets. The idea is to do so in a setting where there are not the same consequences as in the real world. I think this is where the debate keeps coming back to - whether or not the level of consequences, while not the same as in the real world, are nonetheless sufficient to prevent occurrence of potentially lethal mistakes in the future.

To answer a few questions, the incident was addressed in scope within the scenario immediate after the shooting through a casualty assessment (with attending swearing). But this was done with a few participants, while others held security for the room. This was adjudicated as a vest save, so all participants continued to complete the exercise stage. The thinking was that it was important that the participants push through and perform under any hardship. The behavior of the elements were much, much more conservative in the last minutes of the stage - but they completed.

Obviously, had this resulted in an injury to a participant, it would have resulted in endex. From a safety perspective, the idea that someone may take a simunitions round in the wrong way was considered, and if needed response would have been appropriate from an administrative / medical requirement. Had this been live fire, the reaction would also have been much, much different. But to be blunt, the number of complexity factors involved in the scenario meant that it is unlikely that such an event would have been run live fire unless it was a real world worst case action. Different skills are practiced and tested in different ways, and what was being looked at in this kind of scenario is not the same as one looks at in square range or even a relatively simpler shoot house problem where many of the tested elements are decomposed into shorter drills run under tighter controls (more ROs, no live hostile roleplayers, etc.)

I am grateful to those who weighed in with their perspectives and experiences. I think the ways in which folks broke down the issues, and considered the implications, highlights an interesting fault line in applying different concepts of training across different cohorts and in varying activities. There is probably a paper in there somewhere...

Thanks much for all your thoughts.

ToddG
10-31-2013, 10:07 AM
I wouldn't kick someone out of a class either, but I also wouldn't let someone run and draw from a holster if they continually keep their finger on the trigger.

Exactly. This wasn't -- as far as we know -- a mistake made for the 10th time by the same guy. I agree completely (and have said earlier) that if the guy failed this test over and over again, he needs to be kicked. Otherwise, the point of FOF is to learn, not to punish.