Firearms Trainers Association

[Default.mp3]

Several firearms instructor associations exist; thus, proving my previous statement that they will only matter to those people who think they matter.

Serpas and Judges sell; so does bad firearms instruction.

The fact that so much bad instruction exists is proof that the masses either don't do any vetting or don't have a frame of reference to make a proper distinction between good and bad, See Serpas and Judges statement.

If Pistol-Forum were to form an accrediting body for firearms instructors, and Ken Hackathorn doesn't join it, does that mean he is a bad instructor that people should avoid?

Couldn't someone like Yeager put together enough acolytes to form their own competing association thus bringing the whole issue of proper vetting and frames of reference back into play?

Pincus has an instructor organization. If you think he teaches good stuff, its accreditation would matter to you. If you don't think he teaches good stuff, its accreditation would tell you to stay away.

I'm on the board of directors for a statewide LE firearms instructor association. Dysfunction is the order of the day, and derp is an organizational principle.Well, PF never did create an accrediting body, but it looks like Hackathorn did:


The state of firearms training in the United States is a mess and does not further the interests of law abiding firearms enthusiasts. Perception of firearms enthusiasts is so crucial to our civil rights provided in the 2nd Amendment. However, the unregulated internet world of posting videos and attempting to obtain celebrity through inappropriate tactics, ill founded curriculum, lack of safety and unprofessionalism highlights the need for creation of an organization that protects and professionalizes the profession of Firearms Trainers, in an apolitical way.

Therefore, we are proud to announce the formation of the Firearms Trainers Association, www.FTAProtect.com (http://www.FTAProtect.com). The FTA is an organization founded by 5 of the most well respected and distinguished professional firearms trainers in the world. Ken Hackathorn-Chairman, Larry Vickers-Vice Chairman, and Board members Jeff Gonzales, Dave Spaulding and Scott Reidy have worked with 2A Association Management and Executive Director Kyle Sweet, to create for the first time, an organization delivering national standards for firearms trainers, protecting the profession of firearms training through standards, insurance (professional liability and property and casualty), business development services, curriculum certification, safety and risk management. The Board members have decades of training experience in military and law enforcement and have dedicated their professional lives to training all levels of civilians. Their recognition of the need to create a mechanism to serve the interests of firearms trainers as well as increase the professionalism of the profession through their experiences, resources and core values lead them to create FTA.

Firearms Trainers Association will provide content that has been vetted, is reliable and trustworthy in addition to being tactically sound. FTA, operating with the the hashtag #ProtectingtheProfession (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=ProtectingtheProfession) will provide three levels of membership to firearms trainers based on the extent of their teaching and career in the industry. FTA will serve as the industry leader in providing professional development to trainers through resources, networking, marketing assistance (including joint marketing initiatives), web content consulting, video safety briefings from Board Members, and legal forms for Waivers of Liability, and other business related forms as well as use of the FTA logo in marketing and training materials. A comprehensive suite of insurance services are provided with each membership. Certificates of Insurance are available to all members when needing them for conducting classes. Insurance is provided to the FTA through 2A Insurance, a Captive Insurance company reinsured through Port Royal Captive Re-Insurance. FTA has established for it’s members the only stable insurance in the firearms industry available to trainers. This insurance is not subject to political changes, protest or tragic event. It exists for the purpose of protecting the interests of it’s firearms associations.

Level 1: Instructor: this level is for members who teach an occasional class such as Self Defense Act courses to license individuals for a concealed carry permit. NRA basic instructors who teach occasionally.

Level 2: Teacher: This level is for those teaching classes regularly, has had more advanced training themselves and possesses more advanced certifications. Someone who teaches classes beyond mere concealed carry classes, such as tactics, but does not do this for a living.

Level 3: Professional: someone with significant advanced training from military, law enforcement or significant civilian firearms training who is a firearms trainer for a living. The Professional level of membership will require peer reviewed acceptance by the 5 Founders.

All memberships are priced at $400. Payment online is available at www.FTAProtect.com (http://www.FTAProtect.com) For those who are not trainers and do not need the insurance for a trainer but want access to the content, and support the mission to create standards for trainers and training, an auxiliary membership is available for $100 per year. Support Members will have access to all content and information of all levels of membership.

For more information or access to Board members for media inquiries and interviews please contact Kyle Sweet at 405-684-0900 or e-mail info@FTAProtect.comSource: http://soldiersystems.net/2018/03/10/announcing-the-creation-of-the-firearms-trainers-association/

[KeeFus]

24351

...I will just say that they wont get membership from many people if their website isn’t in English. And at $400 a membership what will they offer other than a sticker and a membership card?

[TQP]

A lot of the internal links are dead too.

[RJ]

Wow.

If an organization can’t manage to roll out a coherent web site, how can anyone expect them to provide a professional level of service?

I sure wish them well, and welcome a new training organization, but every hour this web site stays up in this form gives detractors a chance to ridicule them. They really need to switch to an ‘under construction’ banner and sort this out.

[Totem Polar]

Wow.

If an organization can’t manage to roll out a coherent web site, how can anyone expect them to provide a professional level of service?

I sure wish them well, and welcome a new training organization, but every hour this web site stays up in this form gives detractors a chance to ridicule them. They really need to switch to an ‘under construction’ banner and sort this out.

Well, you want them to shoot; or to code, nancy-boy?

Nah, just kidding. ;)

Don't any of them have a grandkid or two who could sort that out for them?

Regardless, it's a great group of instructors, and I wish them well. It will be interesting to see how this nascent "certification" industry plays out between the independents/affiliate programs, the Ford V Chevy collectives (of which this is a good example) and the glossy big box offerings (eg. "carry guard").

[Erick Gelhaus]

Saw the announcement on SSD - Spaulding alluded to it after SHOT. Went to website, saw what you all saw; looked at the FB page; and then tried registering for the email. Now I’m getting emails from a CCW org rather than the entity I signed up for.

On to the premise ... the idea is a good, needed one. I’m curious about how they plan on doing the vetting of Lesson plans, course material, and the like. Will it be off of format or content? What about specialized subject matter that may be a wee bit different than the knowledge base of the original five - such as an armed parent class or a class on criminal violence. Having seen the arguments between mil veterans and experiences street cops over context specific training some of this may be really interesting.

[Drang]

I don't know whether to LMAO or SMH that the acronym is FTA...

(I'm sure some here will get it.)


Also: The "Lorem Ipsum" is a standard placeholder text, found, among other places, in my first blog post. They should have replaced it before the links were made live.

[El Cid]

Sorry. There is no way I'm giving Hack and LAV $400 a year for anything.

[greyghost]

It is a terrible roll-out.

The Contact Us page has an email link to support@ccwsafe.com

24361

[Hambo]

First, shoot the webmaster.

I'll give them credit for trying to professionalize firearms training, but the idiots aren't going to up their training game to join. They'll just YouTube and Instagram harder.

[gtmtnbiker98]

Nothing more than a revenue stream for those involved. IMO, Rangemaster certification is the current Gold Standard.

[David S.]

I’m not clear, are they charging students or instructors $400/yr to be members?

[Drang]

I’m not clear, are they charging students or instructors $400/yr to be members?
That article says an "associate membership" is $100/year, for non-trainers. (No insurance, access to content.)

BTW, they've replaced the Lorum Ipsum with English. I expect someone got a beat down over that. However, the About Us is still the only page with content, so maybe not.

[chances R]

I’m not clear, are they charging students or instructors $400/yr to be members?

The way I understand it, all levels except the 'associate' are $400. Going to have to have a lot of benefits for that amount IMO. I agree that RangeMaster is a current gold standard as well as certain levels of NRA. At this time it just appears to be a 'branding' for the some of the names in training. The reality is that the general public simply does not train; and if they do it is certainly not feasible of desired to do so to a 'tactical' but a 'practical' level.

[David S.]

I expect instructors would get a certain street cred for their participation. I'm curious what the student gets for his dues.

One of the challenges that I face with my site is going to be monetization, the lack of which keeps me from updating and building it the way I should. (Not whining, I swear.)

Either way, I think the industry could use dozens of associations (PDN, Rangemaster, etc) and promotion sites (like mine) to make it easier for instructors and students to find each other.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Having been involved in professional accreditation, I would ask:

1. What are their site visit plans and how often? Will the members be tested and how often? Will the members be charged for a visit about the membership fee.
2. What is their liability when one of their members goes awry? I'd also take a long hard luck at their insurance providers. Claims they are best, well ...
3. What are the standards for removal from the approved list?
4. There really isn't a set of accepted training standards in the business while such might exist for other professions. There are accredited law enforcement and fire training programs. Will they devise one course or set of courses that pass their standards? Many instructors only get one time intro visitors.

Some training outfits have quite a few instructors and adjuncts. That's a lot of money to fork over.

Just questions - not in the business but having been in accreditation scenarios and having to write lengthy reports - it ain't that simple.

[RJ]

4. There really isn't a set of accepted training standards in the business while such might exist for other professions. There are accredited law enforcement and fire training programs. Will they devise one course or set of courses that pass their standards? Many instructors only get one time intro visitors.

Some training outfits have quite a few instructors and adjuncts. That's a lot of money to fork over.

Just questions - not in the business but having been in accreditation scenarios and having to write lengthy reports - it ain't that simple.

This is a very cogent observation.

I have a fairly lengthy background in Instructional System Design. One of the concepts frequently applied in ISD is the ADDIE model.

Without going into too much detail, the “A” stands for Analysis:

“In the analysis phase, instructional problem is clarified, the instructional goals and objectives are established and the learning environment and learner's existing knowledge and skills are identified. Below are some of the questions that are addressed during the analysis phase:

* Who is the audience and their characteristics?
* Identify the new behavioral outcome?
* What types of learning constraints exist?
* What are the delivery options?
* What are the online pedagogical considerations?
* What is the timeline for project completion?”

So here is the key point: unless you can determine the new behavior outcome, it is impossible to converge on a training curriculum. Your instructional media will devolve into addressing ‘your’ particular SMEs worldview on what they see needing solved.

That’s kinda what I see happening here. No question these instructors are top guys, but you are going to get what they consider ‘their’ program, like it or not. That may or may not be worth $400.



More here, in case of interest:

www.instructionaldesign.org

[Glenn E. Meyer]

God save us from having to write assessment plans, implement and then write them up! Glad I'm retired as my old job is tooling up for an accreditation review and site visits. Nothing like sitting there and having some pompous old toot grill you.

If you are one of the folks interviewed and critique your organization - well, that's fun and games for a bit!

Instructor X - you have said that the Gluger 27 is not a good carry gun. You mean my special version of the Gluger (http://mylimitededitonspecialgluger.futz) cannot be shot well because of the grip angle and you don't recommend a gun without a manual safety. Care to explain?

I have sat in classes where the instructor denounced the Gluger as ineffective as compared to the 1913. Later that instructor switch to the Gluber. :o

Just saying.

[chances R]

...and some organizations become more exclusive rather inclusive. I got mine let’s make it a little harder for you to get yours.

[Sherman A. House DDS]

I think Tom Givens’, “Rangemaster Certified Instructor,” programs for pistol and shotgun are the current, most relevant instructor benchmarks for civilian instructors.

(And I don’t just offer that because I am one.)

Here in TN, Tom’s program is the ONLY educational program aside from the NRA courses, that allow an applicant to be recognized by the State of TN to be permitted to teach permit classes. Yes, we all know most state permit classes suck, but it’s nice to know that if the instructor came up on Rangemaster’s path, that they have a wide knowledge base relative to the topic AND have demonstrated their skills on a challenging course of fire.


civiliandefender.com