PDA

View Full Version : AAR Centrifuge Training Vehicle CQB.



Thn9mm
03-03-2020, 10:37 PM
Centrifuge Training Vehicle CQB.
https://centrifugetraining.com/courses/vcqb/
February 22-23, 2020
Location: Grandview, TX. Range 35

Costs: Tuition: $550. Range Fee: $40 (covers both days). Hotel $130. Gas $50. Food $40
Students: 15 adult males.
Instructors: Lead Instructor: Bryan Veliz , Assistant Instructors: Bones, Chase.
Student:Teacher ratio= 5:1
Round count: 650 approximately.
Weather: Cloudy, cold. Day one was in the lower 50’s, day two was warmer in the low 60’s with winds and occasional sprinkles.
Day One: 9AM-5:30PM. Day Two: 9AM-3:30 PM

I have no financial conflicts of interest with anyone or any product discussed in this review.

Vehicle CQB (VCQB) is a signature two-day course from Centrifuge Training, of William Petty fame. This course was taught by Bryan Veliz, who is part of the instructor cadre at Centrifuge Training. Bryan was supported by two assistant instructors (AI), who were quite capable themselves. There were fifteen students, six of whom were active LE. Two of the six were in SWAT and one was a federal officer. It was notable that none of the LE/SWAT/Federal students had vehicle CQB training despite decades of service. One student flew from Hawaii to attend. The rest of us were motivated civilians. There were three industry people: a marketing person from Walther and a freelance photographer/writer as his partner, and a representative from Cheaper Than Dirt. I am a civilian without any LE/military experience. This is my third vehicle specific class. My first two classes were both with Aaron Cowan (Vehicle Dynamics) in 2016, and in November 2019. Aaron told us in the last class that he teaches vehicle fighting at the high school level and that Will Petty teaches at the Phd or Doctorate level (this is very modest of Aaron as his class is very good). Although Will Petty was not teaching, this class was challenging enough and at minimum, was at the university level. Since I have had the privilege of learning vehicle training with both Sage Dynamics (SD) and Centrifuge Training (CT), I will highlight the strengths/weaknesses of both.

Equipment: The course encourages you to wear what you normally wear for your profession. LE folks were kitted up with armor/assault gear and civilians varied. Some had “war belts”, others had OWB, and a third carried appendix. Suggested equipment https://centrifugetraining.com/courses/vcqb/

My gear consisted of:
1. Pistol: Shadow Systems MR918 Elite with ZEV PRO Compensator V2, RMR09 (1 MOA), Surefire 300U-B WML. Back up was another Shadow Systems MR918.
2. Magazines: mixture of Glock OEM and Magpul mags.
3. Holster: AIWB with Tier 1 Concealment holster Axis Elite https://www.tier1concealed.com/products/axis-elite
4. Belt: Blue Alpha Gear COBRA EDC belt https://www.bluealphagear.com/product/cobra-edc-belt/
5. IFAK was North American Rescue Mini Responder 4, Hyfin Compact chest seals, Soft-T tourniquet. All of this fit in my back jean pocket.
6. Ear Pro: Howard Leight with Noisefighter Sightline gel ear pads. https://noisefighters.com/products/sightlines1 I doubled up with inside the ear Surefire EP3 plugs for most of the class, especially for the inside vehicle portion.
7. Clothing: Nike compression tights under blue jeans, Under Armour compression long sleeve shirt, Scarf and beanie, Smith Aegis eye pro with prescription inserts. Outer layer was Northface fleece hoodie. The clothing combination worked well, keeping me warm without overheating. Glove only on my left hand. Used hand warmers in the pocket of my hoodie to keep my shooting hand warm. The gear list called for knee pads. I brought some but did not use them.

With already two vehicle specific classes under my belt, I was a little hesitant to enroll in another. However, Aaron highly recommended Will Petty and so off I went. The fact that it was NOT Will Petty teaching was a little disappointment, only because I was not informed as a student. To be fair, when you sign up on the Centrifuge website, it does not specify that Will Petty will be teaching the class. Now Bryan and his two AI did a great job and I would have enrolled anyway but more transparency is always better.

Preparation for class:
1. Reviewing past AARs:
a. https://civiliangunfighter.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/aar2-centrifuge-training-llc-will-petty-chase-jenkins-vcqb-alliance-oh-june-29-30-2019/
b. https://civiliangunfighter.wordpress.com/2019/07/08/aar-centrifuge-training-will-petty-vehicle-close-quarters-battle-alliance-oh-6-29-30-19/
2. Video:
a. Centrifuge Vehicle CQB Video: I purchased this module on Vimeo and reviewed it many times. Although Will Petty recorded this in 2015, the concepts and techniques are fundamentally the same. Bryan presented the information almost exactly as Will Petty did in the video, which was great because if you were familiar with the concepts from the video, then you could concentrate more on application in the class.
b. Reviewed the many videos I took from my Vehicle Dynamics class with Aaron Cowan

3. Physical: the drills were of short duration but high in intensity. Lunges, Kettle bells, Turkish get-ups, and burpees are great exercises to prepare for this course. Work on flexibility, especially of your hips and legs. Travis Haley has a workout routine on YouTube that is directly applicable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMpmnDU4nmM

I will not be discussing the details of each day as the AAR above from Civilian Gunfighter was well written and descriptive already. After learning the mechanics of movement inside the vehicle (ITV) and outside the vehicle (OTV), seat belt manipulation, and muzzle management, Bryan taught multiple ITV and OTV drills. These drills were not meant to be scenarios but opportunities to learn movement and shooting in and around vehicles.


Key takeaway concepts (not in order of importance)
1. CQB defined is SUDDEN violence, HIGH intensity, at SHORT distances
2. It is always about the gun. If you have a threat in the immediate vicinity, then the priority is to get good hits on target rather than other tasks (clearing seatbelt). Getting good hits on target ends the threat, not anything else.
3. Sometimes it is about the car. If the threat is far enough away, or you have time, then drive away. If the threat is closer and you cannot get the gun out, then run-over the threat. Lethal force is lethal force whether it is a vehicle or a gun or a knife.
4. It is better to shoot over, around and under a car than to shoot through it. Any rounds hitting the car will be absorbed or deflected so your hits are not predictable. Rounds hitting the car are rounds missing the target.
5. Standing is better than squatting, squatting is better than kneeling, and kneeling is better than urban prone. Visualization and mobility are the priorities.
6. Fight in the position you find yourself in, versus the position you want to be in. Take care of the threat, THEN shift or move to the better position.
7. Sooner is better than faster. Read the situation and initiate your actions (whether it be drawing and shooting or exiting to better position) sooner so that you do not have to react behind the curve and try to go fast. Going fast often makes the wheels fall off.
8. Go to the front line. If you have a partner that is in front already engaging a threat, come up parallel with your partner in front behind cover to support. Do not shoot behind your partner!
9. If you do not have to fight in and around a vehicle then don’t.
10. If you do have to fight in and around a vehicle, then get out of the vehicle as fast as you can. Cars are bullet magnets, get out. Incoming rounds through the windshield deflect down to hit you.
11. If you must engage inside the vehicle and the threat is to the side, don’t just rotate your upper torso. Rotate and center your hips to the threat for a more stable platform. Use the car’s props (center console, door frame) and legs to brace yourself (this is where flexibility of hips and legs is useful). More stable platform = better hits.
12. Don’t worry about whether you should get the gun out first or clear the seat belt. IF there is an immediate threat, then the priority is threat. If there is a lull, then task is seat belt. Priority > task.
13. Solve one problem at a time. When there are multiple issues, prioritize what is most important and solve one problem at a time.
14. Do NOT stand in the V notch (space between an opened front door and the cabin). Rounds will go through that front window and door. Better place is the rear of your vehicle.
15. High ground wins fights. When exiting the car, move asap to the rear where you have high ground and visibility. Statistically, the person at the rear wins the gunfight compared to a person at the front.
16. Stack your pillars when at the rear so that you are behind the A, B, and C pillars. Learn to shoot accurately leaning to side. Do the same at the side, position yourself so that more than one pillar is between you and the incoming rounds.
17. When at the rear, the outside knee is ideally up (but refer to #6).
18. When in urban prone, the opposite knee is draped over and grounded (knee touching ground) to provide stability in the shooting platform. For example, in left urban prone, the right knee drapes over in front and touches the ground.
19. When scanning for and engaging threats, check for all high targets first then check low. In other words, don’t switch from high to low to high. Check for all threats when standing or crouching, then urban prone on both sides to check for low lying threats.
20. The temple or holster index positions are positions of movement, they are not ready positions.
21. When running to a car you don’t know for cover, quickly scan the cabin interior to ensure there are no innocents or accomplices to surprise you.
22. Keep at least an arm’s length from the vehicle. Don’t crowd the vehicle!
23. Check your surroundings at every level before rising to the next.

We ended early on Sunday around 1530 as we had completed all the instruction. According to Bryan, this was in large part due to the class’s solid fundamentals and skills. In many classes, Bryan has had to teach at a slower pace and even then, some classes do not complete the entire curriculum.
We returned to the classroom to analyze more videos, debrief, and end.

Observations
Students: The students in class were outstanding. Everyone was safe, had solid fundamentals, and was friendly. Other than a recent Paul Howe class, I rarely see such a high number of active LE students.

Competition: The students who were competitive shooters tended to run too fast in the drills. They were often reminded to slow down, get better hits, and not go beyond their headlights.

Range Habits: Although we were instructed to treat each drill like a gunfight, some students carried range habits that would have hurt them in combat. For example, picking up empty magazines and re-inserting them into holsters or dump pouches during the fight or press checking too often.

Physical fitness still counts: Several of the students were clearly out of shape. You saw their struggles in movement and stamina. They persevered, however, and completed every drill well. There was never any emphasis on speed in this class. The stress was on proper mechanics and getting good hits.

Assistant Instructors: The AIs challenged us more than Bryan did. They induced more malfunctions for us, they held us more accountable to good hits, they gave us more verbal stress (Come on, fix that gun. He’s shooting at you! Give me four more on black!), etc. I welcomed this and never felt it was malicious. They were also judicious in their stress inducements. Students who were struggling physically or mechanically were left alone except for correcting their techniques. Others who were doing well received more stress stimulation.

Gear: double up on ear protection when doing inside the vehicle drills. If you or your partner have pistol compensators then double protection is key. A Safariland holster snapped from one of the LE students. I do not know what model it was. The problem was rectified with duct tape. No one’s pistol failed. Most had Glocks, two had Walthers, I had my Shadow Systems, and one had an FN 509. A third of the students had RDS and the others used iron sights. Two of us had compensators. If you wear Polar fleece like I did, then expect hay and grass to stick to you. By day’s end, I looked like a human haystack. Preload your mags if possible. I preloaded 18 magazines and this gave me more rest or chat time as needed. Hand warmers were helpful to keep your non-gloved hand warm.

SAGE DYNAMICS AND CENTRIFUGE TRAINING COMPARED
I will now be comparing vehicle training between SD and CT. Both are excellent options for learning how to fight in and out of your vehicle, so take them both. They are more similar than different but there are important differences in instruction, skill sets, and concepts. Do you need both? Yes, absolutely. There are so many concepts and intricacies with vehicle fighting that you need to take at least two courses, with different instructors, and preferably within 6 months of each other to solidify the concepts and techniques. For reference, CT will refer to Centrifuge Training and or Bryan and the assistant instructors. SD will refer to Sage Dynamics and or Aaron Cowan. I will be comparing and contrasting in these categories: Safety, Didactics/classroom, Vehicle Ballistics, Student composition, Range facilities, Instructors, Quality of Feedback and Personal Attention, Use of Targets, Drills and Techniques, Down time and physical exertion, Qualifications and standards, Cost, and finally Customer service.

Safety
I felt safe at all times in both SD and CT classes. Medical kits, evacuation plan and car, designated primary and secondary rescuer, coordinates, etc were all reviewed at the beginning and after lunch of each day. Aaron had big boy rules and ran a hot range as long as you were safe. Bryan did not specify hot or cold but essentially administered a cold range. You were hot on line and between drills but then unloaded and cleared before certain drills, before lunch and at the day’s end. Both styles worked. The students were also a major safety factor. Everyone had safety fundamentals down and no one was “that guy”.

Didactics/Classroom
CT had a classroom portion on both days whereas SD did not. The didactic portion was a short power point presentation on the fundamentals of vehicle CQB. Bryan discussed principles and then showed videos of either police or citizen engagements that applied. Seeing the videos were crucial, as you saw the real-life consequences of positioning, ballistics, sooner better than faster, high ground, movement, etc. Aaron verbally taught principles, but without the videos to reinforce, it was less effective.

Vehicle Ballistics
CT demonstrated with 9mm (115, 124, 147 gr, FMJ and HP), 556 XM193, and shotgun on the A and B pillars of a four-door vehicle, as well as bullet deflection when shooting outside and inside the vehicle. SD did the same but was more comprehensive. Green Tips, 7.62, 308 were also used in addition to the ammunition mentioned. Furthermore, Aaron shot up the C pillars as well (not very effective as cover compared to A, B), through the trunk (M855 went through) and through the side doors and side windows. He also shot from back to front through the rear and front windshields. SD encouraged students to bring their rifles and try them on the cars. Both CT and SD placed targets near the car to show when fragmentation and penetration occurred. CT emphasized that it is better to shoot above, around, or under rather than through a car. SD, however, showed that you can shoot through a vehicle and expect some hits if your threat was behind a side door or side window. Now Bryan did mention that this could be done as well. But without demonstrating the ballistics, students may not be as impressed. The more comprehensive nature of vehicle ballistics in SD was helpful.

Student Composition
The class with SD was larger at 20 students and there was one active LEO. In contrast, there were 15 students in CT and six were active LE/Federal. There were two AIs with CT compared to only one with SD. This made the student:teacher ratio quite lopsided, with CT being 5:1 and SD being 10:1. The smaller student-teacher ratio with CT translated to more personal feedback and attention. The skill level of the CT students was higher than in SD.

Range/Facilities
The Ranch (https://theranchtxclub.com/?showSignUpDialog=true&utm_campaign=15604d1e-cddc-434d-ade0-58a3f5da4610&utm_source=so ) hosted SD while Range 35 hosted CT (https://range35.com/). Both ranges were great, but The Ranch was more conducive to the vehicle work. The SD class was in a large 360-degree berm ( https://theranchtxclub.com/ranges/) so the cars could be positioned in multiple directions and at close or far intervals. This facilitated more diversity in drills and more stations so that you did not have too much down time waiting your turn. More on this later. Range 35, while expansive (they have a helicopter!), used a flat range berm and so there were more limitations on car positioning, which affected the drills.

Instructors, quality of feedback and personal attention
Bryan Veliz and Aaron Cowan are both excellent as instructors. Bryan is soft spoken and Aaron…is not. Sometimes it was hard to hear Bryan. Both were gentlemen and no one was abusive or belittling. Bryan brings the perspective of still being a full-time LE in the border areas of Texas and Aaron is very analytical. Bryan gives you a more feedback during your drills. The AIs, however, were significantly different. I think Aaron only had one AI whereas Bryan had two. The AIs with CT contributed greatly to the learning experience. For every drill in CT, an AI would be behind you every step to give you feedback or to challenge you when needed. “Get low, you’re not behind cover (behind side door instead of pillars), slow down, get your hits, don’t crowd the vehicle, check your area before getting up, good pickup, anchor your knee down, give me four hits on that target, etc” were feedback we all heard at some point. Do not get the impression that they micromanaged you or were always on your back. They were there to ensure safety and help you improve. They also challenged you by inducing malfunctions with a stick (slide out of battery) at seemingly the most inconvenient times. Introducing malfunctions during the drills was a valuable learning experience. It was not always tap rack to clear. Sometimes the stick caused a stove pipe, or double feeds. The AIs for CT essentially made the class awesome. You really felt that you had personal attention with CT and we all know how valuable those pearls are. Aaron and his AI gave you feedback as well but much less often.

There was one aspect of CT methodology that did not appeal to me, and it is very subjective. I will call it the circle of talk. After every live fire drill, and I mean every drill, we would gather in a circle and share one by one any thoughts/insights. This took 5-10 minutes and occasionally, someone would say something insightful. Most of the time, however, the circle of talk consisted of redundant remarks and good-natured teasing. Personally, the circle lost its value to me. Others may find it useful so again, very subjective.

Targets
Both companies used cardboard USPSA/IPSC targets and steel. SD surpassed the norm by also introducing 3D targets with arms. https://www.breachbangclear.com/3d-training-to-prepare-for-threats-in-a-3d-world/ These targets were invaluable by forcing you to think about the shift of vital organs when the threat was turned at an angle. The arms (some with weapons, some without) also allowed Aaron to employ the 3D targets in threat discrimination drills (TDD). There was more creativity with targets in SD and this forced you to think before shooting.

Drills and Techniques
This is where taking both classes would be complimentary. Although there was much overlap in techniques, there were key methods taught in one but not in the other. Techniques were divided into inside the vehicle (ITV) and outside the vehicle (OTV).

Aaron had a very stepwise approach.
Basic movements in and around vehicles. Muzzle safety strategies inside the car and exiting.
SINGLE TARGET DRILLS
Shoot from ITV and clear seatbelt- driver side, then passenger side
Shoot ITV, exit car, and stand in high ready
Shoot ITV, exit car, and backpedal towards rear while shooting front threat
Shoot ITV, exit car, and move to cover at rear
Single target in front, single target on driver side, single target on passenger side.

Once he saw that you could engage ITV and move to rear safely, then he introduced another series
TWO TARGET DRILLS
Shoot ITV at two front targets (one on each side of car but towards front) and move to rear
Shoot ITV at two passenger side targets (taught muzzle safety when reaching over and behind front seat) and move to rear
Shoot ITV at two driver side targets and move to rear

These were practiced with single shooter on driver side, then passenger side, and then with two shooters in front with both exiting to rear.

Due to the large 360-degree berms, Aaron was able to position several stations where each drill could be practiced in different cars. This practically eliminated any down time as you could move from one station to the next and have several repetitions.

THREE TARGET DRILLS
The cars were arranged in different positions for these three target drills.
Car-in-Line Position (one car in front of the other)- three targets scattered around the both cars. You were in the back car at start. This would simulate an engagement while at traffic stop.
Car-in-Parallel Position (one car next to the other like a parking lot). You would start sitting in the right car, then repeat in car on the left.
Car-H-Position. Two cars in parallel and one car in the middle perpendicular.

BUDDY RESCUE DRILLS
These consisted of a shooter and an unarmed passenger in the front. The first iteration had the shooter be also the driver. You would engage a threat, exit, and then provide cover as your buddy crawled to your side and you both moved back to the rear. This was then repeated with the buddy driving and the shooter sitting on the passenger side. Techniques to keep your buddy down while you engaged threats were taught. These rescue drills were not taught in CT.

Three dimensional targets were used for all these drills and positioned at angles. This forced you to adjust the shots as the vital organs were no longer center mass. Once everyone completed these drills smoothly, then Aaron initiated the Target Discrimination Drills.

Target Discrimination Drills (TDD)
With the cars in H-position, the shooter would sit in a car facing forward. Cardboards would block the view of the shooter on all sides while other students would be arranging 6-7 targets around and sometimes inside the cars. Not all targets were threats. You could only shoot targets with arms holding weapons. Aaron would be asking you questions to distract you (what is the value of pi to the fourth decimal point, or what are four African countries facing the Atlantic Ocean). You could use your phone to look up answers. Then when everything was ready, the cardboard blinds would be lifted and Aaron would signal THREAT! You had to look around to see if there were any immediate vicinity threats. If there were none, then you had to exit and use the cars for cover as you looked for threats. Moving from one car to another, you needed to crouch, kneel, sprint, and sometimes shoot as threats were identified.

The next student would then sit in the car and have the cardboard blinds placed. The targets would then be rearranged so that no two scenarios were the same. The TDD was challenging as not only did you have to find the threats while using cover, but sometimes the threats had innocents behind them. You had to find an angle that would hit the threat and no one else. The difficulties were multifactorial: finding the threats, engaging the threats without hitting other targets, and incorporating the 3D angles.

Bryan with CT also had a methodical approach but not as stepwise as SD. Sooner rather than faster was emphasized. Since data from vehicle fights showed that whoever owned the back of the car usually won fights (high ground, visibility), CT felt that moving quickly to the rear was a priority over shooting while backstepping, so the latter was not practiced. Conversely, shooting in urban prone (left and right) was taught in CT but not in the SD class. Bryan emphasized that urban prone is a low probability technique and kneeling, squatting, and standing were much preferable. However, it was something we needed to know (later, he showed us an LE video where urban prone skills would have been vital). Every drill in CT was first demonstrated by Bryan with a bare pistol lower, then each student would run dry with their cleared pistol. Bryan then gave a live-fire demo and students would then run the drill live. You had an instructor with you for every run, even the dry run. They gave you feedback during dry and gave you corrections for your subsequent live run. I have never attended a course where dry runs were so systematically applied. It made sense in many ways. Better to correct issues of muzzle control and movement ITV and OTV when dry than live. It also provided an additional repetition.

CT placed a lot of emphasis on communicating with your partner in two people drills. For example, in the ITV drills with two people, there were targets scattered around both sides of the vehicle. If a target was called on the passenger side, then the passenger shooter would yell “My side! My side!” to alert his partner. There was also emphasis on scanning at each level before changing position, not only to check for threats but also to prevent accidental shooting by a partner behind you (your partner should never be shooting behind you). We saw a video of one LEO in South Africa who shot his partner in the head when his kneeling partner suddenly stood up without checking.

Shooting drills in CT mostly involved two targets, and they were all USPSA targets. If there were two targets, then one would be vertical and the other would be on lying horizontal on the ground. The rule was if a target was horizontal then you had to engage it in urban prone for drill purposes (just to practice getting in and out of urban prone). Multiple targets were deployed in the latter drills. There would be four cars positioned at various angles from left to right of the berm. Targets would be placed at random distances and intervals behind the cars, either vertical or on the ground. Students would go one at a time from left to right, then right to left. As you moved from car to car, you had to engage the USPSA targets while using cover. An instructor would follow you as you performed the drill. Once everyone completed the drills in both directions, then new targets were prepared and arranged. This time, a student would start from the left and another student from the right. An AI would be with each student. Both students eventually crossed towards the middle. As you approached the other student, you had to watch your muzzle and verbally communicate your intentions (“Moving behind you!”). As we had practiced communication and movement in previous drills, this went very smoothly and safely. Again, the AI was always right behind you.

As mentioned, the AI or Bryan caused malfunctions as you engaged. This helped you to train solving one problem at a time. All the students were quite adept in clearing malfunctions. Not all, however, remembered to move behind cover when doing so. Even worse, most of us did not re-engage from a different position. We simply popped back up where we previously were. I was horrified in reviewing the videos that we all did this. Watching the video of Bryan’s demos, however, showed that he chose a different position and angle to re-engage after reloading or clearing malfunctions.

TDD with CT was different. This was the Alphabet Soup drill. Four cars were positioned from left to right with targets (Steel and USPSA) randomly dispersed either behind, on the ground, or within the vehicles. The targets were labeled with letters, numbers, or colors. One student at a time would have to find and engage whatever target the instructor called out. This was performed ITV and OTV. On ITV runs, Bryan would stay in the backseat and call out targets as well as induce malfunctions. To me, this showed an above and beyond commitment. There are additional risks for an instructor in the back: noise from two shooters in an enclosed space and muzzle risks. This is where the dry runs were so important. When OTV, you had to move from car to car to find the called target. The challenge of this drill progressively lessened as you tended to remember the target locations when watching others. It lacked the variety and difficulty of the TDD in SD. Due to the flat range berm, waiting students stood behind and observed.

SD also had an Alphabet Soup drill at the end, but it was only OTV. There was not an ITV alphabet soup with two people in SD. Three vehicles were positioned left to right and targets (Steel and 3D) were randomly dispersed at various distances behind the cars. There were no targets on the ground or inside the cars. Targets were painted in different colors (red, blue, yellow, white). There were numbers painted at the end of each car and the numbers were not sequential. Aaron would call out “5-BLUE”. You had to find the car with #5, run to it, and use its cover to engage all blue targets visible. Each target had to have two hits. This went on for about 3-4 magazines.

Cognitively, the TDD in SD was more challenging and required more thinking. The 3D targets in SD were also better and added a realistic level of complexity. Conversely, the feedback and attention from Aaron and his AI were much less. CT provided valuable input for each student and induced malfunctions during drills to help us problem solve.

Down Time and Physical Exertion
There was much less waiting around in SD than in CT. So much of this related to the range facilities as mentioned. With SD, if felt like you were constantly shooting. However, the up and down movements of urban prone in CT required more exertion and intensity. It was not until the alphabet soup in SD did you really hustle physically.

Qualifications/Standards
Aaron ran a competitive qualification drill at the end. There would be a USPSA target on each side of the front vehicle. Two students at a time would run the QUAL from each car and each student had their own target. The drill consisted of: five shots from sitting ITV, five shots while backstepping to rear, five shots squatting from rear, and five shots kneeling from rear. To pass, all hits had to be within a reduced C-zone or better (everyone passed). Top shooters had to have all hits within a reduced A zone. Best shooter was the student who had the smallest group in the A-Zone and received the coveted SD BLACK PATCH.

CT did not have any qualifications or competitive drills.

Cost
Tuition fees alone, the cost was $550 for CT and $500 for SD. Numerically, $50 is not a significant difference. If you factor in a smaller class, two assistant instructors, and the level of personal feedback with CT then overall value is greater with CT.

Customer service
My expectations for customer service are not high when going to a shooting class. Start on time, run a safe range, don’t finish too early, and teach me something. Having said that, there were a few minor quirks from both SD and CT.

SD Customer Service: my only gripe is that our certificate was not emailed to us until 3 months later. The nice perk is that every student was now a SD alumnus, and qualified for 20% off future courses.

CT Customer Service: More transparency on who is teaching the class would be nice. CT was quite slow to respond or did not respond at all to some of my emailed inquiries. This would have been a non-issue except that the email to welcome us said that they would be glad to answer any questions we had about the course. Well, I had minor questions and asked but received no response. On the plus side, we received our certificates within 2-3 days of finishing the course! It’s not that any of us train for certificates. However, some of us need these for documentation purposes.

CONCLUSION
Unlike other courses, expert instruction in vehicle gunfighting is rare. Hopefully, you will appreciate that both SD and CT vehicle classes are excellent. There were relatively few negatives compared to the wealth of knowledge and skills gained in both. I would definitely take both to solidify the skills. This is a topic that requires repetition and reinforcement. To maximize your learning, I would highly recommend the preparation I outlined. Do your homework. If you cannot take both and must choose only one, then I would train with CT. The rationale is the level of personal attention and feedback from the CT instructors. I don’t know if all their classes have a 5:1 student-teacher ratio, but this afforded a lot of supervision and instruction. If you are new to this (and most people are), then it is critical to have this high-level feedback and to see the many relevant gunfight videos. For the same reasons, I would take CT first and then SD second if you could take both and were wondering which one to take first. Once you have the fundamentals down, then training with SD is highly recommended. The TDD exercises in SD and the 3D targets add a realism that is extremely valuable.

Balisong
03-04-2020, 02:53 PM
That was an incredibly in-depth review! Thanks so much for sharing, they both sound like great classes.

Thn9mm
03-04-2020, 03:00 PM
I made an error in the name of one of the AI. The assistant instructors were Bones and Chad (not Chase). Again, both were excellent and played key roles in making the class excellent.
I am enclosing a link to two videos showing the Alphabet soup drill with Sage Dynamics and Centrifuge Training. It will help you to appreciate the similarities and differences of the drill in these two classes. You’ll note in one video that I used the temple index position inappropriately in some instances. There are other bloopers for your entertainment pleasure.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Au2TiH-xDagAgr4oUJmnqfohKYxu5w?e=g2j0J7

43Under
03-05-2020, 05:20 PM
Thanks for the shoutout on the prior AARs you read for prior research purposes. Great review and comparison on your own part. Shame that neither Will nor Chase were there for your particular class, and I agree that they should be more forthcoming about that. Also, a police officer friend of mine has run into that same issue of poor communication via email with Centrifuge, i.e. they're not so good about responding.

Thn9mm
03-05-2020, 06:57 PM
Thanks for the shoutout on the prior AARs you read for prior research purposes. Great review and comparison on your own part. Shame that neither Will nor Chase were there for your particular class, and I agree that they should be more forthcoming about that. Also, a police officer friend of mine has run into that same issue of poor communication via email with Centrifuge, i.e. they're not so good about responding.

I appreciate you reading the long post. I sent my AAR to Centrifuge so that hopefully they can learn from it. They did respond positively so I hope that it will benefit future students.

Casey
03-07-2020, 08:33 PM
Great review. Thanks for sharing. I recently took Bryan's low light handgun class (through his own company, SlyTac—not a CT course). I really enjoyed the course, and it followed a similar format of classroom followed by range work. I do agree that the post-drill feedback sessions were of questionable value. With something like 18 students in the class, by the time you got halfway through the group, the feedback started to get repetitive. I'm not sure I really picked up any insights from the other students during those sessions, though I suppose it did force me to be a little more analytical about the drill. I did enjoy the good-natured ribbing, though.

asquared
09-09-2020, 01:11 PM
I appreciate you reading the long post. I sent my AAR to Centrifuge so that hopefully they can learn from it. They did respond positively so I hope that it will benefit future students.

I took this class July 10-11 at Sig Sauer Academy. I forwarded the following feedback to Centrifuge, and wanted to share it here as well. My instructor was Chase Jenkins, whom I'd consider solidly average. 14 students in the class, no assistant instructor, and the usual above-mentioned slow to non-existent responses to emails both before and after the class.

Here are my issues with the class, in no particular order:
1. I’d like to see the day organized with a learning lunch break in the middle. Especially in July when the temps are in the high 80s, I think it would make a ton of sense to bring everyone back into the air-conditioned classroom and do video breakdowns for a bit while everyone gets a chance to eat and rest. I understand that the conventional “lunch hour” wastes a lot of time, but taking a break and making sure everyone is adequately refueled makes the afternoon range sessions safer and more productive

2. I wish the instructor got more cerebral about the material. I’ve never trained with Will Petty, but I get the impression that he could get pretty in-depth with the science and the research behind this class. I’m at a point in my training career where I really want a chance to get into the weeds and think about why, instead of just repping the drills. I’m not saying I disagree with any of the tactics, but I appreciate it when an instructor is able to really articulate the “how” and “why” of everything. I have a feeling the FBI gets a much more intellectual program than what I got, just saying.

3. This class should have more than a single instructor. At $300 per day I expect that an instructor who’s intimately familiar with the course material is going to be following each student during drills and offering feedback. There were times when the single instructor was just standing at the end of the range supervising everyone, with no coaching. There were times when the instructor appointed students to facilitate drills for other students. When multiple students are on the range at the same time, using multiple pieces of cover to engage multiple targets, applying material that was just explained, there needs to be a lot of individual attention. When the instructor chills out in the shade smoking a cigar and watching everyone run drills, well, I don't get a whole lot out of that.

4. After this class, I felt that I had to evaluate the instructor and the course material separately. Usually, the instructor is the class and the class is the instructor. But this time, I have the feeling that, to put it bluntly, I would have gotten more out of the material if someone else had taught it. I’ve seen fantastic trainers make a great class out of a relatively weak topic. I’ve also seen relatively weak trainers make a marginal class out of an interesting topic with a lot of available material. This class felt like it "checked all the boxes" off the syllabus and not a whole lot more.

5. There seems to be a trend among reviews I've read about this course. Students write that they "received the whole POI" as if that's something to brag about. Hey, I paid $600 and took two days off to come train with this fantastic company, and they actually taught me the whole class! I fully expect you to teach me the entire program, because that's your job. It's kind of like me saying that the last time I arrested someone, I had probable cause!

6. During the "exterior alphabet drill", we had 4 cars lined up across the range and targets placed behind/around each car. We had already worked on temple index, movement positions vs ready positions, etc. It was explained to us that each target represented the same threat moving to a different place, etc. But the instructor would call a target, the student would engage it, then the student would immediately go into a MOVEMENT position in preparation to move to another piece of cover and engage another target. My issue here is that if I've just engaged a threat, I'm going to keep my muzzle oriented toward that threat unless/until I need to move. Then, I'm going to initiate the movement process. To me, this drill is creating a training scar of "shoot bad guy a few times, go right to temple index". This is probably done because the drill is run one student at a time, and it's faster to just keep yelling out new targets and keeping the student moving from car to car versus engage, scan, decide, then move. Less waiting, more shooting, but bad habits.


In closing, was this class worth my time? Probably. Would I recommend it to others? Maybe. If I had the time and the money, in hindsight, I would have tried to take the instructor level class with Will instead.

Thn9mm
09-27-2020, 02:35 PM
I agree with you that the instructor makes it or breaks it. When I took this same class in February 2020, there was one primary instructor and two AIs. I really don't know how the class could have been run otherwise and still be safe and educational. It is not acceptable that other students proctor one another on complicated drills without adequate supervision. I would send your comments directly to Centrifuge if you have not already. I sent my feedback to them via email after the class and they were responsive, albeit slowly.

Mac
12-24-2020, 03:02 PM
My apologies for being late to this thread. I've taken both open enrollment VCQB as well as VCQB instructor and Low Light instructor from Centrifuge. Both VCQB classes were with Will teaching and the Low Light class was with Chase. No AIs for any of the classes. The differences in the open enrollment versions of VCQB vs the LE only instructor versions of the classes were strikingly different to me.

The open enrollment VCQB class was about half LE/half civilian. It felt like the class was being taught on autopilot. When some of the LE guys tried to push Will for more in depth info, we were encouraged to 'attend the instructor class'. Accuracy accountability was not stressed. There was not the sort of one on one attention to detail kind of instruction several of us wanted and a few of us left feeling like we had been run through a series of exercises without having a real solid understanding of why we were doing the exercises. There were a couple of dudes in the class who were totally 'that guy' and had to finger gun the movement evolutions. I was disappointed they were allowed to stay and not removed. At the time, it felt like I was attending a class that was geared towards LE and a watered down version was being taught to the open enrollment market for purposes of making a buck.

Fast forward a year, and my agency is sending me to VCQB instructor and I was not looking forward to it given my first experience. I was wrong. It was night and day from the open enrollment class. Tons of why, lots of reps with one on one feedback, a complete 180 on my thoughts from my first class.

I had a similar positive experience in their low light instructor class, though I do echo the sentiments that they were not up front about who was teaching the class. The lead up emails to the class kept mentioning Will, but Chase wound up teaching. I didn't mind Chase, he had a solid grasp of the material and was every bit as thorough in his instruction of the POI. But it was slightly off putting to not know who was teaching. I think I've mentioned it in a previous post, but their low light class builds on a lot of principles of the VCQB program. Dudes in the class who had not been through VCQB lagged behind guys who had done VCQB.

We the did the circle talk after every evolution with Chase, I don't remember doing it with Will, although we may have. I agree with the sentiment that I could have passed on this.

FWIW As far as email communications goes, I've never had an issue with them. Then again, the company has grown fairly substantially since I was involved with them, so that could be why.

HCM
12-25-2020, 04:53 PM
I took this class July 10-11 at Sig Sauer Academy. I forwarded the following feedback to Centrifuge, and wanted to share it here as well. My instructor was Chase Jenkins, whom I'd consider solidly average. 14 students in the class, no assistant instructor, and the usual above-mentioned slow to non-existent responses to emails both before and after the class.



I wish the instructor got more cerebral about the material. I’ve never trained with Will Petty, but I get the impression that he could get pretty in-depth with the science and the research behind this class. I’m at a point in my training career where I really want a chance to get into the weeds and think about why, instead of just repping the drills. I’m not saying I disagree with any of the tactics, but I appreciate it when an instructor is able to really articulate the “how” and “why” of everything. I have a feeling the FBI gets a much more intellectual program than what I got, just saying.

There seems to be a trend among reviews I've read about this course. Students write that they "received the whole POI" as if that's something to brag about. Hey, I paid $600 and took two days off to come train with this fantastic company, and they actually taught me the whole class! I fully expect you to teach me the entire program, because that's your job. It's kind of like me saying that the last time I arrested someone, I had probable cause!




Couple thoughts:

IME, in most LE training, if you want the "why" and mechanics behind it you need to take the instructor class. This is the nature of paramilitary and bureaucratic organizations.

Along those lines, what the FBI as an Org and their national training got and what end users get may not be the same. Without going into the weeds the FBI has incorporated various parts of VCQB into various programs. The most direct comparison is in-service agents in certain assignments who get VCQB from FBI instructors who have been through VCQB instructor school via an internal "Felony Car stop" class and some other programs.

Re: the POI

Do you mean the whole POI was presented or they provided a copy of the POI materials ? The latter is uncommon in the commercial tactical training world.

asquared
12-25-2020, 11:15 PM
Couple thoughts:

IME, in most LE training, if you want the "why" and mechanics behind it you need to take the instructor class. This is the nature of paramilitary and bureaucratic organizations.

Along those lines, what the FBI as an Org and their national training got and what end users get may not be the same. Without going into the weeds the FBI has incorporated various parts of VCQB into various programs. The most direct comparison is in-service agents in certain assignments who get VCQB from FBI instructors who have been through VCQB instructor school via an internal "Felony Car stop" class and some other programs.

Re: the POI

Do you mean the whole POI was presented or they provided a copy of the POI materials ? The latter is uncommon in the commercial tactical training world.



I agree that the "why" is often omitted. As an LE trainer myself, I think we owe it to the end user to provide context to an appropriate degree. In my opinion, this company seems to pride itself on teaching context and history, but then doesn't deliver on that unless you take the week-long version of the class.


I mean the whole POI was presented. There were no materials provided. The instructor told me to email him and he'd send some references my way, but no response.

Clark Jackson
12-26-2020, 07:07 PM
Couple thoughts:

IME, in most LE training, if you want the "why" and mechanics behind it you need to take the instructor class. This is the nature of paramilitary and bureaucratic organizations.

100% disagree. That may be the nature of paramilitary and bureaucracy organizations you are familiar with but that is ridiculous and those organizations plain suck.

If someone can’t or won’t tell you the “why” behind the training (and it isn’t painfully obvious) there is a serious problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HCM
12-26-2020, 09:43 PM
100% disagree. That may be the nature of paramilitary and bureaucracy organizations you are familiar with but that is ridiculous and those organizations plain suck.

If someone can’t or won’t tell you the “why” behind the training (and it isn’t painfully obvious) there is a serious problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn’t say I agree with it but it’s the way it fucking is in most institutional training.

They are providing training for you to perform a specific task, a specific way. Do this, this way, because we said so.

Why do you think institutional instructors seek outside training on their own time, at their own expense etc ?

Clark Jackson
12-26-2020, 10:51 PM
I didn’t say I agree with it but it’s the way it fucking is in most institutional training.

They are providing training for you to perform a specific task, a specific way. Do this, this way, because we said so.

Why do you think institutional instructors seek outside training on their own time, at their own expense etc ?

I did not say you did or did not agree with it; there’s no need to light the vulgarity lamp.

I would argue that in today’s world where information (seasoned by 19+ years of relevant training-combat-training cycles) is instant and always at your fingertips there is little to no room for what you are describing - regardless of the organization or bureaucratic hurdles present.

Anyone who willingly accepts the “do this because we said so” leadership or training model (especially if the leadership or training is demonstrably substandard) are partially to blame for their own situation. One person can and often does make a difference.

As to your question: I do not know why institutional instructors seek out training on their own dime & time if they cannot bring it back to their people. You’d have to ask them and let me know as I’m curious to their reasoning. However, I do understand seeking outside training to benefit yourself if the parent organization doesn’t provide it, but that’s a different story.

Leadership ineptitude and end-user ignorance are a part of an organization’s problems, but ultimately individuals should blame the instructor.

To co-opt a great movie scene/quote: “The shooters are weak? The shooter’s are weak? You’re weak!”

Instructors can do good work with the support of, or in spite of, organizational bureaucracy. Unfortunately, ‘work’ is the operative word that most miss or choose to ignore.

IMO, no one should pick up the mantle of “instructor” if they aren’t going to put in the work. I don’t think I’m off base by saying this concept transcends all successful organizations regardless of LE, MIL, or CIV designation.

To be clear, putting in work includes efforts to right the ship with leadership, end-users, and the organization at whatever level.

If these ‘work’ people do not exist within an organization I would recommend the following courses of action:

1) get into a position to personally make change happen, or

2) find a new organization

Last thought:
“Do this, this way, because we said so” is a literary chariot of the damned which often manifests in real world tragedies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HCM
12-27-2020, 01:24 AM
I did not say you did or did not agree with it; there’s no need to light the vulgarity lamp.

I would argue that in today’s world where information (seasoned by 19+ years of relevant training-combat-training cycles) is instant and always at your fingertips there is little to no room for what you are describing - regardless of the organization or bureaucratic hurdles present.

Anyone who willingly accepts the “do this because we said so” leadership or training model (especially if the leadership or training is demonstrably substandard) are partially to blame for their own situation. One person can and often does make a difference.

As to your question: I do not know why institutional instructors seek out training on their own dime & time if they cannot bring it back to their people. You’d have to ask them and let me know as I’m curious to their reasoning. However, I do understand seeking outside training to benefit yourself if the parent organization doesn’t provide it, but that’s a different story.

Leadership ineptitude and end-user ignorance are a part of an organization’s problems, but ultimately individuals should blame the instructor.

To co-opt a great movie scene/quote: “The shooters are weak? The shooter’s are weak? You’re weak!”

Instructors can do good work with the support of, or in spite of, organizational bureaucracy. Unfortunately, ‘work’ is the operative word that most miss or choose to ignore.

IMO, no one should pick up the mantle of “instructor” if they aren’t going to put in the work. I don’t think I’m off base by saying this concept transcends all successful organizations regardless of LE, MIL, or CIV designation.

To be clear, putting in work includes efforts to right the ship with leadership, end-users, and the organization at whatever level.

If these ‘work’ people do not exist within an organization I would recommend the following courses of action:

1) get into a position to personally make change happen, or

2) find a new organization

Last thought:
“Do this, this way, because we said so” is a literary chariot of the damned which often manifests in real world tragedies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's great. You're not the first person to figure all that out. But it's not how institutions work. Not just modern institutions either. The opportunity for intuitional change is rare and normally only appears in response to losses in blood and treasure exceeding the cost of the potential change.

feudist
12-27-2020, 01:23 PM
I did not say you did or did not agree with it; there’s no need to light the vulgarity lamp.

I would argue that in today’s world where information (seasoned by 19+ years of relevant training-combat-training cycles) is instant and always at your fingertips there is little to no room for what you are describing - regardless of the organization or bureaucratic hurdles present.

Anyone who willingly accepts the “do this because we said so” leadership or training model (especially if the leadership or training is demonstrably substandard) are partially to blame for their own situation. One person can and often does make a difference.

As to your question: I do not know why institutional instructors seek out training on their own dime & time if they cannot bring it back to their people. You’d have to ask them and let me know as I’m curious to their reasoning. However, I do understand seeking outside training to benefit yourself if the parent organization doesn’t provide it, but that’s a different story.

Leadership ineptitude and end-user ignorance are a part of an organization’s problems, but ultimately individuals should blame the instructor.

To co-opt a great movie scene/quote: “The shooters are weak? The shooter’s are weak? You’re weak!”

Instructors can do good work with the support of, or in spite of, organizational bureaucracy. Unfortunately, ‘work’ is the operative word that most miss or choose to ignore.

IMO, no one should pick up the mantle of “instructor” if they aren’t going to put in the work. I don’t think I’m off base by saying this concept transcends all successful organizations regardless of LE, MIL, or CIV designation.

To be clear, putting in work includes efforts to right the ship with leadership, end-users, and the organization at whatever level.

If these ‘work’ people do not exist within an organization I would recommend the following courses of action:

1) get into a position to personally make change happen, or

2) find a new organization

Last thought:
“Do this, this way, because we said so” is a literary chariot of the damned which often manifests in real world tragedies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So...you're not a cop. :cool:

karmapolice
12-27-2020, 09:46 PM
That's great. You're not the first person to figure all that out. But it's not how institutions work. Not just modern institutions either. The opportunity for intuitional change is rare and normally only appears in response to losses in blood and treasure exceeding the cost of the potential change.


So...you're not a cop. :cool:

Wrong and wrong.

Like very wrong, it is a hard fight but it can be done. I have been part of the change for my organization and others to include local, state, and federal organizations. With good leadership it is easier but it can be done with other styles of leadership as well. It also does not require that much but personal accountability as an instructor, caring about your students, an open mind, and some basic things to help motivate and increase students performance.

feudist
12-27-2020, 11:03 PM
Wrong and wrong.

Like very wrong, it is a hard fight but it can be done. I have been part of the change for my organization and others to include local, state, and federal organizations. With good leadership it is easier but it can be done with other styles of leadership as well. It also does not require that much but personal accountability as an instructor, caring about your students, an open mind, and some basic things to help motivate and increase students performance.

So...you're not a cop.

HCM
12-28-2020, 01:46 AM
Wrong and wrong.

Like very wrong, it is a hard fight but it can be done. I have been part of the change for my organization and others to include local, state, and federal organizations. With good leadership it is easier but it can be done with other styles of leadership as well. It also does not require that much but personal accountability as an instructor, caring about your students, an open mind, and some basic things to help motivate and increase students performance.

It’s nice to be young and full of hope.

My agency hasn’t had an actual director in 4 years - we have no leadership.

andre3k
12-28-2020, 04:02 AM
The least I can expect of any instructor is to have some sort of answer when I ask why. He might totally be blowing smoke up my ass, but I expect some type of answer without having to go to the 40hr instructor class.

SouthNarc
12-28-2020, 08:36 AM
Changing an organization is really an issue of having the right personalities in the right place at the right time. That being said it only takes one regime change in an organization and everyone is right back to shooting C.A.R. or doing Krav Make America Great Again.

Personally at 52 I try and focus on people that want to help themselves and not change agency culture, but I'm old and jaded too.

feudist
12-28-2020, 01:16 PM
Changing an organization is really an issue of having the right personalities in the right place at the right time. That being said it only takes one regime change in an organization and everyone is right back to shooting C.A.R. or doing Krav Make America Great Again.

Personally at 52 I try and focus on people that want to help themselves and not change agency culture, but I'm old and jaded too.

Bingo.

The last recommendation I made before leaving training was to cut Qualification down to that: 50 rounds a year.Meet handcuffing, baton and spray

P.O.S.T. requirements. That's it for mandatory training.

Take the huge savings in ammo costs and man-hours and use that to seriously train people that wanted to be trained. Create an increasingly comprehensive curriculum.

You can't make a razor out of lead.

HCM
12-29-2020, 03:51 PM
Changing an organization is really an issue of having the right personalities in the right place at the right time. That being said it only takes one regime change in an organization and everyone is right back to shooting C.A.R. or doing Krav Make America Great Again.

Personally at 52 I try and focus on people that want to help themselves and not change agency culture, but I'm old and jaded too.

Agree 100% on both points.

El Cid
12-29-2020, 04:08 PM
I think the fact that we’ve seen so many agencies at federal, state, and local levels adopting VCQB shows change can occur. I know at one fed agency where I have friends, it was because of exactly what southnarc said - right people, right place, right time. Im just happy when I see LEO’s not using the V notch for vehicle stops anymore.

Full disclosure - I’m a Centrifuge certified VCQB instructor. And when I went through the class there were accuracy standards. And not all who were there graduated.

In defense of the “why” not being given, there’s a ton of research that’s been done by Will, Chase and others. Enough that it could be its own class. Some of it is going to be LE sensitive and would not be appropriate to discuss at an open enrollment class.

HCM
12-29-2020, 04:12 PM
The least I can expect of any instructor is to have some sort of answer when I ask why. He might totally be blowing smoke up my ass, but I expect some type of answer without having to go to the 40hr instructor class.

I agree with you, especially in an open enrollment or paid class. However, as you know, there is the way things should be and the way things are. I've literally had an LE instructor scream at me like Billy Mays and want to step outside and fight because he considered asking "why" to be "disrespectful." Never did get an actual answer.

Is a bullshit answer really any better than no answer? I think it might be worse. Example:

Many years ago, I was at an in-service specialty school. We were going to do shotgun to handgun transitions. The shotguns had provision for slings but none were attached and use of slings was not addressed. Instead we were told the SOP was to take all slings off shotguns in the field. If you got into a shooting and expended the rounds in the shotgun without stopping the threat, we were to grab the SG receiver with our support hand and hold it in front of our chest while returning fire one handed. When I asked why we wouldn't just drop the shotgun and shoot two handed vs a threat that could not be reduced by 4 rounds of 12 gauge, I was told it was SOP to "preserve Government property" and that If I dropped an empty shotgun to transition to my handgun in a real shooting I was "going to jail."

I've always thought "Good question - I don't know but I'll find out" was better than blowing smoke.

HCM
12-29-2020, 04:19 PM
I think the fact that we’ve seen so many agencies at federal, state, and local levels adopting VCQB shows change can occur. I know at one fed agency where I have friends, it was because of exactly what southnarc said - right people, right place, right time. Im just happy when I see LEO’s not using the V notch for vehicle stops anymore.

Full disclosure - I’m a Centrifuge certified VCQB instructor. And when I went through the class there were accuracy standards. And not all who were there graduated.

In defense of the “why” not being given, there’s a ton of research that’s been done by Will, Chase and others. Enough that it could be its own class. Some of it is going to be LE sensitive and would not be appropriate to discuss at an open enrollment class.

I agree but would add that the "right time" is usually the result of negative outcomes or in rare instances, a window of enlightened leadership.

By leadership, I don't just mean the head firearms / training guy.

El Cid
12-29-2020, 04:31 PM
I agree but would add that the "right time" is usually the result of negative outcomes or in rare instances, a window of enlightened leadership.

By leadership, I don't just mean the head firearms / training guy.

I concur. The good news is, as you know, Will’s material makes it hard for even the most admin of LE administrators to remain unconvinced. Especially with the ballistic demos.

HCM
12-29-2020, 04:33 PM
In defense of the “why” not being given, there’s a ton of research that’s been done by Will, Chase and others. Enough that it could be its own class. Some of it is going to be LE sensitive and would not be appropriate to discuss at an open enrollment class.

https://centrifugetraining.com/courses/material-creation-program-implementation/

Funny you should mention that.....


Material Creation & Program Implementation


Course Duration: 2 Days
Course Requirements: LE/MIL Only
This course focuses on providing students with a blueprint on how to isolate trends and analyze relevant data sets occurring within their department and current law enforcement on a national level. Attendees will work through the research, creation, implementation, and management phases over two days of intensive coursework. Common logistical issues such as live-fire restraints, training time considerations, and other common hurdles facing the modern training program will be discussed and worked through. This course is ideal for experienced instructors or program managers working in an academy or in-service environment looking to elevate the training status quo or who have been tasked with material creation or program implementation.

Individual Equipment List:
A laptop equipped with MS Word, Excel, and PPT.
Noise-canceling earphones/earbuds are strongly recommended.
An editable version of your agency's template for lesson plans.
Thumb drive.
Sticky notes.
Note-taking material.
The course dress code is business casual.

Course Prerequisites:
Current LE / mil / gov credentials.
Recognized basic instructor certification (i.e. POST, TCOLE, NRA LE, etc) is mandatory.
Strongly Recommended: An operational background in law enforcement in-service and or academy training.
If you have any questions about the course, the prerequisites or what is recommended please do not hesitate to ask us.

Available Classes:
UpcomingMaterial Creation and Program Implementation in Fort Worth, TX
February 23, 2021 - February 24, 2021

Clark Jackson
12-29-2020, 08:22 PM
Centrifuge Training Vehicle CQB.
https://centrifugetraining.com/courses/vcqb/
February 22-23, 2020
Location: Grandview, TX. Range 35

Costs: Tuition: $550. Range Fee: $40 (covers both days). Hotel $130. Gas $50. Food $40
Students: 15 adult males.
Instructors: Lead Instructor: Bryan Veliz , Assistant Instructors: Bones, Chase.
Student:Teacher ratio= 5:1
Round count: 650 approximately.
Weather: Cloudy, cold. Day one was in the lower 50’s, day two was warmer in the low 60’s with winds and occasional sprinkles.
Day One: 9AM-5:30PM. Day Two: 9AM-3:30 PM

I have no financial conflicts of interest with anyone or any product discussed in this review.


Thank you for taking the time to do a thorough review. I appreciate you went to more than one source and wrote on both of them. I would recommend you check out what Mike Pannone has to offer and look forward to that review.

More knowledge is good. Knowledge from multiple sources provides one the ability to sift fact from fandom.

If anyone conducts or influences the training of others, I encourage them to read this article about fixed vs growth mindset. (https://www.developgoodhabits.com/fixed-mindset-vs-growth-mindset/)

Read with an open mind. Don't get defensive. Do some honest introspection in regards to the 17-strategies.

Or don't.

It's all good.

HCM
12-29-2020, 09:24 PM
Relevant to institutional trining issues:


https://youtu.be/1LvJnAi7Cd4

jlw
01-07-2021, 12:43 PM
I did not say you did or did not agree with it; there’s no need to light the vulgarity lamp.

I would argue that in today’s world where information (seasoned by 19+ years of relevant training-combat-training cycles) is instant and always at your fingertips there is little to no room for what you are describing - regardless of the organization or bureaucratic hurdles present.

Anyone who willingly accepts the “do this because we said so” leadership or training model (especially if the leadership or training is demonstrably substandard) are partially to blame for their own situation. One person can and often does make a difference.

As to your question: I do not know why institutional instructors seek out training on their own dime & time if they cannot bring it back to their people. You’d have to ask them and let me know as I’m curious to their reasoning. However, I do understand seeking outside training to benefit yourself if the parent organization doesn’t provide it, but that’s a different story.

Leadership ineptitude and end-user ignorance are a part of an organization’s problems, but ultimately individuals should blame the instructor.

To co-opt a great movie scene/quote: “The shooters are weak? The shooter’s are weak? You’re weak!”

Instructors can do good work with the support of, or in spite of, organizational bureaucracy. Unfortunately, ‘work’ is the operative word that most miss or choose to ignore.

IMO, no one should pick up the mantle of “instructor” if they aren’t going to put in the work. I don’t think I’m off base by saying this concept transcends all successful organizations regardless of LE, MIL, or CIV designation.

To be clear, putting in work includes efforts to right the ship with leadership, end-users, and the organization at whatever level.

If these ‘work’ people do not exist within an organization I would recommend the following courses of action:

1) get into a position to personally make change happen, or

2) find a new organization

Last thought:
“Do this, this way, because we said so” is a literary chariot of the damned which often manifests in real world tragedies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's great. You're not the first person to figure all that out. But it's not how institutions work. Not just modern institutions either. The opportunity for intuitional change is rare and normally only appears in response to losses in blood and treasure exceeding the cost of the potential change.


Wrong and wrong.

Like very wrong, it is a hard fight but it can be done. I have been part of the change for my organization and others to include local, state, and federal organizations. With good leadership it is easier but it can be done with other styles of leadership as well. It also does not require that much but personal accountability as an instructor, caring about your students, an open mind, and some basic things to help motivate and increase students performance.


Changing an organization is really an issue of having the right personalities in the right place at the right time. That being said it only takes one regime change in an organization and everyone is right back to shooting C.A.R. or doing Krav Make America Great Again.

Personally at 52 I try and focus on people that want to help themselves and not change agency culture, but I'm old and jaded too.


The average tenure of a police chief in my state is two years. The average tenure of a Sheriff here is 18 years. I was fortunate to be the Chief Deputy for terms 5,6,7 of a 7-term Sheriff. I started in 2009. It took until 2014 to turn the culture to the point that breaking out of the "always done it this way" mode, and even then, it took waging an instructor war among my own staff.

Quite frankly, some who couldn't adapt got left behind, and through attrition of both instructors and personnel, we selected people who were part of what is now the "way we do it", and part of that is challenging our own thinking.

Thankfully, the program will not be abandoned by the new admin. In fact, it should get even better, but had the election gone the other way, "my" guys would already be back to shooting a qual course and a night fire once per year.

Instead, I just left a meeting in which we planned out a year's worth of actual training.

CentrifugeTraining
10-10-2021, 04:01 PM
All,

I appreciate your dedication, time and patronage. I was forwarded this thread today and sent this out company wide with my thoughts after having read every entry. The quick of it is, I hear you and there will be changes made.

- I believe debriefs are important, but can be over done. Going forward they will be kept to twice a day (instructor / subject dependent)

- The admin has, within the past month been bolstered with a second employee and, honestly it's something we should have done previously. That being said the responses are timely and the information flow seems to be clicking at an optimal rate.

- Data. My bros, there's no way we are going to be able to go through instructor level data (5 day course) in a two day class. An end user course isn't designed to give you the research, its there to give you the reps. We spend, on average 2 hrs a day in the classroom in a week long course. That's 10 hrs of classroom, that being said in a 2 day class you'd end up with 6 hrs of drill time. Obviously it's a balancing act.

- Moving forward THE instructor(s) assigned to your class will be cc'd on all communication. You'll know who's teaching the class and have a direct line to communicate with him if needed.

- End user classes will be capped at 14 students.

I think that covers most of the big stuff. Unfortunately there's a lot of trial and error.

I appreciate you, your feedback and studious approach to life and problem solving violence.

I can't say that I'll be checking this forum often, but if there's anything you need don't hesitate to reach me direct @ wpetty@centrifugetraining.com

Stay safe,

Will