AAR Centrifuge Training Vehicle CQB.

[asquared]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[karmapolice]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.