Big Fish in Small Ponds; Insularity in LE Firearms Instruction

[HCM]

Were I designing THIS target today, I would slightly raise the ri gs as you describe. The target predates my involvement in training by perhaps 11 years. I have twice reached out to Action Targets Design Team to work with us on a new target over the last 2 years, but never got a reply back. That's been a problem with many vendors during the pandemic IME.

@HCM I like the "Green Team" idea and just resubmitted my proposal for an Adjunct Firearms Instructor Program....largely because it may be the only way for the department to keep the range open at this point as our staffing collapses. It would take the guys on the list who pass the selection tests, send them to the relevant instructor courses, and then a 40 hr In-House course on our current methods. They'd essentially be 'part timers' filling in spots as needed, under the supervision of full-time staff. It got back doored by some of my own staff, who wanted increased overtime opportunities, and others who viewed it through the lens of some twisted Union/Scab view. As I said, at this point it might be the only way to keep the lights on.

Outside of our Academy and national firearms and tactics training unit, Most of our offices only have one full time firearms instructor and they spend most of their time as a program manager rather than an instructor. A few of the largest offices have full-time training units but they are the exception, majority of our instructors are collateral duty.

[DaBigBR]

As an instructor I generally have to skip or bring my lunch if I want to shoot. One of the original drivers of our quarterly instructor development day was myself and two other instructors literally each other at the conclusion of the last range day of the quarter and said “have you qualified yet?” - “No have you qualified yet?” The classic “shoemaker got no shoes” scenario.

Truth.

We end up with an instructor range day a couple weeks before full department range weeks. I would like to see more of an instructor development opportunity there and maybe proposing quarterly is an idea.

I think a lot of this stuff is largely about culture. We are slowly changing from the instructor days being a "qualify, goof around and show off your new gun, take a long lunch, and go home" kind of day" to something a little more structured. It has taken having some old timers retire.

One of the things that is telling at my agency is that no firearms instructor has ever been "deselected" - voluntarily or otherwise. Every other collateral assignment (tac team, crime scene tech, FTO, bike officer, DT instructor, etc.) has guys coming and going as they lose interest, get older, etc., but every firearms instructor has retired as an "active" instructor for at least the last thirty years. Of course seniority has clout, so it can create inbreeding and stagnation. I recall a couple years where someone dug up their 2005 notes and decided we needed to jump on people who were using the slide stop lever instead of going over the top of the slide because "gross motor skills" and all. It took a relatively long time to kill that dogmatic BS because the guy pushing it had been around for a long time.

This thread has been interesting and quite cathartic.

[Lon]

I think states like Texas and Ohio with organizations like TTPOA and OTOA are on to something with the trainings that they seem to bring in.

The OTOA conference is one of the best deals going if you get registered in time to get the classes you want. I have been sending a group of SWAT guys to Kalahari every year.

[AMC]

This is still coming back to the same "solution" in my opinion: select the people who are passionate about shooting and teaching, who have a demonstrated ability to do both. You can use both prior experience, and a selection testing/interview process, but absent that selection you are essentially relying on luck to get the right people. And the majority will likely be civil service in the worst sense of the term. This is where my agency is at. It may change in some ways simply because of the manpower collapse we are suffering. By next year every specialized unit, I think including the range, will be part time. We are over 500 officers short of our previously mandated minimum staffing, with an additional 565 eligible to retire next month. Mandatory backfill overtime has become constant to fill patrol shortcomings...both double shifts and cancelled days off. This will lead to even more young guys jumping ship, and the cascade failure accelerates. Several years ago we were at 2200 officers, including the Airport Bureau. Over 500 short of that now. And resignations are outpacing retirements. I think this time next year there will be only 1000 sworn left in the department. I think that leads to closing our Academy and trying to rely on other departments to train our folks for Advanced Officer/Continuing Professional Training every 2 years. It'll definitely lead to closing several of our 10 district stations, and a reduction in the promotional opportunities that come with our current structure.

[psalms144.1]

An issue that Erick brought up is a huge factor I believe: continuous professional training for instructors.

Agency culture and policies either make or break a program. When the right people are there good things can happen. But absent real meaningful standards for instructor training established by POST....some places will be a disaster.

I'm a retired LE FI, and brother PREACH on these two points. I was at FLETC's FITP on 9/11/01 and got "short coursed" in a week in order to deploy to exotic locales. I attended Auto Weapons Instructor and Reactive Shooting Instructor in 2004-2005ish, and that was it until I retired last year. 16 years, no refresher. I was blessed to have assignments where my supported commands would send me off to contractor training a couple times per year, and paid for me to go to IMNLTAITP for "Sims" certification.

My former agency's culture on firearms was "when was the last time an agent had to shoot someone" right up until the Navy Yard active shooter event. After that there was an immediate hue and cry to get "tactical" - defined as having a small cadre of trained folks with appropriate kit and rifles scattered around the globe. Only in the last year of my time was there a push to make rifles widely available to agents in the field, get rifle plates issued, get folks trained on active shooter response, etc. Even then, those pushes were largely specific to individual field offices - more than one "SAC" took the "my agents don't need rifles" approach...

We had a full re-write of our Firearms policy post Navy Yard, which mandated semi-annual qualification, and quarterly firearms "sustainment" training - one of which was supposed to be mandatory SIMs force-on-force. In reality, if an agent didn't make quals twice a year, there was little-to-no enforcement of standards. It was the very rare agent who would show up for "sustainment" ranges, again no enforcement of attendance or performance for those who showed. The force-on-force never happened, because the agency never trained FIs in proper use of Sims, never issued Sim firearms or protective equipment, etc.

[KeeFus]

Alabama has instituted a re-cert requirement for firearms instructors, but it appears most are just going back through the same courses they took to get certified.

In NC, we have to re-certify every 3 years. This has slowly cut the numbers of “instructors”, but not a lot.

To re-certify, you have to be evaluated for 12 hours in each three year interval as well as qualify day and night on the State BLET course of fire with a 92 or better. It’s not hard….

[vcdgrips]

"I think both Daryll and @Wayne Dobbs have talked about 5" as a good accountability zone before"

Slight Tangent- A CD has a 4.75 in diameter. I always have a few in the range bag. That and a sharpie and you are good to go for a 5 inch area even if you count shots that "just" break the line.

[AMC]

I've been thinking more about @HCMs central question of how do we interest/motivate LE Firearms Instructors. I had an epiphany today about this. Unfortunately it was born of depression and despair, but I think the lesson is still valid.

Several of us have talked about the importance of instructor selection to a programs success. I still believe this is true, and have frankly come to believe that a demonstrated passion for shooting is more important than performance on a selection shooting test, up to a point. Give me someone with a passion for shooting, and I'll quickly get him/her to a point where they will smoke the person with natural hand/eye coordination but no actual passion/interest. Of course some level of skill is necessary, but I firmly believe the passion trumps that. Secondarily, the person has to demonstrate an ability to communicate, which is an absolute prerequisite for an instructor. I like @HCMs use of public speaking experience in this regard. If you can find and select these people, it will go far to making your program successful.

But the question was more about motivating existing instructors, I think. Can we even do that? I think you can, to an extent. I think you need to motivate them by challenging them, and continuous exposure to outside instructors is the way. It worked, for a time, for my staff. Two classes in 4 years, but the necessity of performing on new tasks, for an outside authority who was evaluating/judging you, was a powerful incentive to perform. For a time that motivation lasted. Now that myself and the only other instructor passionate about shooting are leaving....the motivation is gone. There is no one to challenge them, or push them....or even get them more training. Hopefully my successor will continue to try....but I'm not optimistic.

Continuing to challenge instructors to perform, for outside 'experts', is powerful motivator in my opinion. And in my experience one of the only ways to motivate the Civil service types. No one wants to be 'that guy' in front of their peers.

That's my take on motivating the ones we're stuck with. Thoughts?

[HCM]

I've been thinking more about @HCMs central question of how do we interest/motivate LE Firearms Instructors. I had an epiphany today about this. Unfortunately it was born of depression and despair, but I think the lesson is still valid.

Several of us have talked about the importance of instructor selection to a programs success. I still believe this is true, and have frankly come to believe that a demonstrated passion for shooting is more important than performance on a selection shooting test, up to a point. Give me someone with a passion for shooting, and I'll quickly get him/her to a point where they will smoke the person with natural hand/eye coordination but no actual passion/interest. Of course some level of skill is necessary, but I firmly believe the passion trumps that. Secondarily, the person has to demonstrate an ability to communicate, which is an absolute prerequisite for an instructor. I like @HCMs use of public speaking experience in this regard. If you can find and select these people, it will go far to making your program successful.

But the question was more about motivating existing instructors, I think. Can we even do that? I think you can, to an extent. I think you need to motivate them by challenging them, and continuous exposure to outside instructors is the way. It worked, for a time, for my staff. Two classes in 4 years, but the necessity of performing on new tasks, for an outside authority who was evaluating/judging you, was a powerful incentive to perform. For a time that motivation lasted. Now that myself and the only other instructor passionate about shooting are leaving....the motivation is gone. There is no one to challenge them, or push them....or even get them more training. Hopefully my successor will continue to try....but I'm not optimistic.

Continuing to challenge instructors to perform, for outside 'experts', is powerful motivator in my opinion. And in my experience one of the only ways to motivate the Civil service types. No one wants to be 'that guy' in front of their peers.

That's my take on motivating the ones we're stuck with. Thoughts?

That was my whole thought with the big fish in small ponds thing. While bringing outside instructors in is good I think sometimes sending your guys out to mixed classes or matches is even better.

While I know there can be downsides and PPC shooters who were also firearms instructors were at one point the “fudds” of the police firearms training world, There is real value in getting out of your comfort zone via competition. If you can perform under pressure among a bunch of strangers doing a demo in front of some students becomes a much less daunting prospect. One could send some of their instructors to go shoot a local USPSA or ID PA match on the clock with their duty gear. It’s either going to motivate them to get better or identify them as someone who probably shouldn’t be an instructor.

As I’m sure @AMC has seen there are LE Firearms instructors who don’t like to shoot and will decline opportunities to be paid to shoot free ammo. While shooting on your own can be expensive and time consuming, and people have family commitments, and the only thing cheaper than a cop is two cops, a firearms instructor turning down the opportunity to shoot free ammo while on the clock should be a huge red flag.

[AMC]

That was my whole thought with the big fish in small ponds thing. While bringing outside instructors in is good I think sometimes sending your guys out to mixed classes or matches is even better.

While I know there can be downsides and PPC shooters who were also firearms instructors were at one point the “fudds” of the police firearms training world, There is real value in getting out of your comfort zone via competition. If you can perform under pressure among a bunch of strangers doing a demo in front of some students becomes a much less daunting prospect. One could send some of their instructors to go shoot a local USPSA or ID PA match on the clock with their duty gear. It’s either going to motivate them to get better or identify them as someone who probably shouldn’t be an instructor.

As I’m sure @AMC has seen there are LE Firearms instructors who don’t like to shoot and will decline opportunities to be paid to shoot free ammo. While shooting on your own can be expensive and time consuming, and people have family commitments, and the only thing cheaper than a cop is two cops, a firearms instructor turning down the opportunity to shoot free ammo while on the clock should be a huge red flag.

I think mixed outside classes can be a huge benefit also. And I totally agree on the co.petition angle. Tried to get some of my guys interested in competition for 4 years. No takers. Doesn't help when you have some of the senior guys constantly harping the "competition gets you kilt in da streetz!" mantra. Just an excuse as to why they suck, but we all know that.

At a place like mine, I was very limited in what I could demand of my staff. I can't get rid of them (MOU rules about assignments), I can't get them to change hours or days (so no weekend matches I could detail them to), and my command would never approve overtime for the matches. Even outside training would have to be nearby in our area, or it isn't happening. Department isn't gonna spring for hotels travel costs for a firearms instructor to go to firearms training.

Even with those limitations, I think bringing in outside trainers, maybe in conjunction with individual courses for individual staff members, could still go a long way. An advantage of open classes is that they'd be exposed to some of the same 'competition' in a way. When the LE Firearms Instructor gets shown up constantly on the range by the lady veterinarian with her Glock 19, or the overweight medical supplies salesman with his LTT 92G.....it can be humbling. Like having the Filipino grandma with her 9mm 1911 run circles around you on a USPSA stage. A harsh way to realize you don't know what you don't know.