RFI: Policy, Transition training, and Qualification CoF for RDS pistols

[Clark Jackson]

What I am seeing is cops going through a 2-day transition class, and at the end of the second day they shoot a qual course. The scores are higher than their average, and they pronounce the PMS as the greatest thing ever.

Weeks or months later, they come back to the range and struggle because they have done nothing in the interim.

Mark Fricke, a name you all should know if you don’t, posits that scores with PMOs initially rise due to the practice during the transition course and not due to the optic itself. He says that the same thing happened during the revolver to semi-auto transition phase.

There’s no magic number for the hours of a transition course.

Outside of the mounting and maintenance issues and a few PMO specific techniques, a PMO shooting course is no different than an iron sighted shooting course.

The initial transition needs to be followed up with frequent training sessions… just like any other firearms training.

I agree a PMO course is not very different than an iron sighted course outside some specific issues.

So I have to ask: why is it so difficult for your people to succeed? Is it an instructor issue, a student issue, a department culture issue, or a combination of the previous?

Are you evaluating component skill proficiency with iron sights and PMOs or are qualifications your sole discriminator?

@HCM stated his people are seeing more success than yours. @HCM, are your people evaluating and training component skill proficiency or just using the qualification course as the metric of success? Why is there a success difference between your two organizations?

I ask because we (the training community) know qualification scores are a poor indicator of proficiency and are a dubious (at best) indicator of real-world performance. It is well established that qualification courses of fire create a false sense of security in shooters, instructors, and administrators because they mask component skill deficiencies.

In my opinion, the big question at the end of a PMO transition course should be: can the shooter complete component skills equal to or better than they do with iron sights?

This answer should determine whether the individual carries/uses the PMO.

[jlw]

I agree a PMO course is not very different than an iron sighted course outside some specific issues.

So I have to ask: why is it so difficult for your people to succeed? Is it an instructor issue, a student issue, a department culture issue, or a combination of the previous?

Are you evaluating component skill proficiency with iron sights and PMOs or are qualifications your sole discriminator?

@HCM stated his people are seeing more success than yours. @HCM, are your people evaluating and training component skill proficiency or just using the qualification course as the metric of success? Why is there a success difference between your two organizations?

I ask because we (the training community) know qualification scores are a poor indicator of proficiency and are a dubious (at best) indicator of real-world performance. It is well established that qualification courses of fire create a false sense of security in shooters, instructors, and administrators because they mask component skill deficiencies.

In my opinion, the big question at the end of a PMO transition course should be: can the shooter complete component skills equal to or better than they do with iron sights?

This answer should determine whether the individual carries/uses the PMO.

Understand, I don't have the bully pulpit any longer and can't mandate things.

[HCM]

I agree a PMO course is not very different than an iron sighted course outside some specific issues.

So I have to ask: why is it so difficult for your people to succeed? Is it an instructor issue, a student issue, a department culture issue, or a combination of the previous?

Are you evaluating component skill proficiency with iron sights and PMOs or are qualifications your sole discriminator?

@HCM stated his people are seeing more success than yours. @HCM, are your people evaluating and training component skill proficiency or just using the qualification course as the metric of success? Why is there a success difference between your two organizations?

I ask because we (the training community) know qualification scores are a poor indicator of proficiency and are a dubious (at best) indicator of real-world performance. It is well established that qualification courses of fire create a false sense of security in shooters, instructors, and administrators because they mask component skill deficiencies.

In my opinion, the big question at the end of a PMO transition course should be: can the shooter complete component skills equal to or better than they do with iron sights?

This answer should determine whether the individual carries/uses the PMO.

We’re continuing to train component skills in addition to qualifications but the only data we’re keeping track of is qual scores because that’s all leadership cares about.

PMO is now mandatory for new LEOs but we allowed current officers discretion to opt out of the PMO. I think the best indicator of our success is not the qual scores but that locally, several of the “opt outs” have asked to transition to PMO based on seeing their co-workers success with them.

[Clark Jackson]

We’re continuing to train component skills in addition to qualifications but the only data we’re keeping track of is qual scores because that’s all leadership cares about.

PMO is now mandatory for new LEOs but we allowed current officers discretion to opt out of the PMO. I think the best indicator of our success is not the qual scores but that locally, several of the “opt outs” have asked to transition to PMO based on seeing their co-workers success with them.

Out of curiosity, which component skills do your people train, how do you train those component skills, and how are they tracked for legal and/or continuing educational purposes?

I understand the unfortunate "all leadership cares about" portion, but what about the instructor cadre? Do the instructors only care about the minimum standards along with "the leadership" or is there more there? I just find it hard to believe passionate, competent instructors would accept "feelings" as an indicator of success let alone when those feelings are the poisonous fruit of an illusionary proficiency borne of unrealistic metrics (i.e., generous scoring zones and sundial measured times).

I am very interested in the mandatory/voluntary PMO concept. What is the rationale behind mandatory PMO for some and optional for others? Is this something that is legally defensible? What happens if someone in the "mandatory PMO" group can pass your organization's "all leadership cares about" standards with iron sights but not the PMO?

@jlw how would you handle a situation (hypothetical) where an individual in the "mandatory PMO" group could pass your organization's minimum standard qualification course with iron sights but not the PMO?

[HCM]

Out of curiosity, which component skills do your people train, how do you train those component skills, and how are they tracked for legal and/or continuing educational purposes?

I understand the unfortunate "all leadership cares about" portion, but what about the instructor cadre? Do the instructors only care about the minimum standards along with "the leadership" or is there more there? I just find it hard to believe passionate, competent instructors would accept "feelings" as an indicator of success let alone when those feelings are the poisonous fruit of an illusionary proficiency borne of unrealistic metrics (i.e., generous scoring zones and sundial measured times).

I am very interested in the mandatory/voluntary PMO concept. What is the rationale behind mandatory PMO for some and optional for others? Is this something that is legally defensible? What happens if someone in the "mandatory PMO" group can pass your organization's "all leadership cares about" standards with iron sights but not the PMO?

@jlw how would you handle a situation (hypothetical) where an individual in the "mandatory PMO" group could pass your organization's minimum standard qualification course with iron sights but not the PMO?

PMO is the standard issue going forward. If not, they’re probationary employees and the world still needs bartenders ….

Re: current officers “Grandfathering” is not a novel concept. opt out is to avoid potential HR issues with current officers. That was a management decision not a training decision.

We train component skills as what we term FTE (Firearms training exercise). We have a lesson plan for each quarter which includes a list and description of the FTE. For example, if we were doing say the 10-10-10 test with an occluded optic, we would simply record that the shooter attend the training and participated in all scheduled training. We would only not if they did participate in a particular FTEfor some reason. Their FTE results are for them to do with what they will, we don’t record them nor is there any imperative to do so. It’s done to help them but ultimately they pass the qualification test or they don’t.

What we have not done locally is have the PMO shooters go back a shoot an iron sight qual for data gathering as @SoCalDeputy mentioned.

I suspect the results his org got from that have to do with the increased feec back the PMO gives the shooters about what the gun actually going on with the gun when they are shooting. No I’m out of telling a shooter they’re doing this or that will have the same impact as them seeing it for themselves.

[jlw]

Out of curiosity, which component skills do your people train, how do you train those component skills, and how are they tracked for legal and/or continuing educational purposes?

I understand the unfortunate "all leadership cares about" portion, but what about the instructor cadre? Do the instructors only care about the minimum standards along with "the leadership" or is there more there? I just find it hard to believe passionate, competent instructors would accept "feelings" as an indicator of success let alone when those feelings are the poisonous fruit of an illusionary proficiency borne of unrealistic metrics (i.e., generous scoring zones and sundial measured times).

I am very interested in the mandatory/voluntary PMO concept. What is the rationale behind mandatory PMO for some and optional for others? Is this something that is legally defensible? What happens if someone in the "mandatory PMO" group can pass your organization's "all leadership cares about" standards with iron sights but not the PMO?

@jlw how would you handle a situation (hypothetical) where an individual in the "mandatory PMO" group could pass your organization's minimum standard qualification course with iron sights but not the PMO?

If they don't pass with the PMO, they aren't approved to carry with it.

Even though our qual standards are higher than the state's they are still just an administrative box and not a true test.

[runcible]

We are fortunate at my present workplace to have amongst us the architect and implementer of the organization's PMO curriculum, to include the basic academy course of instruction and the conversion course for in-service folks. He's helped at least one forum member towards taking care of their office in this regard.

He is oft heard to mention, "qualification courses masks component skill deficiencies," and further tracks skill metrics beyond simply qual scores.

I'm at that troublesome point in life where vision skills have presented and negatively impacted some aspects of my working life, and while I'm still working for leveling out my qual scores with the PMO, I'm well on the way towards that goal. Altogether, the delta is less than 3% between a maxed out qualification with irons and a near-maxed-out qualification with the PMO.

Adding on to what others have already expounded upon: there is an agency mandated minimum of hours for the conversion course, but offices may elect to exceed that, as my office did\has\will. Specifically, we do 3 days spread across 3 weeks, specifically as a nod towards operational commitments and adult learning theory.

That homework off-range figures heavily into the conversion course, combined with the autodidactic nature of the PMO; we just haven't seen a post-course skill plunge based on the pre-conversion course folks, academy-PMO trained folks (longest running), nor the field office conversion courses that have been longer at it than my own.

I do opine that "...a few PMO specific techniques..." is a curiously narrow way to describe a pretty broad change to fundamental aspects of running the gun, as relates to sight and vision. I don't disagree with the statement for the most part, but I do find it a curious weighting.

I think we're getting relatively close to PMOs as an ethical prerogative for the professions of arms, for the same reason that the Aimpoint M2s and Trijicon ACOGs were cited as enablers of more ethical performance during the early war years. I don't think that the "buying skill" argument presently holds much water, if it ever did.

[HCM]

We are fortunate at my present workplace to have amongst us the architect and implementer of the organization's PMO curriculum, to include the basic academy course of instruction and the conversion course for in-service folks. He's helped at least one forum member towards taking care of their office in this regard.

He is oft heard to mention, "qualification courses masks component skill deficiencies," and further tracks skill metrics beyond simply qual scores.

I'm at that troublesome point in life where vision skills have presented and negatively impacted some aspects of my working life, and while I'm still working for leveling out my qual scores with the PMO, I'm well on the way towards that goal. Altogether, the delta is less than 3% between a maxed out qualification with irons and a near-maxed-out qualification with the PMO.

Adding on to what others have already expounded upon: there is an agency mandated minimum of hours for the conversion course, but offices may elect to exceed that, as my office did\has\will. Specifically, we do 3 days spread across 3 weeks, specifically as a nod towards operational commitments and adult learning theory.

That homework off-range figures heavily into the conversion course, combined with the autodidactic nature of the PMO; we just haven't seen a post-course skill plunge based on the pre-conversion course folks, academy-PMO trained folks (longest running), nor the field office conversion courses that have been longer at it than my own.

I do opine that "...a few PMO specific techniques..." is a curiously narrow way to describe a pretty broad change to fundamental aspects of running the gun, as relates to sight and vision. I don't disagree with the statement for the most part, but I do find it a curious weighting.

I think we're getting relatively close to PMOs as an ethical prerogative for the professions of arms, for the same reason that the Aimpoint M2s and Trijicon ACOGs were cited as enablers of more ethical performance during the early war years. I don't think that the "buying skill" argument presently holds much water, if it ever did.

Re: The PMO as an ethical prerogative.

I was discussing PMO transition with one of the FIs from my local municipal PD (2k sworn) and he mentioned they expected to see caselaw eventually regarding use (or failure to use / provide) PMO. It will be interesting to see how that develops.

[runcible]

Re: The PMO as an ethical prerogative.

I was discussing PMO transition with one of the FIs from my local municipal PD (2k sworn) and he mentioned they expected to see caselaw eventually regarding use (or failure to use / provide) PMO. It will be interesting to see how that develops.

I think you and the FI are correct, and that while the burden of proof will be interesting, it's reasonable to expect an allegation of deliberate indifference in some future civil lawsuit if it can be presented as there being even a fraction of a second of available information that would have changed an outcome, that was lost/missed in the real or alleged focal shift to the front sight.

[UNM1136]

Bumping to the top.

I am mandated to go to @AsianJedi's course next year. And set up an RDS course for the agency that will meet state approval, and the appropriate SOPs for the department.

I would appreciate receiving any SOPs and training curricula I can get my hands on for documented references.

I just came back from court and met up with a DWI guy I have worked with before and commented on his Aimpoint Acro P-2 that he secured in the gun room of the courthouse. He didn't know that the mailbox on top of his slide was an Acro. And he bitched about finding the dot or looking at his irons. Thinking the biggest agency in the state doesn't have the answer...and thus will not be a good resource.

pat