Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: GA Qualification Changes

  1. #21
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBigBR View Post
    85 sworn divided over five days, twice per year. We do not have our own range, so we lose an 60-90 minutes to travel time (a past practice that I cannot get changed), an hour to lunch, and about an hour to range cleanup and weapons cleaning. It makes the training day more like five hours long. We generally see as few as 8 or as many as 20 officers per day and run 3-5 instructors.

    I would generally reject the thought that the department size is a controlling factor and agree more with some of the things that [MENTION=12714]AMC[/MENTION] suggests as the big factors. You need a range staff that has the knowledge, ability to articulate, and time and patience to get it done. You need leadership that is willing to support that staff. You need access to the right supplies. Ultimately you need somebody with passion to push it forward and the people above them to enable them.

    I have been very, very fortunate to be supported at least as far as being given some freedom in lesson plan creation. Pushing our program this way has required considerable personal time and expense in attending classes, personal skills development, and material procurement. When I wanted to integrate vehicles, it took paying out of pocket to have junk cars towed in and out to show the benefit to the point that the agency would pay for it next time. When I wanted to shoot steel and then B8s and then USPSA silhouettes, it took paying out of pockets for the first range session or two worth. A lot of that probably seems minor, but stringing together some of those wins is how a program changes.

    And again, if you let people compete a little bit, you may be surprised at the increase in engagement.

    Sorry for the continued thread drift...
    Scale absolutely makes a difference.

    Gently soaking the bread into the froth……


  2. #22
    Member Sal Picante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SunCoast
    So much good discussion here.

    An article that left a deep impression on me was Tam Keel referencing another blogger in '09 about the difference between training, practice and testing. The link she has no longer works, but the Web Archive alleviates that.

    Some of the good points that have been brought up are things like:
    1.) Some sort of testing which mimics some of what someone may encounter.
    2.) Being able to test in a cost/time efficient manner.
    3.) Having a rigorous enough standard that will weed out the ones that are a serious liability.

    I keep coming back to how genius the Bakersfield qualification actually was. Pass that and you're probably squared away for the gig.
    It's 10 rounds. Mix it in during a training event where other things are presented and you've got a range day for folks that isn't some soul crushing junk punch.

    I'm surprised by how many cops don't train after the academy/range qualifications and just expect that things will work for them.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBigBR View Post
    Then my question would be, what are your metrics? If the only way you are measuring your people is a minimum standard qualification, how do you know what their actual capabilities are? What are you doing to actually train them to be better shooters?
    For initial and recurring training courses, our agents are trained to a much higher standard than what is required to pass the qual. We'll use match-like multi-gun stages, a set of challenge courses where your scored over the course of the training week and compared against peers, direct competition against each other (like dueling trees), etc. Accuracy is assessed and reviewed in room entry training when using UTMs, as well. So they typically exit training courses at a significantly higher level of performance than as they entered.

    On qual days, the post-qualification training is generally limited to a box of ammunition. It'll usually be some sort of drill like any of us on here could be found shooting. At least once per year, it will be low-light drills. At least once per year, it will be carbine drills. So it's not always pistol drills every time, and it's only a few times a year. Additional ammunition and range space is available for those who want it; with my office, I've focused on making those range days as scenario based drills as opposed to strictly shooting performance, like live fire protection detail drills.

    In the last few years we actually increased the difficulty of the qualification course of fire, because many agents were defaulting to training-to-the-minimum when not in residential training. For instance, our qualification only had 2 shots at 25...so many agents would completely ignore the capability to perform at 25 yards because they could literally throw those two rounds into the berm and still pass the course of fire. We changed it to 8 rounds at 25 yards, and all the sudden 10% of agents were failing the qualification even though they had initially been trained to shoot at least that well (if I recall, FLETC required 12 shots at 25 yards in their course of fire, as an example).

    So, sure, if we could turn every qualification session into a full match day.......duh, that'd help. That doesn't change the fact it isn't realistic for most agencies to accomplish, regardless of however awesome the situation is at your department.

    Thus (getting back to the original question of "why the qual!?"), the mandated minimum for the qualification course of fire is relevant.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the Rainbow Tunnel, somewhere north of Fantasyland.
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBigBR View Post
    85 sworn divided over five days, twice per year. We do not have our own range, so we lose an 60-90 minutes to travel time (a past practice that I cannot get changed), an hour to lunch, and about an hour to range cleanup and weapons cleaning. It makes the training day more like five hours long. We generally see as few as 8 or as many as 20 officers per day and run 3-5 instructors.

    I would generally reject the thought that the department size is a controlling factor and agree more with some of the things that [MENTION=12714]AMC[/MENTION] suggests as the big factors. You need a range staff that has the knowledge, ability to articulate, and time and patience to get it done. You need leadership that is willing to support that staff. You need access to the right supplies. Ultimately you need somebody with passion to push it forward and the people above them to enable them.

    I have been very, very fortunate to be supported at least as far as being given some freedom in lesson plan creation. Pushing our program this way has required considerable personal time and expense in attending classes, personal skills development, and material procurement. When I wanted to integrate vehicles, it took paying out of pocket to have junk cars towed in and out to show the benefit to the point that the agency would pay for it next time. When I wanted to shoot steel and then B8s and then USPSA silhouettes, it took paying out of pockets for the first range session or two worth. A lot of that probably seems minor, but stringing together some of those wins is how a program changes.

    And again, if you let people compete a little bit, you may be surprised at the increase in engagement.

    Sorry for the continued thread drift...
    Scale is absolutely a factor. As an example, at my old job we were a full time range staff with a department range and (kind of) another range at the international airport we policed. When I took over, I had 8 full time instructors and 2 dedicated armorers at the main range, and 3 full time instructors at the satellite range (which was actually larger). That eventually dwindled to 5 full time instructors and 1 full time/1 part time armorer at the main range, and 1 guy at the "closed" airport range who was no longer in my chain of command. We ran qualifications full time, and every week would qualify more officers than 85. This is in addition to Basic Recruit Training (started at 80 hrs, when I left we had punched it up to about 100 hrs), SWAT team and Countersniper team training, Perishable skills training, Plainclothes Firearms training, Retiree/LEOSA quals, Patrol Rifle classes, etc. There was literally not enough time to do all of that in our calendar, and some things just didn't happen. Overtime beyond that required for the Basic Recruit training was essentially non-existent, so low light training and quals just didn't happen. The courts and their silly ideas be damned.

    With large numbers of officers needing to 'get qualed', that becomes an overriding time suck. Especially when you're limited by budget and the fact that your range is an outdoor range located next to a residential neighborhood.

  5. #25
    Qualification courses are checking an administrative standards box. They are not training.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by AMC View Post
    Scale is absolutely a factor. As an example, at my old job we were a full time range staff with a department range and (kind of) another range at the international airport we policed. When I took over, I had 8 full time instructors and 2 dedicated armorers at the main range, and 3 full time instructors at the satellite range (which was actually larger). That eventually dwindled to 5 full time instructors and 1 full time/1 part time armorer at the main range, and 1 guy at the "closed" airport range who was no longer in my chain of command. We ran qualifications full time, and every week would qualify more officers than 85. This is in addition to Basic Recruit Training (started at 80 hrs, when I left we had punched it up to about 100 hrs), SWAT team and Countersniper team training, Perishable skills training, Plainclothes Firearms training, Retiree/LEOSA quals, Patrol Rifle classes, etc. There was literally not enough time to do all of that in our calendar, and some things just didn't happen. Overtime beyond that required for the Basic Recruit training was essentially non-existent, so low light training and quals just didn't happen. The courts and their silly ideas be damned.

    With large numbers of officers needing to 'get qualed', that becomes an overriding time suck. Especially when you're limited by budget and the fact that your range is an outdoor range located next to a residential neighborhood.
    Yup.

    And you were in one location with one team of instructors.

    Imagine having hundreds of instructors broken down into different teams in over 100 different locations each with different local managers and different range facilities.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SATX
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Yup.

    And you were in one location with one team of instructors.

    Imagine having hundreds of instructors broken down into different teams in over 100 different locations each with different local managers and different range facilities.
    Yeah, I lived that situation but on a bit larger scale.

  8. #28
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Redhat View Post
    Yeah, I lived that situation but on a bit larger scale.
    Yes, that’s why it made me think of the clip from MASH when Hawkeye is trying to replicate the French toast recipe he used for two people and scale it up for several hundred.

    It’s not that it’s impossible, but it does make things more challenging and it does require more structure. Sometimes you can work around things on a local level by going out of pocket or getting favors, etc., but that is not a repeatable solution for an institution.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the Rainbow Tunnel, somewhere north of Fantasyland.
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    Qualification courses are checking an administrative standards box. They are not training.
    This is an important distinction that's often completely lost on LE administrators. That's why it's important to design a course of fire that's relevant and credible, and difficult enough to require measurable skill. Round count is largely irrelevant to good course design, as both the Bakersfield PD qual and Mike Pannones 10-8 Test both show. I wrote a 20 round qual course that was intended to be magazine capacity neutral as we transitioned to a 9mm pistol, and scalable for difficulty in par times as officers skills improved. The idea was for the test to be quick to administer, and to devote more ammo to skills training during those sessions. Best laid plans....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •