Are we training correctly: reply

mickworldwide

Hi Hippy ,

Once again agreed , we tend to be always banging on about a more low key and acceptable approach... some times the best place to hide is right out in the open. I have worked alongside Us CPOs and with RMPs from the Uk. what we tend to do is screw our noses up a little cos the yanks tend to be a bit more in the face.
On occasions that is annoying but in the sense of what you have just pointed out, a covert approach to the US president is not really gonna work!!!
I still baulk a little at the B water people ramming Psd vehicles in The Green Zone though... I suppose a mixture of both UK and US standards is what is called for.

hippy

Couldn't agree more! And I used to work for em!! The strangest company I have ever been involved with EVER!

But, yes, I think the approach needs to be set according to the task in hand! My Chairman is an 70 odd year old business man, who travels to the far east and eastern europe regulary... I dont think he would appreciate the guys I send with him, or me on the odd occasion I get out from behind a desk, standing about glaring at all and sundry...

johnp

A good mixture of Yank and Brit training may set a good standard. But we have a fundamental problem that we need to overcome and that is attitude.

For a long time in the UK any form of security has been seen as a dirty word. Even today we see standards across the board particularly in the uniformed sector set at a pretty low level.

Speak to someone about your employment and they already have a pre formatted judgement. Depending on your job this can be, thick, thug or no idea whatsoever.
As has been said we are not as in your face as the yanks and this is part of the problem in a roundabout way.

The yanks attitude to security, any form of security is full on. Joe public in the States respect anyone working in this sector, from uniformed guards, police officers, military personnel up to executive protection officers. This has a knock on effect that makes them want to train, makes thier training standards higher than ours and gives them a positive attitude to make a difference.
I wonder if being armed as they are over there has got something to with this attitude.

Looking at our profession as that is what we are talking about, outside of the job not many people know about the industry. Even clients who decide they need protection do not know what we do until they speak to us. It's like we need to keep it secret.

I think being a bit more like the yanks, in attitude anyway wouldn't be a bad thing.
The funny thing is the yanks are normally blown away with Brit training and professioanlism.

Some market research done with course attendees maybe highlight the direction we need to take. The type of trainee coming through, why they want to be a BG, who do they think they will be lookking after, what do they think a BGs employment entails etc.

PhilC

John P,

I am in total agreement and have had long discussions with my director of operations, Martin F, who was an Rmp CP instructor/Operator, done his time in Ireland/FCO CP tours (Beirut/Uganda) and whilst in the private sector a 3 year Iraq tour. Even with the vast experience he has, he is currently on a refresher/further training 18 day course in the US (International Training Group - Home). I undergo refresher/further training annually as well (helps keep the muscle memory) and tactics are changing almost every 8 weeks now (courtesy of Iraq/Afghanistan) whereas before it was 6 months to a year before the "bad guys'" tactics evolve, so we want to keep up to date which means we improve or ability to stay alive and keep our principal(s) alive!!!

I have a company policy where all CPOs will undertake refresher courses or upgrade courses annually, with courses that I have pre-approved or courses they bring to me and after evaluation, I give the "yes or no". The number of applicants I get who have done a 3-5 day course and say they are CP trained is ridiculous and quite frankly depressing as well as a sad indictment of our industry. I totally agree that there should be a system in place where the level of the CPO can be recognized, which should be a combination of courses/refresher training and experience. To move up a level should also include a time bar and the number of operational assignments under their belt, so a guy cannot just do course after course and have no operational experience. I doubt that this will ever happen in the near future as big companies only want backsides on seats to fill contracts so generate profit for them so do not provide upgrade training as it would impact their profits, whilst other companies just want backsides on seats to make money on their training and do not really care about the welfare or safety of their students after they "graduate", unless they can see ways they can make more money off the student.

I adopt the attitude where my company pays for further training for all in-house guys and we pay 50% of the cost for team members not on full time contracts with us. For this group there has to be a level of trust and we do request that we get first right of refusal on jobs, since we are investing financially and in terms of time in their futures as well as our own. I believe that we are a bit of a rare breed by doing this, rather than the norm. This at time disappoints or disgusts me. We are not a big company, but I care enough about the welfare and safety of my guys and also the reputation of my company, as at the day putting inexperienced but so called "trained" CPO is a recipe for at the minimum a cluster**** and at the most an utter disaster which then destroys the company reputation and it is then "bye bye" to future business.

Training is not cheap so too many guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place of needing/wanting training but t do so need/want work, then trying to find time for both and the funds for training.

I also come across too much of the attitude that "nothing is going to happen anyway" with newly trained guys or guys that in reality were doormen/venue security guys (nothing against them as they have an essential job too, but there is a difference between that type of job and CP/PSD), rather than the attitude of "planning for the worse and hoping for the best". This attitude stems from there training/experience or I should say lack of.

Going back to training and I am sure many will agree, the upgrade system (if it ever happens) should include courses to recognize ability/previous training/experiences, such as a PSO course, shift leader course and finally a detail leader course.

I believe this as I have just started training for a client's in-house team and their appointed detail leader was a major disappointment. On paper he was ex-police Vip protection then the No.1 for 3 different blue-chip companies, but when I gave him our written assessment test (100 general questions - advance operations, motorcade operations, dismounted movements, CP Protocol, Use of force, communications, emergency/trauma first aid), with none of the questions being rocket science or needing a Phd to answer; he scored 31!! I think this really does highlight your point!!!

Anyway enough of my ranting and my half-penny's worth.
Phil C (Site Title)

PhilC

John P,

I am in total agreement and have had long discussions with my director of operations, Martin F, who was an Rmp CP instructor/Operator, done his time in Ireland/FCO CP tours (Beirut/Uganda) and whilst in the private sector a 3 year Iraq tour. Even with the vast experience he has, he is currently on a refresher/further training 18 day course in the US (International Training Group - Home). I undergo refresher/further training annually as well (helps keep the muscle memory) and tactics are changing almost every 8 weeks now (courtesy of Iraq/Afghanistan) whereas before it was 6 months to a year before the "bad guys'" tactics evolve, so we want to keep up to date which means we improve or ability to stay alive and keep our principal(s) alive!!!

I have a company policy where all CPOs will undertake refresher courses or upgrade courses annually, with courses that I have pre-approved or courses they bring to me and after evaluation, I give the "yes or no". The number of applicants I get who have done a 3-5 day course and say they are CP trained is ridiculous and quite frankly depressing as well as a sad indictment of our industry. I totally agree that there should be a system in place where the level of the CPO can be recognized, which should be a combination of courses/refresher training and experience. To move up a level should also include a time bar and the number of operational assignments under their belt, so a guy cannot just do course after course and have no operational experience. I doubt that this will ever happen in the near future as big companies only want backsides on seats to fill contracts so generate profit for them so do not provide upgrade training as it would impact their profits, whilst other companies just want backsides on seats to make money on their training and do not really care about the welfare or safety of their students after they "graduate", unless they can see ways they can make more money off the student.

I adopt the attitude where my company pays for further training for all in-house guys and we pay 50% of the cost for team members not on full time contracts with us. For this group there has to be a level of trust and we do request that we get first right of refusal on jobs, since we are investing financially and in terms of time in their futures as well as our own. I believe that we are a bit of a rare breed by doing this, rather than the norm. This at time disappoints or disgusts me. We are not a big company, but I care enough about the welfare and safety of my guys and also the reputation of my company, as at the day putting inexperienced but so called "trained" CPO is a recipe for at the minimum a cluster**** and at the most an utter disaster which then destroys the company reputation and it is then "bye bye" to future business.

Training is not cheap so too many guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place of needing/wanting training but t do so need/want work, then trying to find time for both and the funds for training.

I also come across too much of the attitude that "nothing is going to happen anyway" with newly trained guys or guys that in reality were doormen/venue security guys (nothing against them as they have an essential job too, but there is a difference between that type of job and CP/PSD), rather than the attitude of "planning for the worse and hoping for the best". This attitude stems from there training/experience or I should say lack of.

Going back to training and I am sure many will agree, the upgrade system (if it ever happens) should include courses to recognize ability/previous training/experiences, such as a PSO course, shift leader course and finally a detail leader course.

I believe this as I have just started training for a client's in-house team and their appointed detail leader was a major disappointment. On paper he was ex-police Vip protection then the No.1 for 3 different blue-chip companies, but when I gave him our written assessment test (100 general questions - advance operations, motorcade operations, dismounted movements, CP Protocol, Use of force, communications, emergency/trauma first aid), with none of the questions being rocket science or needing a Phd to answer; he scored 31!! I think this really does highlight your point!!!

Anyway enough of my ranting and my half-penny's worth.
Phil C (Site Title)

PhilC

Look what happened with Angelina J and Brad P in Asia (twice!!). I am a Brit and their team were Brits so it was extremely embarrassing and just made life a little bit more difficult for us in those locations. What happened tells me there was an ego problem, lack of professionalism/discipline and dare I say it probably a lack of continuation training and just living off an old reputation......not good.

I think that there is also a distinct difference in the hearts and minds of operators whether European or American, which really can be categorized into two groups, those that thrive in force protection Psd type work and those that do executive protection; the former is more in your face and the latter far more low key "grey men". In a lot of cases operatives cannot cross over from one to the other and those operatives that recognize this excel in their chosen discipline. I have had excellent "force protection" operatives who I had to switch out of an executive protection detail because they were too hyper and in your face and executive protection operatives on high threat environment details (Pakistan, Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand) who could not ramp up when armed.

I have found one course to date where they primarily focus on true executive protection up to high threat environments (but also have another for "force protection PSD" where the lead instructor (US) went through Rmp Longmoor (first USMP) and was involved in setting up the USMP CP training program. All the instructors have over 25 years experience in operations and instruction and between courses they are all still very much operational. None have ego's either and during training they do incorporate training based on mistakes they had made themselves over the years during operations. In effect they are not just teaching the principles and tactics, but teaching for real world, which is just as important and all this comes out during the force on force phases (using UTM converted personal weapons). I believe force on force training should be a must in any program too as it puts students in real life high adrenaline situations. Lastly and quite rightly so, they do stress their methods and training content is one method, but not the only method, but what they teach has kept them and their principals alive ((presidents (including Aristide in Haiti for five years, Senior military and government/NGO officials, senior private sector executives, high net worth individuals etc). by the way I do not have shares or any ownership of that company but I do recognize good and effective training methods.

Anyway back to your point. I think both Brit and US doctrines have there pros & cons but to blend the two, as the guys I send my teams to, just makes life so much better. I have brought the guys and girl out to Asia on my details and just completed an assignment over here on one of their details. In both cases my stress levels were low and responsibilties were delegated without any worry.

PhilC

morrigan

excellent post mate....

Now we are getting somewhere. at Morrigans we see the future of this industry and the furtherment of solid and sound training directly linked to the willingness of training providers to swap ideas and to brainstorm together. Understandebly each trainer thinks that his/her course is the best and the worry about company reputation and integrity is hard to put aside.

We have for a while now had the idea to invite representatives of the various security trainer/employer companies to attend an annual event and to put aside (if possible) the the typically defensive attitude we all have about our own 'all singing all dancing top of the range' courses- and to further a standard of training and content which supercedes the minimum requirements of the various accreditaion bodies such as the sia.

The problem of course is deciding who is in and who is out of that circle and i think we would all accept that the likelihood is that even if such a meeting were possible to arrange, it would most likely degenerate into chaos and no agreements made.

Unfortunately we are then dependent on the established regulatory bodies like the SIA taking the initiative. This they are unlikely to do themselves unless put under pressure to do so. That is where we all come in.

Your thoughts.......!!

PhilC

Thanks for your comments and I agree that vested interests would screw up any attempt for meaningful development and financial greed by large companies would preempt any attempt for genuine self-development/improvement based on the time factor as they want bodies on seats to fill their contracts. It is a sad indictment With all the different negative reasons; I agree we could never reach a consensus. In addition, without a recognized global oversight committee from a truly independent regulatory organization (sia and ASIS are not), we will remain fragmented and clients will continue to only learn the hard way when they get an inexperienced or under trained team, which after a period of time will have further negative backlash from potential clients, the press and "Joe public" where they think we are just a bunch of knuckle dragging cowboys, which a lot of us most certainly are not. This is happening courtesy of Blackwater!!

I use third party trainers for my people to give transparency to our clients and we only do assessments, together with basic training for clients own in house teams, just to prepare them to attend courses. We then give clients a list of training companies in the US and Europe/elsewhere (not blackwater or other "PMCs) for them to select themselves. Obviously we vet the list and use the "second cousin rule", where companies are only put on the list based on team members having attended their courses and we know the ability of our own team members.

I have been following the cluster**** that the SIA is turning into and I am glad I dont operate in the UK. You guys must be banging your heads against the wall or feeling homicidal at times. They were supposed to be the god send but they have screwed up and are now controlled by vest interest big companies, who do not give a crap about their people and only care about their bottom line.

One of the ideas I have been looking at and talking to training companies about is firstly, the conflict of interest, which then becomes a vested interest. There should be a division between training companies who should only be training people and companies whom only provide CP & Psd services to clients. In this way there are no conflicts of interest. This is unlikely to happen though. However, if it did, then training companies can be vetted graded and licensed by an independent watch dog made up of serving military and police officers, who can only sit on the panel for two years (no retired officers as unfortunately they would have vested interest.......this is just a reality).

The above is a scenario that will not likely happen....goes back to consensus, but wouldn't it be great if it could happen. My second thought is doable and will be able to let us grade training companies and private security companies annually and that list can be published:

My idea is to have an annual competition, similar to the Police, Firemen, SWAT, EMT and other group's "annual international competitions". then 10-12 scenarios are drawn from a hat (in advance) which have been submitted by contestants, together with side competitions covering specific skills such as CP weapons handling/shooting, Surveillance Detection, fitness, driving skills, AOP drills etc.

Teams would act as the "bad guys" when not actually competing, so there is also the "fun element" in the serious competition. To ensure that "ringers" are not brought in teams have to be able to prove that their team members have been with their respective companies for at least 2-3 years.

There should be a section for independent contractors as there are a lot in our industry and a novice section (less than 2-3 years experience?) so all part of the industry are included.

What I like about this "competition" is that it has all the elements which we want in our industry; personal development, networking, team development in "real world force on force scenarios", cross cultural look at each other's techniques and how effective they are in the real world, good training/learning in a competitive environment, being able to fairly grade teams and individuals (they get bragging rights for a year!), then at the end one almighty p**s up to unwind and build comraderie! Also everybody will include training on an annual basis to hone skills, learn new skils so they can compete effectively in the annual competition, if the want to win.

We considered the cost for such and believe that non-security related corporate sponsors would be the target group for financial support (they use our services so would likely put up the funds as it lets them look at what we do, how we do it and so it would also be good marketing for our industry) other corporate sponsors such as airlines (for free or very cheap flights to get to the selected venue (changed annually) and hotel chains (cheap or free accommodation) would also be looked for.

I think this concept has more positives than negatives and to ensure fairness the competition committee members would only be allowed to stand for 2-3 years and would be a smorgasbord from our industry and outside. The logistics would be a nightmare, but it would be easy to learn from and replicate from other "world games" such as mentioned above, so we do not need to re-invent the wheel! Obviously a lot of the nitty-gritty stuff like the elegibility, rules etc would need to be sorted out first.

What are your thoughts about this idea?
PhilC

johnp