johnp

I took part in Frankfarmers survey and read with interest his dissertation which has some real valid points.

As an instructor i am obviously interested in peoples views on training and
there are some intersting comments made some good and some incorrect on his thread.

Personally i think the question posed was wrong or perhaps it could have been worded differently.

Maybe the quetion should have been:
How can the industry provide professional advancement for close protection officers after completing the BTEC level 3 in close protection operations.

Let me explain how i arrived at this question.

We have to look at training as a whole and compare our industry to others.
Lets take a normal job, plumber, carpenter, builder etc. You do your apprenticeship, in some cases you move onto journeyman (still learning) then you become a tradesman and finally a master craftsman. Between each advancement you have, time allocation,more learning, more training, more exams.

Look at the military. You have basic training (apprenticeship) signals, combat medic, para training, support weapons, sniper training etc (journeyman-still learning) rank promotions (tradesman) senior NCOs and above ( master craftsman). Obviously these are metaphors but you can see what i mean.

Now look at our industry. one 150 hour course. On completeion and pass i am a master craftsman close protection officer. No more training required and with some people no training ever undertaken again.

There are loads of great courses out there that will enhance your skill level. Driving, medic, close quarter combat, hostile environment, maritime security, aviation security to name but a few. Now i dont mean you should do them all, your training has to be role specific. Dont do a Psd course if you have no intention of working in a hostile environment. On the other hand if your client spends time on his luxury yacht then do a maritime security course.

The only people who are training today are newcomers to the industry and the operators who take thier job and industry seriously. Unfortunately these people get no more recognition than someone who does the BTEC level 3 then does no training ever again.

The industry governing body need to implement an advancement qualification system based on the civilian model.

Our continuation courses cover close quarter combat, weapon disarming / weapon retention, weapon transitioning and hostile environment. The course instructors are all operational so periodically undertake further or refresher training.

The BTEC levl 3 has to be seen for what it is and that is a basic course and no more. Paddington and MTS are right in saying that it does not matter how long the course is, you cannot learn everything on one course and anyway who could afford to pay or even take time off to do loger courses.

So let us use the BTEC level three as a basic course and not the be all and end all of Close protection training. How can we advance our profession if we stay with only a basic course and do not have an advancement system, we can't we will just stagnate.

What are your thoughts on an advancement qualifiaction system.
Some examples might be:
Time allocation between each advancemnt
Courses required for each advancement
job dscriptions open to each advancement Operation manager
TL
2IC
ETC
Pay for each advancement (what you might be payed for having higher qualifications)

The original question posed by Frankfarmer required only a one dimensional answer. We need to look at future training standards for our industry over a wider spectrum.

I hope these comments generate some thought about how you should be planning your own training and possibly help change future training requirements.

Any feedback good and bad is always appreciated.

johnp
Course Director
EPO-PSD Tactical Training School
EPO-PSD Tactical Training School - Home

robdog

Thanks for saying what so many of us are thinking

hippy

John, A well presented item. I am a quailified trainer as well and although, except for some 'in-house' stuff, I dont train at the momnet I am a firm advocate of further training. However my concerns with introducing further courses for positions such as T/L etc is how the sia would structure it. We all are aware that the SIA seem completly incapable of making rational decisions.. If T/L etc courses are brought in how would the SIA decide who should take one and whom would be exempt?

Take applying for your basic licence.. I had to take a course and exam as my CP training was taken before some mandatory point in time.. Despite me having been employed fairly constantly in a cp role since! Do I, having spent some 18 years after my first cp course and constant employment in the industry have to take a T/L course? I have after all ran very large teams in a varity of cp tasks.. I now hire cpo's.

My worry is that the SIA would leap on this as yet another money making opportunity, as would the less scrupuless training providers out there..

johnp

Thanks for the reply Hippy.

I must admit it is a bit of a dilemma and one that will either, take years to research, plan and implement possibly by people with no CP experience at all. Or it will never happen and the new crop of operatives coming through will be discussing the same problems in the future as we are discussing them now.

I undeRstand your feelings about the advancement courses i mentioned as i am in the same boat, 15 years constantly employed - TL to RST and CP teams etc, but do we just sit back and say " ah well thats our lot" or do we try to move forward?

Your concerns about the money making opportunity is well noted, documented and discussed elsewhere, and i agree that the pound signs flashing in the eyes of the sia and some training providers far outway any notion they have about making our industry more professional.

Regal Security Training Ltd

Hi John,
I read your interesting thread, i do beleive that in the interests of the industry that the 150hrs is a bit meagre in its content, but at least there is an achievable level that all employers now know that each operater has completed. i say totaly beleiveing that some companies i am dismaid to here are just delivering a PowerPoint couse only????
it has taken 2 years to get my company up and running i have developed a course design a Course Action Plan (CAP) a course training plan (CTP) schemes of work and session plans in the beleif there is a common sylabus, i am now gutted to say the least as some companies are cutting corners. Myself and my collegues have noticed either domesticaly and Hostile envirtonment that we have had to re-train men when they have come on contracts??? hence i want to do somthing about it. so i have invested heavily but why when people cut corners. i completed a crucibel course 2 years ago in the US and part In Iraq it was such a professionally run course and compaired to our sia course we are left wanting, we need to raise our standard of training and raise the standard of professionalism, did that sound like a winge? as i meant to agree with your thread, but i am passionate about our profession.

mickworldwide

Hi Brummie,
I agree with all of the above, we do indeed need to raise the bar, however I am a firm believer that T/L and Ops Manager level cannot come solely from a qualification, time on the ground , local knowledge and a bit of tactical knowhow is required, after all I am sure we have all come across persons that excel in training courses and are professional exam sitters who scream up through the ranks and then make absolutely hideous decisions on the ground!!
I am a little wound up by the lack or apparent lack of physical training and conflict resoultion skills/ jap slapping (no offense to japs intended) As I am sure you will agree there are many persons around who hold all sorts of licences but are unfit , overweight, have little to no unarmed defense skills and dont maintain any level of fitness.
Maybe the sia should look at investing in a development scheme kind of in the same way as a probationary period by which graduates are assessed again in 12 months and their training needs identified by their employer etc. This would enable a chance to see where the core competancies are falling short and it would allow scrutiny of the providers if they are falling short in preparing personnel for deployment and employment.

johnp

Good points there.

It's good to hear that some privders and individuals think along the same lines.

I do agree that TLs / Ops Managers jobs etc cannot be earned on a certificate alone, that is why i mentioned the time allocation between each professional advancement/level or whatever you want to call it. There should be some kind of certification backup so all that hard earned experience actually adds up to something.

If certification ever did come in, exam sitters, wannabe's, and those with no experience could possibly be screened out by letters of recommendation from employers where they have being working as a TL/Ops Manager etc (only an idea).

Funny you should mention the CQC bit as that is what we specialise in. I had to either write CQC or close quarter combat because after training and teaching CQC for 30 years to military and Close Protection personnel i cannot abide all the new pc terms. Physical intervention, conflict management, conflict resolution etc, what a load of crap. It is what it is and when it happens it's not nice so why try and make sound it nice. Our industry has specific threat and tactical considerations that an ordinary martial art just does not cover. If you have no experience in close protection then don't think because you are a black belt you know what operators require to defend themselves and thier clients. If you have never handles weapons and don't know there characteristics, don't teach how to defend against them.
Sorry i could go on but i think that is enough if a whinge about that.

Maybe course providers and other trainers in our industry, the ones who like to make a living at it, want to make it more professional and not fleece people should try to influence decision making from the governing bodies.

Any thoughts?

Regal Security Training Ltd

John Hi,

I agree with every word you said in your thread, I would like to see higher performance standards, set as standard. I wont harp on about it but i have said in the past , when you work with a new operater the first two questions are ?
1. Who were ya with in the Mob?
2. Who did you do your course with?

To be frank the last question was the biggy and 9 times out of ten they fell very very short of what they said they were qualified in, on their CV and what they were taught???

I also think the BRITISH prceived way of CP is good, but in need of an update. i did a course for a company in the US, and was really inpressed and very suprised.
i did think it was going to be gung Ho and lots of trigger time and yahooooo!

Quite the oposite, but each phase of training there was critical Obj that you had to pass to move on if not your off the course, The Physical was suprisingly horrible but on reflection just the ticket.


Brummie

mickworldwide

Couldnt agree more with you guys on the above comments,

Brummie you already know my attitude to training and the necessity for it to be a constant and gradual advancement. Basics are what they say they are and I find it slightly ridiculous that the basic 15 core competancies are all that is required to perform CP, it is and should be a lot more than that.
The CQC aspect is a long term gripe of mine and as is basic fitness levels. I know guys in their late 50s that are far fitter than 20 somethings because they bother to get off their ass from time to time.
Again I agree that the bar must be raised and that if we dont we fall in danger of becoming second best behind the yanks ... that is something that should never happen and unfortunately is starting to creep in as providers can now pass people in the minimum standard required whereas in the past they might not have stood a scooby in becoming a CPO.

hippy

This is an interesting thread so unusually I'm replying again.. Whilst I agree that the British CP style and perception is good, I wouldn't necessarly say its better than any others.. You mention the US style.... Many (many) years ago I had to attend the 'Advanced Federal Executive Protection Course' at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centre.

I attended with a heavy heart.. 12 weeks with the yanks, learning about something our establishment had already trained me in and that I had been putting into operational practise for a couple of years.. But on arrival I had my eyes opened! One of my first comments was on the 'heavy handedness and obviousness' of the USSS presidential protection details... One of the instructors pointed out that the US President was possibly the most recocnisable man on the planet, so why bother being low key with his protection? He demonstrated other agencies, such as the USMS who operate in an entirely different manner.. More 'British' in style I would have to say..

By the end I had changed my mind about how the USA's lead agencies operate... Whilst I am happier with the low key methods I have come to realise that there are situations and indeed clients that may need a differing method and approach!