Glad to hear we're on common ground w/r/t what constitutes better versus merely required training.
Originally Posted by
law dawg
If it was for expediency, why? Not many failed the TPC.
The expediency is explained in the GAO link I cited. In a nutshell, it's the old national emergency justification.
Originally Posted by
law dawg
And if it was to get many out there quickly, then why not re-institute it once things had settled down?
This is my question (and concern) as well.
Originally Posted by
law dawg
The TPC is more suited to the job, IMO. It's all done from close range (21 feet) and FAST! That said, it neglects many LE functions (shooting from concealed carry, longer ranges (PPC goes back to the 25 yard line), etc.) Not to mention it doesn't have the long history of legal review (shootings, use of force, etc.) that the PPC does. That standard is well established.
What I gathered from reading the GAO report is that
both the PPC and ATPC were required before the training revisions in 2002. But please correct me if I'm reading something that's not there. Maybe you're trying to say that job requirement is not the same thing as qualification? (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; just asking.)
Originally Posted by
law dawg
And all this is moot anyway, for purposes of the OP, since that course was eliminated in 2002.
But not moot in the bigger picture.
Originally Posted by
law dawg
This is incorrect as the ATPC was never, not once, used as a qual. It is used during firearms training (as is the older TPC) but it is not a qual and never has been. The ATPC is a different qual than the TPC, which is what the OP is referring to.
By "what the OP is referring to," do you mean the bit I quoted from the cnn.com story? (Because the OP has not referenced "TPC" himself.) If so, are you saying that the reference to TPC in the story is not ATPC? Then what sort of pistol coursework is CNN's story referring to?
Originally Posted by
law dawg
There was never such a training requirement.
Not according to the GAO report I cited.
Originally Posted by
law dawg
The requirement was 1) the TPC and then 2) the PPC. Those have always been the two quals. One was in force at one time, and then replaced by another. The ATPC was never the qual.
The GAO report clearly states otherwise:
Although the Service is now providing additional marksmanship training, its decision not to restore the advanced marksmanship test [Footnote 14] as a qualification standard for employment has proved controversial.
<snip>
[14] The Aircraft Tactical Pistol Course (ATPC).
Originally Posted by
law dawg
I'm always for more and better training and for harder quals and tests. That's not the discussion though - the discussion is that new trainees in the FAMS are getting denigrated training, which is not the case.
I'm glad to hear that you think harder qualifications and tests are desirable.
But how does that square with the fact that hires since early- to- mid-2002 receive fewer hours of overall training and less rigorous pistol coursework compared to their pre-9/11 predecessors? On top of that, poor compliance on PPC requalification indicates that ongoing training is no longer a serious component of FAM training. In total, it sounds like a denigration in the program to me.