NTI XVII TEAM OBSERVATIONS

By:  Skip Gochenour

June 15, 2007

On Study Day following each NTI the Team discusses observations and implications of the problem solving methods used during the event.  This installment of the newsletter will share some of those observations.

PERSPECTIVE

It may help to have a perspective on the nature of the discussion the Team holds regarding these observations.

Since the inception of the NTI, Practitioner’s commonly ask: “What are you looking for?”  The implication of the question is that there is some form of “school answer” that is of greater interest to the Judges than other forms of response to the problems presented.  The only thing of interest to the Judges is what the Practitioner does in response to the problem presented.  The specific form a technique takes is of little interest.  That the recognition of the need for application of a technique is immediate and seamlessly applied is of great interest.  Hence, instantly recognizing a mechanical arrest of the pistol’s action has occurred and is seamlessly reduced is of far greater interest to the Judge than the particular hand positions used to effect the reduction.

Of interest to the Judges is the Practitioner’s ability to engage in problem solving.  Problem solving, by definition, is a process where information is gathered from the specific environment and evaluated for its value in developing an approach to resolving the problem.  Each individual interprets the problem in light of his background experience with problems of the nature presented and his specific skills level development.

Skill level is commonly seen in a Practitioner’s application of a drill as opposed to understanding a construct on which the drill is predicated and modifying the specific response as the circumstance suggests. 

Judges routinely see examples of construct v. drill in the application of what has become known as the “tape loop” as a means of verbalization to resolve an encounter with a being of yet unknown threat level.  The purpose of verbalization is to gather information to aid in resolving the instant problem.  Practitioners are encouraged to have a litany of specific lines to use during dynamic encounters.  Popular among these pre-packaged communications is “You with (some identifying comment to let the person addressed know he is being specifically addressed), put your hands up!”  When executed as a drill, Judges see Practitioners (when confronting a humanoid with its hands raised to surrender position) announce loudly, “You with your hands up, put your hands up!”  Another iteration of this “tape loop” drill is to order a person holding an object that might be employed as a weapon to drop the object.  As a drill this is interpreted to “You with the baby drop the baby!”  These actual examples of Practitioner response to encounters suggest the skill level of the Practitioners who employed them operates as a drill rather than an understanding of the verbalization construct as a means to gather information for the resolution of the specific problem encountered.

The point lurking in all of this is that Team members learn a great deal about problem solving by watching the varied forms of approach executed by Practitioners who attend the NTI.

STAGE BY STAGE DISCUSSION WITH EXAMPLES

The Team discusses each stage and uses examples of specific approaches to resolving the problems presented at the NTI.  What follows is a sampling of the Team’s discussion.

NTI XVII THEME

Part of the NTI formula is the introduction of a theme that repeatedly presents a problem form in various guises.  The purpose is to allow the Practitioner to encounter a problem numerous times as he moves through the several exercises.  This approach allows the Practitioner to refine his approach to the problem as he progresses through the event.

NTI XVII looked at resolving problems when the Practitioner’s chosen equipment was denied him by circumstance.  A corollary is that you almost always have a weapon available, most likely a gun, even if some other person is carrying it for you.

At this event the over-ridding bed-time story was that you were called upon to appear as an expert witness in a criminal trial.  You flew into town with your weapon in checked baggage.  While in town you would meet with the DA at a lounge that served alcohol by the drink, spend time at your hotel room, go to a medical center for a medical problem, visit a shopping mall, testify in court and make a speech to the public at a local school.

ATSA VILLAGE

ATSA Village is the venue where Practitioners interact with role players. 

Practitioners began their time in the village by deplaning and recovering their baggage at the baggage claim.  They were met by role players who interacted with them in an inoffensive fashion.  A surprising number of Practitioners elected to recover their weapons from their baggage in the pick-up area.  They were met by police who placed them against the wall and searched them.  The Sheriff was called and they had to explain their actions. 

What was interesting about this behavior was how many times “follow the leader” lead to problems.  If one Practitioner in the group opened his bag to recover his weapons, the others in the same group would do the same.  Often the “follower” would show hesitation at recovering his weapon, but would proceed as he watched the first Practitioner go through the motions of recovery.

Some Practitioners would recover their bag and go immediately to the men’s room, enter the stall and gear-up.  Some followers in the same group would enter the men’s room behind the first Practitioner and gear-up at a counter in open view of anyone who entered the men’s room.  Of course, the next person in the men’s room was the resident police officer.  The Sheriff had more business.  The Sheriff was very accommodating to these “expert witnesses” and bluntly pointed out that had they not been in town to help the local DA with a case they would be on their way to jail.  After the appropriate lecture, the Sheriff made it clear that good behavior was expected from that point on while they were in town.  The Sheriff also offered any courtesy that could be accommodated during their stay.

That is called a clue!

The Practitioners were taken to their hotel room and informed they were to go next to the high school auditorium for the presentation they were to make to the public.  Some Practitioners elected to leave their weapons in their hotel room because weapons are not allowed on school grounds.  As would happen in hotel rooms they returned to find their weapons stolen. 

Perhaps taking advantage of the Sheriff’s offer of a courtesy extended to locking up weapons in a safe place.  Checking baggage in the hotel safe might have been another option.

THE SPEECH

Still other Practitioners elected to take their weapons with them to the school.  The Sheriff was at the school to search each entrant to the program.  Those with weapons were required to surrender them to the Sheriff.  At the end of the program the Sheriff returned to each Practitioner who asked, his weapon.  Several Practitioners left the School and did not seek the return of their weapon.

Of those Practitioners who did reclaim their weapons, some did not do a weapons readiness check before holstering.  Most of those who did do a weapons readiness check discovered their weapons had been unloaded for storage.  Most, that is. but not all.  Some Practitioners checked their weapons readiness but failed to recognize their weapon had been unloaded.

The last circumstance is an example of “doing the drill, not the job”.  The Practitioners who checked their weapons but failed to recognize they were empty have put into place a drill that does not fulfill the purpose.  The Practitioners who accepted return of a weapon that was out of their immediate control without checking its condition have not learned the drill.  The Practitioners who failed to seek the return of their weapon may not make a regular habit of going about armed.

Of course, there were the few Practitioners who tried to sneak into the school while armed and were promptly caught by security. 

As occurs in every NTI a few Practitioners tried to refuse to go into the scenario.  Invariably, the Practitioners position is that he would “never go into a place like that”.  That response is always a curiosity to the Team.  First, because the more experience one has with VCA, the more one understands that it is impossible to know what venue will serve for your “test”.  Second, it seems logical to conclude that a Practitioner willing to make the investment to attend the NTI is doing so in order to test himself by handling any scenario that presented itself for a learning purpose.  Never-the-less, Judges give the Practitioner a gold star for his response and direct him to the scenario.

All Practitioners in a specific squad were present in the school when the presentation was made.  One Practitioner assumed the podium.  The others took seats that were available, given the crowd that was in attendance.  In the middle of the presentation, a role player came in the rear entrance and walked to the front of the group while opening and closing a Zippo lighter.  (Another clue.)  Another entered the room with a gasoline can and began throwing “gasoline” on the spectators and the walls.  These role players were in full view of the Practitioner who was standing at the podium making his presentation.

Only one Practitioner who was making a presentation at the front gave any verbal indication that something was amiss.  In general, most Practitioners were slow to comprehend the threat and react.  Dr. Martin Topper observed that the lag was due to the unexpected nature of the threat.  It was not occasioned by a loud noise. 

As the presentation was being made in the largest facility in the town, the school gymnasium, the venue was littered with athletic equipment like balls, bats, tennis rackets and hockey sticks.  Some Practitioners recognized these implements as improvised weapons.  One Practitioner was observed quietly but verbally identifying each implement as to type and location as he stood at the podium.  Those Practitioners who recognized the implements immediately procured them when the threat was recognized.  Those Practitioners who merely took their seats and waited never recognized the availability of improvised weapons.

In almost every squad there was a 2 (or more) to 1 disparity of force between the number of Practitioners in the gymnasium and the number of threat role players. 

The most common reaction by Practitioners to the recognition of the threat was to run from the building.  Those who ran left the remainder of the audience comprised of school children and physically impaired little old ladies, to the VCA and their intent.  Most who tried to subdue the threat role players went after the “gasoline”.  Few tried to control the source of ignition.  There were, of course, Practitioners who helped the innocent and weak to escape.

While there was no verbal coordination between those Practitioners for their response that is not to say there was no coordination.  One squad was comprised of Marines.  When the threat was recognized, two of the Marines immediately went for the ignition source while the third went for the “gasoline” can.  As they responded each could be seen scanning the area to see where the other was headed. 

As the wrestling coach reminded, “You do in the match what you do in practice”.  

Following the speech, each Practitioner was taken to another location within the village.

THE MALL

Those Practitioners who failed to collect their weapons from the Sheriff after leaving the school, as well as those who collected their empty weapon, were taken to the mall. 

Upon entering the mall each Practitioner was enticed by female role players to spend some personal time.  Practitioners moved past this distraction and to a hall way that was about 30 feet long.  As they moved to the alternate exit they encountered a 6’ 300# man who tried to pan-handle them.  At the initial moment of contact the role player, though imposing, allowed a space between himself and the wall for the Practitioner to slide by.  Those who did not hesitate and were decisive passed the role player by and were able to exit.  Most Practitioners failed to take advantage of this opportunity and stopped their forward momentum.  Many decided to retrace their steps.  They immediately encountered a 6’6” 250# role player who was acting in concert with the other pan-handler role player.  Some Practitioners became so entangled with the second role player they lost notice of the first pan-handler who placed himself within 1 foot of the Practitioner’s back for periods of time beyond a minute.

Practitioners who remained entangled with the two role players eventually found they became very hostile and produced weapons.  Some Practitioners went for their weapons only to learn the Sheriff still had possession of it.  Those Practitioners who failed to check the condition of their weapons upon recovering them from the Sheriff found themselves in a gun-fight with an empty weapon.  Their reaction to the “click” instead of “bang” was usually open-mouthed disbelief.

There were a few Practitioners who only figured out they failed to get their weapon from the Sheriff upon leaving the school when they were asked to return it as they checked out of ATSA Village.

This was an example of an instrumental motivation that due to the response of some Practitioner’s evolved into an expressive act.  The original motive for the violence offered was to take the Practitioner’s property.  As regularly occurs in such encounters, there was a brief moment where immediate disengagement would resolve the problem.  Engaging and remaining engaged, particularly where the VCA decided he was being “dissed” evolved the incident into an expressive confrontation.

THE COURTHOUSE

Practitioners made their way to the Courthouse to testify in the case they were serving as a witness.  Once again, the Sheriff disarmed them prior to going into the courthouse.  Again some failed to reclaim their weapons upon leaving the courthouse.  Some failed to check the condition of their weapons.  Some did the drill not the job when the weapon was returned.

Upon entering the courtroom they found an armed bailiff, a stenographer and spectators.  The uniformed bailiff had an S&W auto-pistol clearly displayed.  The slide mounted hammer drop was in the down position. 

Soon the role player serving as the Trial Judge entered the courtroom from his chambers directly behind the bailiff.  The Practitioner was sworn in and the evidence in the case was reviewed with him by the Judge.  The Practitioner was asked to present his testimony.  In the middle of his testimony an obviously disturbed VCA entered the courtroom and promptly shot the bailiff as he drew his weapon.  The weapon landed, fortuitously, at the feet of the Practitioner.  The ranting VCA made it clear he was there to settle a score with the Judge.  He focused his attention on the Judge and announced to all present he was there to “have his day” with the Judge.  As the VCA entered the courtroom the Judge disappeared into his chambers. 

Practitioners who tried to get to the Bailiff’s weapon tried a variety of “cute” tricks.  None worked.  Some of those who were able to get the weapon failed to move the hammer drop to the enable position.  Some of those who were able to get the gun enabled learned the bailiff had the habit of carrying the weapon with an empty chamber.  One Practitioner was able to acquire the weapon, enable the hammer drop, chamber a round and then promptly re-engaged the hammer drop, sterilizing the weapon.

Each of the Practitioner’s who tried to obtain the weapon did so while kneeling or lying on the floor at a distance of less than 10 feet from the VCA.  No Practitioner tried to scoop the weapon from the floor as he sought the cover of the Judges chambers.

Those Practitioner’s who elected to comply with the directions of the VCA were treated to a period of ranting followed by a direction to leave the room with the rest of those in the courtroom, with the exception of the Judge who was promptly shot.  Following the shooting of the Judge, the role player conveyed through body posture and emotional intensity that he was spent.

This encounter was a purely expressive act by a VCA.  There was sufficient information provided by the VCA that his focus was on the Judge.  In the mind of the VCA he was there to “set the world right” by “squaring” a “wrong” done to him by the Judge.  Those who tried to intercede on behalf of the target were in danger of having the rage transferred to them.  Hence, the bailiff who tried to draw on the VCA was summarily shot. The VCA role player sent out signals to the Practitioner that he was not particularly interested in harming anyone but the Judge.  When the VCA role player interpreted the actions of the Practitioner as thinking about acquiring the dropped weapon, he usually taunted the Practitioner, in effect asking him if he wanted in the problem.  If the Practitioner ended his actions towards acquiring the weapon the VCA would not harm the Practitioner.  Even when the Practitioner acquired the weapon the VCA continued to provide a way for the Practitioner to avoid being shot.  The only Practitioners who were harmed by the VCA were those who enhanced the rage of the VCA.

THE LOUNGE

Practitioners met with the ADA who briefed them on the case prior to testifying.  The meeting was scheduled in a lounge that served alcohol by the drink.  Many jurisdictions, including ATSA Village have a law that prohibits the carrying of weapons in such establishments. 

Some Practitioners asked their escort Judges if they would be searched prior to entering the bar.  They were told the law prohibited the carrying of weapons in the bar, but they would not be searched upon entrance to determine compliance with the law.  Those who made such inquiry usually decided to “take their chances”.

Within moments of the Practitioner entering the bar a female ADA would arrive.  The Practitioner and the ADA engaged in conversation regarding the nature of the case and the subject matter of the Practitioner’s testimony.  Shortly thereafter a female would enter the bar and take a long look at the Practitioner.  As she walked by the Practitioner she would slow her pace to make sure she got a good look at him.  The ADA would ask the female if she was a waitress.  The female would crudely and obnoxiously deny she was an employee of the bar.  The female would then leave the bar. 

Within moments a 6’6”, 250# man would enter the bar and ask the Practitioner very loudly if he was the guy who was there to put him in jail by testifying at his trial.  A second man would simultaneously enter and pull up a chair so that his face was within inches of the Practitioner.  The first VCA would continue to demand to know if the Practitioner was there to testify in the trial, all the while making a production of putting on a pair of gloves.  Meanwhile a little old lady in a wheelchair imposed herself by telling the two VCA that they were “very nasty young men”.

Many Practitioners were slow to react to the apparent and growing menace.  Some sat nose to nose with the second VCA until the first VCA walked around the table to get within reach of them.  Few Practitioners directed the ADA to go summon the sheriff.  Many Practitioners allowed themselves to remain engaged with the two VCA who constantly crowded the Practitioner with their bodies.  While slow to react and dynamically remove themselves, most Practitioners were able to remove themselves from the confrontation.

Some of those Practitioners who decided to violate the “law” by taking their guns into the bar also elected to produce them.  As luck would have it, the Sheriff would show up at about that time.  Of course the role players would immediately tell the Sheriff that the Practitioner was responsible for all of the trouble by pulling a gun on them.  The Practitioner was taken into custody and handcuffed for transport to the jail.

Some Practitioners would tell the Sheriff they were not armed, even when the Sheriff had seen them with a gun in the bar.  One Practitioner, when confronted by the Sheriff and asked why he was carrying a gun in the bar denied having the gun that he was holding in his hand.  One Practitioner while being questioned by the Sheriff while holding a gun in his hand ran from the Sheriff, exited the building, threw the gun among some props and changed his appearance before returning to try to convince the Sheriff that he was never armed in the bar.  He was taken into custody.  One Practitioner, when taken before the Judge at the courthouse to be tried, told the Judge he was never armed in the bar and that the Sheriff was lying.  He was committed to jail.  When the scenario was over he was asked why he continued to lie, he responded that once he started he could not stop.

You will do in the match what you do in practice!

THE HOSPITAL

Practitioners were informed they had contracted a mild form of food poisoning and had to go to the clinic for some medicine.

While seated with the nurse at the clinic they could see the drug storage area.  The nurse could not see the drug cabinet.  An armed man entered the building very quietly and made direct eye contact with the Practitioner.  Using hand signals the VCA communicated to the Practitioner to remain silent and that the VCA was watching the Practitioner.  While constantly watching the Practitioner the VCA emptied the medicine cabinet and proceeded to leave the building.

Some Practitioners chose to watch the occurrence and wait for the VCA to leave before calling the Sheriff.  Others decided to pull out their cell phones and call for the Sheriff as the armed man was collecting the drugs.  Some told the nurse to call the police while the VCA was just a few feet away and listening.  Still others decided to produce a weapon and start a gunfight. 

When the Sheriff arrived the description of the VCA, who was very distinctive in appearance became a “short tall, red-headed blonde with black, brunette hair”.

If you train for a fight, you can have a fight.

LIVE FIRE STAGES

Live fire stages at NTI XVII mirrored the Village scenarios.  The Practitioner arrived by air travel, met with a lawyer at a bar to discuss his testimony, had to attend a clinic for treatment for a bout with food poisoning, testified in court and made a speech at a public school.

The NTI formula includes the incorporation of a baseline to determine the Practitioner understands specific fundamental techniques of our study as well as measure the Practitioner’s degree of accuracy skills.  The baseline is determined by a series of specific skill sets the Practitioner is requested to perform on specific direction and on general direction.  The two stages on which this baseline is established have graduated targets for the purpose of determining shooting skill.

SKILLS DEMONSTRATION

Practitioners are told to treat each string of fire during this exercise as a separate street encounter.

Judges on this stage made the following general observations:

• Accuracy for the Practitioners in general was good.
• On the close retention drills, polymer framed guns had a higher incidence of shooter induced stoppage than metal framed guns.
• Weapons with after-market long ejectors had a higher incidence of class three malfunctions during failure to fire reduction than those with standard length ejectors.
• Practitioners using double column, higher ammunition capacity systems were less likely to prepare for the next string of fire as though it was a separate street encounter.  They tended to holster a partially loaded weapon.
• About 1/3 of the Practitioners treated the exercise as a shooting drill.  This was evidenced by holstering weapons that had magazines that were partially depleted, failure to do chamber checks and failures to do 360 ready checks after engagement.

DEVIL DOGS BAR

This exercise used targets on air-movers and Bianchi movers.  Targets are graduated for determining shooting accuracy.

The Practitioner was informed he would meet Attorney Dewey of the firm of Dewey, Cheetum and Howe at the Devil Dogs Bar for dinner.  The Practitioner was to meet a female family member at the bar also.  The law prohibits the carrying of firearms in a facility that sells liquor by the drink.  The Practitioner surrendered his firearm prior to entering the bar.  Knives were permitted.

Practitioners were told they would need eye and ear protection.  That is called a clue.

The bar was entered by an elevator.  When the elevator door closed there was a commotion and the emergency alarm for the shut-down of the elevator sounded.  Some walking canes were along the hallway.  When the Practitioner stepped into the bar section the bloody body of the bartender was slumped over the bar.  An S&W j-frame was lying next to him with the cylinder open and cartridge casings visible.  10 loose rounds of live ammo were on the bar next to the weapon.  The Practitioner was constantly apprised of the status of the female relative who was abducted to the rear of the bar by particularly vicious VCA.  As the scenario unfolded the role player described increasingly more vile actions perpetrated on the female relative.

The Judges made the following observations:

·         About 60% of the Practitioners chose to use a cane as an improvised weapon.

·         No Practitioner chose to use plates or a pizza knife that was in plain view prior to reaching the location of the j-frame.

·         Most, though not all Practitioners eventually found the j-frame.

·         Some Practitioners treated the j-frame as a high capacity weapon and quickly ran out of ammunition.

·         About 1/3 of the Practitioners did not check the status of the weapon and learned the cartridge casings in the cylinder were expended when they were confronted by a hostile.  The open cylinder and loose rounds should have been a clue that the weapon was being reloaded when the bartender was killed.

·         A few Practitioners who were treated to a failure to fire in the j-frame tried to do a TRB to correct the condition.

·         Some Practitioners quit the fight when they no longer had ammunition and left their female relative to the tender mercies of the VCA.

·         Other Practitioners continued the fight and went hands on with the hostiles.

·         None of the Practitioners could identify the number of live rounds they had collected when they found the weapon.

·         Some Practitioners failed to collect all of the available live rounds from the bar.

·         Some of the Practitioners who gave up the fight after expending their ammunition discovered they had additional ammo among the litter in their pocket.

Train as you fight.

HERSH E. CHALK-LOTT MEDICAL CENTER

For Practitioners to study the level of imbedding their skills operate, a “mystery gun” exercise is used.  Practitioners are permitted to discover a weapon that is conventional, though not regularly used by members of our study, to solve encounters in a subdued light environment. 

The weapon provided this year was a double barreled 12 gauge with external hammers and a slide safety.  Five rounds of ammunition could be discovered with the weapon.

The scenario placed the Practitioner at the medical center with Atty Dewey.  The Practitioner and Atty. Dewey were suffering from a case of food poisoning acquired at the Devil Dogs Bar.  Drug dealers attacked the center.  There was a power failure in the building.  The Practitioner had been transferred to the center by EMT’s who had secured his weapons.  The Practitioner was clothed in a medical gown.

The Judges made the following observations:

·         The weapons system and clumsy light system created sufficient problems of operation that many Practitioners were unable to remember to perform simple techniques like using cover or returning to immediately available cover when the weapon failed to fire. 

·         About 10% of Practitioners failed to recognize the weapon in the environment.

·         One Practitioner looked down the barrel of a broke open shotgun from breach end of the weapon to determine if it was clear.

·         About 10% failed to find the additional ammo for the weapon that was lying in available view.

·         About 40% failed to use the available flashlight.

·         There was a tendency to miss one particular hostile that was to the immediate left of the Practitioner as he moved through the medical center.

·         There was a tendency to interview non-hostiles at the point of a muzzle, actually two muzzles.

·         About 10% failed to obtain an improvised weapon until they found the Dr.’s shotgun.

·         Those Practitioners who never found the shotgun and used a cane throughout the scenario routinely beat the Dr’s who were dressed in white lab coats.  It is possible the Dr. was mistaken for a dentist.

·         Most Practitioners “yapped” throughout the scenario.  Though information about the conditions in the center was available from the role players, few actually attempted to acquire useful information.

·         About 60% of Practitioners offered assistance to an injured man who had a wound that was pumping blood onto the floor.  A few thought to call for assistance from the Dr’s in the facility.

THE COURTHOUSE

Practitioners were scheduled to visit the courthouse as a witness in a trial.  They were taken to the security office where they were to secure their weapons.  A lock box was provided for non-firearms weapons.  A separate lock-box was provided for firearms and ammunition.  As the Practitioner placed his spare ammo into the lockbox an explosion occurred. 

Attached to the wall of the security office, directly in front of the Practitioner as he secured his equipment was posted an emergency access number. 

Judges at this exercise made the following observations:

·         At the explosion initiation about 1/3 left the security office without retrieving their spare ammunition from the open lock box.

·         One Practitioner left with his single stack primary weapon and his second weapon.  He expended all the ammunition in his primary weapon and forgot he had a secondary weapon on his person.

·         No Practitioner recognized the posted emergency code as useful information despite the fact they were in a secure building.

·         About 20% tried to gather useful information from the clerk seated at a desk in the room adjacent to the security office.

·         Most Practitioners engaged in “yapping” as they moved through the venue.  Even when the trial Judge and the wounded bailiff offered to provide useful information, they were ignored.

·         About 50% of the Practitioners were unable to figure out how to deal with the secured door that had an access card strip and a key pad control.

·         About 1/3 of the Practitioners eventually figured out that a courthouse employee would have a security card and/or a security access number that would open the door.

·         About 15% of the Practitioners shot the uniformed security guard who was responding to the emergency and was immediately outside the secured door when it was opened.

If you train to see everything as a shooting problem, everything will be a shooting problem.

THE SCHOOL

Practitioners were taken to a school to make their public presentation.  The range used for this exercise is a 360.  Practitioners are placed in the range without range personnel.  Communication is via a two way radio system.

Practitioners secured their weapons and went to the school athletic director’s office to await an escort to the auditorium which was in the gymnasium.  They were directed to use eye and ear protection.  That should have been a clue. 

Shortly after the Practitioner was seated in the coach’s office an explosion initiated a critical occurrence.  The coach’s office was littered with bats, tennis rackets, hockey sticks and various other athletic equipment.

The Judges on this exercise made the following observations:

• About 30% of Practitioners failed to acquire improvised weapons available in the venue.
• An injured security guard survived long enough to offer help.  Few Practitioners attempted to get meaningful information from him before he died.  The Security guard was armed with a Ruger P-85.  The weapon had two rounds in the magazine.  The slide was down on an empty chamber and the slide mounted safety was engaged.  The security guard had another magazine about his person with additional ammo.  About 25% of the Practitioners failed to locate the second magazine.
• One Practitioner acquired the Ruger and the spare magazine and retreated to a secure location and did a thorough ammo and weapons assessment, combining the ammo from both magazines into a single magazine before proceeding with the problem.
• Many Practitioners had difficulty getting the Ruger to fire because the slide mounted safety was engaged.  When they did get the safety dis-engaged they dropped the hammer on an empty chamber.  Of course, all of this occurred while standing flat-footed in an open engagement with a hostile.
• Knowing that available ammo was limited, many Practitioners still used engagement techniques on individual hostiles that are designed to consume lots of ammo.  The design worked.
• While working their way through the building, Practitioners encountered a door that would only open part way.  The reason was a hostile was blocking full motion of the door.  Many Practitioners failed to see the hostile.
• Despite being behind cover, Practitioners promptly shot a student who was in an open hallway, carrying an I-Pod.  Usually the student was shot without interrogation.  Practitioners who shot the student expressed concern the I-Pod was actually a detonator.
• By the time the last armed hostile was encountered most Practitioners had exhausted their ammo supply.  Some Practitioners were perplexed and could not decide a course of action.  Some used available improvised weapons. A few Practitioners threw the Ruger at the hostile.

We have seen this last technique in the past at the NTI.  Interestingly, it is only applied when the Practitioner runs out of ammunition in a weapon that is other than one of his own.  At NTI XVIII we intend to have a strong-box with a pad lock for the Practitioners to open.  That will allow those who have watched to may “B” grade movies fulfill their life long fantasy to “shoot the lock off”.

THE AIRPORT

Practitioners de-planed as they arrived for their stay at ATSA.  Their weapons were locked in checked baggage.  The Practitioner was provided with keys to his luggage and taken to the baggage claim area.  The Practitioner was there to meet a female family member who was going to transport them to their meeting with the lawyer who had retained their services.  In addition to their personal side-arms they had an M4 rifle.  Upon arriving at the baggage claim area an explosion caused a TSA agent to fall across a chest high portal and their relative was injured with an active wound gushing blood.  Automatic weapons fire was throughout the facility.

Among the equipment the Practitioner found in his belongings was a pair of binoculars.  That is called a clue.

Judges for this exercise made the following observations:

• Many Practitioners chose to ready their side-arms first and then prepare the M4.
• Most Practitioners showed good awareness of their immediate environment but failed to see the hostiles standing in open and plain view at about 100 yards.
• For those who did see the long range targets, the body of the TSA agent became a rifle rest.  At last, a TSA agent served a useful purpose.
• Some Practitioners prepared the M4 for use but failed to use it during their engagement.
• Most Practitioners provided assistance to their fallen family member.

A problem that develops in a venue exists to the horizon.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Practitioners train for potential encounters with a VCA.  No one can predict what form the encounter any particular Practitioner will face might look like.  No one can predict what circumstances will exist at the time the encounter occurs.

What is reasonably predictable about encounters with VCA is that there will be clues along the way that, if recognized and considered, will aid in making decisions regarding the immediate course to follow.  Hence, active thinking will likely be an important part of an encounter.

Just as it is important to train the body to finesse the weapons systems employed during an encounter, it is at least equally important to train the mind to quickly accumulate information, sort it for useful relevance and select among varied choices available.

Among the forms of training the Practitioner should engage are scenarios that disrupt anything that is comfortable.  Favored tools, plentiful assets and comfortable scenarios should be, from time to time, denied the Practitioner and substituted with disagreeable alternatives.

The purpose of such training is not so much to learn how to operate a Ruger P85 with limited amounts of ammunition, but to put in place a response pattern that can accept conditions that are less than optimal without degrading performance.

Crisis management, in any form, is enhanced when the Practitioner is “comfortable” with himself during the process of the crisis.  The ability to manage self-generated anxiety is crucial to remaining comfortable.  The operant term is self-generated.  Put another way, self-generated anxiety is the mind wrestling with self-doubt.  Self-doubt is spawned from concern that the instant circumstance is outside the expected.  Training to be comfortable with the unexpected is key to remaining comfortable in crisis management. 

Practitioners are regularly interested in who did well at events like the NTI, what doctrine they employed, what equipment they used and other such systems.  The reality is that none of that matters.  No particular doctrine is the best and probably not superior.  No particular equipment selection is commonly determinative.  What is determinative is the ability of the particular Practitioner to remain comfortable during any crisis occurrence so that he can interpret his environment and the actions of those people who populate it. The rest, in the words of Hemmingway, is supplemental.

Skip Gochenour