TexasCHLforum.com

So, if we now have approved "On-line Instructors", doesn't it naturally follow that some of us may start getting proficiency testing request from these folks that did the class on-line?

Anyone have any idea what that "not less than one hour, not more than two" is supposed to consist of?

My last hour and a half of my class will consist of gun and range safety and handling (which should be part of the online course as well) I believe that would suffice without further instruction of DPS. The cost of this would be 50.00 plus range fee. If they want a one on one then double that.

kg5ie wrote:So, if we now have approved "On-line Instructors", doesn't it naturally follow that some of us may start getting proficiency testing request from these folks that did the class on-line?

Anyone have any idea what that "not less than one hour, not more than two" is supposed to consist of?

Who are the "approved "On-line Instructors"?

kg5ie wrote:So, if we now have approved "On-line Instructors", doesn't it naturally follow that some of us may start getting proficiency testing request from these folks that did the class on-line?

Anyone have any idea what that "not less than one hour, not more than two" is supposed to consist of?

And as a follow on question, we will need to sign their LTC-101 and submit a LTC-9 to the DPS, correct? So we'll all need the password for the LTC-9.

kg5ie wrote:

kg5ie wrote:So, if we now have approved "On-line Instructors", doesn't it naturally follow that some of us may start getting proficiency testing request from these folks that did the class on-line?

Anyone have any idea what that "not less than one hour, not more than two" is supposed to consist of?

And as a follow on question, we will need to sign their LTC-101 and submit a LTC-9 to the DPS, correct? So we'll all need the password for the LTC-9.

No, you will not need the password for the online LTC 9. The online LTC 9 only has a spot to report the "online class" portion specifically.

kg5ie wrote:So, if we now have approved "On-line Instructors", doesn't it naturally follow that some of us may start getting proficiency testing request from these folks that did the class on-line?

Anyone have any idea what that "not less than one hour, not more than two" is supposed to consist of?

You will have to teach "range instruction" for a min of 1 hour, max of 2 hours before they take the proficiency portion. I don't see anyone teaching "range instruction" for longer than 1 hour. The LTC 101 specifically says "range instruction" and not "handgun use"

As the DPS lady said during our recertification course, "about the only people who will benefit from the online courses are people who are 1) out of state; and 2) exempt from the range qualification." I agree, primarily because of the overall cost to the student and because I don't see many LTC instructors being willing to do only the range portion of the class.

Some instructors will refuse to do the range portion of the class on principle while others will not find it to fit a good business model. If the 1 to 2 hrs. of instruction was not required, then we could allow online students to join us just for the range portion of the course. The additional teaching requirement means we would have to have separate classes for these folks and I don't see that happening on a broad scale. I won't do it because of what I would charge them for such a short "course." Unless they can get an online course for $20, the overall cost of training will be higher than attending a live class. (I've heard some instructor say they will charge the full fee.) It will be interesting to see how all this works out.

Chas.

As just posted to web site, this is how I plan to deal with it. If and when ......

"Private (minimum 5 hour) LTC classes are available for 1 - 4 people at $60 per hour on weekdays or $80 per hour on weekends (if available). The same hourly rates - with a 2 hour minimum - are applicable for anyone who happens to need to complete the range portion of the recently-approved Texas LTC "online course" option."

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As the DPS lady said during our recertification course, "about the only people who will benefit from the online courses are people who are 1) out of state; and 2) exempt from the range qualification." I agree, primarily because of the overall cost to the student and because I don't see many LTC instructors being willing to do only the range portion of the class.

Some instructors will refuse to do the range portion of the class on principle while others will not find it to fit a good business model. If the 1 to 2 hrs. of instruction was not required, then we could allow online students to join us just for the range portion of the course. The additional teaching requirement means we would have to have separate classes for these folks and I don't see that happening on a broad scale. I won't do it because of what I would charge them for such a short "course." Unless they can get an online course for $20, the overall cost of training will be higher than attending a live class. (I've heard some instructor say they will charge the full fee.) It will be interesting to see how all this works out.

Chas.

What do you think about getting the law amended to shorten the in person proficiency requirement ? The LTC 101 specifically says 1 hour min 2 hour max of "range instruction" plus the actual shooting. Range instruction does not take that amount of time. It would benefit both parties, especially if instructors could just add the online students to the range portion of the class. It's apparent that this was not well thought out.

ChrisR wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As the DPS lady said during our recertification course, "about the only people who will benefit from the online courses are people who are 1) out of state; and 2) exempt from the range qualification." I agree, primarily because of the overall cost to the student and because I don't see many LTC instructors being willing to do only the range portion of the class.

Some instructors will refuse to do the range portion of the class on principle while others will not find it to fit a good business model. If the 1 to 2 hrs. of instruction was not required, then we could allow online students to join us just for the range portion of the course. The additional teaching requirement means we would have to have separate classes for these folks and I don't see that happening on a broad scale. I won't do it because of what I would charge them for such a short "course." Unless they can get an online course for $20, the overall cost of training will be higher than attending a live class. (I've heard some instructor say they will charge the full fee.) It will be interesting to see how all this works out.

Chas.

What do you think about getting the law amended to shorten the in person proficiency requirement ? The LTC 101 specifically says 1 hour min 2 hour max of "range instruction" plus the actual shooting. Range instruction does not take that amount of time. It would benefit both parties, especially if instructors could just add the online students to the range portion of the class. It's apparent that this was not well thought out.

The law could certainly be changed, but "we" didn't have anything to do with this bill. I doubt we'd delve into this issue since 1) it impacts so few people; and 2) we have too much to get done. As a practical matter, if online courses are to be offered, DPS should be doing it.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ChrisR wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As the DPS lady said during our recertification course, "about the only people who will benefit from the online courses are people who are 1) out of state; and 2) exempt from the range qualification." I agree, primarily because of the overall cost to the student and because I don't see many LTC instructors being willing to do only the range portion of the class.

Some instructors will refuse to do the range portion of the class on principle while others will not find it to fit a good business model. If the 1 to 2 hrs. of instruction was not required, then we could allow online students to join us just for the range portion of the course. The additional teaching requirement means we would have to have separate classes for these folks and I don't see that happening on a broad scale. I won't do it because of what I would charge them for such a short "course." Unless they can get an online course for $20, the overall cost of training will be higher than attending a live class. (I've heard some instructor say they will charge the full fee.) It will be interesting to see how all this works out.

Chas.

What do you think about getting the law amended to shorten the in person proficiency requirement ? The LTC 101 specifically says 1 hour min 2 hour max of "range instruction" plus the actual shooting. Range instruction does not take that amount of time. It would benefit both parties, especially if instructors could just add the online students to the range portion of the class. It's apparent that this was not well thought out.

The law could certainly be changed, but "we" didn't have anything to do with this bill. I doubt we'd delve into this issue since 1) it impacts so few people; and 2) we have too much to get done. As a practical matter, if online courses are to be offered, DPS should be doing it.

Chas.

I'm not sure if the DPS should be doing it, lol. Several other States accept online training and they also let certified instructors handle the online training.I guess it will not be a huge issue with most instructors. In my town I have a military base that has hundreds of new students every few months AND a prison so I get a lot of students that do not need the proficiency portion in the first place so the online will be big here.

Chas says: "As a practical matter, if online courses are to be offered, DPS should be doing it."

Yep. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. did it many years ago for a hunter education course option, with followup "completion class" required at instructors' locations. And the online course portion provided by TPWD is free.