ES Training Tasks -- Tough enough?

[RiverAux]

I think everyone will recognize the major step forward that CAP made when it adopted the current task based training along with associated task guides (based on those developed by MD Wing) and powerpoint presentations. 

I think that for our primary ES positions (ground team and aircrew) that they're actually pretty good and that someone who goes through and is trained and tested as intended can probably be expected to do a pretty good job. 

For the base staff I think they've probably still got a ways to go but I suspect that as NIMS gets ramped up that we'll probably discard the CAP specific program we've got now and just adopt the national standards. 

Now, I don't want to get in another NIMS/NASAR discussion and actually want to return to the aircrew and ground team training program.  Do you believe that the tasks are adequate as is?  Too much?  Not tough enough?  What specific tasks need to be added, deleted, toughened up, or loosened up? 

[smj58501]

For mission staff training, I feel there need to be some task equivalency matrices developed for external training received.

A good example of this includes the Inland SAR Planning Course. This could be closely looked at as a signoff for Planning Section Chief, and perhaps others. Another to consider is successful completion of the FEMA-standardized ICS 300 and 400 courses for IC and other mission base tasks.

The "eaches" would need to be researched and debated, but I think the overall concept of task equivalency for attending standardized courses like Inland SAR and ICS 300/ 400 should be implimented.

[floridacyclist]

I think that while the standards could be beefed up at least a little, the much bigger problem is getting folks to evaluate properly. Seldom do you see folks actually going over the P/F tests at the end of each task qualification section, rather they usually seem to  satisfy themselves with asking a couple of questions or perhaps having knowledge (either firsthand, secondhand, or rumored) that a person performed a job (sat, unsat or other) on a practice mission. Does it really matter what the standards are upgraded to if the current ones aren't being adequately evaluated?

[RiverAux]

Since the SAR Planning Course is not offered very often, it would really make it difficult to get new higher-level staff qualified.  Most people would need to travel out of state, and sometimes REALLY far out of state, to take it and I think thats asking just a bit much. 

Pencil-whipping is an issue, but lets assume that most CAP members want to do it right and follow the rules for the purpose of this thread.

[SDF_Specialist]

Pencil-whipping is an issue, but lets assume that most CAP members want to do it right and follow the rules for the purpose of this thread.

This is true. My first SAREX, I was training for GTM3. After that day, it showed me as a qualified GTM3. I asked everyone what to do, who to contact. I never bothered putting the badge on until the following SAREX where I was able to complete the remaining tasks on the SQTR. After that, I showed this to my unit commander who authorized me to wear the badge.

[smj58501]

Since the SAR Planning Course is not offered very often, it would really make it difficult to get new higher-level staff qualified.  Most people would need to travel out of state, and sometimes REALLY far out of state, to take it and I think thats asking just a bit much. 

Pencil-whipping is an issue, but lets assume that most CAP members want to do it right and follow the rules for the purpose of this thread.

I don't disagree that the offerings are not what they should be. I do not advocate replacing the current system. I am suggesting that we simply give credit for attending Inland SAR.

You are correct.... often times attending Inland SAR is above and beyond expectations for a volunteer. Thats all the more reason to find a way to recognize those of our members for making the extra effort to attend. One way to do that is awarding them equivalent credit for a specialty.

[floridacyclist]

I'm not referring to totally skipping the sign-off, but ignoring the standards or making up your own.

"So Cadet, what was your job on this UDF training mission?"

"Radio Operator sir"

"OK...we'll sign you off on the radio operations tasks of your SQTR. Did you keep a log?"

"Yes sir"

"OK....we'll make sure to list that too"

It just aggravates me when I walk up to a cadet and ask him a question from the end-of-task evaluation and he is totally clueless stating that he has never heard that question before.

[SDF_Specialist]

It just aggravates me when I walk up to a cadet and ask him a question from the end-of-task evaluation and he is totally clueless stating that he has never heard that question before.

There's another problem there. It's not that they don't want to participate, it's just that having classroom training doesn't capture their interest as much as hands on would. That is my major concern with developing an ES training plan for my unit is to try to reduce the classroom training, and do more hands on. Of course I will be explaining as we go what each task is, why it is important, and the proper way(s) to complete it. I've been through the same thing Gene. I've trained even Seniors for MRO, and ask them about tasks, and they have no clue.

[floridacyclist]

My question is "If they don't know the answer to the questions, then how in the world did they get passed on the evaluation?" It doesn't bother me if someone doesn't learn the material well...you simply repeat and practice until they know it...THEN you allow them to sign off, not before.

I wonder is this more a symptom of society's attitude that nobody should ever fail anything? Or the evaluators simply not knowing how to conduct a proper and thorough evaluation, including all of the test questions (or at the very least, similar ones covering the same standard of performance)?

[SJFedor]

It all depends on the quality of training.

For example, the Mission Observers that NESA graduates every year, extremely high quality, very proficient in their jobs and with Air SAR in general. So, using that model, the tasks for those specialties are definitely quality.

Same tasks, same SQTR, but in a "less structured" training environment, the person might know how to get into the plane, mess with the CAP radio a little bit, and that's about as useful as they can be.  It's all about how much education they had on it and how much practical experience they've had on it.

[floridacyclist]

Exactly..and shoddy training should be caught and nipped in the bud by the evaluator, yet most folks make it through an evaluation session with flying colors whether they knew the material, had to be coaxed on each question, or weren't even fully tested on each task.

I think many SETs forget that evaluation is not training...if they don't know it, you fail them and send them back for more training, you don't correct them on the spot and sign off anyway. I had that drilled through my head back when FL had their Wing Authorized Trainer program and my oldest son and I spent two weekends in Orlando learning how the wing wanted signoffs on MRO to be conducted.

[arajca]

Perhaps we need to re-evauate the notion of signing off tasks at SAEX's/missions. I suggest running quarterly evaluation sessions were several stations are set up and the student has to go each to get signed off on a task - one per station. The purely lecture stuff can be done and signed off in class. Anything requiring demonstration of a skill is done at the eval session. This removes the temptation to pencil whip folks through on a SAREX or mission. Schools such as NESA and the various wing/region level es schools would follow the same format, except the eval session is part of the school.

IIRC, a similar practice is used in the military during basic training.

[floridacyclist]

Yup...30 basic tasks. I still have my green book somewhere.

We do a similar thing at our weekend events. We usually hold them on 3-day weekends...the 1st day is classroom training, the 2nd is field exercise and playing with the things we've learned, and the last day is sign-offs. For our Gp 2 ES Academy, we're doing 2 monthly weekends of squadron-based training and then a large group-wide ground exercise and evaluation party where we'll have all the SETs together and we can evaluate the evalution process live and in person.

All we guarantee is that we will do our best to present the training. We do not guarantee that you will pass the evaluation.

[wingnut]

This year I flew over 140 hours  for CAP, of those at least 70 have been on  SAR, Ihave become disillusioned with the training process, it seems that "TOO" many people can sign off on an SQTR, I mean from UDF to Mission Pilots. I can't tell you how many missions I was on and several mission pilots did not have a gridded chart, or the observer did not have a clue on how to operate the CAP radio. A lot of guys only fly when they are in a CAP plane and barely meet their required  FAA minimum's, much less flying a Grid.

I think we need to evaluate the Sarex and the Actual missions themselves, each and every time, we learn as a team. I am not throwing spears at anyone, I just flew a HLS mission with a large number of Military Pilots who had some of the same issues with a lack of training and or experience.

[Dragoon]

There are a couple of issues I see with our training approach right now

1.  Evaluators who don't.  (evaluate, that is).  We need more than SET.  We need a hands on evaluation of the Evaluators ability to evaluate!  (how's that for a mouthful).  Followed by a Wing CC's sign off that the guy is allowed to evaluate.  Adjust MIMS to require that Wing CC sign off.

Basically, we have to have the same standards for evaluators as we do for check pilots. 

2.  Some of the tasks are screwy.  For example, scanners have to demonstrate operating the CAP radio, which they can't even reach from the backset!.  Also, we've got huge amounts of worthless stuff in some of the task guides (does it really matter if scanners can explain all the ins and outs of icing)?

3.  Too many of the tasks for aicrew (and some for staff) involve "Discussing" rather than "Demonstrating".  Who gives a rat's patootie what you can "discuss".  It's the "demonstrate" stuff that matters.

4.  The staff tasks are wayyyyy too vague.  Lots of time and effort has been spent on the GT side, and fair amount on aircrew.  But I submit that one could pass all the listed tasks for Logistics Section Chief and still have zero idea on how to actually do the job on a real mission.

But on the whole, we're light years ahead of where we were in the 80s.

[arajca]

For the staff jobs, I suggest we use the ICS task books used in the fire service. Those are the basis for most of the tasks and sign offs for the staff positions.

[RiverAux]

2.  Some of the tasks are screwy.  For example, scanners have to demonstrate operating the CAP radio, which they can't even reach from the backset!.

Depends on your airplane.  The newer ones have push to talk switches in the back seat and if you set the radio right the scanner can do all the radio work. 

[floridacyclist]

That's actually how we train. Pilots fly, observers do almost everything else, and the scanner sits in the backseat and coordinates with the ground team, especially since he's usually the one keeping an eye on them.

[Dragoon]

2.  Some of the tasks are screwy.  For example, scanners have to demonstrate operating the CAP radio, which they can't even reach from the backset!.

Depends on your airplane.  The newer ones have push to talk switches in the back seat and if you set the radio right the scanner can do all the radio work. 

In that case, the task should cover nothing except the push to talk switch. 

The current task involves operating every switch on the radio.  Again, can't do it from the back seat. No reason to burden scanners with it.

Sure, they need to know how to talk on the radio.  But that's an entirely different task....

[floridacyclist]

It is very conceivable that a Scanner might be using a handheld to communicate with the GT