60-3 change open for comment

[RiverAux]

A proposed change to 60-3 relating to Skills Eval Training is available for comment.  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R060_003_SET_B0C499D332CE9.pdf

Evaluators who are current and qualified supervisors must complete the current emergency services Skills Evaluator Training (SET) as outlined on the NHQ CAP/DOS website. SET will be reflected on the CAPF 101 with "NO EXPIRE". The member must also have held the specialty achievement qualification in which they are to evaluate for at least one year. Exceptions to the one year requirement can be approved by the wing commander or their designees in cases where the member's professional background meets the experience criteria. Evaluators must also be approved by their unit commander, group commander (if applicable) and wing commander or their designees to serve in each specialty they are authorized to evaluate. Commanders or their designees are able to limit what specialty qualifications a member is allowed to evaluate in Ops Qualifications. The default authority for an evaluator being submitted for approval would allow them to evaluate in any area that they themselves have been current and qualified in for at least a year.

[Always Ready]

My first thought with this is why are people getting signed off on specialties if they are not proficient enough to teach it. Back when I taught martial arts, I would not promote people until they were proficient enough in the skills of that promotion to teach it. In CAP terms it would be, a GES would not be able to earn GTM3 without being able to perform and teach satisfactorily all the skills required for GTM3. The ultimate test of one's skills is not performing them, but teaching them. I only sign people off on tasks if they can perform and teach said tasks satisfactorily.

My current wing is one of the wings who has a list of people that says who can sign what off and when. Personally, I hate it. It's takes the good ole boys network, puts it in writing, and makes it official. I heard about lists like these while I was in other wings and I purposely chose not to get involved in it here. I've seen more than a few people get on the evaluator list who couldn't tell you the first thing about the specialty and I've seen people not get put on the list, just because the Wing CC, DO, DOS, etc. doesn't like them personally. By National allowing these lists, they are condoning the good ole boy system which takes all fairness and throws it out the window. YMMV

[afgeo4]

I think the ability to learn a specialty is Level 1. The ability to perform the specialty with supervision is Level 2. The ability to do so without supervision is Level 3. The ability to teach someone that specialty is Level 4.

One can know how to do it proficiently without having the skills/abilities/talent to teach it proficiently.

Example: We all (I hope) know basic algebra proficiently to use it without supervision. However, most of us probably wouldn't be very good math teachers.

[Always Ready]

Ok I understand that you can know how to do something proficiently without being able to teach it proficiently. But, there are plenty of examples of people who teach skills without actually being able to do them.

For example, two of my high school coaches (one football coach and one basketball coach) did not ever play either of their respective sports. However, they have been coaching in their respective sport at some level since they were in college. They were excellent coaches.

Something that happens more often are sports coaches who have experience playing the sport but could not satisfactorily play all of the positions. So, a receiver may have a lineman, who just happens to be his coach, teaching him how to catch or run a post properly.

Another example is people who can tell you how to do something, but can't perform the same task. For me, I can teach just about anybody how to throw a baseball properly and hit a target the size of someone's chest from 20 feet away. But after years of practice, I still couldn't hit the same target from the same distance. I'm having a good day if I can hit the target five feet from it

To me, the argument that you have to be able to perform a skill before you can teach it is mute. In the same sentence, we should not have a bunch of people training others that have no hands on experience. The easy-medium in this is that everyone who is qualified should be able to perform and teach tasks satisfactorily.

[CadetProgramGuy]

I think of the Boy Scouts training here.

1. Tell them how to do it
2. Show them how to do it
3. Have them do it
4. teach someone how to do it.

Same here for CAP I believe.

[Short Field]

Except we have people getting signed off on the SQTRs, doing two missions, and then being fully qualified without ever walking into mission base and doing the job without supervision.  I have seen a small group of people watch a AOBD run two sorties - and the entire group got signed off and got credit for participating in the mission as the AOBD.  The following month one of them is teaching a newbie how to be a AOBD.

Within the year, I saw new ICs who could not functon as either a OSC or a PSC but were more than  willing to sign someone off.  Just finished a major search:  After the aircraft launched, one of these ICs showed up to sign in as the FLS-T so he could get signed off.  I asked him what he was supervising since the planes had launched and there was no one at mission base to train him.   It was not a concerned - he just needed the mission number to get the participation credit.  I refused to let him sign in as the FLS-T.  However, he is on Wing Staff and that is the way our wing staff looks at Ops Quals.  Which is one reason I am not on wing staff any more.

[RiverAux]

Although I can see the possibility of this change restricting evaluators to the good ol' boys club, I think we do need some quality control in this area and this is a step in the right direction.  Not everybody that is qualified to do something is really qualified to teach it or is really qualified to evaluate other people's skills. 

This is the same reason we have check pilots rather than just letting any CAP pilot sign off on a form five. 

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see us become like the CG Aux where their operations qualirfications evaluators are so few and far between that it can be difficult to arrange time to get checked off.

[cap235629]

I think the final approval should lie completely to the respective commander.  This is of course based upon the level, i.e. command level positions approved at region or wing.

Since the inception of the new approval process, I have seen that the instances of "pencil whipping" have all but gone away.

Trust your local commanders to ensure that anyone they approve is qualified, otherwise, find a new commander.  It's called INTEGRITY.

By adding the requirement that commanders can limit who can sign off who does seem to open the door for the reality of the good old boys network.

[Larry Mangum]

In regards to the belief from some that limiting who can sign off as reinforcing the "GOB" network, this is not the intention. Instead it is designed to stop someone from being signed off on one day and the next day that person signing people off.  It is also a way to limit people who may have the rating, but could not find their you know what with both hands, from signing people off.

Can this be abused, sure, but hopefully not?

BTW, this is an interim change and not the rewrite that the Emergency Services Committee has been working on.

[Short Field]

Trust your local commanders to ensure that anyone they approve is qualified, otherwise, find a new commander.  It's called INTEGRITY.

Then this wing should be searching for a couple of new local commanders...   Too many squdron commander's either don't care or don't know and just approve anything that hits their approval screen. 

I am not a Sherlock Holmes so when it only took one look at a c/Airman's request for approval for four Ops Quals on the same week-end - it has to be fairly obvious.  You normally don't see someone getting their MRO and CUL on the same week-end.  This includes completing ACUT and BCUT on that Saturday.   The Squadron CC had approved all four Ops Quals and forwarded them to wing for final approval since they were initial approvals.  Turns out the young cadet was using someone else's CAPID as trainer and had just completed the SQTRs and sent them up the chain.   

[Always Ready]

In regards to the belief from some that limiting who can sign off as reinforcing the "GOB" network, this is not the intention.

I fully understand the thinking behind this and why Region/National-level Ops staff thinks we need something like this. But, sometimes things don't live up to their intended purpose. I wouldn't mind limiting the amount of people who can sign others off on tasks if the system was fair, but I already see how this process works in my wing. What I've posted is just what I've observed in my wing. I know other wings that use the same process and they have no problems. The problem is not the reg itself, but the way it is used by Wing, Group, and Squadron staff members to serve their own interest. By putting what they are already doing into a regulation, it shows them that National doesn't think they are doing anything wrong.

BTW, this is an interim change and not the rewrite that the Emergency Services Committee has been working on.

Good to know. Thanks for the heads up

[SJFedor]

I dunno, I kinda like this idea. It makes sense that you should have some experience as a qualified specialist before you start evaluating others.

And there's a difference between teaching and evaluating. This proposed change says that evaluators (SETs) must have a year of experience. Anyone, even someone not qualified in the speciality at all, can teach, but an evaluator needs to sign off that the person is proficient in the skill.

[cap235629]

BTW, this is an interim change and not the rewrite that the Emergency Services Committee has been working on.

I can't find an ICL.  This is a proposal to open up a discussion period before a change is made by the National Board.

This is NOT the current procedure.

The threads in this topic seemed a bit confusing to me at first so I thought I would clarify it a bit for cement heads like me.

[Larry Mangum]

BTW, this is an interim change and not the rewrite that the Emergency Services Committee has been working on.

I can't find an ICL.  This is a proposal to open up a discussion period before a change is made by the National Board.

This is NOT the current procedure.

The threads in this topic seemed a bit confusing to me at first so I thought I would clarify it a bit for cement heads like me.

I was not referring to this revision as being an ICL, but rather that NHQ felt that they needed to release an update to 60-3 before the rewrite by the ES Committe is released as it can take quite awhile to get approval of a regulation.

[es_g0d]

Larry, can you help us identify the membership of the ES Committee?  It might help if some of us "in the trenches" had input prior to an official comment period.  Thanks!

[Larry Mangum]

Larry, can you help us identify the membership of the ES Committee?  It might help if some of us "in the trenches" had input prior to an official comment period.  Thanks!

National ES Committe Members
  Team Leader: Pete Andersen
  GLR representative: Carol Heeringa
  NCR representative: Joe Casler
  MER representative: Mike Zabetakis
  NHQ representative: Pete Kalisky
  NER Representative: Don Blumenfeld
  SER representative: Pete Norris
  SWR representative: Paul Spencer
  PCR representative: Larry Mangum
  RMR representative: Rick Schein