SET Approval

[Luis R. Ramos]

A few moments ago I went into the new SET module, and I keep getting the message of "not all requirements have been entered and/or obtained."

As expected, those quals I am in training are flagged. So are those I have not been a year yet. However for the ICUT spec I am not flagged, and they are green.

If I run the ICUT report, it still says I am an evaluator.

Or is it I am reading more on this than I should?

Will I be able to approve ICUT for others in my unit, and the message I am getting apply only to those specialties that are flagged?

Flyer

[JeffDG]

A few moments ago I went into the new SET module, and I keep getting the message of "not all requirements have been entered and/or obtained."

As expected, those quals I am in training are flagged. So are those I have not been a year yet. However for the ICUT spec I am not flagged, and they are green.

If I run the ICUT report, it still says I am an evaluator.

Or is it I am reading more on this than I should?

Will I be able to approve ICUT for others in my unit, and the message I am getting apply only to those specialties that are flagged?

Flyer

OK, just got a message on the DC mailing list about this.

Essentially, the 1 year requirement is being waived for ICUT.  Since nobody (except maybe some testers) have ICUT before August 20, 2012, nobody has 1 year with ICUT.

ICUT SET permissions should be submitted via the chain of command to the Wing DC for approval.

[Eclipse]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16766.msg303582#msg303582

The green flags only indicate eligibility, you won't be an SET until you are approved at the wing level.

[Garibaldi]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16766.msg303582#msg303582

The green flags only indicate eligibility, you won't be an ET until you are approved at the wing level.

ET phone wing...

[Luis R. Ramos]

I thought that was going to happen in Phase II, in April... After all, it says in the memo that "if you are able to approve at this time in Phase I you will still be able to do so" or similar words.

Flyer

[Eclipse]

I thought that was going to happen in Phase II, in April... After all, it says in the memo that "if you are able to approve at this time in Phase I you will still be able to do so" or similar words.

Phase I will still allow any CAPID to be entered in the system while wings get their act together and enter their
approved SETs.   During Phase I, IDs entered which are not approved SETs will pop a warning message but
still allow the user to continue.

After April, only approved SETs' numbers can be entered, and there will be email validation back to that CAPID
as to whether a tasking was actually completed.

[Eclipse]

The one year iCUT waiver is also indicated right in the module when you go to submit or approve
SETs.  One thing that may cause heartburn is that iCUT SETs have been held as the purview of
Comms, but the option to grant that is in the same list as the rest of the ES QUals. 

It's actually preventing me from using the "submit all eligible" button, because I don't want to step on
the Comm guys' toes.

[JeffDG]

OK, I'm curious...

I currently hold two Wing jobs of ES Training Officer (until the DOS finds a replacement) and DC, so I'm not sure which one is giving me rights!

Do DCs have rights to approve SETs for ICUT?  Are ICUT SET appointments routed through Communications Officers at Unit and Group levels or ES Officers?  What about Communications Training Officers (which is who I would like dealing with it at Wing...I have full faith in my DCT)

[Eclipse]

I can do iCUT SET approvals as the ESO with no appointments anywhere in Comms, but you might actually be getting them from two directions.

From an exchange with one of the Comm people, it appears that perhaps they, or at least he, didn't have the ability to make the appointments himself.  He was licensing officer, though.

[Eclipse]

It's actually preventing me from using the "submit all eligible" button, because I don't want to step on the Comm guys' toes.

I found a little "cheat" on this. If you click on "submit all eligible", but then click "cancel", it checks all the boxes and then you can uncheck iCUT and submit.

[Eclipse]

Some things I'm finding.

Stuff like TMP that doesn't expire, but is based on being an MP, should probably either be tied to the other qual, or removed from SET.

Other things like CERT, which is externally substantiated and has no SQTR, should also be removed and left to Commanders or ESOs, etc.

[SarDragon]

As one of the Comm guys in my unit, I do the practuical evaluations. Did one on a guy last night, and noticed the one year business on the Icut. I was still able to sign him off, though. I notified my unit commander that he needed to override the one year experience requirement for the three Comm guys. When I looked again this morning, it looked like NHQ may have done an override for all ICUTs. Or, our commander did an override for everyone in the unit. Dunno.

[JeffDG]

As one of the Comm guys in my unit, I do the practuical evaluations. Did one on a guy last night, and noticed the one year business on the Icut. I was still able to sign him off, though. I notified my unit commander that he needed to override the one year experience requirement for the three Comm guys. When I looked again this morning, it looked like NHQ may have done an override for all ICUTs. Or, our commander did an override for everyone in the unit. Dunno.

NHQ did it for all ICUTs

[Eclipse]

The verbiage was changed at some point since yesterday to "One year check doesn't apply to ICUT."

Everyone I've hit that has an iCUT is showing as "three flags green".

[Luis R. Ramos]

Wow!

Talk about inconsistency...

If I look for my SET qualification under Restricted, CAPID, I get flags for MRO and MSA, states I qualified Aug 12 and "initial qual Aug 12," in other words have not had those for a year. It flags me.

If I look for all SETs in my unit, it reports for me those specialties as current, but it says "initial qual as of Aug 05." It does not flag me.

Also on a 101 for a communicator that entered an ICUT practical for one of my cadets last Saturday, it does NOT show him with a diamond by his ICUT. So how come people are saying that "ICUT evaluators will have a diamond?" So how come that member was able to act as SET without having a diamond...?

Is it only if a wing has decided to designate SET evaluators, but wings that do not designate SETs, the diamond will not show, and those SETs will be able to evaluate?

Flyer

[Luis R. Ramos]

I tested whether I was going to be prevented from entering tasks, I was able to submit task achievements for MRO, MSA, and ICUT for another member of my squadron despite flagging me for two of those.

I was also able to submit task completion an AOBD task for another member, one qual I have never held! Ops Qual never stopped me.

What is happening...?

Flyer

[SarDragon]

I tested whether I was going to be prevented from entering tasks, I was able to submit task achievements for MRO, MSA, and ICUT for another member of my squadron despite flagging me for two of those.

I sign some folks off Wednesday night while I was still flagged. There seems to be a transition period, and some grandfathering.

I was also able to submit task completion an AOBD task for another member, one qual I have never held! Ops Qual never stopped me.

What is happening...?

Flyer

Are you qual'd in anything above AOBD that includes it?

[Luis R. Ramos]

No, my only quals are MSA, MRO, ICUT. IS 100, IS 200, IS 800. ICS 300.

I also have several trainee slots: FASCT, MSOT, LOT, CULT, PIOT, GTM3T.

I had GTM2, GTM1, GTL but these are expired now.

Flyer

[Eclipse]

During phase 1 you can still enter anyone's number.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse, on a message above you state:

During Phase I, IDs entered which are not approved SETs will pop a warning message but still allow the user to continue.

When I entered that task for AOBD, I thought that warning would / should have popped up. Or is it supposed to pop up for those that have no SET at all, for anything? And those that are SET for one thing, will not get it, no matter what they are entering?

Flyer

[JeffDG]

Eclipse, on a message above you state:

During Phase I, IDs entered which are not approved SETs will pop a warning message but still allow the user to continue.

When I entered that task for AOBD, I thought that warning would / should have popped up. Or is it supposed to pop up for those that have no SET at all, for anything? And those that are SET for one thing, will not get it, no matter what they are entering?

Flyer

which task on AOBD?

[Eclipse]

I can't test that functionality because my rights exceed the norm.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Jeff-

One of the missions required.

[wuzafuzz]

My wing is adding requirements for SET evaluators.  Are any other wings doing this?  I'm surprised to see this, and didn't think a wing could add requirements to national standards without first obtaining approval for a supplement regulation from NHQ.  Or is this all within a Wing King's discretion?

Candidates for consideration as a SET must have:

• been qualified in the specialty for which they are being considered
  for one year or more;
• taken and passed the online SET Evaluation Test;
• taken and passed the online Operational Risk Management,
  Intermediate test
• submitted a signed SET "Statement Of Understanding" (SOU) with
  an attached form specifying the specialties for which SET
  authorization is being requested and endorsed by their Unit
  Commander.

In addition to the list above, my wing now have an entire SET paperwork process that exists outside of the eServices SET module.  The extra paperwork seems unnecessary to me, since the new SET module already automates the entire process, provides accountability, and permits wing to keep proven pencil-whippers from spoiling the batch of trainees.

While some of the local requirements seem reasonable, I'm convinced others are unnecessary.  Maybe I'm just cranky because I love CAP but am approaching my limit of administrivia tolerance.

[Eclipse]

So they've created this recently, or it was already in place?  If its new that seems somewhat redundant for all the reasons you indicate.

We had a process which essentially mirrored what is online now via manual submissions (Group CC's would poll their people, then send a list).
In nearly all cases, everyone was qualified as an SET in "all", with the exception of ICs, and the occasional "challenged" member with a history of
less then stellar performance.  That list was then published on the wing web page for reference by whomever was interested.

We've abandoned that now as we took all the already approved SETs and entered them, so going forward it'll just go through the chain in the module,
1-2-3.  We love the fact that there's a black diamond on anything you're approved to sign off, and the date insures no one can "fudge" the situation,
which is all too common.  We're advising our people to ask to see the 101 card of anyone who is purporting to be an SET.

In regards to adding requirements, 60-3 makes it clear that the Wing CC or designate is the final approval, and unlike promotions, there's nothing explicitly barring a Wing CC from increasing the requirements.

I don't see the need, or really even understand the SOU bit. 

[arajca]

So they've created this recently, or it was already in place?  If its new that seems somewhat redundant for all the reasons you indicate. 

Brand new after National released the online SET system.

In regards to adding requirements, 60-3 makes it clear that the Wing CC or designate is the final approval, and unlike promotions, there's nothing explicitly barring a Wing CC from increasing the requirements.

Except for this:

Practices, procedures, and standards prescribed in this regulation are mandatory and may not be supplemented or changed locally without the prior approval of NHQ CAP/DO.

Also, this type of thing should have been released as an OI, requiring review by the next higher command. i.e. region.

[Eclipse]

Well, there you go.  Actually, I think it would need a full-on supplement, since it adds gateway requirements to a national standard.

I can't imagine why anyone would add additional process now.

Not to mention that the system won't support or care about the supplemental process, since it's going to work, SOU or not.

[wuzafuzz]

Not to mention that the system won't support or care about the supplemental process, since it's going to work, SOU or not.

True statement.  The online system will work just fine.  The choke point is the approving authority at wing who won't approve people unless they follow the extra steps.  Maybe they'll lighten up if there are too few SETs after the cutover.

It'll be interesting to see if we wind up with a supplement. For all I know that is in the works.  I'm just not seeing the value in the added bureaucracy.

[Eeyore]

Our wing had one extra step before and that extra step is continuing. Basically, we have an in person class to cover/refresh the guidance for evaluators. I wouldn't say it's a difficult hoop to jump through.

[Eclipse]

^ The issue isn't "is it reasonable", it's "is it allowed", and as ARAJCA's cite above indicates, that sort of thing requires higher HQ approval.

This is why we have a national curriculum and standards, and where things break.

Wing 1 says "do the standard", Wing 2 says "standard +x".   Member goes to Wing 1 and gets signed off by someone who is approved at the national standard, but when he gets home, his wing (2), says "their SETs don't meet our standard", which they aren't allowed to say.

[a2capt]

CAWG sent a notice out recently that said "stop putting people in for it" "these requests should be denied/deleted at the unit/group level" and "we're working out what to do with it.."

Maybe NHQ will see these wing's wanting to do more with it and at least standardize the supplements or shoot them all down.

[Eclipse]

NHQ needs to start shooting this nonsense down.

I honestly can't think of any reason a wing would need to supplement or revise this process.

Micro-managing this stuff serves no purpose.

If a member has been properly qualified for a calendar year, and a unit and Group CC says they will make a good SET, absent specific knowledge
of negligence or inappropriate conduct, what possible basis could a wing have for denying the request?

[Eclipse]

I think the real problem here is the number of wings that have literally been ignoring the issue of ES qualifications and SET appointments
and just hoping things take care of themselves.  In trying to formulate our procedures, I've talked to a number of my counterparts, as well
as discussed it here, and most of the responses have been along the line of "pass".

[a2capt]

..what possible basis could a wing have for denying the request?

GOB network disruption.

[wuzafuzz]

I understand writing a policy or procedure so all the wing approvers are on the same sheet of music.  That would be a good idea.  Creating new, extra-regulatory requirements?  Not so good. 

Fortunately I have frequent opportunities to chat with the folks behind this new process.  My thoughts will be shared, enhanced by feedback from all of you :-)

[Eclipse]

Well, the sheet music is from NHQ, so as long as people read the actual regs, they should be able to dance in a straight line.

You bring up another point, though - the number of wing approvers.  This has been a point of contention in my wing, because
we drastically reduced the number of people with wing-level privileges (and still keep finding people we didn't catch the
first time around, etc.). 

Beyond the DO, DOS(&A), and maybe the DOST, why would the average wing need anyone else to be approvers?
No one is doing that much ES training on a month-to-month basis that having a large group serves any purpose but either people's egos, or their desire to "expedite".

We get the anecdotal complaint regularly about the "bottleneck at wing".......>>>>>>>  ?  If we see 10 approvals a month, that's a good month, other then after summer activities or major exercises.  The bottleneck invariably turns out to be something sitting in queue for months (the longest one
I've seen so far is 3 years in queue at the unit level), or no one actually submitted it at all.

There are, occasionally, legitimate reasons to disapprove something as well, and what's nice is that the system now notifies not only the member,
but commanders and others of the reason entered for the disapproval.  Some people view "disapprovals" as a "bottleneck" as well.

[Storm Chaser]

Some people view "disapprovals" as a "bottleneck" as well.

I actually prefer that a qual or ES award is 'not approved' if there's an issue with the request (i.e. incorrect dates, missing documentation, etc.) that for it to sit in the queue for months. If a request is not approved, an e-mail is sent with the reason and corrective actions can be taken. Otherwise, the member is just waiting not knowing what the problem is and what needs to be done to correct it.

[EMT-83]

I actually prefer that a qual or ES award is 'not approved' if there's an issue with the request (i.e. incorrect dates, missing documentation, etc.) that for it to sit in the queue for months. If a request is not approved, an e-mail is sent with the reason and corrective actions can be taken. Otherwise, the member is just waiting not knowing what the problem is and what needs to be done to correct it.

+1

[JeffDG]

Beyond the DO, DOS(&A), and maybe the DOST, why would the average wing need anyone else to be approvers?

DC and DCT for ICUT SETs

[Eclipse]

Beyond the DO, DOS(&A), and maybe the DOST, why would the average wing need anyone else to be approvers?

DC and DCT for ICUT SETs

Fair enough, though my wing just gave me the list and I took car of it.

[wuzafuzz]

After chatting with some ES folks I understand they need some accountability documentation the SET module doesn't provide.  Plus they obtained the required permissions for the extra steps.  While I'm not conversant on the details of the accountability provided by the extra process, their description made sense to me.  They don't need my agreement but I didn't want my earlier comments to be my last word on this.

[LGM30GMCC]

There are definitely cases of wings acting with 'e-mail guidance' and 'OIs' and such when they absolutely would need a supp to do the things they are doing. When they are found out to be doing this stuff, especially with regs like 60-3 with require NHQ approval to supplement a commander needs to step in and clean house a bit.

While I may or may not agree with the spirit, intent, or level of micromanagement a wing commander wants to exercise, they have the authority to do so in many cases. To some extent National denying a commander the ability to micromanage is, itself, micromanagement. They can certainly recommend AGAINST a course of action, and have a discussion about it, but in the end, unless it's something unsafe, or loosening of their restrictions, I don't know that NHQ should micromanage things that way.

I have also seen problems when wings of varying restrictions come together for joint operations. You start getting into questions of 'Do you really have the authority to do that' or rules changing as the IC changes. A lot of people do not get clear training of 'This is the national standard' and 'This is XX wing standard.' In a training environment this could get especially ugly. For multi-wing responses there needs to be some clarification ahead of time as to whose rules folks are going to be operating by. How that plays out could have a negative impact of mission readiness as a whole.

[Eclipse]

I have also seen problems when wings of varying restrictions come together for joint operations. You start getting into questions of 'Do you really have the authority to do that' or rules changing as the IC changes. A lot of people do not get clear training of 'This is the national standard' and 'This is XX wing standard.' In a training environment this could get especially ugly. For multi-wing responses there needs to be some clarification ahead of time as to whose rules folks are going to be operating by. How that plays out could have a negative impact of mission readiness as a whole.

Totally agree.  One might find it amusing that some of the same people who are in favor of adopting some other organizations' standards for training, are from wings that can't even adhere to our own standards.

In cases like these NHQ should simply say "no".  It's not necessary, period.  Why?  Because if it was, then NHQ would already mandate "it" (whatever "it" is).

This is like most of the wing 60-1 & 60-3 supps, which are nothing more then reiterating stuff that's already clearly required by the regs no one in that state bothers to read.