New SQTR / SET Module

[JeffDG]

So, does your wing have a 60-3 Supplement that outlines the additional steps necessary, above and beyond the regulation, to become evaluators?

No, nor is one necessary.  If I, as an ES Officer, feel that someone in my unit should be an evaluator for a specific qualification, I check the box in eServices and send an email to our Wing DO & DOS.  They will make the determination on a case by case basis.

So, then you have a waiver for this part of 60-3?

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.

The Practice, procedure and standards for SETs are outlined in 60-3.  Adding additional requirements requires approval by NHQ/DO in the form of a supplement.

[a2capt]

...but Evaluator status is only given to a few.  The goal of restricting it was to make sure that there is uniformity amongst those who get qualified.

Then you would want to restrict the "teachers", not the evaluators, no? 

After all, the regulation says "demonstrate this ability", it does not say "this particular way".


Since the evaluator can only see if the task was completed, and not be an instructor, the standard should be enforced at the teaching end.

[Eclipse]

That seems unnecessarily complex.  How long as that AEO been a Mission Pilot?  Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it?  For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)

Just because he's qualified as a Mission Pilot, doesn't mean he's still a current Scanner (for starters).

And there are plenty of people who, for one reason or another, should not be evaluating others.

The Practice, procedure and standards for SETs are outlined in 60-3.  Adding additional requirements requires approval by NHQ/DO in the form of a supplement.

CAPR 60-3, Page 23
"Commanders or their designees can limit or change what specialty qualifications a member is allowed to evaluate in Ops Quals at any time at their discretion."

I'm of the opinion that, absent evidence to the contrary, anyone qualified can potentially be allowed to be an SET, and I don't subscribe to any
nonsense some wings have about "limiting SETs", or whatever.  That's self-defeating.

However I've had to deal with plenty members who provide "evidence to the contrary" by their behavior, cavalier attitude towards proper tasking procedures, or similar issues.
There are also more then a few who would likely do a fine job, but don't want to be bothered.

Regardless, 60-3 clearly indicates that a CC or designee at any level can disapprove a given member being an SET, even when they meet, or even exceed, the respective requirements.

[Eclipse]

Since the evaluator can only see if the task was completed, and not be an instructor, the standard should be enforced at the teaching end.

For the most part, the tasks guides are pretty clear about the how's and why's things are to be done.

For example, it doesn't matter how you learned to use a compass, you still have to work a course that meets the spec in the task guide.
I've had to deal with SETs who thought "use a compass" meant "Which way does the needle point?" Done.  I've even had a couple
who were unaware there was a task guide (doesn't happen much any more, but those conversations are always amusing because
question #2 is "Who signed you off?")

[Elioron]

Since the evaluator can only see if the task was completed, and not be an instructor, the standard should be enforced at the teaching end.

An evaluator needs to see them complete the task, not just see that it was done.  If there is a problem where people are failing at the evaluations, then we go back to the people who trained them.  In our wing we only have about 1500 people total, and those involved in ES pretty much know each other.

For the most part we don't have a lot of problems as were listed above.  If there is a desire for training (particularly below the branch level) it isn't hard to find people to train and it's generally not difficult to find evaluators as well.  Personally, I try to get others to teach as much as possible because there is little that reinforces our own knowledge than trying to teach someone else.

[JeffDG]

That seems unnecessarily complex.  How long as that AEO been a Mission Pilot?  Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it?  For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)

Just because he's qualified as a Mission Pilot, doesn't mean he's still a current Scanner (for starters).

Well, qualification wise, yes he is.  Every 2 years doing a CAPF 91 to requal as an MP, automatically renews MO (if held) and MS.

And there are plenty of people who, for one reason or another, should not be evaluating others.

The Practice, procedure and standards for SETs are outlined in 60-3.  Adding additional requirements requires approval by NHQ/DO in the form of a supplement.

CAPR 60-3, Page 23
"Commanders or their designees can limit or change what specialty qualifications a member is allowed to evaluate in Ops Quals at any time at their discretion."

I'm of the opinion that, absent evidence to the contrary, anyone qualified can potentially be allowed to be an SET, and I don't subscribe to any
nonsense some wings have about "limiting SETs", or whatever.  That's self-defeating.

However I've had to deal with plenty members who provide "evidence to the contrary" by their behavior, cavalier attitude towards proper tasking procedures, or similar issues.
There are also more then a few who would likely do a fine job, but don't want to be bothered.

Regardless, 60-3 clearly indicates that a CC or designee at any level can disapprove a given member being an SET, even when they meet, or even exceed, the respective requirements.

Fair enough...I'd missed that broad grant of discretion.

[Eclipse]

That seems unnecessarily complex.  How long as that AEO been a Mission Pilot?  Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it?  For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)

Just because he's qualified as a Mission Pilot, doesn't mean he's still a current Scanner (for starters).

Well, qualification wise, yes he is.  Every 2 years doing a CAPF 91 to requal as an MP, automatically renews MO (if held) and MS.

Actually, it makes you eligible for equivalent renewal.  By reg it is not automatic, and up until the OPS Quals upgrade this thread discusses, wasn't automatic in the system, either.
As far as I'm concerned, that automatic equivalency is too long in coming, since for most members it was just a hassle to have to renew everything downstream (especially for GTLs.
But a lot (most?) MPs don't really care about MO or MS until they lose their medical or just can't fly for whatever reason, only to find that their other aircrew qualification(s) were never renewed
and they essentially have to start over. 

The transition from the WMU that had a lot of members ignoring past quals helped that a lot.

There's also the non-trivial issue that a lot of MP's have no idea how to do anything but fly, and find themselves at a loss in the right seat.

[Elioron]

I'm of the opinion that, absent evidence to the contrary, anyone qualified can potentially be allowed to be an SET, and I don't subscribe to any
nonsense some wings have about "limiting SETs", or whatever.  That's self-defeating.

We definitely had a problem with people being signed off that shouldn't have been.  There were a few instances where people showed up at missions that couldn't perform what their card said when asked.  One of the excuses for doing things wrong was "well, that's how I learned it."

The benefit of keeping tight control of evaluators is that you keep tight control of what is required to sign off on tasks.

The downsides are many.  With fewer people, it increases the likelihood of having less opportunities to get signed off when you are ready.  It can overburden the evaluators you have.  It also provides an opening for an "Ol' boy's club" where people sign for their friends and not for others.

I think we've struck what I think is a good balance.  When the new system was rolled out, specific people were chosen by the Wing CC for each area.  They then personally approved each evaluator.  Not everyone submitted is approved, but there are enough that finding one isn't hard.  In my squadron, I initially submitted everyone who had SET to be an evaluator.  It took a while, but in the end only one evaluator was approved for each area.