SQTR Approval Sequence

[a2capt]

Looking at a few SQTRs .. I see "Commander Approval for Familiarization and Preparatory Training" listed -after- the items. It seems to me that used to be before them, indicating that the Commander was giving the approval for the member to seek the training.

With it afterwards in the listing, that gives me the impression that the intention is for the Commander to say "yes, they completed all this, now move on to the next section".

Which is it?

[Luis R. Ramos]

My interpretation is "Yes, they did this part, now move on to the next section."

Flyer

[JeffDG]

My interpretation is "Yes, they did this part, now move on to the next section."

Flyer

Concur.

Member does "Prerequisites", Commander (or designee) certifies they're done, then the member completes the Fam/Prep, and the Commander (or designee) certifies that...before the member does advanced training.

[SARDOC]

Yes, that is the Way it is supposed to be done.  Unfortunately, this is a result of those who try to gundeck their training.  I would ideally like to assume that if your Commander approved your participation to train for the F+P they would approve you to conduct the Advanced Training.

[Eclipse]

We found this a few weeks ago, there appears to be an issue that the SQTR module is treating CC approvals as just another task
and they co not have dependency on F&P (etc) being done.

We had a least one CC who approved F&P with the F&P tasks empty.

[a2capt]

Seeing that, too- "1 Task(s) needed" which did seem an odd choice of wording. Also forgot to mention it but that it's at the end of the section and the form generated to print is even shown that way.

I also see that PDF SQTRs have all but vanished, instead pointing you to the OpsQuals section to create one. That solves the disparity issues.

Also, when you reject something, does not the submitter/member get the reason entered in the notes?
I've used that with clear explanations when things were applied for that were not needed, or insufficient prerequisites were present.  (Like people asking for Fam & Prep / IC3 because they completed ICS300/400 and didn't know how to enter it)

I've had that turn into mini-get huffy sessions "because you rejected it", and didn't tell me why.

[Eclipse]

Also, when you reject something, does not the submitter/member get the reason entered in the notes?
I've used that with clear explanations when things were applied for that were not needed, or insufficient prerequisites were present.  (Like people asking for Fam & Prep / IC3 because they completed ICS300/400 and didn't know how to enter it)

I've had that turn into mini-get huffy sessions "because you rejected it", and didn't tell me why.

Yes, in theory - For example I might say something like "Mission entered shows no air sortie for this member, please correct and resubmit".

When it's working, the system sends an email to a whole host of people. Looking back at some of them it looks
like it is, at a minimum, the respective member, the disapprover, and the others involved in that task or qual approval.

However, it does not appear that the list is consistent as to who gets it the messages (might be, I just don't see a pattern) - I would suggest
it should be at least "member, CC, ESO", at each level below the disapproval as generally something getting disapproved these days means
retraining of someone is in order.

I can tell you for a fact that OPS Quals sending emails in general is very inconsistent.  I will see any number, then none for a while, and find
new stuff in my queue, etc.  So I wouldn't be surprised if disapproval messages aren't always being sent to the member.  It's also sending validation
emails and queuing things up for anyone with approval rights, which I think should be stopped - no one should approve a task for someone
else's CAPID except that person, and if that SET is unresponsive, we handle it as an exception, not "click through for them".

I'd also bet 1/2 the time they don't read anything but "disapproved".

One of my beefs is that at the wing level, we should never see anything where the columns don't match - dates, missions, etc.
In a more perfect world, the system would self-validate mission sorties in WMIRS when someone enters a mission number,
but in reality it's just a free-form text field, so you can enter pretty much anything.  When a member enters a mission number,
I actually check that there's a sortie where they were entered.

This has prompted a "You actually go in an check?" response more then  few times.  I wish I didn't have to, but
people are people.   I've had submissions with GT quals on missions that had no GT sorties, two mission submissions
against the same mission where only one sortie was flown, etc.

Far too many CCs don't even know what WMIRS is, let alone how to check this stuff, but certainly their delegates and
staff should.

[JeffDG]

Seeing that, too- "1 Task(s) needed" which did seem an odd choice of wording. Also forgot to mention it but that it's at the end of the section and the form generated to print is even shown that way.

I also see that PDF SQTRs have all but vanished, instead pointing you to the OpsQuals section to create one. That solves the disparity issues.

Also, when you reject something, does not the submitter/member get the reason entered in the notes?
I've used that with clear explanations when things were applied for that were not needed, or insufficient prerequisites were present.  (Like people asking for Fam & Prep / IC3 because they completed ICS300/400 and didn't know how to enter it)

I've had that turn into mini-get huffy sessions "because you rejected it", and didn't tell me why.

To a certain extent, yes.  But when you hit the "Not Approved" option in OpsQuals, you get about 250 characters to explain the "Why"

The person disaproving gets a cc of the disapproval e-mail, and I will often do a "Reply All" to that with additional details, and include the member's CC, ES Officer, etc. so that they fully understand the "why" and more importantly, what they can do to fix it!

[JeffDG]

When it's working, the system sends an email to a whole host of people, looking back at some of them it looks
like it is, at a minimum, the respective member, the the disapprover, and the others involved in that task or qual approval.
[/quote]That's how it used to work, but there was another "unannounced" change lately at NHQ where that list was cut to the disapprover and the member's whose qual was disapproved.

[Eclipse]

When it's working, the system sends an email to a whole host of people, looking back at some of them it looks
like it is, at a minimum, the respective member, the the disapprover, and the others involved in that task or qual approval.

That's how it used to work, but there was another "unannounced" change lately at NHQ where that list was cut to the disapprover and the member's whose qual was disapproved.

WHY???  Let me guess - people whining that CAP email was getting in the way of their cat photos and phishing messages.

I really appreciated the fact that everyone involved saw the "why".  That supposed to be the prompt for the CC or ESO to
connect with the memeber and fix things without 2-3 rounds of "I don't understand".

[JeffDG]

One of my beefs is that at the wing level, we should never see anything where the columns don't match - dates, missions, etc.
In a more perfect world, the system would self-validate mission sorties in WMIRS when someone enters a mission number,
but in reality it's just a free-form text field, so you can enter pretty much anything.  When a member enters a mission number,
I actually check that there's a sortie where they were entered.

This has prompted a "You actually go in an check?" response more then  few times.  I wish I didn't have to, but
people are people.   I've had submissions with GT quals on missions that had no GT sorties, two mission submissions
against the same mission where only one sortie was flown, etc.

Tell me 'bout it.

One thing that has driven me nuts is "Inconsistent Timelines".

So a person has their PreReqs approved on June 1, but didn't finish their GES until June 7...ummmm....no.

Group/Wing Approvers normally don't have first-hand knowledge of the training given to a member...and if they did do some, they're the evaluator for a task, so that's already done by the time it hits higher-level approvers.  What I check for is to make sure all the stuff is consistent and properly approved.

Absent these inconsistent timelines, and brand new cadets applying for the ES Badges, I'd rarely disapprove anything!

[JeffDG]

When it's working, the system sends an email to a whole host of people, looking back at some of them it looks
like it is, at a minimum, the respective member, the the disapprover, and the others involved in that task or qual approval.

That's how it used to work, but there was another "unannounced" change lately at NHQ where that list was cut to the disapprover and the member's whose qual was disapproved.

WHY???  Let me guess - people whining that CAP email was getting in the way of their cat photos and phishing messages.

I really appreciated the fact that everyone involved saw the "why".  That supposed to be the prompt for the CC or ESO to
connect with the memeber and fix things without 2-3 rounds of "I don't understand".

Don't ask me "why"...

I only noticed when I started looking at the "To" line in the disapprovals that I had sent out and realized they were woefully lacking...the problem is, once disapproved, you can no longer see who approved it at the squadron/group level so you can make sure they understand why they should have nixed it before getting to wing...grrr.

[Eclipse]

Absent these inconsistent timelines, and brand new cadets applying for the ES Badges, I'd rarely disapprove anything!

Ditto - I use the "assume approval unless something is amiss" method.

Like a lot of things in CAP, just having the math total is 1/2 the battle and yet seems to be a challenge for many.
Whether it's ES tasks that predate membership or the whole unit of cadets making every promotion, together,
on the exact date they are eligible, for several years.  Those are red flags (that people ignore,  *sigh*).

The reality is that even in larger wings, the turnover rate on approvals is pretty low, and if you're fairly engaged, you
know the players, so when a nae you've never seen before pops up out of nowhere, that's a flag.

Same goes for a slew even though no one has done a major exercise in a month - whoops, CC Bago noticed his
queue, or a bunch of members came at him with torches and pitchforks about something that happened lat year.

[a2capt]

The text on the PDF versions that have all but vanished from NHQ controlled sites, have this text on them:

The above listed member has completed the required familiarization and preparatory training requirements for the ground team member – level 1 specialty qualification and is authorized to serve in that specialty while supervised on training or actual missions.

Though in favor of using eServices to generate a worksheet, which will create one that has current tasking on it. So that's a good thing. But they do not have of the wording on them.

[SarDragon]

The text on the PDF versions that have all but vanished from NHQ controlled sites, have this text on them:

The above listed member has completed the required familiarization and preparatory training requirements for the ground team member – level 1 specialty qualification and is authorized to serve in that specialty while supervised on training or actual missions.

Though in favor of using eServices to generate a worksheet, which will create one that has current tasking on it. So that's a good thing. But they do not have of the wording on them.

Easy peasy - log in to eServices, select Operations Qualifications, select Print Blank Worksheets under Emergency Services, and pick your poison. They have been available here for many months, and now appear in a format that more closely resembles the online fillable form.

[a2capt]

That's what I said. I'm not complaining that you have to do that.

The issue is the "Commanders Approval", lacks the text, and appears like a task.