Task Guide Format

[RiverAux]

Is it just me, or does anyone else dislike how they've put the ES task guides together?  In particular, using three or four digit numbers in conjunction with letters designating different types of tasks (Operations, Planning, etc.)?  I suppose its not so much the letter designators, it is the excessive digits for the number of tasks.   

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just have them numbered starting with one?  Task P-1 instead of P-0101, for example?  Heck, we've got it set up now with task numbers up to the 4100s (at least). 

This would make it a lot easier to flip through the guides looking for the one you want. 

Why is it so hard flipping to find a task?  Well, if you'll notice the tasks can randomly skip around and you can never quite sense when you're getting to the one you want as you have no idea whether there are 20 tasks between O-0101 and O-500 or 40 so it is hard to modulate how fast you're flipping. 

I would also suggest having a table of contents in each guide with a page number for each task.  This would also reduce the amount of time flipping around trying to find the one you want. 

This would be just a small change that would make them much more user friendly, at least to me. 

[stratoflyer]

Sounds like an idea. Who wrote those things anyway?

[DNall]

I don't know but most of them suck. The GTL planning task is utterly riduculous in that it points out a 5-paragraph opord format, but doesn't teach the troop leading procedures necessary for that to make any sense or be useful in any way whatever. That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and once fixed, that wouldn't be a task, it'd be the central focus of the rating, actually ought to be a central focus of lvl I. That's just an example. A lot of those things are written like they've seen the product produced by someone that knew what they were doing, but never understood the process to get there, or just bits & pieces of decent stuff with big holes in between. It's all scatter brain jacked up, and don't even get me started on delivery.

[stratoflyer]

I've always looked at a lot of things we do in CAP as learned through OJT.

[DNall]

that works with constant supervision by someone that knows what they're doing & teaches the stuff the book leaves out, but that's almost never the case. Plus, you're talking about OJT slowing down the search process, or worse showing up on a crash site & figuring it out as you go. Those aren't the times to be learning the job. A good, well organized program with structured delivery is how it has to be done.

[heliodoc]

As far as tthe Task Guides go.....

Welcome to the world of CAP .  They tried to make a !@#$#ized version of the Soldier Manual of Common Tasks and put their spin  on it.  Of course everything in CAP is OJT and will always be.

Again it would different if this were a paid organization.  But there has got to be some professional educators overseeing this operation,  but I know better the MART, Ground and even the Aerospace series had so many spelling errors in each of em that it proves there's no real QA/ QC on making taskbooks let alone a real trainer in each Wing for ES

Things really haven't really changed in 30 yrs in CAP unless you are talking NAVIII, e-services, and a myriad of dazzzzzling uniform changes that really detract from REAL TRAINING........

[stratoflyer]

I was referring to OJT while on tranining/simulated missions. In no way would OJT while downed pane waits would that be smart.

Ex: Today I was sitting in for scanner ground school when our commander barged in saying there was an ELT signal at our airport. A GT was dispatched and the class tagged alone to get a 'feel' for what the ground folks do. Let me just day that after reading the task guides, and seeing it in action, it's like flying in night IMC going into day VMC. What a difference!! It puts all we learned into a better perspective allowing for a deeper and more practical understanding. Should I go for GT, sure I got the task guides, but I had a little real-world experience today: learning by observing/OJT.

By the way, those task guides seem more like check-lists to make sure those concepts are covered/understood.

[RiverAux]

Things really haven't really changed in 30 yrs in CAP unless you are talking NAVIII, e-services, and a myriad of dazzzzzling uniform changes that really detract from REAL TRAINING........

Well, just putting the task guides and reference texts together in the first place was a major accomplishment in my book as the old system, and I use the word system very loosely, was not all that great.  Now, with the task guides, at least we know how we're supposed to be doing things, though we don't always live up to them.  So, I don't like the numbering system at all, but I like the concept and most of the execution.

[DNall]

The old "system" told you what the required training & practical experience was to get the rating, but it did not spell out exactly what it meant by each task or the standard to which it'd be enforced. So yes, in that sense the task guide is a big improvement. However, it also made training delivery much more fractured. Now, I can do single tasks with multiple trainers & no one is overall supervising my training. Individual trainers may endorse performance on each technical task, but no qualified person is endorsing my overall qualification in the rating, just a commander or ESO, neither of whom may be rated in the field. I can also have anyone who just got teh rating (ex cadets) signing off anyone, versus limiting it to experienced operators - the guy that's brand new to the rating shouldn't be the gatekeeper to get into it. And up the chain they probably don't even know who you are. I have a problem with all that.

Also, the tasks themselves are very poorly put together. It's not that they're way off on the wrong track, but many of the tasks are just not up to par, and in general it's all fractured with great big missing pieces that cause a lot of the stuff that is right not to make any sense at all - ergo the example I cited before that happens to peeve me off just a bit cause that's huge critical stuff for any even junior leader role in the military & should be central to GTL if they're even going to attempt to use that plan/brief/execute format, which they should.

If you just want to say it's hard to find the tasks you're looking for in the book cause the numbering system is unnecessarily complex, okay I'm with ya there too. I can work with it, but yeah they could have simplified that a bit.

Far as OJT, yes of course practical exercise is and should be part of the learning process, but the academic side supporting it is really poor. Which means the practical/OJT aspect is made overly important to make up for it, but is executed very inconsistently because of poor guidance on standards from the task guide/overall training system. The task guide system itself is fine. It's just not where it needs to be.

[RiverAux]

Now, I can do single tasks with multiple trainers & no one is overall supervising my training. Individual trainers may endorse performance on each technical task, but no qualified person is endorsing my overall qualification in the rating, just a commander or ESO, neither of whom may be rated in the field.

Well, technically it could have been done that way under the old system as well.  You could have had 6 different people signing off on individual requirements for one qualification then.  The difference is that now we have WAY more tasks for each specialty so it actually is much more likely that you will end up with different people signing off. 

However, I see that as a strength as it makes it that much more difficult to pencil whip people through if different trainers are looking at the same person throughout their qualificaiton period. 

[stratoflyer]

How about if we have certain people from group level going to national for additional training/clarification, and then having those people sign off on others that in turn will have authority to sign off. But those who just get it don't have authority to sign off until they see one of those folks that got additional training. Sort of how an instructor pilot can be only a Form 5 pilot, but must first get signed off before he's listed as a instructor pilot. These people are also put on personnel authorizations that are published.

Here's another thought: how about someone just sit down and write about a table of contents page that can be printed and attached or at the least put in a binder or something, maybe cut down to size. Maybe I could start on it. I'll use the task guides on the internet.

[arajca]

How about if we have certain people from group level going to national for additional training/clarification, and then having those people sign off on others that in turn will have authority to sign off. But those who just get it don't have authority to sign off until they see one of those folks that got additional training. Sort of how an instructor pilot can be only a Form 5 pilot, but must first get signed off before he's listed as a instructor pilot. These people are also put on personnel authorizations that are published.

Sounds like the TTT program that fell flat. Supposedly, each wing was to get one person qualified then that person would train others, but, at least in CO, no one else was trained so only the one person could sign people off. That went over REALLY well.

Here's another thought: how about someone just sit down and write about a table of contents page that can be printed and attached or at the least put in a binder or something, maybe cut down to size. Maybe I could start on it. I'll use the task guides on the internet.

You do realize that your idea makes sense, don't you? Which means well have to schedule you for re-edumacation. You can't make sense here!

[DNall]

Here's another thought: how about someone just sit down and write about a table of contents page that can be printed and attached or at the least put in a binder or something, maybe cut down to size. Maybe I could start on it. I'll use the task guides on the internet.

You do realize that your idea makes sense, don't you? Which means well have to schedule you for re-edumacation. You can't make sense here!

What do the Chinese call it? Re-education thru labor - yeah get to work you! 

Obviously it's not real hard to fix all these issues, but the org has to decide to tighten up. Right now, we're playing pretty lose cause we know standards are going to flex as we phase to greater NIMS compliance on into resource typing & their job description training reqs. Those guys are freakin slower than waiting for the next eclipse to get stuff done. I don't envy the political BS they have to deal with forcing every civilian agency into some kind of standards, but it'd be easier to rip the tape off & pay for it then go slow like this.

[stratoflyer]

I'll do it, just got to know one thing. I don't have the task guides from Vanguard, just the ones of the internet. I know that they print on both sides. How would you number the pages?

[arajca]

Each page gets a separate number. How they print is irrelevent. Depending on what format the guide is in, you may be able to use software to number the pages and assemble a table of contents.

[Auxpilot]

Although not perfect, the task guides are a lot better than what I had to learn with 10 years ago - nothing.

I have been saying for a long time that CAP needs to address one of the biggest reasons why folks leave in the first year - failure to get trained quickly.

The bottom line is we (most of us) have day jobs and don't have an endless amount of time to train people.

Put together training DVD's like they do for ground school and let people do the majority of their classroom training at home. Give them progression quizzes for with the DVD's and when they complete the self study let the CAP trainers work with them on the 20% that can only be learned by doing.

It would also be a great refresher course for anyone wishing to bone up on things.

There is no reason why we have to keep running 2 day Aircrew schools when most of the information could be learned on the couch. Plus it would standardize the training so everyone would be getting the same level of initial training.

Off my soap box....

[arajca]

Check out the new Communications Training Program being implemented. Most of the stuff is online, with a few hands-on checkouts, i.e. demonstrate how to operate a radio. One very good point - the Communications Instructor training is primarily a residence/in person course, not online. You can find the program on the NTC website under "Communications Downloads".

[stratoflyer]

I second the idea of a national DVD. It wouldn't take too much to produce something like that. They already distribute the CD's in new member packages so the DVD's would be just a step up. It doesn't have to be anything flashy, just cover the basics. The slides they have on the web are great, but a video would do so much more and could communicate so much more info as well.

Most importantly--standardization! I say someone out there grab a camcorder and start taping their local GT expert and have him teach some stuff to the camera. Slap it on a DVD and mail it to the general and say here--we'd like to see more of this. Get thos good folks on the NEC and the NB and proof of concept, with some letters from various wings, and presto! hopefully movement along those lines would start taking place.

[DNall]

Although not perfect, the task guides are a lot better than what I had to learn with 10 years ago - nothing.

I have been saying for a long time that CAP needs to address one of the biggest reasons why folks leave in the first year - failure to get trained quickly.

The bottom line is we (most of us) have day jobs and don't have an endless amount of time to train people.

Put together training DVD's like they do for ground school and let people do the majority of their classroom training at home. Give them progression quizzes for with the DVD's and when they complete the self study let the CAP trainers work with them on the 20% that can only be learned by doing.

It would also be a great refresher course for anyone wishing to bone up on things.

There is no reason why we have to keep running 2 day Aircrew schools when most of the information could be learned on the couch. Plus it would standardize the training so everyone would be getting the same level of initial training.

Off my soap box....

Pretty nice. I do hate handing members a dvd & sending them off to figure it out for themselves. But, it's a better use of resources. I just don't want new folks thinking we don't care about them.

[stratoflyer]

I don't think it would be DVD's replacing task guides. The task guides should be fixed up a bit, but they should remain the primary source of our training along with instructors. The DVD's would build up on the task guides and work along the task guides. And we would still need to be signed off by an actual person. That's my idea of having training DVD's for our ES stuff.