Spot checks on SQTR task capabilities

[RiverAux]

One of the common knocks about the CAP SQTR system is that despite having very clearly spelled out actions that must be accomplished to complete the task or specific bits of knowledge that must be known, the system still isn't consistently applied everywhere. 

As a way to sort of guard against that and as a general quality control measure, what do you think about having some sort of system to do random spot checks on individuals abilities to successfully perform a few of the tasks in specialties they are qualified in?  To start with, I'm thinking that it might be something to include in the Air Force mission evaluations held every few years. 

It could be as simple as the evaluator going up to a member on a ground team, asking them to step aside for a few minutes and giving them a short verbal quiz on some of the knowledge tasks or could be as elaborate as having a short navigation course set up to run a few ground team members through.

What we would be looking at would be trying to get a good sample of members rather than something that would be done to everybody.

At the end of the evaluation you might end up with a table listing the tasks tested, the number of individuals tested on that task, and the pass/fail rate. 

Of course this could be implemented outside of mission evaluations as well.  Done consistently it could expose those units that are doing a bad job of training people and let you know where work needs to be done. 

I am not proposing that these spot checks make you do everything on the SQTR for that position.  That would just take way too much time to do.  It would be better to test a bunch of folks on a few tasks rather than a few individuals on everything. 

Obviously, which tasks would be tested as being "important" would be a judgment call.  But the good thing is that you can easily switch things up and test other tasks if the word gets out about task x being tested that day. 

[cap235629]

As long as the same principle is applied to aircrews, I am all for it.  I know of a lot more pencil whipped scanners and observers who by the nature of being a pilot are deemed to be qualified and just signed off.....

[Eclipse]

Recurrency on all tasks is required during the period of qualification now, as is mission participation.

The issue with your idea is that it would require "super-SET's" who can simply decide at a whim to re-task someone, just the thing for unnecessary abuse.

I don't want someone outside my AOR re-tasking my people on their whim.  If there's an issue with their capabilities it should be handled through the chain. 

If consistency in application is the issue, address it there.

[RiverAux]

The issue with your idea is that it would require "super-SET's" who can simply decide at a whim to re-task someone, just the thing for unnecessary abuse.

Gee, I don't recall suggesting anything of this nature.  In fact, I suggested we start with having it done by AF types during the mission evaluations.....

I don't want someone outside my AOR re-tasking my people on their whim.  If there's an issue with their capabilities it should be handled through the chain.

See thats the thing --- we've got an incestuous system where it is entirely possible for a CAP member to only operate with people from their unit who signed off on their initial training and requalification through their entire CAP career.  That is a recipe for developing pockets of folks who are not really up to the standard since no one else ever looks at their individual capabilities. 

Really these spot checks are designed to spot unit training failures more than as a witch hunt to find unqualified members.  If you test 10 GT members from one unit and only 2 of them managed to pass a spot test of some bit of required knowledge while in another unit 7 members passed, I think you've identified a unit that has some sort of problem.  Then it is the leadership's job to figure out where they've gone off track and to fix it.

As long as the same principle is applied to aircrews, I am all for it

Sure.  Same principle -- easy to spot check the knowledge tasks, logistically harder to spot check the field tasks. 

[Eclipse]

(Why don't your quotes have the proper references so they can be clicked back?)

1. Most "AF Types" don't have the detailed program knowledge themselves to be able to spot-check CAP members, especially on
something outside their personal expertise.

2.  The system isn't "incestuous", that's how its designed.  Commanders are responsible for the training of their people, the approval of the training, and remediation of the problems.  The reason we have to go trotting all over the wing to get trained is a by-product of being short-handed, not the intention of the system.

3. The responsibility of insuring plans are up to snuff is with the next higher HQ, not some random uber-SET who decides to give someone a hard time.

[SarDragon]

(Why don't your quotes have the proper references so they can be clicked back?)

Because he isn't copying the whole quote tag for the subsequent sections.

Tag 1 looks like this:

Code Select Expand

[quote author=Eclipse link=topic=9735.msg176090#msg176090 date=1264047477]

Tags 2 and 3 look like this:

Code Select Expand

[quote]

[Short Field]

RiverAux - I am with you 100% on this one.   :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

[RRLE]

It could be as simple as the evaluator going up to a member on a ground team, asking them to step aside for a few minutes and giving them a short verbal quiz on some of the knowledge tasks

One problem with that is that many knowledge tasks built into qualifications (meant generally not just CAP) were put in years ago and long outlived their usefulness - if they were ever useful to start with. The candidate mentally bit-buckets the less then useful knowledge as soon as the exam is over. What is retained is what is actually needed to do the mission.

Your proposal would require trained and productive members to retain useless info forever just to satisfy some higher-up on a tear or worse a personal vendetta against the member, his unit or the member's immediate leadership.

[wuzafuzz]

Instead of opening the doors to perceived harassment of folks in the field, why not just require sufficiently challenging exercises at SAREX's?  Call it good if your teams can pull it off.

[RiverAux]

One problem with that is that many knowledge tasks built into qualifications (meant generally not just CAP) were put in years ago and long outlived their usefulness - if they were ever useful to start with. The candidate mentally bit-buckets the less then useful knowledge as soon as the exam is over. What is retained is what is actually needed to do the mission.

Your proposal would require trained and productive members to retain useless info forever just to satisfy some higher-up on a tear or worse a personal vendetta against the member, his unit or the member's immediate leadership.

I think we're going to have to disagree on this one because with a few exceptions I think the knowledge tasks that are part of CAP's SQTR system are relevant to mission capability. 

3. The responsibility of insuring plans are up to snuff is with the next higher HQ, not some random uber-SET who decides to give someone a hard time.

Please describe to me CAP's current system by which Wings are evaluating the effectivness of squadron-level ES training as it relates to individual skills.....there is none.  The current Mission Evaluations are almost entirely focused on mission planning and generally barely touch on individual skills. 

Where is this super-SET stuff coming from.  I didn't propose that. 

[Short Field]

Where is this super-SET stuff coming from.  I didn't propose that.

LOL.  I always thought the SUPER-SET was the member with SET quals who just barely got signed off and then proceeds to sign off everyone willing to listen to him expound on his great expertise for 10 minutes.   Thankfully, they changed that in the last 60-3!!! 

[DG]

RiverAux,

I can tell you that National is working on this specific issue.

It may start on the air side.

All Mission Check Pilots will be required to undergo an intensive reevaluation, like an audit.  Reevaluation by a National Evaluator from outside their Region.

Those who know their stuff have nothing to fear.

I can see how those who are incompetent and don't want to be found out, will resist and fear this program.

[Eclipse]

Where is this super-SET stuff coming from.  I didn't propose that.

Who else would do it?

Not the USAF, they don't have the program knowledge.

Not some random SET outside the chain of a respective member.

Who, then, other than Wing-approved SME's?

[Eclipse]

All Mission Check Pilots will be required to undergo an intensive reevaluation, like an audit.  Reevaluation by a National Evaluator from outside their Region.

That will never happen.

It has nothing to to with fear of being "found out" and everything to do with just being able to keep people current, no consistency between wings, let along regions.

If you have issues with training proficiency, address it through better enforcement of existing programs and creation of some sort of standard which must be adhered to.

As it stands today, we have "NESA people" and "Non-NESA People", and when they work together they fight about minutia, and technically they are both right. And that's just two of the multitude of "camps" we have.

Start there and forget about "national evaluators" unless you really do want to have no crews (ground or air) left.

[RiverAux]

Where is this super-SET stuff coming from.  I didn't propose that.

Who else would do it?

Not the USAF, they don't have the program knowledge.

Not some random SET outside the chain of a respective member.

Who, then, other than Wing-approved SME's?

Someone outside that persons chain of command is EXACTLY who needs to be doing it.  It is that independent evaluation that we'd be looking for. 

I'd say that the Wing and/or Group ES officer and their assistants would be the proper ones to do this.  Since the idea is to conduct spot checks rather than trying to evaluate everyone, not many people would be needed.  Really anyone qualified in that position and with SET (a joke, I know, but its what we've got) could do it. 

[Eclipse]

^ those people are already charged with supervising the SET's in the Group and Wing, and if they aren't active enough to
be seeing their people perform, especially at the Group level, they shouldn't be in the job to start with.

[RiverAux]

^ those people are already charged with supervising the SET's in the Group and Wing, and if they aren't active enough to
be seeing their people perform, especially at the Group level, they shouldn't be in the job to start with.

Again, please describe to me CAP's system for performing this supervision.  What I am proposing is a formal way of doing it.   

[Eclipse]

Seriously?

Every task has to be approved by a commander, and upgrades by a Group CC.

The commanders and ES staff are charged with insuring people are being pencil whipped and are capable.

If you think they aren't in your AOR, address it there.  We don't need the SET-Stasi or evaluators from other regions making it
harder to stay current, or adding another hoop to an already sometime onerous process.

[heliodoc]

Is there a "secret" CAP Stan Eval team out there going to do this?

Months ago I read here CAP MAY lose approx 4-5 million in funding...

I will believe when I read and see it come down officially.  But it would be a welcome "operation" if the credentialing issue is finally hitting the dirt for DHS and HLS type missions.  Who knows? 

Will it be a super duper team from the NHQ, Region, or Wing?  Are they going to be SAR gods from NESA only doing this?

CAP, with all its zeal, going from NO standardization to "all of a sudden" going into crisis mode and trying to reevaluate MCP's?

That wilL be a project ...how much is that going to cost?  Is this "ReEVAL program going to exceed current CAP or FAA or other standards?

I got nothing to fear.. I know my proficiency level is pretty low right being on layoff...but next month I am going to get me a real BFR and IPC outside of CAP.  So I am ready for real flying up and coming.

This so called ReEval team should be fun to watch come together ....especially when its mentioned on CAPTalk...where you hear it here first without any substantiated evidence.  More fun to watch going from  NO standardization  US CAP wide to "this will be accomplished in 1 year" type of thing.  Is this outfit and those "selected" individual(s) up to the task?  Where are they getting alll that vaca time.  How about getting few of us  laid off pilots to do this?   We are the true non biased individuals..  how can any of those folks going from Region to Region , Wing to Wing be Non biased?  Train us laid off  pilots at a RELIABLE CONTRACTOR outside of CAP.  Get a CONTRACTOR with a TRUE SAR syllabus (AF) or AF contracted to do this.  Then we will see some TRUE and non bias in the Training and ReEVal program...think that will be cheeeep?  CAP won't be any cheeeeper!!  Cus the standardization does not really exist now and it WILL take more than 2-3 years to accomplish.  If it is gets "accomplished' in one year...I would be looking at the reliability of the training especially when some of the curriculum is so weak now.  CAP NHQ got a REAL training program together on the level of Part 121 and Part 135?   When CAP training appproaches that...I may believe in it!!

But some CAPers MAY claim they got the Pulse on NHQ and everything CAP

[Al Sayre]

If your IC's are doing mission critiques properly, you get re-evaluated every time you fly a mission.  As an IC who runs about 1/2 the wing SAREX's, I know which MP's & crews can consistently find the target in a minimal amount of time, and which ones don't know their equipment and wander about and either don't find it, or just stumble across it.  I usually try to give them some coaching and point them back to the training materials.  There's more to being a MP than being able to fly the search patterns and pass the CAPF 91...