Spot checks on SQTR task capabilities

[RiverAux]

Al probably represents the best case scenario, but I'd say that he is probably pretty unique if he runs that high a percentage of the missions in his wing.  In my opinion the system has failed if we're depending on mission staff to identify such weaknesses since there is a pretty big gap between where the staff sits and the individual scanner or ground team member is out in the field. 

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

Once again, HOW are they supposed to be doing this?  Keep in mind that most Wings don't have groups and the Wing ES Officer is very unlikely to know the individual capabilities of all ES qualified people in the Wing. 

Right now, we are trusting the SETs to do their job, but we are not VERIFYING that they are. 

[Short Field]

As an IC, I have identified MPs to the Wg Ops staff that failed to follow the mission plan on SARs.  One simply decided that his crew couldn't see anything on the due to "rough terrain and trees" so he decided to do a ELT search instead of the grid search he was task.  Another came back as his crew were complaining that he never attempted to fly a search grid or drop to search alititude.  He also couldn't find the practice target at a following SAREX (which stood out if you got within five miles of it).  Wing's response:  They are our best pilots so we can't do anything to them...

[JoeTomasone]

FLWG began requiring that all echelons maintain a copy of any SQTRs a year and change ago so that in the event a qualification came into question, the signed SQTR form could be reviewed, and the SET who signed off on it could justify it.    When I was a Group ES Officer, I took scanned SQTRs via email into a special email list that went to the two approving entities on Group staff (myself and my Training Officer) and to a Gmail account for permanent/backup archival.

What I like about this system is that the "overhead" is minimal, and the message is clear - if Lt Snuffy can't read a map, and you signed off on his map reading tasks, you better have a good explanation -- and you better be prepared to requal for that task yourself.    And if YOU can't do it, then we check YOUR SQTR, etc, etc, etc...    I would have had no problem suspending the SET qual for anyone who seemed to be lacking the required judgment. 

[DG]

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.

Talk to your Wing DO.

Ask him if it isn't so.

And, of course, NESA materials and standards will be codified as the National Standard.

[RADIOMAN015]

What I like about this system is that the "overhead" is minimal, and the message is clear - if Lt Snuffy can't read a map, and you signed off on his map reading tasks, you better have a good explanation -- and you better be prepared to requal for that task yourself.    And if YOU can't do it, then we check YOUR SQTR, etc, etc, etc...    I would have had no problem suspending the SET qual for anyone who seemed to be lacking the required judgment.

So how many times did "group" have to get an explanation from the evaluator when one of his/her trainees "forgot" how to do something.  Don't know about anyone else BUT it seems to me that volunteers can "forget" how to do something after being trained by a very competent trainer & evaluated by a strong evaluator, especailly if a particular task hasn't been performed in a  period of time. 

Perhaps a better approach would be prior to any mission having a short review on applicable tasks that the applicable teams might encounter and also carry appropriate checklists and/or reference materials for a quick 'read up" if required.   Even the military has checklists that are REQUIRED to be used during critical operations.

RM

[DG]

Perhaps a better approach would be prior to any mission having a short review on applicable tasks that the applicable teams might encounter and also carry appropriate checklists and/or reference materials for a quick 'read up" if required.   Even the military has checklists that are REQUIRED to be used during critical operations.

RM

Good thinking!

You certainly would pass any EVAL I conducted.

[JoeTomasone]

So how many times did "group" have to get an explanation from the evaluator when one of his/her trainees "forgot" how to do something.
  Don't know about anyone else BUT it seems to me that volunteers can "forget" how to do something after being trained by a very competent trainer & evaluated by a strong evaluator, especailly if a particular task hasn't been performed in a  period of time.

Never while I was on the staff.   It was also subjective, meaning that had I been made aware of an issue, I would have had to make a judgement call as to whether it was pencil-whipping or not.   I could simply ask for effectively a re-qual of each task until I got a sense of what the true story was.  And, of course, Wing could have gotten involved if they felt the need to - which would have acted as a reminder that burying something under the rug wouldn't have been a grand plan on my part.   All in all, not a bad system.

Perhaps a better approach would be prior to any mission having a short review on applicable tasks that the applicable teams might encounter and also carry appropriate checklists and/or reference materials for a quick 'read up" if required.   Even the military has checklists that are REQUIRED to be used during critical operations.

I like that idea as well.   Also great for any trainees that might be accompanying you.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Perhaps a better approach would be prior to any mission having a short review on applicable tasks that the applicable teams might encounter and also carry appropriate checklists and/or reference materials for a quick 'read up" if required.   Even the military has checklists that are REQUIRED to be used during critical operations.

RM

Good thinking!

You certainly would pass any EVAL I conducted.

Great idea and something that I will work on in my unit.

[Al Sayre]

I'm not so sure about that,  "Just hold on Mr. IC, as soon as we get done reviewing these 200 pages of task descriptions we'll be ready to jump in the airplane/van and go..." 

You should be fully familiar with your possible tasks long before you show up at the Mission Base.  If you want to spend your meeting time doing that the week before the SAREX great, I'm all for it.

However, because of the minimal training time availabe at SAREX's I don't think that it's a very wise expenditure of time that should be spent showing a sense of urgency in getting the mission accomplished.  The GTL has a checklist to make sure his team is prepared, if they're not prepared, then they shouldn't be there, plain and simple.  Ditto for the aircrews.

The time you waste is NOT your own.  I don't think I even need to go into the time press of a real mission.  Do you want to make the phone call or visit?   "I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, if we could have only got there 2 hours sooner, but we had to review our task guides..." 

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

 I should have said "Great idea and something that I will work on in my unit, at my unit",  Not at a SAREX or RWM.

[Short Field]

However, because of the minimal training time availabe at SAREX's I don't think that it's a very wise expenditure of time that should be spent showing a sense of urgency in getting the mission accomplished. 

Mission on a SAR:  Save Lives.  Mission on a SAREX:  Train & practice how to Save Lives.   If you don't have time to train on a SAREX, you shouldn't have one.  I see too many people show up just for the free flying and to get someone two missions so they can be signed off.  Their objective is just to log two missions, not train someone or get trained. 

[davedove]

However, because of the minimal training time availabe at SAREX's I don't think that it's a very wise expenditure of time that should be spent showing a sense of urgency in getting the mission accomplished. 

Mission on a SAR:  Save Lives.  Mission on a SAREX:  Train & practice how to Save Lives.   If you don't have time to train on a SAREX, you shouldn't have one.  I see too many people show up just for the free flying and to get someone two missions so they can be signed off.  Their objective is just to log two missions, not train someone or get trained.

There are different levels of training.  At a SAREX the focus should be on coordinating units and the like.  Individual training is more a unit level activity.

Yeah, if you have the time, you can do individual training at a SAREX, but that's not really the prime consideration.

[Al Sayre]

You beat me to it.  The SAREX is where you demonstrate your skills and ability to work as part of the greater team.  If your team/squadron has a couple of trainee's along to get a sign-off or two, I'm fine with that.  If an individual wants to train for a Mission Base Position and has completed the pre-requisites, and if the actual person doing the job has time to act as SET, I'm ok with that.  If you show up with 20 unqualified GT or Aircrew personnel and expect to get a full classroom training session and then do field work, I'm not going to do it or allow it.  It would take away from the training and practice of the entire wing.

[davidsinn]

There are different levels of training.  At a SAREX the focus should be on coordinating units and the like.  Individual training is more a unit level activity.

That's all well and good if you have someone to train you at the unit. Or even at a neighboring unit. I live in a nearly ES dead area and can only get training at SAREXs.

[Eclipse]

You beat me to it.  The SAREX is where you demonstrate your skills and ability to work as part of the greater team.  If your team/squadron has a couple of trainee's along to get a sign-off or two, I'm fine with that.  If an individual wants to train for a Mission Base Position and has completed the pre-requisites, and if the actual person doing the job has time to act as SET, I'm ok with that.  If you show up with 20 unqualified GT or Aircrew personnel and expect to get a full classroom training session and then do field work, I'm not going to do it or allow it.  It would take away from the training and practice of the entire wing.

Who-whee +1 and a 1/2!

An eval, GTE, large-scale exercise, and real-worlds is not the place for people to be showing up and asking
"What's a 101 card?"  I have no issue with informed trainees, but basic "What's ES?" training belongs at the home unit, whether
that means actually at the unit, or through activities coordinated with external resources, separate from SAREX's.

[Eclipse]

That's all well and good if you have someone to train you at the unit. Or even at a neighboring unit. I live in a nearly ES dead area and can only get training at SAREXs.

As long as you have a task guide, you can train yourselves.  All you need is coordination with outside resources to get some active members running as SET's, so you can be self-sufficient.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Last weekend SQ68 conducted a training SAREX at Hemet, CA where the aim was to provide the opportunity for Mission Pilot trainees (and MO, MS, Base Staff, etc) to achieve as many of their SQTR's as possible and to complete two missions.  It was conducted over a two day period and appeared to be a great success.

Having the flexibility to conduct one of these on a yearly basis assists members in completing SQTR's.  As we know the training time for MP is long and involved, and if this helps achieve our mission then I'm all for it.

Besides, it helped me achieve my Mission Pilot in one year and eight days of membership    I know, not a record, but it sure felt good to me 

[Short Field]

If you can't plan a SAREX to include an extra hour for the crew to cover the advanced task items for the new scanner/observer/mission pilot, you need to reconsider your training objectives.  I see too many "how fast we can get out the door" SAREXs.  Lots of sign-offs, very little real training.   Ground teams don't move near as fast so you shouldn't have the same problems.  Putting a little more spacing between sorties can't help but improve the mission base training.  I am not talking about trying to conduct a full Observer/Pilot Ground School at a SAREX - but training is a major part of conducting a SAREX.   The purpose of a USAF Evaluation is to determine how well the Wing has spend the training dollars it was given over the previous two years.  I sure don't see any training dollars spent EXCEPT on SAREXs. 

[RiverAux]

Drifting.....

[Al Sayre]

If you can't plan a SAREX to include an extra hour for the crew to cover the advanced task items for the new scanner/observer/mission pilot, you need to reconsider your training objectives.  I see too many "how fast we can get out the door" SAREXs.  Lots of sign-offs, very little real training.   Ground teams don't move near as fast so you shouldn't have the same problems.  Putting a little more spacing between sorties can't help but improve the mission base training.  I am not talking about trying to conduct a full Observer/Pilot Ground School at a SAREX - but training is a major part of conducting a SAREX.   The purpose of a USAF Evaluation is to determine how well the Wing has spend the training dollars it was given over the previous two years.  I sure don't see any training dollars spent EXCEPT on SAREXs.

We have put on both MS & MO schools. The MS school was well attended ~20 people, the MO school only had 6.  If folks can't be bothered to take advantage of the school opportunities when presented, they shouldn't expect the Ops/ES staff to carve out a significant portion of the training time and budget to accomodate them.  We have a whole wing to consider.