ES Tasks, Training, Pencil Whipping, Integrity, and Solutions

[Gunner C]

I just saw on another topic where there was a great complaint that people were pencil whipping sign-offs for proficiency.  To be honest, it was a HUGE problem when I was in NCWG, especially for pilots becoming observers (some of the worst observers were pilots - they'd get their stuff signed off as a matter of course - and as a squadron and group commander I told folks they could track as either an MP or MO, but not both . . . I got MUCH better MPs and MOs since their training was more specific).  That's not to say that there weren't problems across the board (sorry to beat up on pilots - just an example).

Here's my point:

About a month ago, I went and tested for my amateur radio license (technician).  The local radio club conducted the test.  There were two test proctors and the test was graded by three persons.  I was impressed that the FCC allowed locals certify the test results and apply for the licenses.  This got me thinking . . .

Why doesn't CAP require the same or something close to it?  It's apparent that the government has gotten around the questions of integrity by requiring several folks to certify concurrently that someone has passed a radio operator test (BTW, those hams had to sign their names along with their call signs).  If we had several folks who had to be there at training to sign off each task, I think that the standards would go up or at least be maintained at the level they were intended. No one would want to be viewed as the one who will let anyone through the system.

Thoughts?

[arajca]

The single largest issue is train/test at the same time. You sit through a lecture and get signed off as completing the task. No evaluation.

IMHO, there should be ES training activities and SEPARATE ES testing activities.

[NIN]

I got my ham ticket back when you still had to schlep down to your nearby Federal building and take an FCC-administered exam.  Imagine being 14 and taking the General theory test in this big, imposing formal place.  Yikes.   The ARRL's VE (Volunteer Examiner) program is about 20 years old now, but at the time it was postulated, the ham community decried its very concept as "watering down" the hobby and how the potential for abuse of the system was huge.  (where have we heard this, right?) Now, its the "norm" and has some nicely built checks and balances.

I'm in the process of obtaining my USPA instructor rating (formerly "jumpmaster"), and if you think 101 card and other ES signoffs are "critical," you should look at some of the stuff we have to sign off enroute to getting a student licensed as a parachutist. (http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_ALicProgCardISP_2008_02.pdf)

What we lack in that particular arena is the equivalent of the local FAA DE, so locally its the instructors and coaches who do the sign offs and a local instructor who administers the equivalent of a "check ride" (appropriately enough, its called a "check dive").  The really interesting thing is that students after jump #7 or 8 jump with sort of an "instructor lite" called a coach who shepherds them thru the remaining requirements and jumps, but at the very end of the progression, the check dive is administered by an instructor, so it serves as a quality check for the instructional process.

And, instead of getting signed off on "I've been trained on this" we're signing off on "this person has been trained and has now demonstrated this skill to the standard."  Can't demonstrate?  You're going to continue at this level until you can demonstrate.

I always liked the way the Army did Common Task Training (Task, Condition, Standard) and then evaluated that same way, pretty much.  But the evaluators were not the same guys as the trainers.

[RiverAux]

The single largest issue is train/test at the same time. You sit through a lecture and get signed off as completing the task. No evaluation.

To be clear, this is not how ES qualifications should be gained.  All tasks either have to be actually demonstrated or your knowledge of the task be tested through oral or written quizes (depending on the task). 

Now, if you want to combine a lecture with testing, that would be fine though in my experience you don't always get great results because many people won't prepare ahead of time and can't remember everything they've been told without having time to study up and memorize it. 

[RADIOMAN015]

The single largest issue is train/test at the same time. You sit through a lecture and get signed off as completing the task. No evaluation.

To be clear, this is not how ES qualifications should be gained.  All tasks either have to be actually demonstrated or your knowledge of the task be tested through oral or written quizes (depending on the task). 

Now, if you want to combine a lecture with testing, that would be fine though in my experience you don't always get great results because many people won't prepare ahead of time and can't remember everything they've been told without having time to study up and memorize it. 

I might be missing something here  but what regulations say you have to memorize anything?    My understanding is that the member can have his/her personal copy of "Ground Team Member & Leader" reference text that he/she can refer to it IF it becomes necessary    

Even aircraft pilots have checklists & certain regulations in the aicraft to assist them.  Why do the ground ES folks continue to invent more obstacles to getting more personnel trained & qualified, based upon the assumption that everyone has to remember everything

I think it was a wing in the midwest that came up with a "block training" plan (that's been adopted by some other wings) , and what'd I've seen/heard about it, it basically is setting minimum time for training for UDF & GT.   Frankly, if someone can learn UDF in 3 hours (perhaps through self study at home prior to training) & pass the evaluation why in the heck would you be having them showing up for 5 weeks at training session that last 6 to 8 hrs on one weekend day   Again it's difficult getting senior members for any ground teams, who in the heck is going to spend that much time "training", when it's likely most would be able to successfully perform the UDF tasks with shorter training.   

We've had senior members that hadn't been on a DF mission (or training) for 3 years (and training was performed locally within the squadron, not wing or NESA), been successful on a mission when even the tower couldn't hear the beacon, and there were multiple hangars & aircraft/helos within the hangars.  Additionally we had a VERY recent NESA graduate, older cadet, who seemed to have forgotten everything he/she was taught, including remembering that even if you don't have a regulation jacket to go with your BDU's you bring ANY jacket that will keep you warm!!!! (but remember the reflective vest for safety purposes)

As far as the pilots are concerned, what appears to be happening in some instances is that their appears to be a push on for  "observer" to actually be a pilot, so the crew has two pilots & the scanner in the back seat probably isn't going to be a pilot.  Maybe that's a good idea.   

I don't have all the answers, but it sure as heck seems that we in CAP swing from pencil whipping to "pencil breaking" training/evaluations, where perhaps we need to look at each individual's capabilities and appropriately adjust the trainining time, one size doesn't fit all.
RM

       

[Eclipse]

I might be missing something here  but what regulations say you have to memorize anything?    My understanding is that the member can have his/her personal copy of "Ground Team Member & Leader" reference text that he/she can refer to it IF it becomes necessary.

Yep - the task guide is required "equipment" for that exact reason.  As to where / how you get your training?  I couldn't care less.  That's what's great about having an objective set of tasks that SET's should not be "embellishing" or extending.  Whether you went to NESA, HMRS, or Happy Trails Day Care and SAR School, as long as you can demonstrate the tasks as they are indicated in the guide, you get my initials.  Conversely you don't get a "pass" just because you went to NESA or HMRS.

As far as the pilots are concerned, what appears to be happening in some instances is that their appears to be a push on for  "observer" to actually be a pilot, so the crew has two pilots & the scanner in the back seat probably isn't going to be a pilot.  Maybe that's a good idea. 

Its not (a good idea).  What results is two people flying the airplane and no one "observerafyin" - poor logs, no one listening to the CAP radio because both are on ATC, etc.

Some of our best Observers are pilots, and also some of our worst (for reasons similar to the above).  If you're an Observer and have your hands on the stick for anything but the radio button, you're missing the point.

[PHall]

Well, until there are some comsequences for both the member getting the pencil whipped qualifications and the "instructor" who is pencil whipping qualifications, then we will have this problem.

Usually, if they get caught, they just say "I'm a volunteer, be nice to me or I'll leave".

And way too many times, it works...

[Eclipse]

A good point, especially considering that its tantamount to cheating on a test, a test in this case with real-world life, property, and safety issues in our operational role.

[heliodoc]

While reading all of these posts

I still come away with........  What the !@#$% is the Ground and Urban Direction Finding Team and Mission Pilot / MO/ MS taskbooks all about anyway?

And the those SET requirements.... they sure do not prepare anyone to be able to teach as those in the field of education.  So what does that alllll leave?

Here is what it leaves....No standardization, no real checks and balances from Wing or National HQ, hell, the Wing ES Officers could not get to EVERY squadron under their charge, to approve and administter ES qual tests....

What does that leave???  Squadron ability to do it however deemed necessary to get the job done... for you folks WHO THINK or construe pencil whipping in this commentary..YOU ARE WRONG!!

What are those taskbooks for??   REFERENCE and for all you folks that think that you got either the Ground team taskbooks (Green) or the MP / MO/ MS taskbook (salmon colored) memorized.........  That I will call BS on unless you are retired, do n't have a life, and can think that only pencil whipping goes on

The "I am only a volunteer" has not been around my squadron... we know the "standards" what ever those might be and apparently whatever is online or in those taskbooks is "standard"

AND until CAP starts running BLACKHATS and TAC officers all around to different squadrons to ensure "CAP standards"  then what you get is what you get.  CHEW on that for all you professional SET folks.  I conduct SET testing for GT also but if somebody is getting jammed up on something, I sure as hell am not going to waste their time and tell em to come back next month or else type of thing, I am going to assist and ensure that understanding, ONE on One if need be.

This program doesn't have ANY real educator reqs to be a SET, so to me, a SET is nothing more than a a self proclaimed online qual'd educator that all of a sudden has the potential of screwing with folks, who they themselves may or may not anymore about the subject that the GT designee

SO trying to "force" folks to memorize all there is to know, we (CAP) would have to meet 7 days a week or 4 weekends a month to even THINK, we could memorize everything.  It's nonsense.  Not everyone scores 100% on everything and testing could done in the form of asking questions, demonstration, discussion such as  being a CFI.  

Trying to be hard!!!S CAP is pretty lame.

[arajca]

The point is there are a not insignificant number of members who are being pencil whipped. This does NOT mean all testing has to be approved/supervised/conducted/blessed in person by the wing DES. It does mean the standards, as listed in the task guides, need to be adhered to. If you read them, EVERY task has some form of evaluation. Far too many times, I have seen members sit through a class on Cold Weather Injuries, for example, and get signed off on the task SIMPLY FOR NOT FALLING ASLEEP. No evaluation was done other than the "Who can tell me what _______ looks like?" We constantly see the results in exercises when a member is assigned to do a task they have been signed off on and cannot perform because they do not have a clue on how to actually perform the task! I have had GTL's who couldn't find their location on a map because they didn't have their GPS! Basic map and compass usage is a GTM 3 and UDF task, which GTL's need to have completed.

I have seen units do training and testing correctly, but they are a small minority.

If the evaluations are conducted IAW the task guides, I don't think anyone here would really care who conducted them. The most significant issue is too many times the evaluations ARE NOT BEING DONE!!!!

I'm not going to touch the SET requirements, or lack thereof, issue.

[Major Carrales]

Texas has an additional Layer for SET, you have to make a special "EVALUATOR's LIST" based on Squadron Commander recommendation and actual use.

Yesterday we had a DSARex in San Antonio, I can vouch that there were no CAP Officers or Cadets that were "pencil whipped."

[Eclipse]

Texas has an additional Layer for SET, you have to make a special "EVALUATOR's LIST" based on Squadron Commander recommendation and actual use.

Ditto for my wing - the SET test online is only the bare minimum.  But even in states that don't have that requirement, the Unit CC is responsible for insuring the integrity of training and tasking, and when he clicks the "Commander Approval" button, he's saying as much.

[Major Carrales]

Texas has an additional Layer for SET, you have to make a special "EVALUATOR's LIST" based on Squadron Commander recommendation and actual use.

Ditto for my wing - the SET test online is only the bare minimum.  But even in states that don't have that requirement, the Unit CC is responsible for insuring the integrity of training and tasking, and when he clicks the "Commander Approval" button, he's saying as much.

In our Wing, our Group Commander, is yet another layer for quals.  He, and his associates, look at those approvals and reject them at any sign of a "question."

When the system is working...it works.  It up to each of us to ensure that it does work.

[heliodoc]

Do share on those "special" evaluators list and the recommends from the Sq CC and actual use

2 months ago I taught map and compass to my Sqdn AND that is based upon my years in Army Aviation doing the Common Skills Taskbook that was around for 25 yrs now AND the requirements of my Forestry and Wildland fire gig as well as my Comml/ Inst / Multi that still requirres I read a Sectional as well as TCA charts.........................

What "Special" evaluators skills does the Sqdn CC have to sign then and may be very well by nature of some peoples already "gotten" skills that he may not have ??

How does that then all work in this organization where there is such a variey of skills that varies and by that definition, what all us "volunteers" bring to the mix

Define a "Special Evaluators List" so everyone can "see" if they are meeting the professional CAP "model" of a SET

[Eclipse]

Its not a "special list" it simply a list of approved SET's by the Wing ESO, in his authority to oversee the Wing's program.

A member takes the SET test online, and then his Unit CC requests SET status through the chain to Wing.  This insures that the Unit and Group CC approve of this person doing sign-offs as well as the Wing ESO.  Unit CCs are still required to approve the SQTRs at the various levels within eServices or the WMU (Pre-Req, Fam/Prep, Advanced, and then final approval).

These SETs are then approved to sign-off tasks anywhere in the state, not just at a respective unit.  If the check box isn't checked under your name, or you aren't current, the WMU does not accept your CAPID in the sign off box.

No system is perfect, but this greatly reduces the amount of inappropriate sign-offs because several people need to vet the decision that a member can be an SET.  The fact that eServices does not currently allow for this level of micro-oversight is one of the main inertial factors in my state switching over.  As it stands today, eServices just makes everyone an SET in a specialty they are qualified for if they take the test, then leaves the discerment to the Unit CC.

That's fine in that its how the program is written, but causes issues, especially in units where the Unit CC doesn't "do" ES, but has one or two active members.

[RiverAux]

I might be missing something here   but what regulations say you have to memorize anything?    My understanding is that the member can have his/her personal copy of "Ground Team Member & Leader" reference text that he/she can refer to it IF it becomes necessary   

You may not refer to the task guide while demonstrating a skill or demonstrating that you understand some bit of knowledge UNLESS it specifically says you can do so in the wording of that particular task -- straight from NHQ to me. 

[heliodoc]

Well Then, RiverAux, you got the Godline the rest of us do not

Straight from NHQ to you...good on you!!!

MAYBE NHQ, if they would be so KIND as to indicate in EVERY task that reference, then I MIIGHT BUY IT

MAYBE the NHQ Gods could REDO 60-3, the taskbooks and refund all of us the $$$ that we spent.   

I do not see anywhere, specifically, that use of taskbooks is PROHIBITED, in any way shape or form and I am looking at the Aircrew taskbook right now!!

Refers to use of the MART guide, Practice, Eval Prep, etc and NO mention of CAN NOT use task book during eval

"student must recieve a pass on all performance measures to qualify in this task.  If the individual fails any measure, show what was done wrong and how to do it correctly...

Are these checkrides??  Maybe, BUT there is wiggle room in there to redo what needs to be done or redone................ DO NOT see any reference to ending task as a total failure and to report again.  It sure isn't an FAA ride, unless you CAPers are looking for that

SO unless it DIRECTLY states it in these taskbooks..that come back another day, you failed......then what you recieved from NHQ HAD BETTER BE AVAILED TO ALLL UNITS

STANDARDIZATION??  My eye!!
S

[Eclipse]

You may not refer to the task guide while demonstrating a skill or demonstrating that you understand some bit of knowledge UNLESS it specifically says you can do so in the wording of that particular task -- straight from NHQ to me. 

Sorry River, I have to go with Helio on this (sun cools, earth stops spinning, etc.).

Nowhere in the guide or the curriculum does it say what your purporting.  That doesn't mean that someone didn't tell you that...

[lordmonar]

Two year ago when I went the GTL at NESA....we used the task guide all the time during our evaluation phase.

[heliodoc]

^^^^^^^^Well there you go... A NHQ operation or NHQ sanctioned operation

I have the firm belief that a good majority of CAPtalk folks came from the University of MSU

Insert your words into the acronym, please