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

[wingnut55]

Since this is an open forum, and peoples opinions are allowed to be openly expressed.

In many states CAP is called only when an Aircraft is missing. In several states even this will not happen. CAP is not in a direct line to AFRCC in most states. For emergency services or Disasters we are often the last to be called and often never at all. WHY? I can only tell you of what I have been told.

CAP in my state has a poor reputation for showing up to a disaster , under trained, with morbidly obese members, with children (Cadets), ill equipped, poorly led, and have an unwillingness to be part of a team.

The requirement to meet the minimum FEMA education requirements was met with refusal, complaints, more members quitting. Our own USAF overseers have made statements that CAP is still a flying club !!!

Are we a member of the National Emergency Services Community? how can we as a group of "the willing" get involved in that area? How can we have a CAP within CAP that are not ' Pencil Whipped" into being an expert in emergency services?

For those who do not believe this is going on? well pigs do fly!

Not directed at you Robert  

[RiverAux]

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

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

The question was submitted to the knowledgebase the last time this question came up and I got the answer within days.  Don't know why they didn't post it in the KB itself though.  Ask them yourself and also consult your common sense.  

[heliodoc]

Thanks, RiverAux

I got my own common sense.  UNTIL NHQ rewrites the ENTIRE ES curriculum,
I will carry on with what is written in the taskbooks and all will be fine

Knowledgebase.....yeah  That is like an ICL, not HARD evidence and solid in regs, just an interim until something better comes up, KB a temporary source of information, updated daily with no real NEW information nor how this is being put into the real regs

[RiverAux]

Okay folks, are you SERIOUSLY saying that you think that GT task O-0409 (Identify Missing Person Search Clues) is supposed to be evaluated in this way:
SET: Briefs the student that he is on a missing person search.  Tell him to identify eight missing person search clues.
Student:  Student opens up the task guide to Tasl 0-0409 and reads off 8 search clues to the SET.
SET: Thanks student, you passed this evalution. 

[heliodoc]

Seriously, NO.  Could be contradicting myself here

BUT where does it say you can not?

Seriously this whole forum on the taskbook is silly

UNTIL there is a definite rework of EVERYTHING in those taskbooks, can you folks really, seriously, keep this up???

When I refer to a rework.... I MEAN the book will have to say "from memory"

How do you folks seriously, make this stuff up.  Live with what you have in those taskbooks and MOVE ON.  Get serious and teach or lead or quit the interpretatin on ones own

Any other solutions out there?  I can see why CAP is viewed like wingnuts' post.  My solution, until there is somethin new kwitcher[censored]in' and drive on CAP er soldiers, the rest of you keep worryin to worry

[RiverAux]

Common sense tells everyone that these are not open book tests.  For those who apparently have no common sense, then maybe we should specifically state that. 

If you're testing students the way you're supposed to, the taskbooks are just fine though I would introduce a few tweaks here and there. 

[heliodoc]

RiverAux

I would like a DEFINITE citation in any CAP regulation about the common sense about 'these are not open book tests"

I may then , standown, but there is NOTHING anywhere that I have read that states how to conduct this curriculum

We are testing the way it ought  to be done BUT we are NOT being so anal as to make a 10 minute tailgate training session a PHd thesis, in any way shape or form

[PHall]

Common sense tells everyone that these are not open book tests.  For those who apparently have no common sense, then maybe we should specifically state that. 

If you're testing students the way you're supposed to, the taskbooks are just fine though I would introduce a few tweaks here and there. 

There is NO COMMON SENSE when it comes to evaluations. You do what is written in the manual/regulation/task guide, etc...

That way everybody is playing by the same rules.

[SJFedor]

Okay folks, are you SERIOUSLY saying that you think that GT task O-0409 (Identify Missing Person Search Clues) is supposed to be evaluated in this way:
SET: Briefs the student that he is on a missing person search.  Tell him to identify eight missing person search clues.
Student:  Student opens up the task guide to Tasl 0-0409 and reads off 8 search clues to the SET.
SET: Thanks student, you passed this evalution. 

I don't get to use the NREMT skills evaluation sheets for a reference during skills exams. Why should any of our operators not have to have this stuff memorized?

[Short Field]

The issue shouldn't be how much a person memorizes to pass a task evaluation, but how comfortable they were doing the task.  If they used a check-list, pick up the task guide for a quick review of something, then it should be no big deal - pass them.   NOW - if they have to search and search for the information, read it like they are seeing it for the first time, and still stumble through it, that should be a fail.  I see too many screwups because people rely on their memory instead of learning the source material and using checklists. 

[SarDragon]

Thanks for the return to checklists.

Pilots (specifically) and aircrew (in general) use checklists all the time. But, there are certain items (commonly called boldface) that must be executed from memory. A change to the task lists defining those boldface items might be a useful change.

YMMV.

[arajca]

Let's take a look at a task from the GTM task guide, choosen at random - O-0204 LOCATE A POINT ON A MAP USING LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE:
Condition (describes the scenario):
Given an aeronautical chart, road map, or topographical map with latitude and longitude lines. You are away from mission base, mounted or dismounted, and must locate your location on map in order to report your location to mission base, an aircraft or another ground element using latitude and longitude. Or, you are coordinating with another search element (ground or air) who has told you his location using the latitude and longitude. You want to plot this point on your map.

Evaluation Preparation:
Setup: Mark a point on a map or chart gridded with latitude and longitude, and give the map to the student. .Tell him whether or not she must report seconds, or just degrees and minutes (depends on the scale of the map). Pick a different grid location from the point and write down the latitude and longitude coordinates. Ensure you have a timer. Because this task is timed, it is necessary to make sure that the student and work area is prepared for testing. The map should be open and complete. If copies of maps are used, they should include all references normally available on the full map to take the exam.
Brief Student: Ask the student if s/he is prepared. Tell the student to tell you the latitude and longitude of the point. Then orally give him the latitude and longitude you wrote down and tell him to show you where that point is on the map.

No where does it mention using the task guide/reference text.

How about another (not so random) - L-0003 EMPLOY APPROPRIATE RADIO FREQUENCIES AND REPEATERS
Condition:
You are the radio operator for a ground team, and have been told by the team leader to contact another station. You must choose what frequency to use.

Evaluation Preparation:
Setup: Prepare a list of the five frequency groups listed above for your area of operation with assignments in each group. Give the list to the trainee. The student may use any item from his field gear, including this book or a "cheat sheet".
Brief Team Leader: Tell the student to identify each frequency and its use, within 2 minutes total time.

Here, use of the guide is explicitely permitted, indicating that, unless stated, using the task guide or reference text is not permitted for the task evaluation. So, for most tasks, the test is 'closed-book'.

[ZigZag911]

The standard should always be "Can this person perform the task adequately?"

How the member demonstrates this to the evaluator may depend on local circumstances -- or, even, the member's own background.

As an evaluator, I am likely to be satisfied with someone that I know has significant experience in the area being evaluated (whether in AP,LE, military, NASAR training, etc) describing processes and procedures to me....I'm not going to make someone like Flying Pig, for instance, demonstrate physically that he can pre-flight an aircraft....the man does it for a living!

Someone with little or no background, then I do my Harry Truman impression and say "Show Me"!

By the way, I like the idea of multiple evaluators, if it can be done in a way that doesn't make it seem like the trainee is getting the 3rd degree.

[Duke Dillio]

Here is my issue with the qualification process.  Let's say I go to a SAREX and I evaluate someone on certain tasks within the qualification.  I take his/her SQTR, put my signature, date, and my CAPID number on the form and give it back.

Later on, said person could possibly enter all of the tasks into eServices/WMU with my CAPID saying that I signed this person off.  Now, let's make it fun and say that the person is from a different squadron.  I have no idea what they are signing off and I cannot put the tasks in myself.  The squadron commander could ask the person who signed the tasks off, they provide my name, and the CC will generally click the Approval button.

Here is my recommendation:  When a person puts your CAPID in for signing off a task, you should receive a notification and then you should have some way of confirming or denying.  I know this will probably cause a headache for the IT guys but I think it is a necessary check that needs to be put in.  This is a loophole in the online qualification system.

As for training signoffs, I used to set up a weekend where my squadron would prepare stations for the basic ground team tasks.  We used the reference texts for the evaluations.  I also prepared forms for each station which were returned to the primary station.  I modeled it off of the Army CTT training that I went through.  It seemed to work out pretty well and our people seemed to have good comments for us.

[Eclipse]

As an evaluator, I am likely to be satisfied with someone that I know has significant experience in the area being evaluated (whether in AP,LE, military, NASAR training, etc) describing processes and procedures to me....I'm not going to make someone like Flying Pig, for instance, demonstrate physically that he can pre-flight an aircraft....the man does it for a living!

Someone with little or no background, then I do my Harry Truman impression and say "Show Me"!

The above is asking for trouble, and is actually the textbook definition of whipping.

You're signing a document that says the student actually did what you say he did.  Assuming he can because of outside experience is a problem, because if it turns out he actually doesn't know how to pre-flight our aircraft, and lawn-darts it because a gust thingie is still in one of the flaps, or whatever, they could potentially track back direct to you on why he did it wrong.

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not signing my name on something that says you did it unless I've seen you do it.  And any student, regardless of experience, who has an issue with that will need to find a different evaluator.

[RiverAux]

How the member demonstrates this to the evaluator may depend on local circumstances -- or, even, the member's own background.

No, no, no, no.  The task guides say EXACTLY what the student must do to pass the task.   

[Eclipse]

How the member demonstrates this to the evaluator may depend on local circumstances -- or, even, the member's own background.

No, no, no, no.  The task guides say EXACTLY what the student must do to pass the task.   

+1  The tasks are very clear and objective, there is no lee-way for circumstances or experience.

[arajca]

The standard should always be "Can this person perform the task adequately?"

Define "adequately". Since the task guides are specific in what they are looking for, if the student does not complete the task IAW the guide, the student fails. Period. Pass/Fail. No room for interpretation.

How the member demonstrates this to the evaluator may depend on local circumstances -- or, even, the member's own background.

Incorrect. See above.

As an evaluator, I am likely to be satisfied with someone that I know has significant experience in the area being evaluated (whether in AP,LE, military, NASAR training, etc) describing processes and procedures to me....I'm not going to make someone like Flying Pig, for instance, demonstrate physically that he can pre-flight an aircraft....the man does it for a living!

Someone with little or no background, then I do my Harry Truman impression and say "Show Me"!

By the way, I like the idea of multiple evaluators, if it can be done in a way that doesn't make it seem like the trainee is getting the 3rd degree.

Discrimination, anyone? How can you be certain someone meets the standard if you do not have them perform to the standard. As a former Commercial Driver's License examiner, I tested many folks that I knew had the knowledge and skills because I had seen it in training. I still had them perform to ensure they did know it. And I falied some who did know, but couldn't demonstrate it to the standard at that time. This had a far greater affect than getting a rating - this was affecting their livelihood.

[Short Field]

Here is my recommendation:  When a person puts your CAPID in for signing off a task, you should receive a notification and then you should have some way of confirming or denying.  I know this will probably cause a headache for the IT guys but I think it is a necessary check that needs to be put in.  This is a loophole in the online qualification system.

I would proposed the only way to enter a CAPID number in a sign-off block is for the person with that CAPID to actually sign-in to eServices and sign off the member in Ops Quals.   I could be talked into letting the Squadron commanders and their ES officer have permissions to enter other CAPID numbers as the trainer but that would be it.

While on wing staff, I saw a Ops Qual in eServices pending Wing approval.  A person was getting FOUR Ops Quals for a one day SAREX.  Then I noticed the person was signed off on his BCUT and ACUT on the same SAREX.   I happen to know the person signing off on the ACUT was not qualified to teach the course.  Then I pinged on the member - a Cadet Airman.  I raised the BS flag.  The cadet had simply used another member's CAPID to get signed off.  The "trainer" was not aware of any of this going on.  What was really sad was the Squadron Commander had approved everything and sent it to Wing.  Do you think maybe that Sq CC just automatically signs off any SQTR sent to him??

[JoeTomasone]

While on wing staff, I saw a Ops Qual in eServices pending Wing approval.  A person was getting FOUR Ops Quals for a one day SAREX.  Then I noticed the person was signed off on his BCUT and ACUT on the same SAREX.   I happen to know the person signing off on the ACUT was not qualified to teach the course.  Then I pinged on the member - a Cadet Airman.  I raised the BS flag.  The cadet had simply used another member's CAPID to get signed off.  The "trainer" was not aware of any of this going on.  What was really sad was the Squadron Commander had approved everything and sent it to Wing.  Do you think maybe that Sq CC just automatically signs off any SQTR sent to him??

FLWG now requires that all supporting paperwork (signed SQTR worksheets, Form 91's, ICS Certificates, etc) be visually checked AND MAINTAINED at all levels.   So unless you can provide signatures for each task, your SQTR is not approved.   That should substantially cut down on that problem and on the other that I see a lot of -- people being evaluated and signed off for Advanced Training tasks BEFORE completing the Familiarization and Preparatory Tasks.