Subordinate Unit Inspection

[AirDX]

Oh, OK.  I belong to too many organizations.  :-)

[brenaud]

CAPR 123-3, 7.a.(3) Each staff position to be inspected will prepare a section Assessment Book as described in Attachment 2.

That's for Wing Compliance Inspections, not Unit Inspections.

Hadn't looked at that section of the reg.  I'll chalk it up to not having experienced the joy of being part of a CI.  Somewhat different organization of the info from what I described but same basic idea.  I never gave much thought to the source of that idea, but I guess now I know (especially considering the fact that the people that gave me that guidance had been on the receiving end of CIs).  Perhaps I'll change formats for the next round.  At any rate, doing the same thing for SUIs is good training for future Wing staffers (albeit on a smaller scale).

[Dracosbane]

I'll give you a tip that we employed from our last SUI.  For each section, we employed a continuity binder.  Put each section with your answers and the supporting documentation. 

Not only will it organize everything, it will all be right there to hand over during each sections inquiry. 

Anyone on an IG team that happens to come to an inspection where the unit has done this, please remember that this is a convienence for you and the unit, and that if there is information that is only required to be up to date in eServices, don't get snotty with the section head when he hasn't printed the information the day of the inspection when you can easily reach over to your laptop and bring up the report because that's where you should be looking for the report anyway.  This is especially true if the section head organized the binder three months prior because the inspection was supposed to happen then and got delayed three times, and especially since the report hasn't changed in the system so the paperwork is still valid.

[LGM30GMCC]

One trick we use with our inspections on AD is you do not simply hand the inspector the binder and sit there. It's a conversation. You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation. The binder is more for your use or the inspector's if they actually request it.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

And you may not like playing the game of having to print out a fresh one because the report is the same as it was three months ago. But printing it out shows you at least checked it within the last 3 months. You don't have any way to prove you have since you printed out that one. Making the inspector do your job is not a way to win points. Happy inspectors go away faster. 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

One trick we use with our inspections on AD is you do not simply hand the inspector the binder and sit there. It's a conversation. You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation. The binder is more for your use or the inspector's if they actually request it.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

And you may not like playing the game of having to print out a fresh one because the report is the same as it was three months ago. But printing it out shows you at least checked it within the last 3 months. You don't have any way to prove you have since you printed out that one. Making the inspector do your job is not a way to win points. Happy inspectors go away faster. 

[Eclipse]

You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

Um, no.

It's not supposed to be a "conversation" - ask the questions, get the answers, substantiate when necessary.
Reeking or not, the answers will be the same - this idea that's it's an inquisition, or anything near that, is just wrong, and is why this process
is treated like a final exam, when it's supposed to be a snapshot intended to help upstream commanders identify compliance and program issues.

This isn't supposed to be an exercise in who watched more episodes of "Lie To Me", nor a place to use "influence people skills" garnered on
a website.

Ask, answer, move on.

Hint:  You get the same pay whether you're marginal or outstanding - people seem to forget that.

[a2capt]

The dynamic conversation approach with a binder has worked extremely well for us, and for me as I've been on the other side and been an inspector.

Both ways, you get the foundation established that the subject being inspected has their head on straight, or not. The answers are in the book, and I provide a copy of the answers for the inspector to take, the supporting documentation is in the book, and they can sample it, look and get their copy of the answers which essentially does their job for them. If they're satisfied with the quality of it, you're done, they're done. They can sign that page and put it in their report.

[Dracosbane]

One trick we use with our inspections on AD is you do not simply hand the inspector the binder and sit there. It's a conversation. You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation. The binder is more for your use or the inspector's if they actually request it.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

And you may not like playing the game of having to print out a fresh one because the report is the same as it was three months ago. But printing it out shows you at least checked it within the last 3 months. You don't have any way to prove you have since you printed out that one. Making the inspector do your job is not a way to win points. Happy inspectors go away faster. 

First off, I didn't state that I hand the binder over.  I said that everything will be there organized and ready to hand over.  As opposed to hap-hazard and taking ten minutes to find.

Second, your unit should have already given them a copy of the answers to the SUI guide.  Those answers should be more than just Yes/No and give enough explaination that all the inspector might need is to see the supporting document.

Third, the records in the binder ARE NOT there for the inspectors, they're there for you as section head, and to provide information to the next person who has your position.  I don't care how you keep your records, and if a pile works for you, great.  The binder is for me.

Fourth, with a lot of the paperwork now being done online, there is not a requirement to have paper printouts of every report.  The report that I had not re-printed is a report that is populated online ONLY (in this instance, it was a Safety related report) and as such should be looked at in eServices by the inspector if they have questions.  The inspector (or in this case specifically the inspector trainee) looked at the date and asked why it was old.  I simply stated that it was printed for the first date scheduled, and had not changed.  The inspector trainer (in this case, a former Wing CC) went to that section in eServices as he listened and confirmed that yes, the data was the same.  This is how it should be done due to the way we now handle paperwork and reports.  If it was a report that had changed, I would have re-printed it immediately prior to the inspection.  Trust me, as SQ DA, I killed a tree or two printing and re-printing updated reports due to the three different schedule changes.  The SUI guide has a lot of questions asking IF something has been done, i.e. "has someone been appointed in eServices..."  This being the case, the place to find out if there is compliance aside from the SUI guide answers is to look...in eServices.

You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

Um, no.

It's not supposed to be a "conversation" - ask the questions, get the answers, substantiate when necessary.
Reeking or not, the answers will be the same - this idea that's it's an inquisition, or anything near that, is just wrong, and is why this process
is treated like a final exam, when it's supposed to be a snapshot intended to help upstream commanders identify compliance and program issues.

This isn't supposed to be an exercise in who watched more episodes of "Lie To Me", nor a place to use "influence people skills" garnered on
a website.

Ask, answer, move on.

Hint:  You get the same pay whether you're marginal or outstanding - people seem to forget that.

Exactly.  The answers are all in the SUI guide response you sent to the head of the inspection team before the inspection.  They should already know how things are handled in the unit by the way the answers are presented.  If there are questions, they should only come up during the inspection because the inspector needs clarification or verification.

I do not, as a section head, have to have a binder with my sections answers and related reports printed and ready to show.  I must ONLY be able to verify that the information is accurate in the location it should be, either in a folder in a cabinet (which is becoming obsolete nowadays) or in eServices.  Any inspector now can or should be able to, prior to or at the very least during the inspection, verify that what should be in eServices is infact located in eServices, or WMIRS, or wherever.

Our previous inspection, we didn't use binders.  Each section head used their own organizational method and we had no problem.  Only the CC had a continuity binder (and still does) so that information can be kept updated for the next sucker  CC.  This last one, we decided to have continuity binders for every section for OUR benefit.  It helps make things smoother for us for everything.  If the inspection goes well because of them, then that's a perk and not a requirement.