http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/education_and_training/skills-evaluator-training/ (http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/education_and_training/skills-evaluator-training/)
Thank you.
It's about time.
Thank God. It'll finally mean something again.
Well, phase one is there, and seems to work as indicated, though it would be nice to have a mass-entry screen.
What is nice is that you can click a button for "all eligible" which will save some time.
It shows at a glance which requirements have been met for each specialty, and you can run reports by unit as to who is what.
Who is allowed to enter these? All echelons?
Will lower echelon submissions generate approval traffic?
If the single person module is being discontinued, how do we enter tasks?
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 24, 2013, 02:56:23 AM
If the single person module is being discontinued, how do we enter tasks?
A new set of modules will be released in April according to the released information.
You're assigned at the Group level, do you see the SET module in OPS Quals?
OK - just confirmed that SET submissions currently work like other ES quals - downstream units submit and
that generates approval up to the wing level.
Looks like Phase 1 is a bit of alright!
New 101 card addition for approved SETs.
(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6387/setsqtrjan2013.jpg)
I'm really likin' this.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2013, 05:06:51 PM
New 101 card addition for approved SETs.
(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6387/setsqtrjan2013.jpg)
I'm really likin' this.
Makes it easy for students too, to id a qualified evaluator...just look at the 101.
Encouraging people to actually print new ones and to pay attention to the dates.
As you say, we need to get people in the habit of actually requesting to see the 101 cards.
That's going to push some buttons on GOBs who think that just because they were an SET "in ought 4",
they will always be one, but that's a good thing.
I see far too many submissions with CAPIDs of people who haven't been qual'ed in years.
OK, all done. Full list entered.
I don't see any way to run a meaningful SET report. If I run the "Specific Qualifications Listing" and select "SET - Skills Evaluator", all I get
is the list of people who have taken the online test.
Would be nice if they added a table to CAPWATCH
Dang Eclipse you are Stacked!!! You can teach almost anything.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2013, 03:00:22 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 24, 2013, 02:56:23 AM
If the single person module is being discontinued, how do we enter tasks?
A new set of modules will be released in April according to the released information.
You're assigned at the Group level, do you see the SET module in OPS Quals?
Yes. I'm assuming that if I hit the checkbox and hit submit that it will generate an approval. What does the ACTIVE column mean? Does that mean SET status is active on that qual or that the achievement itself is active?
Yes, I believe that ACTIVE indicates you are qualified as SET in that specialty. Check your 101 to verify. If there is a diamond shape beside the qual you are a SET in that specialty.
^ Correct on both.
As an FYI, all SETs for your wing, including you two fine gentlemen, have already been entered and approved at the wing level.
Thanks, Bob.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2013, 11:39:03 PM
OK, all done. Full list entered.
I don't see any way to run a meaningful SET report. If I run the "Specific Qualifications Listing" and select "SET - Skills Evaluator", all I get
is the list of people who have taken the online test.
Restricted - Ops Quals
Emergency Services - Skill Evaluator
Search by - Unit
Select Specialty
Everyone currently or previously qual'd in that specialty will show up, with corresponding SET requirements.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2013, 01:12:00 AM
^ Correct on both.
As an FYI, all SETs for your wing, including you two fine gentlemen, have already been entered and approved at the wing level.
Doesn't look like anyone has done that in my wing yet.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 26, 2013, 02:43:59 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2013, 11:39:03 PM
OK, all done. Full list entered.
I don't see any way to run a meaningful SET report. If I run the "Specific Qualifications Listing" and select "SET - Skills Evaluator", all I get
is the list of people who have taken the online test.
Restricted - Ops Quals
Emergency Services - Skill Evaluator
Search by - Unit
Select Specialty
Everyone currently or previously qual'd in that specialty will show up, with corresponding SET requirements.
What I'd like is just those who are active SET's - an .XLS or even .PDF would be nice to have, either "by specialty" or "all".
I concur with Eclipse.
I hope that national gets online with the ability to see qualified people one level above. It has been dificult to find Aircrew and GT members as a branch director who is assigned at the unit only able to see unit members.
I hope that they genereate an easy report to tell trainees where to find trainers.
Lt J
Quote from: NavLT on January 29, 2013, 09:34:28 PM
I concur with Eclipse.
I hope that national gets online with the ability to see qualified people one level above. It has been dificult to find Aircrew and GT members as a branch director who is assigned at the unit only able to see unit members.
I hope that they genereate an easy report to tell trainees where to find trainers.
Lt J
Those with WMIRS permissions get names of those qualified in X, but I don't think it gives numbers. WMU was helpful here until the link to NHQ broke.
Self appointments are prohibited.
Good grief. Even though it has to go up the chain and be approved by others, I can't get the ball rolling myself? ::)
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1421/setupgrade.jpg)
Drumroll please!
Seems to be working now.
I see there no longer a "single entry" page.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-108jleY5Vis/UTT-QSx14-I/AAAAAAAAc6Y/on3AFo55o_4/s1600/000.jpg)
Whole new look / feel inside the entry pages.
NHQ's RSS release with more detail: https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/SET_Phase_II_release_document.pdf (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/SET_Phase_II_release_document.pdf)
It's still got some bugs.
The blank worksheets item gags, and the Comm Quals doesn't work at all.
I entered a bunch of tasks from mission work this weekend, and those generated approvals for the SET which I cannot click.
I was hoping these would be emails with a click-through validation link instead of requiring a login - that's going to make some bottlenecks
for members for whom "doing email" is still a once-a-day, "after dinner with a brandy" "activity". But it's still much better then we had before (at least so far).
Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2013, 01:21:39 AM
...
for members for whom "doing email" is still a once-a-day, "after dinner with a brandy" "activity". But it's still much better then we had before (at least so far).
Email once a day over brandy... That sounds awesome. Or at least a lot better than having a Pavlovian response to the ding on my phone...
</random>
Quote from: Devil Doc on January 26, 2013, 12:47:32 AMDang Eclipse you are Stacked!!! You can teach almost anything.
Isn't there a difference between teaching something and evaluating the skill for it? If not, then I'm afraid this program is going to do the opposite of what they said it was doing.
Quote from: NavLT on January 29, 2013, 09:34:28 PMI hope that they genereate an easy report to tell trainees where to find trainers.
There are two reports in Eservices / My Ops Quals / Reports related to skills evaluators. You can use them look up who is a skills evaluator in your squadron / group / wing.
Brian
Quote from: bflynn on April 23, 2013, 03:08:09 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on January 26, 2013, 12:47:32 AMDang Eclipse you are Stacked!!! You can teach almost anything.
Isn't there a difference between teaching something and evaluating the skill for it? If not, then I'm afraid this program is going to do the opposite of what they said it was doing.
Depends on which angle you're asking the question. As I keep trying to get some downstream staffers and commanders to understand, anyone can learn the requisite skills from
any source with the information and knowledge. An SET is never required to teach anyone, anything, or run any of the training. The majority of the ES curriculum is straight forward enough that
it can be self-taught if you are motivated. The only time an SET is required is when it is time to have your abilities practically evaluated.
Some wings have supplements, OIs, or informal guidance that the teacher should not be the evaluator, but there's never been anything against that at the national level. I think a lot of us would prefer it that way, but there are some practical realities to our current man power levels that would make that nearly unworkable.
Just checked - there are now 74 approvals pending from just the first day.
Month #1 is going to be "fun".
I have thought of starting our own YouTube channel down here for some of the tasks that would work with that kind of media.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2013, 03:26:08 PMDepends on which angle you're asking the question.
My "angle" is that teaching someone how to do something and checking task performance against a check list are two different tasks. A person can be good at one and not the other; good at neither or good at both. Designation as a SET is based on a belief that the person is (hopefully) good at evaluating performance.
How is training to be signed off now? There are tasks that require familiarization training, such as MS. There is no task to accomplish other than attend the training and be trained. Does that mean the SET must be present at the training to make sure it happened? It would really hurt to give up one my rare free Saturdays to teach a class, only to be told it doesn't count for anyone...
So Spaceman3750 and I just had a discussion and he found something which appears to be "broken".
On an FLM SQTR, he found that he could not approve the Commander's Approval box, despite being the posted OPS Officer for Group.
The box itself appears to either be broken or the logic is wrong as it does not ask for an "Evaluator's ID" as normal, but only
a mission and cert. It throws an error that says the # entered is not an FLM SET (which is why I think it's just broken).
He's going to submit a Help Desk ticket on it.
Quote from: bflynn on April 24, 2013, 01:37:02 AMHow is training to be signed off now? There are tasks that require familiarization training, such as MS. There is no task to accomplish other than attend the training and be trained. Does that mean the SET must be present at the training to make sure it happened? It would really hurt to give up one my rare free Saturdays to teach a class, only to be told it doesn't count for anyone...
Same as always - nothing has changed on the SQTRs or required tasks. They still have to be accomplished as indicated in the respective task guide, etc.
Attending a class has never counted for anything, in and of itself.
Whether it's a formal class, self-taught, or "other" the members still have to be individually evaluated on each respective task before being approved.
I know this has been a fairly serious problem in my wing, at least historically. People sit quietly in the back of a Scanner class, or worse are in the building doing other things while the
instructors voice passively reflects off their eardrums, and are signed off as if they properly demonstrated the skill. That's not how it's supposed to work.
Looks like I'll have a ticket as well. I can't see anywhere to enter a second mission for my PSC, and at least one task entered zeros out the SET's number and
doesn't update the total number of tasks in the approval queue.
Some of this is hard to tell, because all of the people I'm working with so far have enhanced rights.
Has anyone entered a task, the approval went to the SET, they approved and it all cleared properly?
As I discussed with my wing ESO tonight, I'm having issues entering a prerequisite approval on FLM for one of my cadets. It's missing a box and we can't figure out if my inability to enter an approval is that they've removed CC approval delegation or if it's a bug.
Ticket to NHQ tomorrow...
Well, the Comm part is fixed. :clap:
An issue that was discovered last night:
When entering completion of IS-700, an evaluator ID is required. But there is no such thing as an approved evaluator for IS-700.
I expect it is the same way for the other IS courses.
I'm not a complainer, because I understand that as an organization we have certain limitations on staff and resources. Having said, that I have to say that this is the worst software implementation I have ever seen. The process is incredibly non-intuitive. I am trying to get a member's MO renewed, and there is just no way to puzzle out what the steps are. I am really disappointed as a customer of this implementation . Having used OpsQuals for five years, there is just no way to understand what needs to happen in order to enter a renewal.
What does it mean when there is a green checkmark, and a red "Renewal Task" tag. A green arrow has always meant that a task is complete, but now I can't figure it out.
Now, some tasks, (ICUT, GES, MS) are blue. What does that mean??? There used to be room for two sorties to be listed, now there is only one.
I am stumped and disappointed that this was released for use.
Data entry has been consolidated into one page, instead of two.
Here's what I'm guessing:
Specialties the member has never been qualified have all the tasks listed, and there are two sortie boxes.
Specialties the member has been or is currently qualified in, only show tasks necessary for renewal, and a single sortie block.
I can't find anyone in my unit with an expired qual to look at their SQTR to see how it's laid out.
I didn't see any blue stuff. Got a screen grab?
Wow, I just went to an expired qual on one of my guys and that is the most confusing mess I have ever seen. There are fam/prep tasks listed as "renewal tasks", but some aren't (and it's not date-based since the one that's a renewal task is newer than the others), and the entire advanced section is listed as "renewal tasks". Not kosher with 60-3 on my last pass through. Fam/prep isn't required at all at renewal time and the number of advanced tasks to be completed is at the discretion of the SET.
I'm a pretty understanding person myself, but there was nothing wrong with the old way... This is just a mess.
Okay, I'll try to post a picture.
Also, now some of the tasks have changed to yellow and show as pending. I confirmed with my CC that she approved the tasks and they are probably now waiting for Wing approval
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 24, 2013, 11:27:47 PM
Wow, I just went to an expired qual on one of my guys and that is the most confusing mess I have ever seen. There are fam/prep tasks listed as "renewal tasks", but some aren't (and it's not date-based since the one that's a renewal task is newer than the others), and the entire advanced section is listed as "renewal tasks". Not kosher with 60-3 on my last pass through. Fam/prep isn't required at all at renewal time and the number of advanced tasks to be completed is at the discretion of the SET.
I'm a pretty understanding person myself, but there was nothing wrong with the old way... This is just a mess.
I think maybe a part of it is in understanding what they're doing. Your basic training and fam stuff is considered core; once you know it, you never get retested on it again.
Other tasks are required for renewal, including a mission. Those are marked renewal and need to be signed off sometime before they expire for you to keep the qualification.
As I understand it, if you're in the middle of a mission and want it to count for your SQTR renewal, you need to get one of your SETs to watch you do the tasks so they can sign them off as having been done satisfactorily. Hopefully they're available. Otherwise, you never renew your SQTR and your qualification lapses.
I noticed they changed the logo from the MAJCOM to the triangle - with the blue background it looks like it is missing something.
Bug list:
1. Mission pop up box spelled wrong "missionn".
2. The grey box before any entry should say "date' not "completed"
3. Status color - Yellow for pending and training , can't see and should be different colors.
4. Once a rating is not approved it never goes back to Training, but training will show on the 101 but only after you resubmit a task.
5. Date field needs to clarity what it means. The "completed" only after you have the rating, "expires" same.
But when you are training there is no real completed thing and when does training ever expire. I know you have 2 yeas to complete training.
6. Date boxes appear when ' Not approved". why?
7. task count wrong sometimes - 31 Tasks Completed / 29 Tasks Required
8. With all green check marks and tasks updated the rating is not moving to be renewed.
Quote from: ßτε on April 24, 2013, 03:21:20 PM
An issue that was discovered last night:
When entering completion of IS-700, an evaluator ID is required. But there is no such thing as an approved evaluator for IS-700.
I expect it is the same way for the other IS courses.
You should enter you commander ID as this needs to be validated, show him/her your certificate.
Quote from: Flyboy86 on April 27, 2013, 02:04:54 PM
Bug list:
1. Mission pop up box spelled wrong "missionn".
2. The grey box before any entry should say "date' not "completed"
3. Status color - Yellow for pending and training , can't see and should be different colors.
4. Once a rating is not approved it never goes back to Training, but training will show on the 101 but only after you resubmit a task.
5. Date field needs to clarity what it means. The "completed" only after you have the rating, "expires" same.
But when you are training there is no real completed thing and when does training ever expire. I know you have 2 yeas to complete training.
6. Date boxes appear when ' Not approved". why?
7. task count wrong sometimes - 31 Tasks Completed / 29 Tasks Required
8. With all green check marks and tasks updated the rating is not moving to be renewed.
And have you sent this to NHQ/IT? A lot of good it's doing here.
Quote from: disamuel on April 24, 2013, 10:35:14 PM
What does it mean when there is a green checkmark, and a red "Renewal Task" tag. A green arrow has always meant that a task is complete, but now I can't figure it out.
Now, some tasks, (ICUT, GES, MS) are blue. What does that mean??? There used to be room for two sorties to be listed, now there is only one.
1) The green checkmark indicates that you completed the task. If all your tasks have green checkmarks, you are qualified.
2) The red Renewal Task is a reminder that if you do not renew this task before the indicated expiration date, your qualification will lapse. So, just go out and do the tasks.
3) No idea about the blue. Are these tasks that never expire?
4) There are still two sorties, but they're split up. Sortie #1 is at the bottom of the page, Sortie #2 is at the bottom of the renewal section.
.
Flyboy-
Your number 7 is wrong.
I agree it needs to be worked on, but this means there are some specialties where you could have two or three tasks, any one of those will count.
For example, in the Ground Team 3 you are required to have "either ACUT, BCUT, or ICUT." Any one will count. If you have taken all three then all will be counted for that specialty. Check again. That is why you see "41 tasks completed / 38 tasks required."
It is confusing, and I would say this needs to be worked on, but I do not see this as a biggie. I can live with this.
Flyer
You have a point, still it looks confusing. I would argue the statement is about your progress towards the "required" task list. Doing extra stuff has no bearing on your progress. Source code can fix this as tasks can be added up by category, then not to exceed x, then added together.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 27, 2013, 08:38:40 PM
Flyboy-
Your number 7 is wrong.
I agree it needs to be worked on, but this means there are some specialties where you could have two or three tasks, any one of those will count.
For example, in the Ground Team 3 you are required to have "either ACUT, BCUT, or ICUT." Any one will count. If you have taken all three then all will be counted for that specialty. Check again. That is why you see "41 tasks completed / 38 tasks required."
It is confusing, and I would say this needs to be worked on, but I do not see this as a biggie. I can live with this.
Flyer
Yes, I have sent it in.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on April 27, 2013, 07:37:14 PM
Quote from: Flyboy86 on April 27, 2013, 02:04:54 PM
Bug list:
1. Mission pop up box spelled wrong "missionn".
2. The grey box before any entry should say "date' not "completed"
3. Status color - Yellow for pending and training , can't see and should be different colors.
4. Once a rating is not approved it never goes back to Training, but training will show on the 101 but only after you resubmit a task.
5. Date field needs to clarity what it means. The "completed" only after you have the rating, "expires" same.
But when you are training there is no real completed thing and when does training ever expire. I know you have 2 yeas to complete training.
6. Date boxes appear when ' Not approved". why?
7. task count wrong sometimes - 31 Tasks Completed / 29 Tasks Required
8. With all green check marks and tasks updated the rating is not moving to be renewed.
And have you sent this to NHQ/IT? A lot of good it's doing here.
Quote from: Flyboy86 on April 28, 2013, 06:55:49 PM
You have a point, still it looks confusing. I would argue the statement is about your progress towards the "required" task list...
No, no I agree it is confusing. Although to me there may be other items to fix with a higher priority.
In my case it was having taken ACUT and BCUT. Then NHQ introduced ICUT stating "it is desirable you take it now but your other classes are still valid for X number of years."
Once I realized that I was able to understand. Source code can be changed to ignore earlier versions of the requirement.
After all, they were able to write code in such a way that "either Curry if a cadet, or Level I if a senior member" are not setting off the count for the achievements...
Flyer
I see they have made many fixes this morning.
Caught most of my bug list items.
The best part is they changed the header regarding the task completed, now it is much more descriptive.
Initial Achievement: 16 Tasks Completed. 19 Tasks Required
But it still needs some help
Initial Achievement: 25 Tasks Completed. 23 Tasks Required
For this one (IC3) commander recommendation says 0 task required and it is counted, fuzzy math.
They un-flagged CAPT117
Renewal still don't work, oh well.
Also noticed commander approval for training is absent.
Will have to check, we've got a handful waiting fixes or to open tickets.
I welcome the effort, and we need this no question, but seriously, NHQ still doesn't understand how important UI design is.
They took something which flowed generally like what people saw on paper and made it a confusing mess.
Too much "Web 2.0" cr@p going around.
Welcome to the new Web, same as the old Web...
I'm told my issue is resolved, that the typical folks can grant CC approval now. The CC approval tasks don't show a CAPID field because the system shouldn't have been expecting it, but in this case was, in error.
Has anyone figured out how to perform a renewal yet?
I'm, IMHO, a not-unintelligent man with some tech skills, but when I look at this I have no idea just how I'm supposed to renew member qualifications.
I picked a member with an expired qual (who, yes, I did actually supervise in a mission last year) and tried just entering a new Exercise Participation #2, but that apparently didn't do anything (though looking at his 101 card, it now shows that specialty in "Supervised Trainee Status").
Color me confused.
Quote from: ctrossen on April 30, 2013, 01:55:05 AM
Has anyone figured out how to perform a renewal yet?
I'm, IMHO, a not-unintelligent man with some tech skills, but when I look at this I have no idea just how I'm supposed to renew member qualifications.
I picked a member with an expired qual (who, yes, I did actually supervise in a mission last year) and tried just entering a new Exercise Participation #2, but that apparently didn't do anything (though looking at his 101 card, it now shows that specialty in "Supervised Trainee Status").
Color me confused.
Probably waiting on you to enter completion of the "renewal tasks". Not sure how this part works as it seems to have some tasks marked as renewal that are not renewal tasks IAW 60-3.
Quote from: ctrossen on April 30, 2013, 01:55:05 AM
Has anyone figured out how to perform a renewal yet?
I'm, IMHO, a not-unintelligent man with some tech skills, but when I look at this I have no idea just how I'm supposed to renew member qualifications.
I picked a member with an expired qual (who, yes, I did actually supervise in a mission last year) and tried just entering a new Exercise Participation #2, but that apparently didn't do anything (though looking at his 101 card, it now shows that specialty in "Supervised Trainee Status").
Color me confused.
Exercise participation alone is not enough. You have to also do some advanced tasks.
^^^ Eclipse is right. You also need to do the tasks that has a checkbox next to it. The system now recognizes the difference between initial qual and renewal.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2013, 02:19:21 AMExercise participation alone is not enough. You have to also do some advanced tasks.
This is the part of the this whole thing that I think has a high chance of failure. It means that if someone is busy doing the work and never can connect with a SET, we lose that person as a qualified member. Within the next six months, you're going to start seeing good people having expired qualifications just because of the difficulty of getting the paperwork done.
One could argue that if they don't make the extra effort to find a SET and explicity get requalified then they're not the one you want. But it doesn't change that we're going to more qualifications expiring and we're going to have fewer people to do the work. I'm not convinced that concentrating work on fewer people is optimal in a volunteer organization.
Quote from: ctrossen on April 30, 2013, 01:55:05 AM
I'm, IMHO, a not-unintelligent man with some tech skills,
Very true statement. This guy fixed my Yaesu FT-411 at Georgia Tech in 1992. The radio is still kicking.....
Quote from: bflynn on April 30, 2013, 05:22:32 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2013, 02:19:21 AMExercise participation alone is not enough. You have to also do some advanced tasks.
This is the part of the this whole thing that I think has a high chance of failure. It means that if someone is busy doing the work and never can connect with a SET, we lose that person as a qualified member. Within the next six months, you're going to start seeing good people having expired qualifications just because of the difficulty of getting the paperwork done.
One could argue that if they don't make the extra effort to find a SET and explicity get requalified then they're not the one you want. But it doesn't change that we're going to more qualifications expiring and we're going to have fewer people to do the work. I'm not convinced that concentrating work on fewer people is optimal in a volunteer organization.
This is not new, nor in any way connected to the SQTR update.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2013, 12:31:01 PMThis is not new, nor in any way connected to the SQTR update.
The acceleration of it is very connected to the SET update/reset.
I spoken to several people who attended a meeting or two at our squadron, but never joined. The consensus was that CAP is too much hassle. The new SET phase creates more hassle and that should predict a lower membership level.
^ I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make.
There is no "acceleration" or any other change in terms of the actual requirements for initial or renewal.
Qualifications don't expire any "more", "less", or "sooner", then before, and the process for getting keeping them has been
basically static for a decade. In fact, any wing actually doing things properly sees little change in this beyond the
validation of tasks via eServices instead of the hardcopy SQTR.
The only thing that has changed, slightly, is that now members are being held accountable systematically for things being done in
their name. More to the point is that, as per usual, members and commanders have been operating under their assumption
of the program vs. the actual program. The system no makes it much more difficult to circumvent the rules, or the accountability.
If being held to a standard, and accountable for your actions is too much hassle, well I'm sure there are plenty of other
worthwhile organizations that can make use of their short attention spans.
Quote from: bflynn on April 30, 2013, 02:55:17 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2013, 12:31:01 PMThis is not new, nor in any way connected to the SQTR update.
The acceleration of it is very connected to the SET update/reset.
I spoken to several people who attended a meeting or two at our squadron, but never joined. The consensus was that CAP is too much hassle. The new SET phase creates more hassle and that should predict a lower membership level.
Sounds like you need a new greeter standing at the door.
Quote from: husker on April 30, 2013, 12:03:10 PM
Very true statement. This guy fixed my Yaesu FT-411 at Georgia Tech in 1992. The radio is still kicking.....
Man, you're making me feel old now!
(And a far easier mod than my FT-470 of the same era)
;-)
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 30, 2013, 02:01:13 AM
Probably waiting on you to enter completion of the "renewal tasks". Not sure how this part works as it seems to have some tasks marked as renewal that are not renewal tasks IAW 60-3.
Just tried that, and still no joy. The member's unit commander doesn't see anything awaiting her approval, and neither has my wing-level "super approval" done anything.
I've got e-mails in to NHQ, but I'm still more than happy to hear if anyone has successfully pushed a renewal through, and if so how.
(Which will be followed closely up by how does OpsQual handle "cascading" renewals: does a GTM1 renewal automatically renew GTM2 & 3, for example, or is that still a completely manual process?)
Quote from: ctrossen on April 30, 2013, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 30, 2013, 02:01:13 AM
Probably waiting on you to enter completion of the "renewal tasks". Not sure how this part works as it seems to have some tasks marked as renewal that are not renewal tasks IAW 60-3.
Just tried that, and still no joy. The member's unit commander doesn't see anything awaiting her approval, and neither has my wing-level "super approval" done anything.
I've got e-mails in to NHQ, but I'm still more than happy to hear if anyone has successfully pushed a renewal through, and if so how.
(Which will be followed closely up by how does OpsQual handle "cascading" renewals: does a GTM1 renewal automatically renew GTM2 & 3, for example, or is that still a completely manual process?)
Cascading renewal I know worked before this system upgrade, as far back as Jan when I noticed most of my mission base quals got updated to the same date as my OSC, and they all got updated earlier in April when I got my IC3.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on April 30, 2013, 08:04:57 PMCascading renewal I know worked before this system upgrade, as far back as Jan when I noticed most of my mission base quals got updated to the same date as my OSC, and they all got updated earlier in April when I got my IC3.
We noticed some incremental system upgrades in mid-February which seemed to do this. We actually viewed it as somewhat of a "problem" since
it was renewing specialties for ICs who haven't done "x" in 1 million years - this was even noted by the wing CC as something to keep an eye on.
We can always disapprove anything we need to selectively.
One question:
Does this module support supervision/evaluation based on mission quals...like for example, if I'm ICing a mission, by the old system, I was permitted to supervise just about any mission base staff, even people like LSCs where I didn't have that qual...or as an AOBD you could supervise a MP.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 30, 2013, 08:42:04 PM
One question:
Does this module support supervision/evaluation based on mission quals...like for example, if I'm ICing a mission, by the old system, I was permitted to supervise just about any mission base staff, even people like LSCs where I didn't have that qual...or as an AOBD you could supervise a MP.
No, and frankly I'm not sure that was
really ever the case. I'm open to verbiage from old 60-3's, but most of the people in my wing who have
made that assertion over the years were more interested in "expediency" vs. "rules".
"Supervising" isn't the same as evaluating, and if you never held a given qual, I don't know how you'd have the expertise to do anything but pencil
whip the member. Further, you have to be a mission checkpilot in order to do Form 91's, which are required to renew MP, so an IC or AOBD's sig wouldn't mean much, anyway.
Here's an official page permitting it:
http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/education_and_training/qualified-supervisors/ (http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/education_and_training/qualified-supervisors/)
So, take for example an IC signing off a FASC, specifically the task that says "Prepares all obligation paperwork for IC"
An IC who is not a FASC can certainly both supervise AND evaluate (speaking logically here, don't have the regs in front of me right now) that task.
Supervise, yes. Evaluate, no.
Being an IC makes you a manager of managers, not an end-all expert.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2013, 03:12:16 PMI honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Yes....
The hassle comes from finding those very few busy senior people and arranging a SET session to demostrate renewal tasks. It is more difficult to do now than it was previously. Things that are more difficult create more hassle. Things that create more hassle predict that more people will not be willing to put up with the increased aggrevation.
Do you not understand or do you disagree? I can try to explain it differently if you're just not understanding it. If you disagree, then you just disagree.
I'm making an observation. It's what I do.
Quote from: EMT-83 on April 30, 2013, 05:38:51 PMSounds like you need a new greeter standing at the door.
This is not the matter of a door greeter. It is someone coming in and us saying "Great, glad you're a CFI! We could really use the help, excited that you're here. Ummm...before you can fly with us, you have to do A and B and C and D and E and F and G, then take another CFI checkride to the FAA PTS standard. It will probably only take 2-3 months". Then the CFI says "Seriously? There's a school in the next hanger that will get me flying in 2 days if not 2 hours. I'm out of here, I don't need this heartache."
Hassle. We've talked about it before. I was referrring back to it as support that things that increase hassle decrease membership.
It's an observation...it might not even be right.
Quote from: bflynn on May 01, 2013, 03:38:03 AMIt is more difficult to do now than it was previously.
OK, then I disagree.
Nothing has changed in this regard whatsoever.
It must look different from above than below...
Quote from: bflynn on May 01, 2013, 04:08:07 AM
It must look different from above than below...
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Please feel free to indicate a single thing which has changed in regards to regs or process for initial or renewal qualifications.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2013, 04:15:32 AM
Quote from: bflynn on May 01, 2013, 04:08:07 AM
It must look different from above than below...
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Please feel free to indicate a single thing which has changed in regards to regs or process for initial or renewal qualifications.
The thing that has changed is that there's much less likelihood for pencil-whipping stuff. Some equate that with increased hassle.
Quote from: SarDragon on May 01, 2013, 05:29:05 AM
The thing that has changed is that there's much less likelihood for pencil-whipping stuff...
x2 :clap:
Quote from: bflynn on May 01, 2013, 03:38:03 AM
Quote from: EMT-83 on April 30, 2013, 05:38:51 PMSounds like you need a new greeter standing at the door.
This is not the matter of a door greeter. It is someone coming in and us saying "Great, glad you're a CFI! We could really use the help, excited that you're here. Ummm...before you can fly with us, you have to do A and B and C and D and E and F and G, then take another CFI checkride to the FAA PTS standard. It will probably only take 2-3 months". Then the CFI says "Seriously? There's a school in the next hanger that will get me flying in 2 days if not 2 hours. I'm out of here, I don't need this heartache."
Hassle. We've talked about it before. I was referrring back to it as support that things that increase hassle decrease membership.
It's an observation...it might not even be right.
We're not a flying club, contrary to what some pilots may think. If a CFI doesn't want to follow our rules, we don't want them. If they decide not to join because it is inconvienent for them to get checked out on our aircraft before they can fly them, they are looking at the wrong reasons to join.
Quote from: arajca on May 01, 2013, 05:39:46 PM
We're not a flying club, contrary to what some pilots may think. If a CFI doesn't want to follow our rules, we don't want them. If they decide not to join because it is inconvienent for them to get checked out on our aircraft before they can fly them, they are looking at the wrong reasons to join.
I think the CFI expected to follow rules. But he came to us with the understanding he was offering his services for free and we offered him a pain in the neck. So, he went somewhere where there was less pain. He gets paid a little and we do without an instructor. Who loses? Certainly not him.
It's a single data point. There are others that I'm aware. Because the club I belong to outside CAP is so large, I sometimes run across people who thought they wanted to join until they became aware of the amount of effort CAP requires.
Providing a diagnosis of issues with processes is part of my regular job; it's what I do. I made it my job because it comes pretty naturally to me. I'm just doing what I do, if you don't get it's no big deal.
Quote from: bflynn on May 01, 2013, 06:25:07 PMI think the CFI expected to follow rules. But he came to us with the understanding he was offering his services for free and we offered him a pain in the neck. So, he went somewhere where there was less pain. He gets paid a little and we do without an instructor. Who loses? Certainly not him.
It appears he made a financial decision as to the best use of limited free time. If he was offered a "pain in the neck" it was offered specifically
by those who were recruiting him. The fault lies squarely
there, not with CAP.
Quote from: bflynn on May 01, 2013, 06:25:07 PM
Providing a diagnosis of issues with processes is part of my regular job; it's what I do. I made it my job because it comes pretty naturally to me. I'm just doing what I do, if you don't get it's no big deal.
Everyone reading this can see
exactly what comes "naturally" to you...
It looks like a new box was added to replace the yellow "training" barely visible. This box clearly states whether the achievement is "active," "in training" or "expired."
I think this is a great addition...
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2013, 07:15:31 PMEveryone reading this can see exactly what comes "naturally" to you...
You know, I thought we had established already that you disagreed with me.
I have no idea why you choose to show such disrespect, but I really wish you would stop it. I percieve a problem in CAP and so I'm raising it so it can be known. I do not want to be the subject of the discussion.
I'm done. Every time I think I can come back, you figure out a way to drive me off and demotivate me again. You did it on your response to my first post and you've done it with almost every other post since. What is wrong with you?
Cap Kittyhawk whatever OUT.
Back on topic.
This morning, when I checked in to OpsQuals, I found out that my MS qual had expired. Last week, the expiration date was 2014. I am so confused.
I've got basically a hot mess, and I have to decide how to handle it - renewals inexplicably popping up with 100% blank (not empty, the page is just white)
entry pages, pre-requisites which are clearly complete showing open, etc., etc.
Obviously NHQ is in there making constant fixes, so I don't know if I should toss in another 11 or 12 tickets to the Help Desk, or just wait a
while for things to cool off.
I also don't like the fact that the validations for tasks are showing up in queues all over the place based on staff appointments - Commanders, ESOs,
people with explicitly granted rights, etc., all can validate what should only be clicked by the SET of record. The last thing we need is people
entering a CAPID for an SET, a CC validates it, and the SET has no idea they were even involved - that pretty much defeats the whole point here.
And where's the email notifications to the SETs?
I do know you can never make everyone happy but IMHO I think the new SET module is better than it was. Being one of the people that was very closely involved in some of the problems with the previous way we SET our members this should at least solve some of the more major issues we had.
This should help increase the integrity of the qualifications.
A short round of applause for the hard working people at National IT and others please! :clap:
Quote from: sarflyer on May 03, 2013, 06:07:24 PMA short round of applause for the hard working people at National IT and others please! :clap:
I second that - we all know this is just a speed bump.
Prior to the new SQTR and Skills Evaluations module, it was a requirement in Florida Wing to scan an initialed/signed paper SQTR and upload it into eServices Ops Quals. Does anyone know if that's still a requirement?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 03, 2013, 08:09:14 PM
Prior to the new SQTR and Skills Evaluations module, it was a requirement in Florida Wing to scan an initialed/signed paper SQTR and upload it into eServices Ops Quals. Does anyone know if that's still a requirement?
That's not just Florida, that's 60-3, and nothing's changed in that regard.
Prior to the implementation of Phase II, there were conversations in my group claiming that paper STQRs were going away. I guess the only benefit of the new system then is to ensure the CAP IDs used are in fact from authorized evaluators, instead of having to rely on a personnel authorization letter.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 03, 2013, 08:45:02 PM
Prior to the implementation of Phase II, there were conversations in my group claiming that paper STQRs were going away. I guess the only benefit of the new system then is to ensure the CAP IDs used are in fact from authorized evaluators, instead of having to rely on a personnel authorization letter.
We've had those too - people seem to confuse "paperless" with "documentless". CAP is moving towards the former, but will never be past the latter (at least not in the near-term).
The new systems raises a different issue which is more attention required by the SETs themselves in tracking what they have done. If you are randomly signing off
1 or 2 people a year . you'll probably remember them, but if you're an active SET, you may be working with dozens a year across hundreds of tasks.
Time to fire up a GDoc and keep a log. The hardcopy SQTR will also serve as a backup "reminder" for SETs that forget they met a member.
Heck, the simple ability to verify a given member is actually an SET and is current in a specialty (via 101 card) is huge. I can't tell you how many times
we've had CC's or "back in the day-ers" who though they could evaluate things based on "I used to" or their business care. Nothing worse then telling
a member they wasted their time because their SET hasn't been current for a decade, or never was.
We've been advising our members to request to see the 101 >before< staring the evaluation, and not to bother if the member cannot verify their status immediately.
That and to get their things entered ASAP - it's not unheard of for a member to leave CAP after being quite active. If you sit on entering information, the system
is going to disallow entry for anyone who "ain't no 'mo".
Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2013, 08:14:42 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 03, 2013, 08:09:14 PM
Prior to the new SQTR and Skills Evaluations module, it was a requirement in Florida Wing to scan an initialed/signed paper SQTR and upload it into eServices Ops Quals. Does anyone know if that's still a requirement?
That's not just Florida, that's 60-3, and nothing's changed in that regard.
I don't see anything in 60-3 to support this.
CAPR 60-3, Dec 2012:
Page 7
(f) It is not necessary to maintain paper or electronic Specialty Qualification
Training Records (SQTR) once qualifications are approved in Ops Quals on-line. Members are
encouraged to still maintain complete records of SQTRs and external training as many task
requirements and courses overlap specialties and without proper documentation the member may
need to re-demonstrate tasks when working towards other qualifications.
i.e Until they are approved, they are required to be maintained online. No ESO worth his business card (regardless of level) is going to approve qualifications
with supporting documentation.
Units. Each unit must:
(1) Ensure individuals satisfy all applicable requirements before approving a
member's SQTR, and maintain all documentation required for issuance either on paper or
electronically. Documentation should be kept in a CAPF 114, if not stored electronically.
I suppose if a unit wanted to create a separate electronic storage area for things locally,
they could, but why they would want to when putting them in OPS Quals fills the need
and negates the requirement to have individual 114's is beyond me. Likewise the 114, per se,
isn't required, but the unit is required to have them stored somehow coherently.
I'll agree that scanning and uploading the SQTR is one acceptable method of compliance. I do not see where it's required.
What other option is there?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 04:03:44 AM
What other option is there?
One could interpret it to mean the electronic SQTR in Ops Qual.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 04:09:05 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 04:03:44 AM
What other option is there?
One could interpret it to mean the electronic SQTR in Ops Qual.
How? Up until the most recent upgrade, there was zero validation whatsoever - members simply entered
any valid number. That's not substantiation of anything.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 04:21:40 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 04:09:05 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 04:03:44 AM
What other option is there?
One could interpret it to mean the electronic SQTR in Ops Qual.
How? Up until the most recent upgrade, there was zero validation whatsoever - members simply entered
any valid number. That's not substantiation of anything.
Agree; and that's why we have been using the signed paper/scanned SQTRs. Now that we have an electronic way of validation, one could interpret this new system as compliant with the requirement in CAPR 60-3.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 04:31:15 AMAgree; and that's why we have been using the signed paper/scanned SQTRs. Now that we have an electronic way of validation, one could interpret this new system as compliant with the requirement in CAPR 60-3.
Once it's fully working, I would agree - or certainly that's the direction this upgrade intended.
A good SET should be doing these sign-offs in real-time directly on an tablet or PC, or close to it. Some better task entry screens, or
mobile apps would be a boon to that effort.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 04:39:16 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 04:31:15 AMAgree; and that's why we have been using the signed paper/scanned SQTRs. Now that we have an electronic way of validation, one could interpret this new system as compliant with the requirement in CAPR 60-3.
Once it's fully working, I would agree - or certainly that's the direction this upgrade intended.
A good SET should be doing these sign-offs in real-time directly on an tablet or PC, or close to it. Some better task entry screens, or
mobile apps would be a boon to that effort.
That's how certain schools such as Alabama Wing Emergency Services School (WESS) record tasks completed. WESS does not normally provide signed SQTRs, which in the past has created some headaches in FLWG since they do require it. We have since worked out some of these issues.
I wish it was economically feasible to have tablets or PDAs to log these tasks in real-time. With many members currently owning tablets and smart phones, perhaps NHQ could develop a mobile app to meet this need.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 04:58:31 AM
I wish it was economically feasible to have tablets or PDAs to log these tasks in real-time. With many members currently owning tablets and smart phones, perhaps NHQ could develop a mobile app to meet this need.
NHQ doesn't need to develop anything. They just need to get out of the way of members who would develop these things entirely on their own to make their jobs easier.
Remember back last summer when NHQ said they had a "high priority project" to provide a temporary interface from IMU into WMIRS until they could develop their own IMS? The claim was that it would be done in September...well, still nothing.
The issue is, NHQ is not interested in any ideas they didn't come up with themselves. So, you'll see mobile apps after all their current pet projects are done, and people forget that someone outside of NHQ might have suggested it.
EDIT: Here's the announcement of the high-priority project: https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/IMU_Interface_Update.pdf (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/IMU_Interface_Update.pdf)
QuoteThe NHQ IT team is working on the new WMIRS/IMU interface as a high priority project. With National Board rapidly approaching, this interface may not be completed until sometime in September. We recognize this imposes some disruption to operations, and ask for your understanding that security concerns needed to be addressed. The interface will allow data transfer within the rules and security requirements necessary to assure system integrity.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 04, 2013, 01:52:42 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 04:58:31 AM
I wish it was economically feasible to have tablets or PDAs to log these tasks in real-time. With many members currently owning tablets and smart phones, perhaps NHQ could develop a mobile app to meet this need.
NHQ doesn't need to develop anything. They just need to get out of the way of members who would develop these things entirely on their own to make their jobs easier.
I don't disagree with the latter part of this statement. But there's something to be said about having a standardized system. Not every unit have the resources to come up with their own effective solutions.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 02:40:51 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 04, 2013, 01:52:42 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 04:58:31 AM
I wish it was economically feasible to have tablets or PDAs to log these tasks in real-time. With many members currently owning tablets and smart phones, perhaps NHQ could develop a mobile app to meet this need.
NHQ doesn't need to develop anything. They just need to get out of the way of members who would develop these things entirely on their own to make their jobs easier.
I don't disagree with the latter part of this statement. But there's something to be said about having a standardized system. Not every unit have the resources to come up with their own effective solutions.
Not saying they need to. The point of an API into the national system is that interoperability would be automatic, as the end result would be standardized in OpsQuals for instance. You're just building a tailor-made user interface to make the data entry easier.
If NHQ would simply publish an API for secure access, then members would rapidly fill the void. I would bet there would be multiple apps for doing SQTR entry and signoff within one week...then the good ones will spread like wildfire, the crappy ones (the type I would develop for instance) would wither and die.
Members could easily collaborate on projects with tools like Sourceforge or Google Code for more extensive projects (like IMS). There are lots of members out there who have extensive experience not only developing applications, but others with extensive experience with managing development projects across the globe.
The issue right now is: If something is built, NHQ will do everything they can to block its access. That means that you will spend more time and effort getting around the roadblocks than you will actually building functionality.
If you build an API, the developers will come.
^ I like the idea of an API, but CAP shouldn't depend on units doing their own thing. Not every unit is going to have software developers available to build those apps.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 03:05:10 PM
^ I like the idea of an API, but CAP shouldn't depend on units doing their own thing. Not every unit is going to have software developers available to build those apps.
I'm not saying that units should do it. If you built such an app, for what earthly reason would you make it so specialized that only your unit could make use of it.
Open the API and let members build them and share them organization wide. We could get it done, and NHQ could stop [censored]ing that they don't have the resources to do it.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 04, 2013, 01:52:42 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 04:58:31 AM
I wish it was economically feasible to have tablets or PDAs to log these tasks in real-time. With many members currently owning tablets and smart phones, perhaps NHQ could develop a mobile app to meet this need.
NHQ doesn't need to develop anything. They just need to get out of the way of members who would develop these things entirely on their own to make their jobs easier.
Remember back last summer when NHQ said they had a "high priority project" to provide a temporary interface from IMU into WMIRS until they could develop their own IMS? The claim was that it would be done in September...well, still nothing.
The issue is, NHQ is not interested in any ideas they didn't come up with themselves. So, you'll see mobile apps after all their current pet projects are done, and people forget that someone outside of NHQ might have suggested it.
EDIT: Here's the announcement of the high-priority project: https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/IMU_Interface_Update.pdf (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/IMU_Interface_Update.pdf)
QuoteThe NHQ IT team is working on the new WMIRS/IMU interface as a high priority project. With National Board rapidly approaching, this interface may not be completed until sometime in September. We recognize this imposes some disruption to operations, and ask for your understanding that security concerns needed to be addressed. The interface will allow data transfer within the rules and security requirements necessary to assure system integrity.
ENTIRELY NOT TRUE (in regards to the bolded comment). I will say this here and now, the DDR reporting restricted application was developed initially by me as a college project, I sent it to them, they tweaked it to work with their systems and improved the interface and published it. The main hurdle in all of that was that IT was NOT given the ability to set the priority on their projects. That matter is still a fact actually, factor that in with the fact that they also support the corporate systems, and are only a 4 man shop (in regards to devs), that's 4 people supporting an organization of approximately 61,000 individuals (not to mention outside customers such as 1AF/Office of SAF/etc) with projects ranging from simple personnel tracking (seeing if they are current) to point of sale interfaces to systems like WMIRS and software that Corp employees utilize. I should also note, the IT shop was recently hit with a downsize, so things are also going to take even longer than before.
With that said, I can honestly understand why they would shy away from allowing any joe schmoe access to the systems interface. With everything done in house at NHQ they can ensure that the various applications and such would actually get supported and are up to their standard of quality and meet various requirements, there is NO guarantee in that regard when it comes to member created and controlled software.
This is not to say that I don't agree with allowing us "member devs" help them out a bit and lighten their workload, I'm saying that I understand their apprehension.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 04, 2013, 03:09:02 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 04, 2013, 03:05:10 PM
^ I like the idea of an API, but CAP shouldn't depend on units doing their own thing. Not every unit is going to have software developers available to build those apps.
I'm not saying that units should do it. If you built such an app, for what earthly reason would you make it so specialized that only your unit could make use of it.
Open the API and let members build them and share them organization wide. We could get it done, and NHQ could stop [censored]ing that they don't have the resources to do it.
Or better yet, why not have a group of software developers volunteer their time to NHQ and, through collaboration and coordination with the appropriate national IT and Ops staff, develop a national system with mobile apps for all to use.
If everyone is allowed to develop their own solution and share it, who's going to be responsible for maintenance? Who's going to be readily available to fix bugs or to add new features? What about training? Unit A uses App X, but Unit B uses Y. Now they have to work together for a particular incident or exercise, but their systems are different; maybe even incompatible.
The bottom line is that while there could be benefit to having an open API for talented developers to use, a unified, standardized system, with scalability and expandability baked into it, would be a better solution for all. This system needs to be maintainable and it must have resources available to do so.
The last thing we need is more homegrown crap, API or otherwise, because that just leads to inevitable arguments about "who's system is the 'standard' ", etc.
With that said, what NHQ does need to do is get more proactive about bringing in volunteer IT pros to their projects and support teams.
There are entire Operating Systems maintained on a purely volunteer / free basis, we should be able to get a few relatively "simple" (in the grande scheme) systems implemented
in the same way.
There's far too much "not invented here" syndrome in these areas.
National IT has a long list of projects that, IMHO, teams of committed volunteers could knock out, if asked and given the access.
To minimize disruptions to active systems, set up a development server that is identical to the live system, but has very limited access to the development teams only. Set designated beta test periods so that all development will stop for a one week period while selected users test the system and report back. With in a year or two, the backlog could be completed, or at least significantly reduced.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 03:40:13 PM
The last thing we need is more homegrown crap, API or otherwise, because that just leads to inevitable arguments about "who's system is the 'standard' ", etc.
With that said, what NHQ does need to do is get more proactive about bringing in volunteer IT pros to their projects and support teams.
There are entire Operating Systems maintained on a purely volunteer / free basis, we should be able to get a few relatively "simple" (in the grande scheme) systems implemented
in the same way.
There's far too much "not invented here" syndrome in these areas.
Why must everything be standardized? Seriously, excessive standardization most often leads to mediocrity. Building a one-size-fits-all system leads to a boatload of compromises and leads to a behemoth of a tool.
IMU is a prime example. It's incredibly powerful, but because of that, it has a lot of checks and complexity that you now have to adapt work processes to in order to make it work, making it a bit of a drain on the small mission. With an open and secure interface, people could build their tools to their scale and their missions. All NHQ should care about is that they get their data in the format they require, and that's the entire purpose of the API.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 04, 2013, 05:23:00 PM
Why must everything be standardized? Seriously, excessive standardization most often leads to mediocrity.
Yes, it does. Comfortable, functional mediocrity.
CAP is not about finding "creative solutions", it is about accomplishing specific missions in the easiest way for the lowest cost, using volunteer, inconsistently trained volunteers.
We have far too many "Arteests" and far too few technicians.
Standardization is what gives people the time to actually get something done besides maintaining servers and making things "better". Everything should be fully standardized at the
national level, and if the organization ever rises to baseline, then we can talk about "creative".
Standardized systems permit easy transportabiity of members. Say you have a custom system A and Eclipse has system B and I use system C, if anyone of us goes to the other's base, we'll be useless until we can figure out how the system works and what each function we need is called. Not to mention if your IT tech has to leave, the IT tech I may have brought will by useless with your system.
For years, a unit had a good mission management system, but it was dependent on one particular member being present to set it up and deal with the issues from 30 different laptops hooking in. When he left for a flying sortie, we had a crash and ended up using paper and no one bothered with using the system any more during that SAREX. Local expertise, local development, non-standard, pain-in-the-backside. The system was slowly replaced by IMU, but that had its own problems, including getting written up when it could get running to sign folks in.
Actually, CAP should not be developing its own incident management software. It should be using what's commercially available and adding CAP specific modules, if needed.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 04, 2013, 05:23:00 PM
Why must everything be standardized? Seriously, excessive standardization most often leads to mediocrity.
Tell that to the military. Standardization is not what leads to mediocrity. Mediocrity is caused by not embracing our core value of excellence [in all we do]. Quality and proficiency can't be achieved by just following the minimum standards. Standards are meant to provide a common framework. Not to limit creative and analytical thinking and problem solving.
Since apparently you do not like standardization, think for a moment.
Why do you think communications training was made into an online class? Too many instructors teaching ACUT and BCUT in a face-to-face situation with inconsistent training opportunities and possibly inconsistent results so NHQ now has one online class.
Results? Consistency across the spectrum!
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on May 05, 2013, 03:04:43 PM
Since apparently you do not like standardization, think for a moment.
Why do you think communications training was made into an online class? Too many instructors teaching ACUT and BCUT in a face-to-face situation with inconsistent training opportunities and possibly inconsistent results so NHQ now has one online class.
Results? Consistency across the spectrum!
Flyer
Where did you get the impression that I do not like standardization.
What I'm saying is that over-standardization leads to mediocrty and stifles innovation.
There seems to be a disconnect between the ideas of organization wide standardization and individual initiative that goes beyond that training. Now when I say "individual initiative that goes beyond that training", some will say that you can't do your own thing. That's not what is being said here in my opinion. We need CAP to say that these are the things that we need to train in and these are the standards we need to train to, but if you want to learn other skills or train to a higher level of excellence on our core skills, go for it. As long as there is no contradiction between the standards and the training provided, there should be no heartburn. Training must be made challenging and engaging if we are to retain the highest quality people. If we say that this is all we teach and you're not allowed to learn more, there are going to be a lot of members hanging up their 24 hr kits and going to find an organization that doesn't stifle individual initiative and a desire to excel.
I have said many times on this forum, that the current structure of ES training encourages mediocrity. People train to GTM1 standard and say, "DONE!" and never try to do anything else to enhance their skills beyond the basics.
Quote from: ol'fido on May 05, 2013, 09:01:17 PM
the current structure of ES training encourages mediocrity. People train to GTM1 standard and say, "DONE!" and never try to do anything else to enhance their skills beyond the basics.
+1
Right there with you Randy.
[PSA]
Our state emergency management agency has a great online training calendar, and I've been advertising more than just ICS-300 & -400, especially to our mission base staff folks. I've gotten some bites, especially on the PIO classes, but there's only been three or four of us in the wing who have really taken advantage of the variety of training opportunities that are out there.
In the past two years, I've taken:
DHS/OEC All-Hazards Communication Unit Leader
DHS/OEC All-Hazards Communication Tech
FEMA Command & General Staff
FEMA Position Specific Planning Section Chief
FEMA Position Specific Resource Unit Leader
Basic Public Information Officer
And I've got a few more I'm lined up for in the next few months.
Now the top four classes were all four or five day commitments (the other two were just a couple of days), but I'm self-employed so I built those into my schedule. Let me tell you, this is precisely the kind of training we *should* have available to our members, but aside from the week-long Inland SAR School or the weekend Basic Inland SAR Course, I haven't yet seen anything that approaches the same level of training.
(That said, I know we're starting to talk about that very thing here in GLR, and here in Wisconsin we've built quite an intense Mission Base Staff academy that's designed to give you the skills you actually need to do your job, not just sign off SQTRs.)
No matter what, though, check out the training your local emergency management offices are offering. A lot of it should be free, and it's definitely worth your time.
[/PSA]
Quote from: ctrossen on April 30, 2013, 07:45:01 PM
I've got e-mails in to NHQ, but I'm still more than happy to hear if anyone has successfully pushed a renewal through, and if so how.
Just to move back on topic for a bit...
I have managed to successfully push a renewal through, though I still have plenty of reservations.
Watching over the shoulder of another member (SARKID, my unit's ES Officer), it does require entering all of the tasks as well as the exercise participation.
Now, the interesting thing is that SARKID entered me as the SET for the member being renewed. As soon as he'd done so, OpsQual came back with each of those sitting in pending VALIDATIONS. He (SARKID) validated them, and then finished the process off by approving it in APPROVALS. As soon as he'd done so, the member was renewed as an MSA.
Now here's the thing... if I (the SET evaluator) hadn't been watching over his shoulder, I never would have known that I was "used" as a Skills Evaluator. OpsQual did not inform me (via e-mail or within the system) that I had been entered as the SET. (Also note, there was no need for a scanned SQTR to be uploaded.) The approval did not go any further beyond the unit (not to group and not to wing).
(And for the record, yes, the option to validate those tasks/exercise participation did show up in my VALIDATIONS as well as in SARKID's, but as soon as he made those validations, they disappeared from mine.)
Well, as soon as he did the validations, the validation task was done, so they disappeared from everyone's queue.
Is the system supposed to notify you when your ID is used as SET? I didn't think that was the case.
As far as validation - it was and still is up to the validator to know that the entries are valid. If he knew because you were standing next to him, then that's a validation. If he did this, did not have a SQTR uploaded and you did not personally validate it to him, that would be his wrong. The major thing that changed here is that if the SET's ID is not in the magic list, then the system will reject it.
Quote from: bflynn on May 07, 2013, 02:18:54 AMIs the system supposed to notify you when your ID is used as SET? I didn't think that was the case.
The only notification is the approval queue when you log in to eservices.
Staff officers with specific rights can accomplish everything in one click, which is a bad idea, especially in light of the assertion by some that paper is no longer needed.
The only person who should be able to validate a task is the the member who's ID is entered, that's the only way to maintain the integrity of the system, especially
if the expectation here is to go paperless.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 07, 2013, 02:40:47 AM
Quote from: bflynn on May 07, 2013, 02:18:54 AMIs the system supposed to notify you when your ID is used as SET? I didn't think that was the case.
The only notification is the approval queue when you log in to eservices.
Staff officers with specific rights can accomplish everything in one click, which is a bad idea, especially in light of the assertion by some that paper is no longer needed.
The only person who should be able to validate a task is the the member who's ID is entered, that's the only way to maintain the integrity of the system, especially
if the expectation here is to go paperless.
I would be perfectly fine with that if it got rid of the paper SQTR. We haven't received any guidance from FLWG, so we're doing business as usual (i.e. signing and uploading the paper SQTR). I think the validation required for each task is a step in the right direction. The policy in our unit, until we receive guidance from Group/Wing or the process or system changes, is that evaluators can validate the tasks they signed off and/or Ops/ES staff can validate tasks signed off by other evaluators after reviewing an initialed SQTR or confirming with the appropriate evaluator.
My main worry with this new system is bottlenecks, waiting for folks to validate tasks. Especially with the volume that there could be.
As an approver, I would have been happy with the "Mission Participation" signoffs being validated by the evaluators. That's where you demonstrate that you can do the job holistically, and if you pass that, that means more to me than 20 task signoffs.
(And no, I'm not saying people should pencil whip the task signoffs, just that the mission participation signoffs say more to me)
Quote from: JeffDG on May 07, 2013, 06:31:40 PM
My main worry with this new system is bottlenecks, waiting for folks to validate tasks. Especially with the volume that there could be.
Could be? Yes.
Is? Sadly, no.
I've been hearing about bottlenecks almost continuously since I assumed my role about 2 years ago.
I don't know where the volume is hiding because I haven't seen it. We get upticks in activity after training events, but
nothing unmanageable.
If you want to be an SET, you have to commit to checking the queue regularly. If you can't do that, no harm, we'll make more.
I will say that there are far too many CC's who would prefer to "not be bothered", but as more and more moves online, they are left with little choice.
I am very hopeful this gets to, or near, paperless ES ops, but it has to do that with integrity and confidence, not the "wink and nod" system we've
had for the last 10 years.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 07, 2013, 06:31:40 PM
My main worry with this new system is bottlenecks, waiting for folks to validate tasks. Especially with the volume that there could be.
As an approver, I would have been happy with the "Mission Participation" signoffs being validated by the evaluators. That's where you demonstrate that you can do the job holistically, and if you pass that, that means more to me than 20 task signoffs.
(And no, I'm not saying people should pencil whip the task signoffs, just that the mission participation signoffs say more to me)
Not necessarily.......and it is one of the reasons why we should ditch the mission sign off requirement.
You should demonstrate/show the ability to perform each task as per the task guides as you do them. Mission participation is supposed to be where you put it all together......but there is no requirement to actually do any of the individual tasks during a mission.
Let's take MP as an example.......you sign off all their training tasks prior to the mission....but during the mission you only fly an expanding square grid....and no other search type......still counts.
MRO.....spend your six hours in the mission base and only answer the radio 3 times....counts.
FLM......spend your six hour at mission base marshal in and out two aircraft....but the pilots fill it up at the gas island or the FBO does it......still counts.
Well, not exactly - during a qualification mission you're supposed to demonstrate a sampling of the advanced tasks
with the intention of proving you can do the job.
The squishy is there's no requirement as to how many, but SET's with integrity are going to require more then "keep a log".
You picked out a couple which are easier to sleep through - most of them have more to do in order to just get off the bench then
the two you picked.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 07, 2013, 06:55:08 PM
Well, not exactly - during a qualification mission you're supposed to demonstrate a sampling of the advanced tasks
with the intention of proving you can do the job.
Sorry.....I have to call you on that one. That may be what is intended.....but I have not seen that in the regulations.
QuoteThe squishy is there's no requirement as to how many, but SET's with integrity are going to require more then "keep a log".
You picked out a couple which are easier to sleep through - most of them have more to do in order to just get off the bench then
the two you picked.
I agree. To take a line from the USAF way of doing business......the "qualification mission" should be a check ride....where you have to do specific tasks and demonstrate them correctly. But then each specialty would have to have their own check ride checklist.
On that same note though.......I still don't really see the need for "mission" participation for most specialties.........not if we keep the training and evaluation part of the system strong.....to me it just seems to be another bottle neck.
I would use MRO and FLM as examples of tasks that could be easily signed off, certified and the member good to go in full on mission with out having to do the two "mission participation" events.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 07, 2013, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 07, 2013, 06:55:08 PM
Well, not exactly - during a qualification mission you're supposed to demonstrate a sampling of the advanced tasks
with the intention of proving you can do the job.
Sorry.....I have to call you on that one. That may be what is intended.....but I have not seen that in the regulations.
Well that's certainly the expectation on a renewal, why would it be different for an initial? Though there's plenty of
squishy there.
As to mission participation - a mission environment, especially a large-scale mission, and double-especially
for a real-world, is a very different environment from most training, where the member is sitting comfortably with
people he knows and there's plenty of time to re-do things he misses or screws up.
In a mission environment, there's a lot more stress and pressure and far too many people with a finger-tip
grasp on their own duties, let alone helping new guys who have ever signed in before.
Navigating in a wooded environment you've never been in before is a lot different then the parking lot / coffee can
land nav course too many members have used to get qual'ed.
Those missions are eye-openers in most cases, and are supposed to set the tone for what the actual expectation
of performance is.
That assumes that the mission participation is going to be "large scale" and "real world".....but there is no standard for that.
Your squadron may participate in "wing wide" exercise by setting up and running a simple single asset missions base (say one aircraft or one ground team) that only does 1-2 sorties.
Or you could be at a large sarex where 4-5 squadrons are all in one place doing multi sorties with lots of assets and moving parts.
Or your mission participation could be in a live mission with limited task completion.......the MP who goes out flies his grid and comes home.....no time to do anything else.
If the EXPECTATION is to stress the trainee in a worse case scenario........then that needs to be spelled out.
And yes navigating in the woods is much harder then the coffee can.......ergo we need to change the standard on the training. Because just because you go out on a mission real or training.....does not mean you will ever use your compass to navigate.......again there is no standard no requirement to do any evaluation during the mission participation phase of the SQTR.
Agreed.
It happens more often then you might think...
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 07, 2013, 06:25:14 PMThe I would be perfectly fine with that if it got rid of the paper SQTR. We haven't received any guidance from FLWG, so we're doing business as usual (i.e. signing and uploading the paper SQTR). I think the validation required for each task is a step in the right direction. The policy in our unit, until we receive guidance from Group/Wing or the process or system changes, is that evaluators can validate the tasks they signed off and/or Ops/ES staff can validate tasks signed off by other evaluators after reviewing an initialed SQTR or confirming with the appropriate evaluator.
I think this is a fine way to do it, it's how we've been doing it for years. The system will tell you when someone isn't a SET, all you have to do is make sure the SQTR ID matches the ID in the system. Now, short of outright forgery, you have a system where you can be fairly sure that someone was evaluated by the proper SET. Since I don't think forgery is a problem with our members and because I know it would be severly and justly dealt with if it did occur, I'm comfortable with what we have.
I still think there are potential issues lurking with requiring junior members to impose on senior members for checkouts, but we'll see if that actually materializes.
Can someone explain this?
I am a qualified MRO. I am also a CUL Trainee.
On my MRO, several tasks I passed to get MRO are now grayed out while the box at the top right says "Active" with an expiration date in 2015.
On my CUL, several of those tasks I passed to get MRO are green, and are those that appear gray in the above.
For example, L-0001 and CAPT 117 part 3. These are gray in an "Active" achievement, and green on a "Training" achievement.
Also, isn't CAPT 117 part 3 one of those "Does not expire" achievements? If so, why is it grayed out? If it is grayed, does it mean I have to take it again to renew my MRO in 2015?
Flyer
Those are the tasks you would have to complete for your qualification renewal.
But appearing right now when the qualification is "Active," and not "Expired?" I would have expected it to show until later. And CAPT 117 Part 3 being shown grayed out? That means I have to retake that quiz that has not expired?
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on May 08, 2013, 07:33:48 PM
But appearing right now when the qualification is "Active," and not "Expired?" I would have expected it to show until later. And CAPT 117 Part 3 being shown grayed out? That means I have to retake that quiz that has not expired?
Flyer
You don't have to (and really shouldn't) wait until after you drop out of qualification to renew. You can renew anytime you want.
No idea on the 117, sounds broken. We're seeing issues with other certs like BCUT that the system isn't recognizing as well.
I was also looking at my IS 100, 200, 700, 800, and ICS 300. These appear on the SQTRs as "Active" with the phrase "View/Update this achievement."
All say "Active" in the box to the right, with a green bar. However, the black bar says "Renew Achievement: 0 Tasks Completed / 0 Tasks Required."
Under that bar nothing shows.
There is no box to click to resubmit or "renew" these achievements.
Is this normal? Should it be reported? Who can submit this report, can I do it or should I contact a SET qualified person for this?
You can put in a help desk ticket, anyone can.
I received an email notification this AM of pending task validations.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jL6MK-lF5zY/UCwMrW8yMLI/AAAAAAAAAFk/rlIeK7elrgQ/s1600/clapping_animation.gif)
So, now that we're stressing the system harder, we're running in to a >real< problem.
Far too many members did not catch up their taskings and quals from the WMU, they did button-click renewals,
uploaded nothing, backfilled-nothing.
Now we have experienced, capable members unable to do legit renewals because their eSQTRs are blank, and they
have nothing to show their old work. The system will not allow a renewal unless all the advanced fields have something in them.
(Plus we have more then a few who say that info which was in there has disappeared). As a regulatory reminder,
60-3 only requires a sample of advanced tasks be done, not all of them, for a renewal.
So that leaves:
Substantiate and back-date tasks from saved documents (not possible for some who didn't pay attention)
Pencil-whip tasks not really redone just to game the system (bad idea from every angle, but we have plenty of people who like to click boxes).
Expect members to re-accomplish the entire advanced SQTR (reps never hurt, and no one is an expert at this stuff, but
there are some practical realities to expecting that, not the least of which is that in some wings, the SETs themselves can't get requal'ed to
help other members).
There's also the non-trivial issue of people who have say on taskings and the SET either left CAP, or is no longer active themselves.
I have little sympathy for this issue, because it smacks of the typical CAP "last minute / bare minimum / I procrastinated, now make it your priority" attitude, but that also doesn't help the reality that we need to get these people qual'ed and not totally disfranchise them.
HelpDesk ticket sent, will advise on the response.
Another follow-up.
The system automatically clears >all< the advanced tasks, and removes FAM/Prep stuff once a qual is active. So an active GBD, for example,
will have a blank eSQTR with all gray tasks, apparently losing the evaluation history completely (unless someone knows another place to find it).
More troubling though is that the system is forcing all the the advanced fields be completed in order to pop the renewal.
This is contrary to 60-3, and not going to be a practical reality for some specialties.
CAPR 60-3, Page 28 (renewals)
(a) During the evaluation, candidates will be required to demonstrate their
ability to perform and/or evaluate annotated tasks on the SQTR required to qualify in that
specialty. Not all tasks are required to be demonstrated; generally only advanced level tasks are
required to be re-demonstrated. Most formal courses do not have to be re-accomplished though
some are recommended like first aid training.
Another issue is the way the system is calculating the renewal. In the test case I just did, the
evaluated mission was from last year, however the member completed iCut in Feb this year.
So the system viewed the iCut as the last advanced task completed and actually granted the
member an extra undeserved year on his renewal.
Lastly, with the task validations showing up in queues for anyone with command or ops rights,
we have people approving things they were not involved in, defeating the purpose of the module to start with.
It also opens the door to people with the necessary rights being able to use some SET's ID and push it through
with (apparently) no easily accessible trail, since they could enter and approve it in one step. Yes, the notification
emails show what is expected to be reviewed by he SET, but that's it.
Ticket reopened.
I find it very difficult to believe that I am the first person, nationally, to find or raise this issue, and
so have to wonder if other wings are just pencil whipping the advanced tasks to get things done.
It is not unusual for a good evaluated sortie to not include "everything" on the advanced tasks, common
in fact. The standard is to determine whether a person is still capable. So...
Quote from: Eclipse on May 31, 2013, 03:03:00 AM
I find it very difficult to believe that I am the first person, nationally, to find or raise this issue, and
so have to wonder if other wings are just pencil whipping the advanced tasks to get things done.
It is not unusual for a good evaluated sortie to not include "everything" on the advanced tasks, common
in fact. The standard is to determine whether a person is still capable. So...
I noticed this too, but I'm not conducting any renewals/requals in my squadron until a SAREX scheduled for next month. I assumed that National was now requiring all these tasks to be accomplished, even though it contradicts CAPR 60-3.
I did find another issue with one of my members. His GTM3 and GTL are expired. He started GTM2 and GTM1 (even though GTM2 was never completed) about 10 years ago. All his tasks for GTM2 and GTM1 are showing active (green). Has anyone else seen this? Should I open a ticket for this?
There are a few changes in
CAWG as the result of the new module.
QuoteDocument uploads
The requirement to upload SQTR worksheets has been eliminated.
QuoteWe (CAWG) have expanded who can evaluate two specialties, Mission radio operator (MRO) and Mission Staff Assistant (MSA).
To Evaluate a MRO the evaluator must be a MRO and be any one of the following: IC, CUL or OSC,
To Evaluate a MSA the evaluator must be a MSA and be any one of the following: IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD.
Squadron Commanders recommend appointments.
QuoteValidations should be done by the Evaluator that observed the training task. The Evaluator will receive an email notification of the pending request when the member submits the evaluator's ID number. Members on wing staff who have permissions will also see these validation requests, but should not validate such tasks unless there is a special need.
Validations require either direct first hand knowledge the task was completed, "I did the training for the member" or the member has shown you a signed SQTR worksheet demonstrating the task was completed. A phone call or email message with the evaluator is also acceptable. Please do not perform validations that don't meet these criteria -- nothing should be validated based on "tribal knowledge" (ie. I know this person can do this).
Staff should also be careful of making entries for members, as the entry will be validated and approved at the highest level of the staff members permission level skipping normal processing. If you are helping a member get their tasks entered, you should ask the member to log in and use their eServices account, not yours.
Quote from: vento on May 31, 2013, 05:19:28 AM
There are a few changes in CAWG as the result of the new module.
QuoteDocument uploads
The requirement to upload SQTR worksheets has been eliminated.
QuoteWe (CAWG) have expanded who can evaluate two specialties, Mission radio operator (MRO) and Mission Staff Assistant (MSA).
To Evaluate a MRO the evaluator must be a MRO and be any one of the following: IC, CUL or OSC,
To Evaluate a MSA the evaluator must be a MSA and be any one of the following: IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD.
Squadron Commanders recommend appointments.
QuoteValidations should be done by the Evaluator that observed the training task. The Evaluator will receive an email notification of the pending request when the member submits the evaluator's ID number. Members on wing staff who have permissions will also see these validation requests, but should not validate such tasks unless there is a special need.
Validations require either direct first hand knowledge the task was completed, "I did the training for the member" or the member has shown you a signed SQTR worksheet demonstrating the task was completed. A phone call or email message with the evaluator is also acceptable. Please do not perform validations that don't meet these criteria -- nothing should be validated based on "tribal knowledge" (ie. I know this person can do this).
Staff should also be careful of making entries for members, as the entry will be validated and approved at the highest level of the staff members permission level skipping normal processing. If you are helping a member get their tasks entered, you should ask the member to log in and use their eServices account, not yours.
So even if a member meets the 60-3 requirements to be an evaluator for MSA or MRO, they still have to be an IC, OSC, or CUL to evaluate MRO and IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD to evaluate MSA? That's crazy.
^^^ Yes, according to the CAWG supplement, if you are a member of CAWG. I wouldn't call it crazy though... >:D
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 31, 2013, 07:22:08 AM
So even if a member meets the 60-3 requirements to be an evaluator for MSA or MRO, they still have to be an IC, OSC, or CUL to evaluate MRO and IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD to evaluate MSA? That's crazy.
Not crazy at all. There's no supervisor matrix in the new version of the reg, but the requirements above are very similar to the old matrix.
This is the old reg. (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGkkNVYKhRUxYAK3BXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0MGtpYmRnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDIzOV83Ng--/SIG=12kbe6i82/EXP=1370018005/**http%3a//members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/u_082503073358.pdf) See Attachment 5, on page 45.
Quote from: SarDragon on May 31, 2013, 08:44:31 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 31, 2013, 07:22:08 AM
So even if a member meets the 60-3 requirements to be an evaluator for MSA or MRO, they still have to be an IC, OSC, or CUL to evaluate MRO and IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD to evaluate MSA? That's crazy.
Not crazy at all. There's no supervisor matrix in the new version of the reg, but the requirements above are very similar to the old matrix.
This is the old reg. (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGkkNVYKhRUxYAK3BXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0MGtpYmRnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDIzOV83Ng--/SIG=12kbe6i82/EXP=1370018005/**http%3a//members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/u_082503073358.pdf) See Attachment 5, on page 45.
Yep, and as you can see, everyone can be supervised by someone who is a SET in their own specialty (MSA supervising MSA, GTM3 supervising GTM3, etc). None of this "must be a GBD, AOBD, IC, or God" crap.
But, if it's an NHQ approved supp, whatever. I just don't like it when wings add on extra layers of pointless hoops. It's not that I set the bar low, I just don't like putting up unnecessary barriers that NHQ has already decided don't need to exist.
QuoteWe (CAWG) have expanded who can evaluate two specialties, Mission radio operator (MRO) and Mission Staff Assistant (MSA).
To Evaluate a MRO the evaluator must be a MRO and be any one of the following: IC, CUL or OSC,
To Evaluate a MSA the evaluator must be a MSA and be any one of the following: IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD.
Squadron Commanders recommend appointments.
How do you add a layer of administrative nonsense, and then eliminate the need to upload the paper?
The system is only going to recognize what the regs or NHQ says is the "way", and won't care what CAWG's supplements
have to say about it.
Further, while not an issue with MRO / CULs, there is no requirement that any of those ICS positions be MSA's to be active themselves.
I'm an MSA "because", but I would hazard most GBDs aren't, same goes for the rest. which means you could very
well wind up with no one who can actually evaluate an MSA for renewal or initial.
Being a mission IC doesn't mean you ever met the LSC MSA, let alone were able to evaluate their performance.
Here we have a national system that is only a couple months old and we're already diverging the timelines.
We need to knock off this local nonsense - if it's a good idea for one wing, it's likely a good idea for all of them,
or not a good idea, period. And that goes for local "policies" about equipment and operations as well.
Guaranteed this is one person's "idea" of a way to fix deficient performance in the area's indicated.
What it actually "is", is a great way to further reduce the number of people in those areas due to not being able to
get renewals done, >or< defeating your own purpose because it encourages higher staffers to whip
the renewals for expediency.
Again, we make things so much then they need to be to no one's benefit. The process of getting trained
and mentored should be direct and simple.
^^^ Being an ordinary member of the CAWG, I don't have the inside story and reasoning about why the higher echelons made the supplements the way it is. The intention was to share about what one wing is doing. I don't think we (me and you included) should make harsh criticism without knowing the whole picture.
There has been a problem in the past with barely qualified, or very inexperienced people signing off tasks when they really shouldn't be doing so. This is the solution the wing came up with.
Quote from: SarDragon on June 01, 2013, 04:17:03 AM
There has been a problem in the past with barely qualified, or very inexperienced people signing off tasks when they really shouldn't be doing so. This is the solution the wing came up with.
This is a problem many wings are facing; not sure if this particular "solution" will solve this problem. The only way, IMHO, to ensure currency and proficiency on these qualifications is to add requirements to be completed every quarter or semester. Heck, at this point even once a year would be more than what we have right now, where someone gets qualified in a specialty and doesn't do it again until the specialty has to be renewed three years later. These same individuals are often assigned as evaluators after being qualified for a year even though it's been that long since they actually accomplished these tasks.
There is a crowd that believes the rules should apply across the entire organization, no exceptions. But Wings do have unique issues and rule modifications ie "supplements" are allowed and they do have to be approved by National.
Certainly we have all seen the member who has a rating and has no idea what they are doing. We all ask, who signed off the SOB. So is CAWG they have required the next level to do sign offs. Is that really so bad? There is very good chance that next level person is available to do the training and sign off. Experience does really count.
As for the new SQTR process, while national will let a MRO sign off a MRO the Wing has instituted a policy not to allow a MRO to be a Appointed evaluator. So eServices will prohibit the MRO signing off a MRO.
Yes some ratings don't actually require all subordinate rating like mentioned MSA. The Fix would be to require MSA before you could advance. There other parallel issues like a IC not needing to be Air and Ground qualified, just one does it. So its not perfect.
I also talked to National about the 60-3 rule regarding "Not all tasked need to be demonstrated". The response was they know, It will be dealt with in a rules revision. There was no programing way to determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated. The rule leaves that to the evaluator so this is problematic in writing HTML code.
I actually like all the tasks to be reviewed. Just use the standard we use on a check ride that not every item on the check list has to be actually completed, many items are verbally reviewed.
Quote from: Flyboy86 on June 08, 2013, 12:48:47 AMI also talked to National about the 60-3 rule regarding "Not all tasked need to be demonstrated". The response was they know, It will be dealt with in a rules revision. There was no programming way to determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated. The rule leaves that to the evaluator so this is problematic in writing HTML code.
Are you serious?
We can't figure out how to write a simple program so we change the rules instead?
There's no need to "determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated", it's subjective to the evaluator and could be as much as one task.
That doesn't sound too hard to program to me.
And what, exactly, are expected to do in the interim of the a "rules" change? Guess?
This may well explain why my tickets have no response to the follow up questions.
Some SQTRs have a huge number of advanced tasks (30-40), GTL for example. If I'm expected to re-demonstrate each one and do a sortie, because the programmers can't figure out how to write ops qual, I may as well redo GTL school at NESA every 3 years.
Some states have their own schools, like New York which has SARTAC. Another is I think LESA. Is LESA from Texas?
Nevertheless, I agree with you. Some of us may not be able to get out of Trainee status with that requirement of "renew all."
Why not in the case of many tasks, set it up in a rotation basis like "in this 3-year cycle renew task # through ##. In the next 3-year cycle renew tasks ### through ####?"
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2013, 03:48:37 PM
Quote from: Flyboy86 on June 08, 2013, 12:48:47 AMI also talked to National about the 60-3 rule regarding "Not all tasked need to be demonstrated". The response was they know, It will be dealt with in a rules revision. There was no programming way to determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated. The rule leaves that to the evaluator so this is problematic in writing HTML code.
Are you serious?
We can't figure out how to write a simple program so we change the rules instead?
There's no need to "determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated", it's subjective to the evaluator and could be as much as one task.
That doesn't sound too hard to program to me.
And what, exactly, are expected to do in the interim of the a "rules" change? Guess?
This may well explain why my tickets have no response to the follow up questions.
Good lord.
Why not just do the requires x of y that they do now for things like ICUT/BCUT/ACUT. Have a group look at the SQTR and say "OK, for GTM3, you need to cover not less than 5 of these tasks"
They already have it coded.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 10, 2013, 12:30:49 PM
Good lord.
Why not just do the requires x of y that they do now for things like ICUT/BCUT/ACUT. Have a group look at the SQTR and say "OK, for GTM3, you need to cover not less than 5 of these tasks"
They already have it coded.
KISS :clap:
So, what you're saying is that you cannot complete in the span of 3 years what you completed in the span of 2 for trainee status?
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on June 10, 2013, 02:13:46 PM
So, what you're saying is that you cannot complete in the span of 3 years what you completed in the span of 2 for trainee status?
Yes - if for no other reason then once you're out of trainee status you are likely working on real missions and don't have the time or the need
to be breaking out a task guide and demonstrating 6-8 items per task.
The current standard is more then appropriate - demonstrate yo can still do the job. That's all that should be necessary.
More fun.
Renewing a member's GTL also clicked GTM2/1 & UDF, but did not update GTM3, I had to do it manually.
More fun #2.
Regardless of the date entered into a task or mission, the renewal date is "now", meaning that a member sitting on an old
SQTR gets "free time" added to their ticket.
^ Sounds like good incentive for the Wing ESO or DO to not sit on requals for weeks (or months).
Quote from: EMT-83 on June 13, 2013, 02:42:21 AM
^ Sounds like good incentive for the Wing ESO or DO to not sit on requals for weeks (or months).
I hear about this kind of thing all the time, but I can't imagine how it's possible except for a rare exception. I know it happens, I
just can't see how it's allowed to continue.
I check the queues several times a day, as does the DO, and even my predecessor, who was not nearly as "wired" was in there
several times a week.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 13, 2013, 12:41:42 AM
More fun.
Renewing a member's GTL also clicked GTM2/1 & UDF, but did not update GTM3, I had to do it manually.
More fun #2.
Regardless of the date entered into a task or mission, the renewal date is "now", meaning that a member sitting on an old
SQTR gets "free time" added to their ticket.
;D
Something that I just noticed with the current SET setup in eServices:
If someone is qualified to teach a task but is not qualified as SET in the specialty for the SQTR where the task is required, then that someone can not enter the task or validate the task within eServices.
Example: Maj Donuteater is fully qualified as MRO, CUL, etc, etc, and is also SET for CUL, MRO, etc.. He is invited to instruct in an UDF course covering tasks L-0001, L-0002, and L-0003. Maj Donuteater does a terrific job teaching the tasks, as matter of fact much better than the UDF instructor, but the Major is not UDF SET qualified and therefore nobody can update the SQTR using the Major's CAP ID.
It seems funny that the Major can instruct and validate the exact same tasks if he was teaching a MRO or CUL course, but not able to do anything if he is instructing an UDF course for the exact same tasks! Task L-0001 within the UDF SQTR is no different than task L-0001 in any other SQTR.
I am not sure if this is by design or it is just an oversight. If it is by design, then it does not make much sense to me.
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 05:15:53 PMIf someone is qualified to teach a task but is not qualified as SET in the specialty for the SQTR where the task is required, then that someone can not enter the task or validate the task within eServices.
...
I am not sure if this is by design or it is just an oversight. If it is by design, then it does not make much sense to me.
Yes, this is correct and by design. Anyone can teach anyone else about a task, there are no qualifications for teaching. But only the SET can evaluate whether or not that person has actually learned it.
Considering it transferes tasks between ratings on it's own.
Quote from: bflynn on August 23, 2013, 05:41:42 PM
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 05:15:53 PMIf someone is qualified to teach a task but is not qualified as SET in the specialty for the SQTR where the task is required, then that someone can not enter the task or validate the task within eServices.
...
I am not sure if this is by design or it is just an oversight. If it is by design, then it does not make much sense to me.
Yes, this is correct and by design. Anyone can teach anyone else about a task, there are no qualifications for teaching. But only the SET can evaluate whether or not that person has actually learned it.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
For example, a person is SET MRO and teaches L-0001 will be able to validate task L-0001 within the MRO SQTR.
The same person teaching the same task L-0001 can't validate the task within the UDF SQTR because he is not SET UDF.
Yet, as a2capt said, if the person enters the task L-0001 under MRO SQTR, it will actually show up (indirectly) in the UDF SQTR. So, why not allow the person to enter it directly into the UDF SQTR?
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 06:13:34 PMSo, why not allow the person to enter it directly into the UDF SQTR?
Because he's not UDF qualified, and frankly, should not be teaching those tasks in the context of UDF.
Externally they may look the same, but the procedures and information gathered, in the case of something like "keep a log" may not be.
It's just a nod towards members' time that this cross-posting is possible at all.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 23, 2013, 06:19:25 PM
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 06:13:34 PMSo, why not allow the person to enter it directly into the UDF SQTR?
Because he's not UDF qualified, and frankly, should not be teaching those tasks in the context of UDF.
Externally they may look the same, but the procedures and information gathered, in the case of something like "keep a log" may not be.
It's just a nod towards members' time that this cross-posting is possible at all.
Which then bear the question, are we utilizing the "greatest common factor" or the "least common multiple"?
I understand that not all tasks should be crossed like the way it is now, but there are tasks that are common across the board. Use of pro-words is the same in what we do at CAP regardless if one is aircrew or ground team.
If something is important enough for that particular SQTR, then it should be a task by itself instead of piggy riding a common task. Just my two cents.
I'm not sure I see the issue - the member is able to submit the tasks, they cross-populate, so what is the angst?
I'd guess it's just a programming issue in the check for currency in a given qual before accepting the number, but at least it still works.
Probably just more growing pains from going from "no checks whatsoever" to "full checks".
Quote from: Eclipse on August 23, 2013, 06:19:25 PM
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 06:13:34 PMSo, why not allow the person to enter it directly into the UDF SQTR?
Because he's not UDF qualified, and frankly, should not be teaching those tasks in the context of UDF.
Externally they may look the same, but the procedures and information gathered, in the case of something like "keep a log" may not be.
It's just a nod towards members' time that this cross-posting is possible at all.
Have to disagree, the task (in the case L-0001) is the same, and should be being validated against its evaluation measures. If you look at the task in the Ground and UDF Task book it is identical in every way (Description, Evaluation measures) as it is listed in the Mission Base Task book. There is no reason that an SET for MRO shouldn't be able to sign off on the tasks which he has the knowledge of. It would also allow for more in depth specialty training, (Ground Team and Air Crew attend a Mission Comms course and get credit for those L tasks that the MRO SET can sign off for)
I agree with Vento.
Some tasks are common, then the SET for one specialty should be allowed to enter for the other.
Although "Keeping a Log (P-0001)" may have a few differences whether it is Ground Team or Mission Base Tasks, the differences in context are covered in the task description. The teacher and the SET can take care of that at that time.
Other tasks are different, then they are given their own number.
Consider "Ground Team Member Equipment (O-0001)" and "UDF Equipment (O-0010)." UDF do not carry as many items as a GTM, but includes some items that only GTL carries. In this case it is valid to separate and prevent one SET from signing into the other.
I think this is more of the case of it being easier for the computer programmer to prevent one SET from signing tasks on the other SET list, than having each task assigned exceptions.
Or is anyone also going to argue that "Use a Compass (O-0201)" will be different for a UDF or and a GTM?
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on August 23, 2013, 06:50:25 PM
Or is anyone also going to argue that "Use a Compass (O-0201)" will be different for a UDF or and a GTM?
Better yet
L-0001 Basic Communications Procedures for ES Operations
L-0002 Perform radio operating procedures
L-0003 Employ appropriate radio frequencies repeaters
Should be EXACTLY the same for all.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 23, 2013, 06:34:29 PM
I'm not sure I see the issue - the member is able to submit the tasks, they cross-populate, so what is the angst?
The issue is the member is
NOT able to submit the tasks. Again it's because the instructor while fully qualified as SET in other SQTR for the exact same task, is not SET for the SQTR for which the member is submitting the task.
The angst is for 1). inconsistency; and 2). lack of common sense (the system, not you).
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 07:23:45 PM
The issue is the member is NOT able to submit the tasks.
Yes they can, just not under UDF.
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 07:23:45 PM
The angst is for 1). inconsistency;
Agreed
Vento-
Careful, your blood pressure is rising! ;)
I agree again with him.
If we cannot use a SET id for tasks shared with another specialty because that SET is not SET for another, it makes it more difficult. Why open a training SQTR if you know you are not going to pursue that task?
And what if it is an advance task the SET is teaching? We have been told that no advanced task is to be taken before familiarization and/or preparatory tasks are taken? So member trainee has advanced beyond those preparatory and familiarization tasks on specialty ABC but not for specialty DEF. A SET for DEF teaches task L-0001 but cannot be posted since member trainee has not achieved preparatory tasks on specialty ABCDEF?
This is where Vento's angst, and some others, can come up!
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on August 23, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 07:23:45 PM
The issue is the member is NOT able to submit the tasks.
Yes they can, just not under UDF.
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 07:23:45 PM
The angst is for 1). inconsistency;
Agreed
If the trainee has gotten to the point of checking those tasks off in a rating the trainer is SET.
IF cross-populate is the actual standard, shouldn't everyone be walking around with a TRAINING status on all qualifications that have cross-pop tasks?
Meaning in order for you to enter the task on my MRO (where you are SET) so that it populates over to my GTM3 (where you are NOT SET, where I AM in training) shouldn't I have commanders approval of pre-req's / TRAINING status completed on the MRO (where I am NOT training) before you enter the task?
Boy... that felt an awful lot like a ramble....
:)
Quote from: Eclipse on August 23, 2013, 06:19:25 PM
Quote from: vento on August 23, 2013, 06:13:34 PMSo, why not allow the person to enter it directly into the UDF SQTR?
Because he's not UDF qualified, and frankly, should not be teaching those tasks in the context of UDF.
Externally they may look the same, but the procedures and information gathered, in the case of something like "keep a log" may not be.
It's just a nod towards members' time that this cross-posting is possible at all.
Horse pucky, Bob. In the progression of training, ICUT teaches you fundamentals, and how to operate the radio (knobology). L-0001 teaches you how to use the radio (procedures), and is appropriate for any setting. Other tasks within each ES specialty go more in depth, depending on the situation.
Lord knows why I was even trying to figure out the logic (The Lord, not our Lord(s)).
Anyway.
A couple other things I have found in conversation with NHQ.
"Renewal Tasks" vs. "Current 60-3 verbiage on renewals"
I was told that this is an issue of the programming running ahead of anticipated changes to 60-3. Owing to the
cost of re-programming it temporarily only to put it back, they will be leaving it as-is. The person I heard from
said they are considering an ICL or memo to explain things.
Inconsistent behavior in regards to equivalency renewals.
Both renewing things downstream such as UDF/GT when a GTL is renewed, and circular logic of renewals when
a prerequisite is also expired (i.e. GT3 for a GTL renewal)
These are programming issues which are being addressed.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 23, 2013, 08:12:38 PM
Lord knows why I was even trying to figure out the logic (The Lord, not our Lord(s)).
Anyway.
A couple other things I have found in conversation with NHQ.
"Renewal Tasks" vs. "Current 60-3 verbiage on renewals"
I as told that this is an issue of the programming running ahead of anticipated changes to 60-3. Owing to the
cost of re-programming it temporarily;ly only to put it back, they will be leaving it as-is. The person I heard from
said they are considering an ICL or memo to explain things.
Inconsistent behavior in regards to equivalency renewals.
Both renewing things downstream such as UDF/GT when a GTL is renewed, and circular logic of renewals when
a prerequisite is also expired (i.e. GT3 for a GTL renewal)
These are programming issues which are being addressed.
Should send info over to NHQ Ops.
Quote from: tdm2002 on August 23, 2013, 08:35:22 PM
Should send info over to NHQ Ops.
That's who this info came from.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 23, 2013, 08:12:38 PM
Lord knows why I was even trying to figure out the logic (The Lord, not our Lord(s)).
Anyway.
A couple other things I have found in conversation with NHQ.
"Renewal Tasks" vs. "Current 60-3 verbiage on renewals"
I was told that this is an issue of the programming running ahead of anticipated changes to 60-3. Owing to the
cost of re-programming it temporarily only to put it back, they will be leaving it as-is. The person I heard from
said they are considering an ICL or memo to explain things.
Does this mean that we will soon have to redemonstrate every single advanced task for a renewal? That's annoying. Also, if we're still going to have downstream equivelancy, e.g. renewing GTL renews GTM, doesn't that create somewhat of a double standard?
It's not that I'm absolutely against this per se, I just think that the current system regarding what has to be demonstrated for renewals isn't broken, so why, or rather what, are we fixing?
Quote from: jeders on August 23, 2013, 10:47:16 PMDoes this mean that we will soon have to redemonstrate every single advanced task for a renewal?
If by "soon" you mean "now", then yes. This has actually been in place since the upgrade. If you look at the list of tasks, it isn't all of them, it's a sub-set
that someone must have determined were important, akin to the olden days of METLs.
Quote from: jeders on August 23, 2013, 10:47:16 PM
That's annoying. Also, if we're still going to have downstream equivelancy, e.g. renewing GTL renews GTM, doesn't that create somewhat of a double standard?
I'm not sure I understand the double standard the downstream equivalency was always this way, just not automatic.
There's no such thing as "in context" with UDF or whatever. The task guide is quite clear on what it expects to be taught and evaluated.
It does not say "as this pertains to UDF, MRO, etc."
If that were the case, then the tasks would be two separate things.
My solution, I enter it where it needs to be entered and leave it at that. When someone signs off on the whole thing and submits it, it works.
Unless they busted that, and in that case .. they do need to fix it.
Speaking of renewals, that is another area that causes some heartburn. >:D
Under the new (current) SET system, it will be hard to renew some qualifications, especially the advanced or the not so popular ones. MSO, AOBD, etc. In most cases there is only one MSO (or AOBD, or insert your own specialty) working at a given mission or SAREX, but since the system requires another MSO (or AOBD, etc) who is also SET to sign off on the renewals, it will be hard for current Officers to renew on time. The Officer who worked the mission may have demonstrated total competency, but since there is no "qualified" person to sign him/her off for renewal, the rating will probably lapse. Do we have a workable and reasonable workaround without sacrificing quality?
It is not so much of a problem with the more common specialties like MSA, or MS, or MO, etc since we usually have plenty of SETed guys around.
This is not necessarily a new problem, but the system just makes it even harder.
Just an observation.
I think it's just more of the same mantra - more people.
The last time I spoke with those NHQ folks, they indicated that they will be stressing an increase
in participation and ongoing tasking over the three year cycle.
That's great, but in the interim, my wing has most people on the "requal sortie" mentality, made more difficult
by the current reg which still supports that.
You can only demand so much of volunteers. If there is only one at a given mission, plus trainee or renewal candidate, then what do you do? Tell the ones who put in their time, "tough"?
That's a force multiplier if I ever saw one. ;)
..and don't go off on the "volunteer" bit, it's not the focal point of the argument in full. If these were paid staff positions, it's a lot easier to fill. But finding people who can give up time is just not as easy. You can't demand it.
A2-
The task guide reads, for example P-0101 - and separates - between "For Ground Operations" from "For Air Operations" and "For Mission Base Operations." As long as the tasks include language that separates in that way, I will call it "in context with."
Flyer
Quote from: vento on August 24, 2013, 12:00:18 AM
Speaking of renewals, that is another area that causes some heartburn. >:D
Under the new (current) SET system, it will be hard to renew some qualifications, especially the advanced or the not so popular ones. MSO, AOBD, etc. In most cases there is only one MSO (or AOBD, or insert your own specialty) working at a given mission or SAREX, but since the system requires another MSO (or AOBD, etc) who is also SET to sign off on the renewals, it will be hard for current Officers to renew on time. The Officer who worked the mission may have demonstrated total competency, but since there is no "qualified" person to sign him/her off for renewal, the rating will probably lapse. Do we have a workable and reasonable workaround without sacrificing quality?
It is not so much of a problem with the more common specialties like MSA, or MS, or MO, etc since we usually have plenty of SETed guys around.
This is not necessarily a new problem, but the system just makes it even harder.
Just an observation.
Keep in mind that not only might there be only one SET at a given SAREX, but that SET is supposed to personally observe the demonstration of the tasks, while doing whatever job they are actually assigned to for the SAREX.
In our squadron, I'm considered the go-to AP. I was one of the first to qualify, I teach the classes, I've trained most of the current APs and I've probably done more missions as an AP than anyone else in the squadron. Yet, my qualification lapses next year and I really don't see it being renewed because of professional time constraints. When that happens, I suspect I'll drift away from CAP and go find other things to do, maybe fly more.
If there's only one SET at a SAREX of any scale, your wing needs more SETs.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on August 24, 2013, 09:00:48 PM
If there's only one SET at a SAREX of any scale, your wing needs more SETs.
The
Wing doesn't grow SET's, the units do. If there aren't enough of a given specialty, its because the Units aren't recruiting and growing enough resources.
Beg to differ.
It is the Wings that schedule the SET classes, it is the Wings that prepare the SET rosters, and it is the Wings that approve the SETs.
I am still waiting for my Wing to approve me as MSA SET, I took the class over three weeks ago...
Flyer
What SET class? It's been awhile, but last time I checked TTT was a 10-question test. If your wing is stacking more requirements on top of the regs, that is part of the problem right there.
And Eclipse, I wasn't trying to say that Wing HQ is responsible for producing them, just that the group of members collectively known as a "wing" needs more.
My Wing requires us to still go through the class similar to the TTT in person but takes a long time to schedule them. And after I went through one, I am still waiting.
Flyer
The key is "your wing", and unless there's a supp, they shouldn't be doing it.
There's a 10-question SET test, no matter your feeling on the comprehensiveness of the test, that's NHQ's standard.
Qual + 1 year, Unit CC recommends, Group approves, wing approves. The assumption should be
everyone is qualified unless there is evidence to dispel that.
Done.
I can't begin to imagine why there's a "class" needed on top of that.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2013, 10:22:21 PMI can't begin to imagine why there's a "class" needed on top of that.
Fiefdoms, Controlfreakism, etc. My opinion is, if there is a legitimate need, then push it up the chain and see if many more agree. Then get the proper supplement published.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2013, 09:04:07 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on August 24, 2013, 09:00:48 PM
If there's only one SET at a SAREX of any scale, your wing needs more SETs.
The Wing doesn't grow SET's, the units do. If there aren't enough of a given specialty, its because the Units aren't recruiting and growing enough resources.
There's no problem that can't be solved by throwing more volunteers at it?
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 01:19:48 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2013, 09:04:07 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on August 24, 2013, 09:00:48 PM
If there's only one SET at a SAREX of any scale, your wing needs more SETs.
The Wing doesn't grow SET's, the units do. If there aren't enough of a given specialty, its because the Units aren't recruiting and growing enough resources.
There's no problem that can't be solved by throwing more volunteers at it?
"Strength in numbers" comes to mind, and can be very broad.
Yes, but we're talking about an issue of being unable to grow more resources. If the answer includes growing more resources then we've made a circular loop.
I don't disagree that the two are related. You need to have qualified and experienced people to train new people. I believe membership levels are falling. When you put more barriers to qualification in place, saying that answer is that fewer volunteers do more work to cover for the increased requirements is a tough sell to me. I see that accelerating the decline, not correcting it.
Keep in mind that I'm a management consultant in real life...so doing this kind of strategic analysis is what I do almost every day. I spend a great deal of time figuring out why things don't work and fixing processes so they do. I have some assumptions above that aren't backed up by data - but based on my experience of having done this, I believe I'm correct with my assumptions.
IMHO, there must be a plan B for everything. The current SET way shall not be the only way to get things done.
Again I am talking about the harder to get ratings like AOBD, MSO, etc. In some areas there is only one AOBD and the guy works in every SAREX or mission and yet he can't get his quals renewed by the current SET system because there is not another soul who can validate what he did.
Frankly, not everybody is interested in becoming an AOBD..... hence the low number.
I don't think this concern is a issue for the troops like MO, MS, GTM, etc. There are plenty of SET'd guys around at any given mission or SAREX.
Quote from: vento on August 25, 2013, 04:39:25 PM
IMHO, there must be a plan B for everything. The current SET way shall not be the only way to get things done.
Again I am talking about the harder to get ratings like AOBD, MSO, etc. In some areas there is only one AOBD and the guy works in every SAREX or mission and yet he can't get his quals renewed by the current SET system because there is not another soul who can validate what he did.
Frankly, not everybody is interested in becoming an AOBD..... hence the low number.
I don't think this concern is a issue for the troops like MO, MS, GTM, etc. There are plenty of SET'd guys around at any given mission or SAREX.
In my old unit, a member wanted to be qualified as an aerial photographer or ADIS, and I think the Wing CC had to get involved because NO ONE ELSE IN THE WING had that qualification to be able to sign her off.
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 04:15:14 PM
Yes, but we're talking about an issue of being unable to grow more resources. If the answer includes growing more resources then we've made a circular loop.
I don't disagree that the two are related. You need to have qualified and experienced people to train new people. I believe membership levels are falling. When you put more barriers to qualification in place, saying that answer is that fewer volunteers do more work to cover for the increased requirements is a tough sell to me.
This issue does not exist, except in the minds of those unwilling to make the effort to fix it.
SETs are not required to train or learn, they simply evaluate what you say you already know, which means they are the >last< link in the chain, yet for some reason
people think they are the first.
No one in your unit is an MSO? Go to NESA or one of the Regional schools, reach out to someone outside your unit or even your wing.
Crack a book pdf and figure it out yourself, which is about how most members ultimately learn this stuff anyway. Then call Wing and tell them you're ready to be tasked. They will find someone to help you. Don't forget to show up occasionally to a mission or two.
The entirety of the curriculum, requirements, training materials, and the list of everyone who is qualified in a given wing is freely available to all members, 24x7x365.
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 04:15:14 PM
Keep in mind that I'm a management consultant in real life...
I believe you may have mentioned that before.
Seeing some anecdotal issues with expired quals being renewed because of a single task being updated or completed.
An example - a member completes or retakes Ground Handling. The updated single task renews FLM even though
the member has had no other activity since 2005.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 25, 2013, 05:30:45 PM
SETs are not required to train or learn, they simply evaluate what you say you already know, which means they are the >last< link in the chain, yet for some reason
people think they are the first.
No one in your unit is an MSO? Go to NESA or one of the Regional schools, reach out to someone outside your unit or even your wing. Crack a book pdf and figure it out yourself, which is about how most members ultimately learn this stuff anyway. Then call Wing and tell them you're ready to be tasked. They will find someone to help you. Don't forget to show up occasionally to a mission or two.
The entirety of the curriculum, requirements, training materials, and the list of everyone who is qualified in a given wing is freely available to all members, 24x7x365.
I'd like to agree and build on Eclipse's point made here. I have been interested in becoming a Mission Observer and stated so when I joined in April of this year. In May, one of the squadron's members - who is a SET - sat down and trained several of us on several of the courses needed for the Mission Scanner qualification. After the training, we updated e-services and he validated the trainings.
Unfortunately he took ill after a few weeks and has since moved to Florida and will not be likely to return. So, in a sense, we've been stuck.
This past month I brought up this situation with some of the group-level folks and an arrangement was quickly made. To wit:
- one of our Aerospace Officers who is also a Mission Pilot is teaching the various modules.
- At the conclusion of each training session, the members update e-services and an email is sent to Group.
- A group level SET contacts us back to "test" us on what we've learned.
- If we pass, that Group person validates e-services for us.
While I am not a fully-qualified Mission Scanner as of this writing, I have moved forward and consider that progress.
Quote from: MacGruff on October 21, 2013, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 25, 2013, 05:30:45 PM
SETs are not required to train or learn, they simply evaluate what you say you already know, which means they are the >last< link in the chain, yet for some reason
people think they are the first.
No one in your unit is an MSO? Go to NESA or one of the Regional schools, reach out to someone outside your unit or even your wing. Crack a book pdf and figure it out yourself, which is about how most members ultimately learn this stuff anyway. Then call Wing and tell them you're ready to be tasked. They will find someone to help you. Don't forget to show up occasionally to a mission or two.
The entirety of the curriculum, requirements, training materials, and the list of everyone who is qualified in a given wing is freely available to all members, 24x7x365.
I'd like to agree and build on Eclipse's point made here. I have been interested in becoming a Mission Observer and stated so when I joined in April of this year. In May, one of the squadron's members - who is a SET - sat down and trained several of us on several of the courses needed for the Mission Scanner qualification. After the training, we updated e-services and he validated the trainings.
Unfortunately he took ill after a few weeks and has since moved to Florida and will not be likely to return. So, in a sense, we've been stuck.
This past month I brought up this situation with some of the group-level folks and an arrangement was quickly made. To wit:
- one of our Aerospace Officers who is also a Mission Pilot is teaching the various modules.
- At the conclusion of each training session, the members update e-services and an email is sent to Group.
- A group level SET contacts us back to "test" us on what we've learned.
- If we pass, that Group person validates e-services for us.
While I am not a fully-qualified Mission Scanner as of this writing, I have moved forward and consider that progress.
That seems unnecessarily complex. How long as that AEO been a Mission Pilot? Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it? For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 05:25:17 PM
Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it? For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)
In our wing, there are a lot of people who are good enough to teach, but Evaluator status is only given to a few. The goal of restricting it was to make sure that there is uniformity amongst those who get qualified. That doesn't prevent training to happen, we just don't get immediately signed off until we later show that we know what we're doing.
Similarly, as an evaluator, I'm not going to sign off on something I taught you unless you show that you can do it on your own. I feel it's my responsibility to make sure that anyone I sign off on can go to any incident in any Wing and perform.
Quote from: Elioron on October 21, 2013, 05:42:26 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 05:25:17 PM
Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it? For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)
In our wing, there are a lot of people who are good enough to teach, but Evaluator status is only given to a few. The goal of restricting it was to make sure that there is uniformity amongst those who get qualified. That doesn't prevent training to happen, we just don't get immediately signed off until we later show that we know what we're doing.
Similarly, as an evaluator, I'm not going to sign off on something I taught you unless you show that you can do it on your own. I feel it's my responsibility to make sure that anyone I sign off on can go to any incident in any Wing and perform.
So, does your wing have a 60-3 Supplement that outlines the additional steps necessary, above and beyond the regulation, to become evaluators?
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 05:54:35 PM
So, does your wing have a 60-3 Supplement that outlines the additional steps necessary, above and beyond the regulation, to become evaluators?
No, nor is one necessary. If I, as an ES Officer, feel that someone in my unit should be an evaluator for a specific qualification, I check the box in eServices and send an email to our Wing DO & DOS. They will make the determination on a case by case basis.
Quote from: Elioron on October 21, 2013, 06:34:54 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 05:54:35 PM
So, does your wing have a 60-3 Supplement that outlines the additional steps necessary, above and beyond the regulation, to become evaluators?
No, nor is one necessary. If I, as an ES Officer, feel that someone in my unit should be an evaluator for a specific qualification, I check the box in eServices and send an email to our Wing DO & DOS. They will make the determination on a case by case basis.
So, then you have a waiver for this part of 60-3?
QuotePractices, procedures, and standards prescribed in this regulation are
mandatory and may not be supplemented or changed locally without the prior approval of NHQ
CAP/DO.
The Practice, procedure and standards for SETs are outlined in 60-3. Adding additional requirements requires approval by NHQ/DO in the form of a supplement.
Quote from: Elioron on October 21, 2013, 05:42:26 PM...but Evaluator status is only given to a few. The goal of restricting it was to make sure that there is uniformity amongst those who get qualified.
Then you would want to restrict the "teachers", not the evaluators, no? ;)
After all, the regulation says "demonstrate this ability", it does not say "this particular way".
Since the evaluator can only see if the task was completed, and not be an instructor, the standard should be enforced at the teaching end.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 05:25:17 PMThat seems unnecessarily complex. How long as that AEO been a Mission Pilot? Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it? For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)
Just because he's qualified as a Mission Pilot, doesn't mean he's still a current Scanner (for starters).
And there are plenty of people who, for one reason or another, should not be evaluating others.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 06:41:42 PM
The Practice, procedure and standards for SETs are outlined in 60-3. Adding additional requirements requires approval by NHQ/DO in the form of a supplement.
CAPR 60-3, Page 23
"Commanders or their designees can limit or change what specialty qualifications a member is allowed to evaluate in Ops Quals at any time at their discretion."I'm of the opinion that, absent evidence to the contrary, anyone qualified can potentially be allowed to be an SET, and I don't subscribe to any
nonsense some wings have about "limiting SETs", or whatever. That's self-defeating.
However I've had to deal with plenty members who provide "evidence to the contrary" by their behavior, cavalier attitude towards proper tasking procedures, or similar issues.
There are also more then a few who would likely do a fine job, but don't want to be bothered.
Regardless, 60-3 clearly indicates that a CC or designee at any level can disapprove a given member being an SET, even when they meet, or even exceed, the respective requirements.
Quote from: a2capt on October 21, 2013, 06:54:01 PMSince the evaluator can only see if the task was completed, and not be an instructor, the standard should be enforced at the teaching end.
For the most part, the tasks guides are pretty clear about the how's and why's things are to be done.
For example, it doesn't matter how you learned to use a compass, you still have to work a course that meets the spec in the task guide.
I've had to deal with SETs who thought "use a compass" meant "Which way does the needle point?" Done. I've even had a couple
who were unaware there was a task guide (doesn't happen much any more, but those conversations are always amusing because
question #2 is "Who signed
you off?")
Quote from: a2capt on October 21, 2013, 06:54:01 PM
Since the evaluator can only see if the task was completed, and not be an instructor, the standard should be enforced at the teaching end.
An evaluator needs to see them complete the task, not just see that it was done. If there is a problem where people are failing at the evaluations, then we go back to the people who trained them. In our wing we only have about 1500 people total, and those involved in ES pretty much know each other.
For the most part we don't have a lot of problems as were listed above. If there is a desire for training (particularly below the branch level) it isn't hard to find people to train and it's generally not difficult to find evaluators as well. Personally, I try to get others to teach as much as possible because there is little that reinforces our own knowledge than trying to teach someone else.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 21, 2013, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 05:25:17 PMThat seems unnecessarily complex. How long as that AEO been a Mission Pilot? Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it? For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)
Just because he's qualified as a Mission Pilot, doesn't mean he's still a current Scanner (for starters).
Well, qualification wise, yes he is. Every 2 years doing a CAPF 91 to requal as an MP, automatically renews MO (if held) and MS.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 21, 2013, 07:11:12 PM
And there are plenty of people who, for one reason or another, should not be evaluating others.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 06:41:42 PM
The Practice, procedure and standards for SETs are outlined in 60-3. Adding additional requirements requires approval by NHQ/DO in the form of a supplement.
CAPR 60-3, Page 23
"Commanders or their designees can limit or change what specialty qualifications a member is allowed to evaluate in Ops Quals at any time at their discretion."
I'm of the opinion that, absent evidence to the contrary, anyone qualified can potentially be allowed to be an SET, and I don't subscribe to any
nonsense some wings have about "limiting SETs", or whatever. That's self-defeating.
However I've had to deal with plenty members who provide "evidence to the contrary" by their behavior, cavalier attitude towards proper tasking procedures, or similar issues.
There are also more then a few who would likely do a fine job, but don't want to be bothered.
Regardless, 60-3 clearly indicates that a CC or designee at any level can disapprove a given member being an SET, even when they meet, or even exceed, the respective requirements.
Fair enough...I'd missed that broad grant of discretion.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 07:35:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 21, 2013, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2013, 05:25:17 PMThat seems unnecessarily complex. How long as that AEO been a Mission Pilot? Mission Scanner is a pre-req for MP, so why doesn't he get the SET designation and just take care of it? For that matter, the Wing DOS can waive the 1 year requirement if necessary, and a bunch of folks willing to put in the training work with nobody nearby to be SET would seem to be a good reason to me (this presumes, of course, that the AEO is competent...and you've given me no reason to assume otherwise)
Just because he's qualified as a Mission Pilot, doesn't mean he's still a current Scanner (for starters).
Well, qualification wise, yes he is. Every 2 years doing a CAPF 91 to requal as an MP, automatically renews MO (if held) and MS.
Actually, it makes you
eligible for equivalent renewal. By reg it is not automatic, and up until the OPS Quals upgrade this thread discusses, wasn't automatic in the system, either.
As far as I'm concerned, that automatic equivalency is too long in coming, since for most members it was just a hassle to have to renew everything downstream (especially for GTLs.
But a lot (most?) MPs don't really care about MO or MS until they lose their medical or just can't fly for whatever reason, only to find that their other aircrew qualification(s) were never renewed
and they essentially have to start over.
The transition from the WMU that had a lot of members ignoring past quals helped that a lot.
There's also the non-trivial issue that a lot of MP's have no idea how to do anything but fly, and find themselves at a loss in the right seat.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 21, 2013, 07:11:12 PM
I'm of the opinion that, absent evidence to the contrary, anyone qualified can potentially be allowed to be an SET, and I don't subscribe to any
nonsense some wings have about "limiting SETs", or whatever. That's self-defeating.
We definitely had a problem with people being signed off that shouldn't have been. There were a few instances where people showed up at missions that couldn't perform what their card said when asked. One of the excuses for doing things wrong was "well, that's how I learned it."
The benefit of keeping tight control of evaluators is that you keep tight control of what is required to sign off on tasks.
The downsides are many. With fewer people, it increases the likelihood of having less opportunities to get signed off when you are ready. It can overburden the evaluators you have. It also provides an opening for an "Ol' boy's club" where people sign for their friends and not for others.
I think we've struck what I think is a good balance. When the new system was rolled out, specific people were chosen by the Wing CC for each area. They then personally approved each evaluator. Not everyone submitted is approved, but there are enough that finding one isn't hard. In my squadron, I initially submitted everyone who had SET to be an evaluator. It took a while, but in the end only one evaluator was approved for each area.