Wing Policy Only They Print Out/Laminate ES Qualification Cards?

[Eclipse]

Double ditto, but I think you were being factious. (snip)

Just a little.  Based on some of the comments I've read in various threads, it may indeed be a strange practice...

Sadly, you're correct.  We have far too much problem with members who can's get to the finish line because
of mismanagement, micromanagement, or some bizarre "policy".

It is ultimately the job of local commanders to train their people, and be responsible for who is signing them off.
Unless they were personally present, there is little way someone at the wing level can really know if a given
SET is really competent, followed procedure, and didn't just whip the trainee.

If there are concerns about the way the SET program is being managed in a respective wing, they should be
addressed as a matter of course when the person is approved as an evaluator, not when a member
is silly enough to present his signed SQTR for final approval, only to be told after 6 months of work that
"I don't think Jimmy is really doing sign-offs right", go do everything over.  (BTDT)

[Al Sayre]

One of the biggest issues I've had is when the local ES, Personnel, or Admin Officer makes the entries for someone (usually a cadet) and puts their own CAPID in the evaluator block.   When I look into it, I find that Cadet Timmy had a perfectly good hand signed SQTR, but the person performing the entry couldn't read the signatures or CAPID, or didn't reaklize that it matters whose CAPID goes in the Block.  I also have the bad habit of checking the sortie signoff's against the SAREX sign in logs...

[Eclipse]

This is something I don't understand, and has been a problem back to the WMU.

Why doesn't the system validate the SET is current and qualified in that rating?  This would seem to be a simple function, and would eliminate a
lot of the conversations and cross-checking, especially when you are signed off in another wing.

As it stands today it appears that anyone's number can be entered, and unless yo check manually there is no validation.

[Al Sayre]

I guess that someone figued the ES approvers have nothing better to do than run down SET Quals.  It's easy when there are one or two, but I've seen some that had 10-15 different SETs for various tasks.  That's a real PITA.

[JeffDG]

This is something I don't understand, and has been a problem back to the WMU.

Why doesn't the system validate the SET is current and qualified in that rating?  This would seem to be a simple function, and would eliminate a
lot of the conversations and cross-checking, especially when you are signed off in another wing.

As it stands today it appears that anyone's number can be entered, and unless yo check manually there is no validation.

Part of it is that the SET+1a is only one way for signoff.  There are mission-related positions that can sign-off on specific roles as well.  For example, as an AOBD, I can sign off on MSAs on missions where I am acting as AOBD.  Airborne Photographers too...which is handy because they just published the SQTR for AP, and it's pretty tough to find people qual'd for a year to do signoffs.

In addition, eServices/OpsQuals has no idea who the IC/OSC/PSC/AOBD/GBD was on a particular mission, so how could it validate under that rule?  What I'd like to see is OpsQuals do a SET+1 validation and highlight any discrepancies to the approver.  But ultimately, it takes a human being to make the final call.

[BillB]

In 1978 the 101 card was a dark pink. (I'm looking at mine so I'm sure)

[ol'fido]

I guess that someone figued the ES approvers have nothing better to do than run down SET Quals.  It's easy when there are one or two, but I've seen some that had 10-15 different SETs for various tasks.  That's a real PITA.

Easier than running down the quals of each individual member.

Every wing ESO should have a list of authorized SETs for each qual(GTM, AOBD, PSC, etc.). These SETs CAPIDs should be entered into eServices. When they conduct training the SET enters the CAPIDs of his trainees just like we do with mandatory safety briefs plus he checks off the tasks that were trained and then validates it. After the SET validates the training, it can go to the unit commander for final validation. If the tasks are validated by someone without authorization(as in not an approved SET) then when they click the OK button to validate they get the big red NOT AUTHORIZED warning.

If there is a question about a SET pencil whipping training, then the wing ESO can investigate and if necessary take remedial action with that particular SET or SETs without inconveniencing every individual member. If there is still a problem, have ES Training Officers at wing for GrdOps, AC, and MBS like we do here in IL who can make sure the SETs in their bailiwick are doing their jobs.

[lordmonar]

Well.

If I were going to redesign the SQTR system in Eservices.......when somone enters my CAPID in the sign off box...it should first counter check to see if I am qualified to sign off on that task and then notify me and require an approval from me before it goes into the system.

That would require a method of detemining what specialty and/or task I was in fact qualified to be an evaluator for in the first place.  I.e. Being SET for GTL or GBD would allow me to sign off on all tasks in those rateing (GTM 1-3, GTL and GBD) but not on any MO, MS tasks (unless they cross over).

[ol'fido]

That is why I said your wing ESO would have to enter the CAPIDs of the SETs and the quals they are authorized to sign off on.

[Ed Bos]

There's a lot of criticism from a lot of folks who complain about fiefdoms and nonsense policies, but a the time it was a sensible and reasonable action taken by a staff that wanted a final review of training documents.

For those of you who have all the answers all the time, well done, glad you're in CAP. Just have a little respect for the rest of us that do the best we can with the tools we have.

At the time, the eServices utilities were even less refined than they are now, and there was a problem with folks who were "grandfathered" into qualifications signing off tasks and qualifications that they really weren't current on or knowledgeable about. The final review that we got by printing off the 101 cards centrally was just a chance to see where the training was going on, who was doing it, and gave us a heads-up on units in the wing that we would like to follow-up with.

The explanation here isn't me being defensive, nor is it an excuse. The act of making a policy that enabled us to manage our resources and the quality of training needs neither of these things. Again, it comes back to having the perspective and knowing the reasons why actions were taken.

[Spaceman3750]

We're forgetting that there are up to 2 echelons of approval before the qual hits wing. As an ESO I look over SQTRs for accuracy before I approve them (not that I've had to approve many lately, we're still in the figuring out who is truly interested phase of training most of our members) and group should be doing so as well. By the time they get to wing they should already be mostly vetted.

[jimmydeanno]

The problem lies in those that aren't willing or able to change their policies to match changes and improvements in our programs.

Right now, in my wing, there is a requirement for us to fill out a quarterly vehicle usage report (which was created in 1994) to let "Wing" know how much we're using our vans, what we used them for, who drove it, how many hours, etc.  It's essentially a 3-month CAPF 73.  Even though the CAPF 73 exists AND all that information is retained in e-services.

Why should the membership have to suffer because the LGT, or in this case DO can't get out of 1994? 

So now that qualifications are tracked and approved online, and can be printed by the member, why would anyone create a policy in which only they can print a 101 card - unless they either can't manage their position (in which case, are they the right person for the job), or are they creating some sort of power relationship (in which case, they aren't the right person for the job).

It seems to me that putting that effort into fixing the training programs would be more worthwhile than keeping outdated policies and causing inefficiencies.

[Ed Bos]

It seems to me that putting that effort into fixing the training programs would be more worthwhile than keeping outdated policies and causing inefficiencies.

Agreed. That's the real goal, after all.

[husker]

This is something I don't understand, and has been a problem back to the WMU.

Why doesn't the system validate the SET is current and qualified in that rating?  This would seem to be a simple function, and would eliminate a
lot of the conversations and cross-checking, especially when you are signed off in another wing.

As it stands today it appears that anyone's number can be entered, and unless yo check manually there is no validation.

Eclipse, this is something that the NHQ IT folks are actually working on.  I know several Wings have requested this type of functionality.  I know no specific date on when it will be available, but I do know that it was being tested a month or so ago.

[Tubacap]

That would be AWESOME for compliance!!!!!!

[Hawk200]

The problem lies in those that aren't willing or able to change their policies to match changes and improvements in our programs.

That's my favorite problem to hate. I once had someone tell me that a certain practice was forbidden. I told them that I was in full compliance with the publication, and even had a copy of it (back when we had the old blue binder). Showed it to them. They told me there was a supplement that forbid it. Since I was at their unit's location, I asked to see a copy of this supplement. They produced it. It was legit. But, it was written four years prior to the current pub. Had a little argument about it being valid. Finally ended it with "If this was supposed to be valid for the current publication, why wasn't this direction included in the latest one?" Got the goldfish look, and quietly wandered away before they got mad.

[N Harmon]

Why doesn't the system validate the SET is current and qualified in that rating?

Because it isn't as simple as that. The SQTR sign offs have to be validated against the signer's qualifications on the date they are signed, which may be weeks or months prior to entry into eServices. So if Lt. Smith's GTL-SET is expired, it may not have been when he signed off on Lt. Wilson. Conversely, Lt. Smith is currently a GTL-SET but was he when he signed off on Lt. Wilson?

The system may not index the appropriate historical information in regards to past qualifications in a way that makes what you want it to do easy. Thus approvals went up the chain as a result.

I am happy that this functionality is being added, but I am sure it will result in changed database tables (get ready to update anything that relies on CAPWATCH downloads).

[Eclipse]

Why doesn't the system validate the SET is current and qualified in that rating?

Because it isn't as simple as that. The SQTR sign offs have to be validated against the signer's qualifications on the date they are signed, which may be weeks or months prior to entry into eServices. So if Lt. Smith's GTL-SET is expired, it may not have been when he signed off on Lt. Wilson. Conversely, Lt. Smith is currently a GTL-SET but was he when he signed off on Lt. Wilson?

You're supposed to enter the date you tasked, not today's date.  That isn't really that hard to figure out, nor is it complex math
for a computer.  In fact it would be better today in that we would not have people getting bounced for SET's expired (or quit, etc.) from last December
because the unit ESO, whoever couldn't be bothered to enter things timely.

The system validates based on the dated the tasking was done.

I would also like to see cross-validation so that when someone enters my CAPID as an SET, I can validate I actually signed them off. 
We've had more than one issue with people just entering a number and moving forward.  Today it is nearly impossible to see
who said you signed them off.

[N Harmon]

You're supposed to enter the date you tasked, not today's date. [...] The system validates based on the dated the tasking was done.

You still miss the point. Assuming eService's table structure is similar to how the data from CAPWATCH is presented, there is no historical data kept for ES qualifications. The only data maintained is when that particular member's qualification was first issued (MbrAchievements.OriginallyAccomplished), when it was last issued (MbrAchievements.Completed), and when it will expire (MbtAchievements.Expiration).

So let's say a record for a given member's GTM3 qualification shows he was first qualified 01/01/2007, last qualified 05/01/2011, and expires 05/01/2014. And from this you need to validate if a sign-off he made on 2/17/2011 is valid. Given the available data it is impossible to say he was qualified continuously from 2005 to present and did not, say, expire on 1/01/2011 and requalify on 05/01/2011.

Now, a possible fix for this could be to add a unique record ID, and allow multiple CAPID/AchvID combinations to represent different qualification periods. However, such a modification to the table may require rewriting several database functions.

I would also like to see cross-validation so that when someone enters my CAPID as an SET, I can validate I actually signed them off.

This is probably easier to implement that the previous discussed change.

We've had more than one issue with people just entering a number and moving forward.  Today it is nearly impossible to see who said you signed them off.

And I have had issues where people signed things off and later swore they never did. Lesson learned: Always get it on paper, and keep a written record. Even with the changes to eServices, I still think this is a good idea.

[lordmonar]

We need two thing IMHO to the E-services process.

One....A way to identify which tasks (or specialties) someone is able to sigh off on.  (would show up on his 101 card with an "i" for instructor).

Two....when a trainee enters the instructors CAPID and date e-services sends an e-mail to the instructor and he has to validate the information.

This eliminates the situation where, say an, GTM rated instructor is signing off on MO tasks....he may be rated as an MO and may be rated as a SET....but is not really qualified to sign off on MO rateings.

It also eliminates the "just put anyone's CAPID in the box" situation.