SET Approval

[JeffDG]

Eclipse, on a message above you state:

During Phase I, IDs entered which are not approved SETs will pop a warning message but still allow the user to continue.

When I entered that task for AOBD, I thought that warning would / should have popped up. Or is it supposed to pop up for those that have no SET at all, for anything? And those that are SET for one thing, will not get it, no matter what they are entering?

Flyer

which task on AOBD?

[Eclipse]

I can't test that functionality because my rights exceed the norm.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Jeff-

One of the missions required.

[wuzafuzz]

My wing is adding requirements for SET evaluators.  Are any other wings doing this?  I'm surprised to see this, and didn't think a wing could add requirements to national standards without first obtaining approval for a supplement regulation from NHQ.  Or is this all within a Wing King's discretion?

Candidates for consideration as a SET must have:

• been qualified in the specialty for which they are being considered
  for one year or more;
• taken and passed the online SET Evaluation Test;
• taken and passed the online Operational Risk Management,
  Intermediate test
• submitted a signed SET "Statement Of Understanding" (SOU) with
  an attached form specifying the specialties for which SET
  authorization is being requested and endorsed by their Unit
  Commander.

In addition to the list above, my wing now have an entire SET paperwork process that exists outside of the eServices SET module.  The extra paperwork seems unnecessary to me, since the new SET module already automates the entire process, provides accountability, and permits wing to keep proven pencil-whippers from spoiling the batch of trainees.

While some of the local requirements seem reasonable, I'm convinced others are unnecessary.  Maybe I'm just cranky because I love CAP but am approaching my limit of administrivia tolerance.

[Eclipse]

So they've created this recently, or it was already in place?  If its new that seems somewhat redundant for all the reasons you indicate.

We had a process which essentially mirrored what is online now via manual submissions (Group CC's would poll their people, then send a list).
In nearly all cases, everyone was qualified as an SET in "all", with the exception of ICs, and the occasional "challenged" member with a history of
less then stellar performance.  That list was then published on the wing web page for reference by whomever was interested.

We've abandoned that now as we took all the already approved SETs and entered them, so going forward it'll just go through the chain in the module,
1-2-3.  We love the fact that there's a black diamond on anything you're approved to sign off, and the date insures no one can "fudge" the situation,
which is all too common.  We're advising our people to ask to see the 101 card of anyone who is purporting to be an SET.

In regards to adding requirements, 60-3 makes it clear that the Wing CC or designate is the final approval, and unlike promotions, there's nothing explicitly barring a Wing CC from increasing the requirements.

I don't see the need, or really even understand the SOU bit. 

[arajca]

So they've created this recently, or it was already in place?  If its new that seems somewhat redundant for all the reasons you indicate. 

Brand new after National released the online SET system.

In regards to adding requirements, 60-3 makes it clear that the Wing CC or designate is the final approval, and unlike promotions, there's nothing explicitly barring a Wing CC from increasing the requirements.

Except for this:

Practices, 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.

Also, this type of thing should have been released as an OI, requiring review by the next higher command. i.e. region.

[Eclipse]

Well, there you go.  Actually, I think it would need a full-on supplement, since it adds gateway requirements to a national standard.

I can't imagine why anyone would add additional process now.

Not to mention that the system won't support or care about the supplemental process, since it's going to work, SOU or not.

[wuzafuzz]

Not to mention that the system won't support or care about the supplemental process, since it's going to work, SOU or not.

True statement.  The online system will work just fine.  The choke point is the approving authority at wing who won't approve people unless they follow the extra steps.  Maybe they'll lighten up if there are too few SETs after the cutover.

It'll be interesting to see if we wind up with a supplement. For all I know that is in the works.  I'm just not seeing the value in the added bureaucracy.

[Eeyore]

Our wing had one extra step before and that extra step is continuing. Basically, we have an in person class to cover/refresh the guidance for evaluators. I wouldn't say it's a difficult hoop to jump through.

[Eclipse]

^ The issue isn't "is it reasonable", it's "is it allowed", and as ARAJCA's cite above indicates, that sort of thing requires higher HQ approval.

This is why we have a national curriculum and standards, and where things break.

Wing 1 says "do the standard", Wing 2 says "standard +x".   Member goes to Wing 1 and gets signed off by someone who is approved at the national standard, but when he gets home, his wing (2), says "their SETs don't meet our standard", which they aren't allowed to say.

[a2capt]

CAWG sent a notice out recently that said "stop putting people in for it" "these requests should be denied/deleted at the unit/group level" and "we're working out what to do with it.."

Maybe NHQ will see these wing's wanting to do more with it and at least standardize the supplements or shoot them all down.

[Eclipse]

NHQ needs to start shooting this nonsense down.

I honestly can't think of any reason a wing would need to supplement or revise this process.

Micro-managing this stuff serves no purpose.

If a member has been properly qualified for a calendar year, and a unit and Group CC says they will make a good SET, absent specific knowledge
of negligence or inappropriate conduct, what possible basis could a wing have for denying the request?

[Eclipse]

I think the real problem here is the number of wings that have literally been ignoring the issue of ES qualifications and SET appointments
and just hoping things take care of themselves.  In trying to formulate our procedures, I've talked to a number of my counterparts, as well
as discussed it here, and most of the responses have been along the line of "pass".

[a2capt]

..what possible basis could a wing have for denying the request?

GOB network disruption.

[wuzafuzz]

I understand writing a policy or procedure so all the wing approvers are on the same sheet of music.  That would be a good idea.  Creating new, extra-regulatory requirements?  Not so good. 

Fortunately I have frequent opportunities to chat with the folks behind this new process.  My thoughts will be shared, enhanced by feedback from all of you :-)

[Eclipse]

Well, the sheet music is from NHQ, so as long as people read the actual regs, they should be able to dance in a straight line.

You bring up another point, though - the number of wing approvers.  This has been a point of contention in my wing, because
we drastically reduced the number of people with wing-level privileges (and still keep finding people we didn't catch the
first time around, etc.). 

Beyond the DO, DOS(&A), and maybe the DOST, why would the average wing need anyone else to be approvers?
No one is doing that much ES training on a month-to-month basis that having a large group serves any purpose but either people's egos, or their desire to "expedite".

We get the anecdotal complaint regularly about the "bottleneck at wing".......>>>>>>>  ?  If we see 10 approvals a month, that's a good month, other then after summer activities or major exercises.  The bottleneck invariably turns out to be something sitting in queue for months (the longest one
I've seen so far is 3 years in queue at the unit level), or no one actually submitted it at all.

There are, occasionally, legitimate reasons to disapprove something as well, and what's nice is that the system now notifies not only the member,
but commanders and others of the reason entered for the disapproval.  Some people view "disapprovals" as a "bottleneck" as well.

[Storm Chaser]

Some people view "disapprovals" as a "bottleneck" as well.

I actually prefer that a qual or ES award is 'not approved' if there's an issue with the request (i.e. incorrect dates, missing documentation, etc.) that for it to sit in the queue for months. If a request is not approved, an e-mail is sent with the reason and corrective actions can be taken. Otherwise, the member is just waiting not knowing what the problem is and what needs to be done to correct it.

[EMT-83]

I actually prefer that a qual or ES award is 'not approved' if there's an issue with the request (i.e. incorrect dates, missing documentation, etc.) that for it to sit in the queue for months. If a request is not approved, an e-mail is sent with the reason and corrective actions can be taken. Otherwise, the member is just waiting not knowing what the problem is and what needs to be done to correct it.

+1

[JeffDG]

Beyond the DO, DOS(&A), and maybe the DOST, why would the average wing need anyone else to be approvers?

DC and DCT for ICUT SETs

[Eclipse]

Beyond the DO, DOS(&A), and maybe the DOST, why would the average wing need anyone else to be approvers?

DC and DCT for ICUT SETs

Fair enough, though my wing just gave me the list and I took car of it.