Task Guide Format

[RiverAux]

Is it just me, or does anyone else dislike how they've put the ES task guides together?  In particular, using three or four digit numbers in conjunction with letters designating different types of tasks (Operations, Planning, etc.)?  I suppose its not so much the letter designators, it is the excessive digits for the number of tasks.   

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just have them numbered starting with one?  Task P-1 instead of P-0101, for example?  Heck, we've got it set up now with task numbers up to the 4100s (at least). 

This would make it a lot easier to flip through the guides looking for the one you want. 

Why is it so hard flipping to find a task?  Well, if you'll notice the tasks can randomly skip around and you can never quite sense when you're getting to the one you want as you have no idea whether there are 20 tasks between O-0101 and O-500 or 40 so it is hard to modulate how fast you're flipping. 

I would also suggest having a table of contents in each guide with a page number for each task.  This would also reduce the amount of time flipping around trying to find the one you want. 

This would be just a small change that would make them much more user friendly, at least to me. 

[stratoflyer]

Sounds like an idea. Who wrote those things anyway?

[DNall]

I don't know but most of them suck. The GTL planning task is utterly riduculous in that it points out a 5-paragraph opord format, but doesn't teach the troop leading procedures necessary for that to make any sense or be useful in any way whatever. That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and once fixed, that wouldn't be a task, it'd be the central focus of the rating, actually ought to be a central focus of lvl I. That's just an example. A lot of those things are written like they've seen the product produced by someone that knew what they were doing, but never understood the process to get there, or just bits & pieces of decent stuff with big holes in between. It's all scatter brain jacked up, and don't even get me started on delivery.

[stratoflyer]

I've always looked at a lot of things we do in CAP as learned through OJT.

[DNall]

that works with constant supervision by someone that knows what they're doing & teaches the stuff the book leaves out, but that's almost never the case. Plus, you're talking about OJT slowing down the search process, or worse showing up on a crash site & figuring it out as you go. Those aren't the times to be learning the job. A good, well organized program with structured delivery is how it has to be done.

[heliodoc]

As far as tthe Task Guides go.....

Welcome to the world of CAP .  They tried to make a !@#$#ized version of the Soldier Manual of Common Tasks and put their spin  on it.  Of course everything in CAP is OJT and will always be.

Again it would different if this were a paid organization.  But there has got to be some professional educators overseeing this operation,  but I know better the MART, Ground and even the Aerospace series had so many spelling errors in each of em that it proves there's no real QA/ QC on making taskbooks let alone a real trainer in each Wing for ES

Things really haven't really changed in 30 yrs in CAP unless you are talking NAVIII, e-services, and a myriad of dazzzzzling uniform changes that really detract from REAL TRAINING........

[stratoflyer]

I was referring to OJT while on tranining/simulated missions. In no way would OJT while downed pane waits would that be smart.

Ex: Today I was sitting in for scanner ground school when our commander barged in saying there was an ELT signal at our airport. A GT was dispatched and the class tagged alone to get a 'feel' for what the ground folks do. Let me just day that after reading the task guides, and seeing it in action, it's like flying in night IMC going into day VMC. What a difference!! It puts all we learned into a better perspective allowing for a deeper and more practical understanding. Should I go for GT, sure I got the task guides, but I had a little real-world experience today: learning by observing/OJT.

By the way, those task guides seem more like check-lists to make sure those concepts are covered/understood.

[RiverAux]

Things really haven't really changed in 30 yrs in CAP unless you are talking NAVIII, e-services, and a myriad of dazzzzzling uniform changes that really detract from REAL TRAINING........

Well, just putting the task guides and reference texts together in the first place was a major accomplishment in my book as the old system, and I use the word system very loosely, was not all that great.  Now, with the task guides, at least we know how we're supposed to be doing things, though we don't always live up to them.  So, I don't like the numbering system at all, but I like the concept and most of the execution.

[DNall]

The old "system" told you what the required training & practical experience was to get the rating, but it did not spell out exactly what it meant by each task or the standard to which it'd be enforced. So yes, in that sense the task guide is a big improvement. However, it also made training delivery much more fractured. Now, I can do single tasks with multiple trainers & no one is overall supervising my training. Individual trainers may endorse performance on each technical task, but no qualified person is endorsing my overall qualification in the rating, just a commander or ESO, neither of whom may be rated in the field. I can also have anyone who just got teh rating (ex cadets) signing off anyone, versus limiting it to experienced operators - the guy that's brand new to the rating shouldn't be the gatekeeper to get into it. And up the chain they probably don't even know who you are. I have a problem with all that.

Also, the tasks themselves are very poorly put together. It's not that they're way off on the wrong track, but many of the tasks are just not up to par, and in general it's all fractured with great big missing pieces that cause a lot of the stuff that is right not to make any sense at all - ergo the example I cited before that happens to peeve me off just a bit cause that's huge critical stuff for any even junior leader role in the military & should be central to GTL if they're even going to attempt to use that plan/brief/execute format, which they should.

If you just want to say it's hard to find the tasks you're looking for in the book cause the numbering system is unnecessarily complex, okay I'm with ya there too. I can work with it, but yeah they could have simplified that a bit.

Far as OJT, yes of course practical exercise is and should be part of the learning process, but the academic side supporting it is really poor. Which means the practical/OJT aspect is made overly important to make up for it, but is executed very inconsistently because of poor guidance on standards from the task guide/overall training system. The task guide system itself is fine. It's just not where it needs to be.

[RiverAux]

Now, I can do single tasks with multiple trainers & no one is overall supervising my training. Individual trainers may endorse performance on each technical task, but no qualified person is endorsing my overall qualification in the rating, just a commander or ESO, neither of whom may be rated in the field.

Well, technically it could have been done that way under the old system as well.  You could have had 6 different people signing off on individual requirements for one qualification then.  The difference is that now we have WAY more tasks for each specialty so it actually is much more likely that you will end up with different people signing off. 

However, I see that as a strength as it makes it that much more difficult to pencil whip people through if different trainers are looking at the same person throughout their qualificaiton period. 

[stratoflyer]

How about if we have certain people from group level going to national for additional training/clarification, and then having those people sign off on others that in turn will have authority to sign off. But those who just get it don't have authority to sign off until they see one of those folks that got additional training. Sort of how an instructor pilot can be only a Form 5 pilot, but must first get signed off before he's listed as a instructor pilot. These people are also put on personnel authorizations that are published.

Here's another thought: how about someone just sit down and write about a table of contents page that can be printed and attached or at the least put in a binder or something, maybe cut down to size. Maybe I could start on it. I'll use the task guides on the internet.

[arajca]

How about if we have certain people from group level going to national for additional training/clarification, and then having those people sign off on others that in turn will have authority to sign off. But those who just get it don't have authority to sign off until they see one of those folks that got additional training. Sort of how an instructor pilot can be only a Form 5 pilot, but must first get signed off before he's listed as a instructor pilot. These people are also put on personnel authorizations that are published.

Sounds like the TTT program that fell flat. Supposedly, each wing was to get one person qualified then that person would train others, but, at least in CO, no one else was trained so only the one person could sign people off. That went over REALLY well.

Here's another thought: how about someone just sit down and write about a table of contents page that can be printed and attached or at the least put in a binder or something, maybe cut down to size. Maybe I could start on it. I'll use the task guides on the internet.

You do realize that your idea makes sense, don't you? Which means well have to schedule you for re-edumacation. You can't make sense here!

[DNall]

Here's another thought: how about someone just sit down and write about a table of contents page that can be printed and attached or at the least put in a binder or something, maybe cut down to size. Maybe I could start on it. I'll use the task guides on the internet.

You do realize that your idea makes sense, don't you? Which means well have to schedule you for re-edumacation. You can't make sense here!

What do the Chinese call it? Re-education thru labor - yeah get to work you! 

Obviously it's not real hard to fix all these issues, but the org has to decide to tighten up. Right now, we're playing pretty lose cause we know standards are going to flex as we phase to greater NIMS compliance on into resource typing & their job description training reqs. Those guys are freakin slower than waiting for the next eclipse to get stuff done. I don't envy the political BS they have to deal with forcing every civilian agency into some kind of standards, but it'd be easier to rip the tape off & pay for it then go slow like this.

[stratoflyer]

I'll do it, just got to know one thing. I don't have the task guides from Vanguard, just the ones of the internet. I know that they print on both sides. How would you number the pages?

[arajca]

Each page gets a separate number. How they print is irrelevent. Depending on what format the guide is in, you may be able to use software to number the pages and assemble a table of contents.

[Auxpilot]

Although not perfect, the task guides are a lot better than what I had to learn with 10 years ago - nothing.

I have been saying for a long time that CAP needs to address one of the biggest reasons why folks leave in the first year - failure to get trained quickly.

The bottom line is we (most of us) have day jobs and don't have an endless amount of time to train people.

Put together training DVD's like they do for ground school and let people do the majority of their classroom training at home. Give them progression quizzes for with the DVD's and when they complete the self study let the CAP trainers work with them on the 20% that can only be learned by doing.

It would also be a great refresher course for anyone wishing to bone up on things.

There is no reason why we have to keep running 2 day Aircrew schools when most of the information could be learned on the couch. Plus it would standardize the training so everyone would be getting the same level of initial training.

Off my soap box....

[arajca]

Check out the new Communications Training Program being implemented. Most of the stuff is online, with a few hands-on checkouts, i.e. demonstrate how to operate a radio. One very good point - the Communications Instructor training is primarily a residence/in person course, not online. You can find the program on the NTC website under "Communications Downloads".

[stratoflyer]

I second the idea of a national DVD. It wouldn't take too much to produce something like that. They already distribute the CD's in new member packages so the DVD's would be just a step up. It doesn't have to be anything flashy, just cover the basics. The slides they have on the web are great, but a video would do so much more and could communicate so much more info as well.

Most importantly--standardization! I say someone out there grab a camcorder and start taping their local GT expert and have him teach some stuff to the camera. Slap it on a DVD and mail it to the general and say here--we'd like to see more of this. Get thos good folks on the NEC and the NB and proof of concept, with some letters from various wings, and presto! hopefully movement along those lines would start taking place.

[DNall]

Although not perfect, the task guides are a lot better than what I had to learn with 10 years ago - nothing.

I have been saying for a long time that CAP needs to address one of the biggest reasons why folks leave in the first year - failure to get trained quickly.

The bottom line is we (most of us) have day jobs and don't have an endless amount of time to train people.

Put together training DVD's like they do for ground school and let people do the majority of their classroom training at home. Give them progression quizzes for with the DVD's and when they complete the self study let the CAP trainers work with them on the 20% that can only be learned by doing.

It would also be a great refresher course for anyone wishing to bone up on things.

There is no reason why we have to keep running 2 day Aircrew schools when most of the information could be learned on the couch. Plus it would standardize the training so everyone would be getting the same level of initial training.

Off my soap box....

Pretty nice. I do hate handing members a dvd & sending them off to figure it out for themselves. But, it's a better use of resources. I just don't want new folks thinking we don't care about them.

[stratoflyer]

I don't think it would be DVD's replacing task guides. The task guides should be fixed up a bit, but they should remain the primary source of our training along with instructors. The DVD's would build up on the task guides and work along the task guides. And we would still need to be signed off by an actual person. That's my idea of having training DVD's for our ES stuff.

[RiverAux]

As everything is available for download, I'm not sure its worth the money to make DVDs, especially if you consider that the requirements might change at any moment, which could quickly make the DVD obsolete. 

That being said, I thnk they do need to continue to print and sell the task guides and reference texts.  Those are just too large to reasonably expect most members to print themselves. 

[DNall]

^ I believe that's what he's saying. We do need a better, more standardized delivery method for the learning aspect, be it video or whatever. And of course the taks guides are still there with an evaluator on the other end.

My issue is really two-fold. 1) the quality of the task guide & many of the tasks themselves. That's w/o accounting at all for higher industry standards which we also need to be pushing up to. And, 2) the lack of a structured overall program. I would prefer to see you attached to a rating mentor. That person may or may not be an evaluator on individual tasks, but they are in overall charge of your training in the specialty and ultimately must recommend you to get it, at the cost of their own ratings/etc if they keep sending unqualified people up. That's the real key we're missing now. No one is tracking your progress or guiding you thru the process, at least it's not a specified element of the current program - I know it does happen case-by-case, and those are usually the competent people when they get their rating instead of figuring it out on the fly.

[RiverAux]

Some of the tasks definetely need another look  -- the first aid ones are HORRIBLE.  But I think overall that at least the GT guide is pretty good.  The Mission Base Staff guide .... I'm not a big fan of it.  Frankly, I haven't spent much time in the Aircrew TG as I moved away from ES training slots before it really came out.

As to a mentor, that is partly the job of the squadron ES officer or one of his assistants.  They should be guiding everyone's ES training and walking them through the steps.  Heck, they can even have an assistant focused primarily on SAR training.  If we can't get those positions functioning, no mentoring system is going to go very far. 

[stratoflyer]

Agreed. ES personnel at the squadron should perform the function of mentors. At mine, that is how it works. The aircrew guys handle aircrew hopefuls, and the ground folks handle the ground hopefuls.

Interesting point about the DVD's being obsolete, but seeing how the tasks guides are a few years old at least, that shouldn't be much of a problem. Besides, the videos could be streamed at the website until a new DVD comes out.

I do think that the whole ES system could use a little more structure and a bit of an overhaul, but honestly, from what I hear, it seems to be working quite well. I find myself looking for answers but I tend to find them on the web be it from forums like this one, emails from other members, CAP Knowledgebase, or another wing's website. The information is out there: just scattered about.

But remember, we are volunteers and so are much of the folks that put this stuff together. I think we're doing pretty good.

Speaking of the first aid stuff in the task guides, shouldn't ground team people be trained a little more to offer first aid? I don't know exactly how it works already. I don't want to start a tangent here either. Just wondering that's all.

[Auxpilot]

As everything is available for download, I'm not sure its worth the money to make DVDs, especially if you consider that the requirements might change at any moment, which could quickly make the DVD obsolete. 

That being said, I think they do need to continue to print and sell the task guides and reference texts.  Those are just too large to reasonably expect most members to print themselves. 

The presentations that are available for download are not sufficient for at home training. The DVD would serve to explain what is on the slide.

For example - the two day mission aircrew school uses the powerpoint slide but with a live instructor. A new member coming in right after the class is given may have to wait months for the next class. With the classroom material on DVD he can watch it right away and then spend a couple hours with a trainer who can start him on his way within a very short period of time.

The slides are only good if you already have an idea what is going on. Most of them would be lost on a new member without some explanation.

My guess is that there is a very wide variation in how well the training materials are presented from unit to unit. Having materials on DVD would standardize the basic training platform from which the local members can then build upon.

Following the Air Force model, new recruits are trained at tech schools then sent to their base for OJT. All primary training is done in a standardized format under a training command, not left to each individual base to do it their way.

Some folks are natual teachers, others are not. Not all units are blessed with a good teacher.

Most of the basic information does not change (ie: scanning techniques etc.). With today's technology CAP could provide web based access to multimedia presentations that could be edited anytime there is a significant change in the materials. The cost of not providing quality training is far greater than the cost to put together a DVD.

[RiverAux]

Well, the slides aren't meant for self study.  I am a big believer in CAP using online education tools to train and test knowledge for all of the simple fact-based tasks in our ES (or other programs) so that individual members can take care of themselves.  For stuff like that an online course with quizes and other interactive tools would be better than a DVD since you can rig it to automatically add the tasks taht are passed into their ES records. 

[Auxpilot]

Well, the slides aren't meant for self study.  I am a big believer in CAP using online education tools to train and test knowledge for all of the simple fact-based tasks in our ES (or other programs) so that individual members can take care of themselves.  For stuff like that an online course with quizes and other interactive tools would be better than a DVD since you can rig it to automatically add the tasks that are passed into their ES records. 

That would work for me. I'm not stuck on the DVD format, it could be an online presentation like the Air Safety Foundation or FEMA are using.

We just need to accomplish two things; Standardize training and make it readily available for our members, especially the new ones who keep leaving because we can't train them fast enough.

How do we make this happen?? Should everyone start running this request up the chain?

I wish that NHQ had a suggestion box similar to the safety suggestion application that they recently started so good ideas could surface quickly.

[Eclipse]

We just need to accomplish two things; Standardize training and make it readily available for our members, especially the new ones who keep leaving because we can't train them fast enough.

This exists today, the issue is "localization" (or worse) of what for the most part are perfectly fine materials and presentations.

Taken step-by-step, there is nothing in the basic UDF,GTM, or Mission Scanner taskbooks and related materials that could not be addressed and understood cold.  Couple what is CAP-specific with the vast, unlimited resources of the rest of the internet, and most members should be able to get through the basics of ICS, field craft (fundamentals), and what is needed to start operating as an aircrew member.

Anything more remedial than what is there could not be addressed by an online or DVD curriculum anyway, and skills above the basic need hands-on reenforcement.

If your local situation is not active enough to provide members regular training activities beyond the "once-a-year" hit, then they are also not likely active enough to provide practical need for the skills anyway.

(I'll grant that the last issue is somewhat circular and self-defeating, but its also the unfortunate reality to a lot of units.)

This is not rocket science, folks, and for the most part we are training adults and older cadets who come into the mix with an inclination towards the curriculum and duties.  We can't invest effort into creating training materials for a small percentage of our members who have never seen an airplane, compass, or canteen, and can't be bothered to seek out the fundamentals on their own so that they come to the table prepared.

(I would like to see some sort of logical page numbering to the task guides, though).

[RiverAux]

If your local situation is not active enough to provide members regular training activities beyond the "once-a-year" hit, then they are also not likely active enough to provide practical need for the skills anyway.

Not really.  It is a matter of having enough people to justify doing a major training course.  Most squadrons are not going to have enough new members needing training in a specific specialty at any given time to justify spending two days running through one of the aircrew courses, for example.  However, if the new member has the opportunity to get all the initial classroom-type stuff out of the way on their own, most units can then pick it up at the point where you have to start learning and demonstrating specific skills. 

[Auxpilot]

I don't believe that the unit activity is the issue. I have given check rides to folks from some of the most active units and found a wide variation in the skill level of the candidates.

The issue is standardization. No it is not rocket science but it does take some real effort, and time on the part of both the trainee and the trainer. Time that many members cannot afford to devote while balancing everything else in their life.

Some units are more focused on quantity rather than quality and a sign off on an SQTR is very subjective.

Yes you can give a Scanner the task guide and they can learn the subject "cold", but that does not make them good at it. I advocate the use of todays multimedia technology to put real world demonstrations and standardized training materials in the hands of people who have never been formally trained to teach as a tool to make our people the best that they can be.

What would be wrong with a new Scanner watching video taken from an airplane to show them 20 different targets in various conditions as opposed to a couple of rides in a plane over whatever target the individual unit may come up with. I'll bet that 95% of our Scanners have never witnessed a real aircraft or reasonable facsimile from an airplane. Most get trained using an ELT and a tarp in the backyard of one of our members. One video that is well produced could be used to train thousands of scanners.

Your unit may have one or two good teachers that can take the limited materials available and turn out highly qualified ES members. Most units do not have really good teachers and that is where NHQ can be of great assistance.

[Eclipse]

If your local situation is not active enough to provide members regular training activities beyond the "once-a-year" hit, then they are also not likely active enough to provide practical need for the skills anyway.

Not really.  It is a matter of having enough people to justify doing a major training course.  Most squadrons are not going to have enough new members needing training in a specific specialty at any given time to justify spending two days running through one of the aircrew courses, for example.  However, if the new member has the opportunity to get all the initial classroom-type stuff out of the way on their own, most units can then pick it up at the point where you have to start learning and demonstrating specific skills. 

Another fallacy that people use an an excuse.  Everyone needs proficiency training and updates of various tasking.

A new member is the perfect time to pair them up with a couple of mentors and get running.

[RiverAux]

Not wanting to spend two days running a course for only 1 or 2 people is not an excuse.  I'm dedicated, but nowhere near that dedicated. 

Yes, you can use refresher training for everyone as the initial training for new members.  However, in my experience and depending on how much training time you have in each meeting, it can take a very long time for a new member to get their training that way.  If that is their only choice, so be it.  But, its far from ideal.   

Now, if we have online training for most of the "facts", then you can set aside part of some meetings for a trainer to sit down with 1-2 trainees to run them through the mapwork and similar tasks and before you know it, they would be ready to start doing their training sorties.

[Auxpilot]

"Another fallacy that people use an an excuse.  Everyone needs proficiency training and updates of various tasking."

Eclipse, please do not take this as a personal insult, as it is not meant to be in any way.

Your thinking is what many consider to be a major problem with CAP and some (I repeat some) of it's senior leadership. I am not painting with a broad brush as there are many more good folks in leadership than there are bad.

We are a Volunteer organization made up of members with a very wide range of personal situations. It sounds like you  have a great deal of time to devote to CAP, which is very commendable however many of us do not. We want to make every precious moment as productive as possible. I don't understand why you would not want to provide our members with every tool possible to make the organization as good as it could possibly be?

For many of us with a working spouse, a couple of kids and a tank of fish at home, weekend after weekend at the CAP hanger would result in a lot of legal fees and the loss of half of our stuff. CAP is a great cause but not that great.

Look at the membership statistics and you will see that we lose a bunch of new members every year because they feel unwanted and poorly trained. We need to move away from the "we have always done it this way" mentality and take advantage of the tools that are available and affordable today. Spacing - MIKE

[RiverAux]

We need to move away from the "we have always done it this way" mentality and take advantage of the tools that are available and affordable today.

Especially when it is pretty clear that old-style classroom training really only works in large units or when done at group/wing level, leaving the majority of our squadrons in a bind when it comes to training new members.  Small units in particular are in a catch-22 situation anyway.  They may not have anyone qualified in a particular skill, so training new people all on their own is not possible.

To be fair, I don't think Eclipse was saying the old way was the best way. 

[heliodoc]

CAP with all it's resources at Maxwell, should have known this a long time ago, on how much time this would involve and the requirements of beiong a SET.  If we go with the current convention and just do the online training, that is all we are going to get.

CAP, if it is to taken more seriously about its training, should have had a plan in place to preclude "pencil whipping" and made the Wing ES Officer go thru all the hoops and then mete it out thru the Group and Sqdn levels.  But there would great dsconnect in how that would work, and all the mumbo jumbo that go on through those levels.  

My opinion, if anyone cares, is, we got what we got and the memebership may have to accept the current status of SET and our own time OR EVERY Wing puts on a NESA equivalent EVERY YEAR and EVERY instructor is up to speed.  It does not have to be Purdue or Duke level education or presentation, but a presentation.  If you have first year instructors, let them develop, and make some mistakes while instructing, because we know there are more than enough CAP experts on everything SAR to correct everyone out there.  Maybe all the greats on this forum we volunteer their time, as I know they already have to do  large sized operations as such.

If one does at the Squadron level, there is not one god of ES that knows everything SAR, nor one pilot that is god of CAP Flight Ops that knows EVERYTHING!!!  So you have to allow some variations in KSA's to be able to put a training on otherwise who you going to finally trust in your units?  Surely NHQ hasn't got all the answers,  just websites for training and that maybe all we get unless we go NESA GSAR / MAS route in every state to preclude the " worrisome pencil whipping" that this forum seems so worried about

But as the above (Auxpilot) has written, alot of us have a life out of CAP and all the retired types who either got more time could really get on the bandwagon and assist with this

I surely know the training in CAP is pretty weak even on my second time around and thought thing would improve in 25 yrs.  The CAPM 50-15 of years ago sure was more indepth and better put together than the current 60-3.  We sure need a training program but I thought Maxwell gurus would have had this nailed down by now.......

[RiverAux]

60-3 isn't our training manual like the old 52 was.  In terms of sheer volume, the CAP training program today is way beyond anything imagined in the old days.  Heck, we're talking about a couple of 200+ page reference texts and a couple of task guides of a hundred pages or more as well, in addition to dozens of powerpoint presentations that can be used to illustrate a lot of what we do.  There is just no comparison between the old program and today.   The problems lay primarily in the implementation of this program.   

[stratoflyer]

Ok. Let's get a handle on this one fact:

CAP didn't always have the internet, so what did they do then?

Then along came the genie called the internet. And CAP eventually got on the bandwagon and now look at all the resources available. In my opinion in in those of others on this thread, a DVD series on ES topics would definitely be a next step in the evolution of keeping highly trained civilian volunteers.

What would be wrong with a new Scanner watching video taken from an airplane to show them 20 different targets in various conditions as opposed to a couple of rides in a plane over whatever target the individual unit may come up with. I'll bet that 95% of our Scanners have never witnessed a real aircraft or reasonable facsimile from an airplane. Most get trained using an ELT and a tarp in the backyard of one of our members. One video that is well produced could be used to train thousands of scanners.

I agree 110% on that. I am currently training as a scanner, and hopefully will go on some training missions soon, but those would be limited to what can be seen. A DVD can supplement that training experience.

The slides are only good if you already have an idea what is going on. Most of them would be lost on a new member without some explanation.

Agreed. It's happened to me.

How do we make this happen?? Should everyone start running this request up the chain?

How do we start this ball rolling? I suggested someone get a camcorder, and tape their unit's ES specialist teaching one or two topics, and submit it up the CHain of Command. It doesn't necessarily need to come from NHQ. Wings do their own training stuff all the time. The task guides are the standard, and the regs need to be followed. That said, members create their own stuff for a lot of different things all the time. I've seen cadet training videos were proper uniform wear is shown. Why can't officers put a quick little demonstration of how to use an DF.

My opinion, if anyone cares...

Hey, that's why we are here, to share opinions and a lot of us do care.

[davedove]

How do we start this ball rolling? I suggested someone get a camcorder, and tape their unit's ES specialist teaching one or two topics, and submit it up the CHain of Command. It doesn't necessarily need to come from NHQ. Wings do their own training stuff all the time. The task guides are the standard, and the regs need to be followed. That said, members create their own stuff for a lot of different things all the time. I've seen cadet training videos were proper uniform wear is shown. Why can't officers put a quick little demonstration of how to use an DF.

And if it happens, this is the way it will come about.  One wing develops a nice way to do something, some other wings say "this is great", National sees it, and suddenly it becomes a nationwide practice.

That's how we got a lot of our ES practices we currently use.

[RiverAux]

That is how we got the task guides in the first place.  If I recall correctly they started as a Maryland Wing project in the 1990s.  I don't know if they were simply the test wing for what had been developed by national or if they came up with them on the own.  At least for GT, what we have today is very siimilar to what they were using then.

[stratoflyer]

Well, then, who has a camcorder and an ES expert at their unit?

All it would take is one short video on a couple of tasks. This would be a proof of concept where we could go ahead and suggest things. Hopefully, different wings would add different things. Example would be snow ops, or ops in the Everglades (our case here).

[DNall]

Some of the tasks definetely need another look  -- the first aid ones are HORRIBLE.  But I think overall that at least the GT guide is pretty good.  The Mission Base Staff guide .... I'm not a big fan of it.  Frankly, I haven't spent much time in the Aircrew TG as I moved away from ES training slots before it really came out.

As to a mentor, that is partly the job of the squadron ES officer or one of his assistants.  They should be guiding everyone's ES training and walking them through the steps.  Heck, they can even have an assistant focused primarily on SAR training.  If we can't get those positions functioning, no mentoring system is going to go very far. 

Okay, but then you're talking about someone who may not themselves hold the rating that's being trained. They can't then evaluate if the total package meets the overall standard of competence to do that job unsupervised or not. I'm talking more like a master rater or something like that.

[CAP Producer]

Well, then, who has a camcorder and an ES expert at their unit?

All it would take is one short video on a couple of tasks. This would be a proof of concept where we could go ahead and suggest things. Hopefully, different wings would add different things. Example would be snow ops, or ops in the Everglades (our case here).

Actually it would take alot more than that LT.

Producing a good video is a process, and if done correctly an involved process.

There are things in the works to help such as videos. But these will take time before they reach you in the field.

Be patient and if you have ideas don't forget to use your chain of command.