eServices Lock Out for Incomplete Safety Education

[Tubacap]

It must have been heard, because I pressed OK to the warning today, and it sent me directly to my safety record.  Rather convenient.

[Thom]

It must have been heard, because I pressed OK to the warning today, and it sent me directly to my safety record.  Rather convenient.

I wonder if this was like the recent(ish) rollout of the revamped gocivilairpatrol.com site? That one was also a continuing process, with the initial page going up and additional core features and links coming online for several days/weeks afterward.

Not the most common way of rolling out systems updates, but if it is working for them, and the end result is acceptable, then...

Anyway, good on NHQ for getting it right in the end!


Thom

[Tubacap]

Anybody know when this system will tie in with the eFlight Release program?

[a2capt]

Here's the other stupid thing:

Consider your typical unit that has it's safety presentation every month at the same time, when using the suggested schedule rotation in the current 52-16, and you've worked that in to be the 3rd or 4th meeting of the month.

So, everyone gets nagged on eServices for about 10 days perhaps, when it's something thats routinely scheduled and it's pointless to go and "use up" all those online courses just to cover for it, when it's going to be done anyway.

Who thinks this stuff up, really? It's actually a hassle  because I've had it delay that dialog and ignore the clicks at it a few times so far, necessitating closing the window and starting over. All when I'll be getting the standard briefing in a few days anyway at the regularly scheduled time. In fact, I'm the one that enters them usually, too. Not that it's relative to getting notified.. but..  whatever.

[MSG Mac]

I think we're overdoing the Safety Instruction for new members. To date we have to complete the Intro to Safety course, ORM (Don't you think that would cover  the Intro class), and in FLWG, they expect people to take the Tech level in safety. This is all in addition to the mandatory monthly safety breifings.

[ßτε]

I think we're overdoing the Safety Instruction for new members. To date we have to complete the Intro to Safety course, ORM (Don't you think that would cover  the Intro class), and in FLWG, they expect people to take the Tech level in safety. This is all in addition to the mandatory monthly safety breifings.

The Basic ORM Course/Test is not required. The topic is covered in the Foundations Policies module and the Intro to Safety. 

[1LtNurseOfficer]

Pardon me if this has been asked already (I didn't see any reference to it).

If you have not completed the "classroom only" portions, will it still lock you out?  Due to personal reasons, I haven't been able to be active in my squadron for nearly a year.

Thanks.

[NIN]

Anybody know when this system will tie in with the eFlight Release program?

So we can ground everybody across the country all at once, huh?

[jacob]

How often does one have to take a safety class to be compliant?  For example, one member of my squadron took Intro to CAP Safety on 24 February 2011 and is now listed as INCOMPLETE on eServices.  I had thought it was an annual requirement...

[coudano]

monthly
in person briefing at your squadron, or online quiz

[jacob]

 

Thanks for the info.

[Persona non grata]

This is starting to get ridicules, every year we are loosing more members so this just another avenue to discourage people from renewing their membership.  Safety is good but come on folks, this whole safety program is starting to get stuck on stupid. 

[Eclipse]

This is starting to get ridicules, every year we are loosing more members so this just another avenue to discourage people from renewing their membership.  Safety is good but come on folks, this whole safety program is starting to get stuck on stupid.

I agree the safety situation is onerous and does not appear to be producing the intended results, but I challenge the notion that we are losing members over it.  There's supposed to be regular safety briefings, and most units did them as a matter of course every week, anyway, so the once-a-month deal is only a problem for inactive members, which is fixed in 5 minutes (I did one yesterday, so if any of you needs info on dealing with downed power lines, well PM me...), or for units who still think business is done via fax and can't get their SE to enter their briefings.

And as Mike pointed out in a separate thread, we're not alone in the pain.  Every other military and paramilitary service, PD, FD, and most corporations have similar issues.

[coudano]

And as Mike pointed out in a separate thread, we're not alone in the pain.  Every other military and paramilitary service, PD, FD, and most corporations have similar issues.

Annual briefings and ancillary training are annoying, sure...
But they don't have them to this degree...
We are wayyyy past ridiculous here.

[Persona non grata]

Most of the safety topics are common sense but I yet to master the skill of teaching it (CS).   I thought when we had the safety pledge all this mishaps would have been prevented.  I will give them props for the online safety briefing because most of the topics I have found to be edcational and stuff that I can use out side of CAP.  So :clap:to the NHQ Safety officer for that one.
So where does this thread turn into "can I wear the safety patch on my zoom bag"(JKA).

[Spaceman3750]

Most of the safety topics are common sense but I yet to master the skill of teaching it (CS).   I thought when we had the safety pledge all this mishaps would have been prevented.  I will give them props for the online safety briefing because most of the topics I have found to be edcational and stuff that I can use out side of CAP.  So :clap:to the NHQ Safety officer for that one.
So where does this thread turn into "can I wear the safety patch on my zoom bag"(JKA).

You bring up giving safety advice that we can use outside of CAP. While I think that's good because it helps you to stay safe outside of CAP so that when something comes up you are available inside CAP, but frequently I see briefings and articles on things like barbecue safety, etc and wonder how this helps me be a safer ground team leader and senior member.

[Eclipse]

And as Mike pointed out in a separate thread, we're not alone in the pain.  Every other military and paramilitary service, PD, FD, and most corporations have similar issues.

Annual briefings and ancillary training are annoying, sure...
But they don't have them to this degree...
We are wayyyy past ridiculous here.

One briefing a month on anything is too much?  What should be the "ridiculous threshold" here?

[a2capt]

Inactive members. Thats exactly the problem. When you have the Wing running around firing off letters and threatening to ground your unit for non-compliance, but not giving any real specific details, other than pretty much beating the drum that nothing less than 100% compliance will be acceptable.

Well.. 100% is darn near practically impossible for a unit of more than two, because once you start having more people the odds of having dead weight on your roster increases significantly. Dead weight thats not going to do anything. Push them to patron status, sure. But the reports still list patron members and show them as incomplete, thus nailing the statistics.  Are they required? Somewhere it didn't mention that class of membership, others it does.

So now if you are still current, but starting to reach the end of the month of which currency lapses, you'll now get nagged on eServices, yet you already know about it, your unit's safety session isn't for another two weeks yet, because thats when you always have it. Why does this thing need to hassle everyone?

I'm starting to get more on the "this is way past ridiculous, approaching ludicrous" bandwagon, too. If they have gone this far to make it in your face, they're spending way too much time on this. Who's pet is this anyway, and what argument are they trying to win?

[Persona non grata]

Most of the safety topics are common sense but I yet to master the skill of teaching it (CS).   I thought when we had the safety pledge all this mishaps would have been prevented.  I will give them props for the online safety briefing because most of the topics I have found to be edcational and stuff that I can use out side of CAP.  So :clap:to the NHQ Safety officer for that one.
So where does this thread turn into "can I wear the safety patch on my zoom bag"(JKA).

You bring up giving safety advice that we can use outside of CAP. While I think that's good because it helps you to stay safe outside of CAP so that when something comes up you are available inside CAP, but frequently I see briefings and articles on things like barbecue safety, etc and wonder how this helps me be a safer ground team leader and senior member.

Possibly beacuase squadron have an occassional BBQ.  I do see yyour point. 

[Eclipse]

Inactive members. Thats exactly the problem. When you have the Wing running around firing off letters and threatening to ground your unit for non-compliance, but not giving any real specific details, other than pretty much beating the drum that nothing less than 100% compliance will be acceptable.

Well.. 100% is darn near practically impossible for a unit of more than two, because once you start having more people the odds of having dead weight on your roster increases significantly. Dead weight thats not going to do anything. Push them to patron status, sure. But the reports still list patron members and show them as incomplete, thus nailing the statistics.  Are they required? Somewhere it didn't mention that class of membership, others it does.

So now if you are still current, but starting to reach the end of the month of which currency lapses, you'll now get nagged on eServices, yet you already know about it, your unit's safety session isn't for another two weeks yet, because thats when you always have it. Why does this thing need to hassle everyone?

I'm starting to get more on the "this is way past ridiculous, approaching ludicrous" bandwagon, too. If they have gone this far to make it in your face, they're spending way too much time on this. Who's pet is this anyway, and what argument are they trying to win?

You have some legitimate points in the current execution, if patron members are showing up as incomplete for anything, that's ridiculous
and should be fixed, but...

...notice how so many of our administrative burdens are caused by empty shirts?

There is a simple solution for that.

I don't know why it is people are so reticent to fix their problems in the most basic and simple way.  We can talk ourselves to death
about guys at BMT, people with weird job schedules, or those who go to Florida for vacation, but the vast majority of all administrative non-compliance is caused by empty shirts, and at least in my scope, members who "we've never met and haven't ever been to a meeting..." or "he moved to Utah 5 years ago and never transferred..."

Patron, 2b, or transfer them.  Normalize the ranks, then we can talk about non-compliance of members who serve CAP but in a more limited, irregular fashion.

If they are still showing up in compliance reports, why can't we transfer all the "financial supporters" to the national patron squadron?  Or better still,
remove them from ranks and create a "supporter" category?  If all they want to do is write a check, they don't need an ID card, uniforms, or any of the other privileges that come with actually doing something...