ES Tasks, Training, Pencil Whipping, Integrity, and Solutions

[Gunner C]

I just saw on another topic where there was a great complaint that people were pencil whipping sign-offs for proficiency.  To be honest, it was a HUGE problem when I was in NCWG, especially for pilots becoming observers (some of the worst observers were pilots - they'd get their stuff signed off as a matter of course - and as a squadron and group commander I told folks they could track as either an MP or MO, but not both . . . I got MUCH better MPs and MOs since their training was more specific).  That's not to say that there weren't problems across the board (sorry to beat up on pilots - just an example).

Here's my point:

About a month ago, I went and tested for my amateur radio license (technician).  The local radio club conducted the test.  There were two test proctors and the test was graded by three persons.  I was impressed that the FCC allowed locals certify the test results and apply for the licenses.  This got me thinking . . .

Why doesn't CAP require the same or something close to it?  It's apparent that the government has gotten around the questions of integrity by requiring several folks to certify concurrently that someone has passed a radio operator test (BTW, those hams had to sign their names along with their call signs).  If we had several folks who had to be there at training to sign off each task, I think that the standards would go up or at least be maintained at the level they were intended. No one would want to be viewed as the one who will let anyone through the system.

Thoughts?

[arajca]

The single largest issue is train/test at the same time. You sit through a lecture and get signed off as completing the task. No evaluation.

IMHO, there should be ES training activities and SEPARATE ES testing activities.

[NIN]

I got my ham ticket back when you still had to schlep down to your nearby Federal building and take an FCC-administered exam.  Imagine being 14 and taking the General theory test in this big, imposing formal place.  Yikes.   The ARRL's VE (Volunteer Examiner) program is about 20 years old now, but at the time it was postulated, the ham community decried its very concept as "watering down" the hobby and how the potential for abuse of the system was huge.  (where have we heard this, right?) Now, its the "norm" and has some nicely built checks and balances.

I'm in the process of obtaining my USPA instructor rating (formerly "jumpmaster"), and if you think 101 card and other ES signoffs are "critical," you should look at some of the stuff we have to sign off enroute to getting a student licensed as a parachutist. (http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_ALicProgCardISP_2008_02.pdf)

What we lack in that particular arena is the equivalent of the local FAA DE, so locally its the instructors and coaches who do the sign offs and a local instructor who administers the equivalent of a "check ride" (appropriately enough, its called a "check dive").  The really interesting thing is that students after jump #7 or 8 jump with sort of an "instructor lite" called a coach who shepherds them thru the remaining requirements and jumps, but at the very end of the progression, the check dive is administered by an instructor, so it serves as a quality check for the instructional process.

And, instead of getting signed off on "I've been trained on this" we're signing off on "this person has been trained and has now demonstrated this skill to the standard."  Can't demonstrate?  You're going to continue at this level until you can demonstrate.

I always liked the way the Army did Common Task Training (Task, Condition, Standard) and then evaluated that same way, pretty much.  But the evaluators were not the same guys as the trainers.

[RiverAux]

The single largest issue is train/test at the same time. You sit through a lecture and get signed off as completing the task. No evaluation.

To be clear, this is not how ES qualifications should be gained.  All tasks either have to be actually demonstrated or your knowledge of the task be tested through oral or written quizes (depending on the task). 

Now, if you want to combine a lecture with testing, that would be fine though in my experience you don't always get great results because many people won't prepare ahead of time and can't remember everything they've been told without having time to study up and memorize it. 

[RADIOMAN015]

The single largest issue is train/test at the same time. You sit through a lecture and get signed off as completing the task. No evaluation.

To be clear, this is not how ES qualifications should be gained.  All tasks either have to be actually demonstrated or your knowledge of the task be tested through oral or written quizes (depending on the task). 

Now, if you want to combine a lecture with testing, that would be fine though in my experience you don't always get great results because many people won't prepare ahead of time and can't remember everything they've been told without having time to study up and memorize it. 

I might be missing something here  but what regulations say you have to memorize anything?    My understanding is that the member can have his/her personal copy of "Ground Team Member & Leader" reference text that he/she can refer to it IF it becomes necessary    

Even aircraft pilots have checklists & certain regulations in the aicraft to assist them.  Why do the ground ES folks continue to invent more obstacles to getting more personnel trained & qualified, based upon the assumption that everyone has to remember everything

I think it was a wing in the midwest that came up with a "block training" plan (that's been adopted by some other wings) , and what'd I've seen/heard about it, it basically is setting minimum time for training for UDF & GT.   Frankly, if someone can learn UDF in 3 hours (perhaps through self study at home prior to training) & pass the evaluation why in the heck would you be having them showing up for 5 weeks at training session that last 6 to 8 hrs on one weekend day   Again it's difficult getting senior members for any ground teams, who in the heck is going to spend that much time "training", when it's likely most would be able to successfully perform the UDF tasks with shorter training.   

We've had senior members that hadn't been on a DF mission (or training) for 3 years (and training was performed locally within the squadron, not wing or NESA), been successful on a mission when even the tower couldn't hear the beacon, and there were multiple hangars & aircraft/helos within the hangars.  Additionally we had a VERY recent NESA graduate, older cadet, who seemed to have forgotten everything he/she was taught, including remembering that even if you don't have a regulation jacket to go with your BDU's you bring ANY jacket that will keep you warm!!!! (but remember the reflective vest for safety purposes)

As far as the pilots are concerned, what appears to be happening in some instances is that their appears to be a push on for  "observer" to actually be a pilot, so the crew has two pilots & the scanner in the back seat probably isn't going to be a pilot.  Maybe that's a good idea.   

I don't have all the answers, but it sure as heck seems that we in CAP swing from pencil whipping to "pencil breaking" training/evaluations, where perhaps we need to look at each individual's capabilities and appropriately adjust the trainining time, one size doesn't fit all.
RM

       

[Eclipse]

I might be missing something here  but what regulations say you have to memorize anything?    My understanding is that the member can have his/her personal copy of "Ground Team Member & Leader" reference text that he/she can refer to it IF it becomes necessary.

Yep - the task guide is required "equipment" for that exact reason.  As to where / how you get your training?  I couldn't care less.  That's what's great about having an objective set of tasks that SET's should not be "embellishing" or extending.  Whether you went to NESA, HMRS, or Happy Trails Day Care and SAR School, as long as you can demonstrate the tasks as they are indicated in the guide, you get my initials.  Conversely you don't get a "pass" just because you went to NESA or HMRS.

As far as the pilots are concerned, what appears to be happening in some instances is that their appears to be a push on for  "observer" to actually be a pilot, so the crew has two pilots & the scanner in the back seat probably isn't going to be a pilot.  Maybe that's a good idea. 

Its not (a good idea).  What results is two people flying the airplane and no one "observerafyin" - poor logs, no one listening to the CAP radio because both are on ATC, etc.

Some of our best Observers are pilots, and also some of our worst (for reasons similar to the above).  If you're an Observer and have your hands on the stick for anything but the radio button, you're missing the point.

[PHall]

Well, until there are some comsequences for both the member getting the pencil whipped qualifications and the "instructor" who is pencil whipping qualifications, then we will have this problem.

Usually, if they get caught, they just say "I'm a volunteer, be nice to me or I'll leave".

And way too many times, it works...

[Eclipse]

A good point, especially considering that its tantamount to cheating on a test, a test in this case with real-world life, property, and safety issues in our operational role.

[heliodoc]

While reading all of these posts

I still come away with........  What the !@#$% is the Ground and Urban Direction Finding Team and Mission Pilot / MO/ MS taskbooks all about anyway?

And the those SET requirements.... they sure do not prepare anyone to be able to teach as those in the field of education.  So what does that alllll leave?

Here is what it leaves....No standardization, no real checks and balances from Wing or National HQ, hell, the Wing ES Officers could not get to EVERY squadron under their charge, to approve and administter ES qual tests....

What does that leave???  Squadron ability to do it however deemed necessary to get the job done... for you folks WHO THINK or construe pencil whipping in this commentary..YOU ARE WRONG!!

What are those taskbooks for??   REFERENCE and for all you folks that think that you got either the Ground team taskbooks (Green) or the MP / MO/ MS taskbook (salmon colored) memorized.........  That I will call BS on unless you are retired, do n't have a life, and can think that only pencil whipping goes on

The "I am only a volunteer" has not been around my squadron... we know the "standards" what ever those might be and apparently whatever is online or in those taskbooks is "standard"

AND until CAP starts running BLACKHATS and TAC officers all around to different squadrons to ensure "CAP standards"  then what you get is what you get.  CHEW on that for all you professional SET folks.  I conduct SET testing for GT also but if somebody is getting jammed up on something, I sure as hell am not going to waste their time and tell em to come back next month or else type of thing, I am going to assist and ensure that understanding, ONE on One if need be.

This program doesn't have ANY real educator reqs to be a SET, so to me, a SET is nothing more than a a self proclaimed online qual'd educator that all of a sudden has the potential of screwing with folks, who they themselves may or may not anymore about the subject that the GT designee

SO trying to "force" folks to memorize all there is to know, we (CAP) would have to meet 7 days a week or 4 weekends a month to even THINK, we could memorize everything.  It's nonsense.  Not everyone scores 100% on everything and testing could done in the form of asking questions, demonstration, discussion such as  being a CFI.  

Trying to be hard!!!S CAP is pretty lame.

[arajca]

The point is there are a not insignificant number of members who are being pencil whipped. This does NOT mean all testing has to be approved/supervised/conducted/blessed in person by the wing DES. It does mean the standards, as listed in the task guides, need to be adhered to. If you read them, EVERY task has some form of evaluation. Far too many times, I have seen members sit through a class on Cold Weather Injuries, for example, and get signed off on the task SIMPLY FOR NOT FALLING ASLEEP. No evaluation was done other than the "Who can tell me what _______ looks like?" We constantly see the results in exercises when a member is assigned to do a task they have been signed off on and cannot perform because they do not have a clue on how to actually perform the task! I have had GTL's who couldn't find their location on a map because they didn't have their GPS! Basic map and compass usage is a GTM 3 and UDF task, which GTL's need to have completed.

I have seen units do training and testing correctly, but they are a small minority.

If the evaluations are conducted IAW the task guides, I don't think anyone here would really care who conducted them. The most significant issue is too many times the evaluations ARE NOT BEING DONE!!!!

I'm not going to touch the SET requirements, or lack thereof, issue.

[Major Carrales]

Texas has an additional Layer for SET, you have to make a special "EVALUATOR's LIST" based on Squadron Commander recommendation and actual use.

Yesterday we had a DSARex in San Antonio, I can vouch that there were no CAP Officers or Cadets that were "pencil whipped."

[Eclipse]

Texas has an additional Layer for SET, you have to make a special "EVALUATOR's LIST" based on Squadron Commander recommendation and actual use.

Ditto for my wing - the SET test online is only the bare minimum.  But even in states that don't have that requirement, the Unit CC is responsible for insuring the integrity of training and tasking, and when he clicks the "Commander Approval" button, he's saying as much.

[Major Carrales]

Texas has an additional Layer for SET, you have to make a special "EVALUATOR's LIST" based on Squadron Commander recommendation and actual use.

Ditto for my wing - the SET test online is only the bare minimum.  But even in states that don't have that requirement, the Unit CC is responsible for insuring the integrity of training and tasking, and when he clicks the "Commander Approval" button, he's saying as much.

In our Wing, our Group Commander, is yet another layer for quals.  He, and his associates, look at those approvals and reject them at any sign of a "question."

When the system is working...it works.  It up to each of us to ensure that it does work.

[heliodoc]

Do share on those "special" evaluators list and the recommends from the Sq CC and actual use

2 months ago I taught map and compass to my Sqdn AND that is based upon my years in Army Aviation doing the Common Skills Taskbook that was around for 25 yrs now AND the requirements of my Forestry and Wildland fire gig as well as my Comml/ Inst / Multi that still requirres I read a Sectional as well as TCA charts.........................

What "Special" evaluators skills does the Sqdn CC have to sign then and may be very well by nature of some peoples already "gotten" skills that he may not have ??

How does that then all work in this organization where there is such a variey of skills that varies and by that definition, what all us "volunteers" bring to the mix

Define a "Special Evaluators List" so everyone can "see" if they are meeting the professional CAP "model" of a SET

[Eclipse]

Its not a "special list" it simply a list of approved SET's by the Wing ESO, in his authority to oversee the Wing's program.

A member takes the SET test online, and then his Unit CC requests SET status through the chain to Wing.  This insures that the Unit and Group CC approve of this person doing sign-offs as well as the Wing ESO.  Unit CCs are still required to approve the SQTRs at the various levels within eServices or the WMU (Pre-Req, Fam/Prep, Advanced, and then final approval).

These SETs are then approved to sign-off tasks anywhere in the state, not just at a respective unit.  If the check box isn't checked under your name, or you aren't current, the WMU does not accept your CAPID in the sign off box.

No system is perfect, but this greatly reduces the amount of inappropriate sign-offs because several people need to vet the decision that a member can be an SET.  The fact that eServices does not currently allow for this level of micro-oversight is one of the main inertial factors in my state switching over.  As it stands today, eServices just makes everyone an SET in a specialty they are qualified for if they take the test, then leaves the discerment to the Unit CC.

That's fine in that its how the program is written, but causes issues, especially in units where the Unit CC doesn't "do" ES, but has one or two active members.

[RiverAux]

I might be missing something here   but what regulations say you have to memorize anything?    My understanding is that the member can have his/her personal copy of "Ground Team Member & Leader" reference text that he/she can refer to it IF it becomes necessary   

You may not refer to the task guide while demonstrating a skill or demonstrating that you understand some bit of knowledge UNLESS it specifically says you can do so in the wording of that particular task -- straight from NHQ to me. 

[heliodoc]

Well Then, RiverAux, you got the Godline the rest of us do not

Straight from NHQ to you...good on you!!!

MAYBE NHQ, if they would be so KIND as to indicate in EVERY task that reference, then I MIIGHT BUY IT

MAYBE the NHQ Gods could REDO 60-3, the taskbooks and refund all of us the $$$ that we spent.   

I do not see anywhere, specifically, that use of taskbooks is PROHIBITED, in any way shape or form and I am looking at the Aircrew taskbook right now!!

Refers to use of the MART guide, Practice, Eval Prep, etc and NO mention of CAN NOT use task book during eval

"student must recieve a pass on all performance measures to qualify in this task.  If the individual fails any measure, show what was done wrong and how to do it correctly...

Are these checkrides??  Maybe, BUT there is wiggle room in there to redo what needs to be done or redone................ DO NOT see any reference to ending task as a total failure and to report again.  It sure isn't an FAA ride, unless you CAPers are looking for that

SO unless it DIRECTLY states it in these taskbooks..that come back another day, you failed......then what you recieved from NHQ HAD BETTER BE AVAILED TO ALLL UNITS

STANDARDIZATION??  My eye!!
S

[Eclipse]

You may not refer to the task guide while demonstrating a skill or demonstrating that you understand some bit of knowledge UNLESS it specifically says you can do so in the wording of that particular task -- straight from NHQ to me. 

Sorry River, I have to go with Helio on this (sun cools, earth stops spinning, etc.).

Nowhere in the guide or the curriculum does it say what your purporting.  That doesn't mean that someone didn't tell you that...

[lordmonar]

Two year ago when I went the GTL at NESA....we used the task guide all the time during our evaluation phase.

[heliodoc]

^^^^^^^^Well there you go... A NHQ operation or NHQ sanctioned operation

I have the firm belief that a good majority of CAPtalk folks came from the University of MSU

Insert your words into the acronym, please

[wingnut55]

Since this is an open forum, and peoples opinions are allowed to be openly expressed.

In many states CAP is called only when an Aircraft is missing. In several states even this will not happen. CAP is not in a direct line to AFRCC in most states. For emergency services or Disasters we are often the last to be called and often never at all. WHY? I can only tell you of what I have been told.

CAP in my state has a poor reputation for showing up to a disaster , under trained, with morbidly obese members, with children (Cadets), ill equipped, poorly led, and have an unwillingness to be part of a team.

The requirement to meet the minimum FEMA education requirements was met with refusal, complaints, more members quitting. Our own USAF overseers have made statements that CAP is still a flying club !!!

Are we a member of the National Emergency Services Community? how can we as a group of "the willing" get involved in that area? How can we have a CAP within CAP that are not ' Pencil Whipped" into being an expert in emergency services?

For those who do not believe this is going on? well pigs do fly!

Not directed at you Robert  

[RiverAux]

Well Then, RiverAux, you got the Godline the rest of us do not

Straight from NHQ to you...good on you!!!

The question was submitted to the knowledgebase the last time this question came up and I got the answer within days.  Don't know why they didn't post it in the KB itself though.  Ask them yourself and also consult your common sense.  

[heliodoc]

Thanks, RiverAux

I got my own common sense.  UNTIL NHQ rewrites the ENTIRE ES curriculum,
I will carry on with what is written in the taskbooks and all will be fine

Knowledgebase.....yeah  That is like an ICL, not HARD evidence and solid in regs, just an interim until something better comes up, KB a temporary source of information, updated daily with no real NEW information nor how this is being put into the real regs

[RiverAux]

Okay folks, are you SERIOUSLY saying that you think that GT task O-0409 (Identify Missing Person Search Clues) is supposed to be evaluated in this way:
SET: Briefs the student that he is on a missing person search.  Tell him to identify eight missing person search clues.
Student:  Student opens up the task guide to Tasl 0-0409 and reads off 8 search clues to the SET.
SET: Thanks student, you passed this evalution. 

[heliodoc]

Seriously, NO.  Could be contradicting myself here

BUT where does it say you can not?

Seriously this whole forum on the taskbook is silly

UNTIL there is a definite rework of EVERYTHING in those taskbooks, can you folks really, seriously, keep this up???

When I refer to a rework.... I MEAN the book will have to say "from memory"

How do you folks seriously, make this stuff up.  Live with what you have in those taskbooks and MOVE ON.  Get serious and teach or lead or quit the interpretatin on ones own

Any other solutions out there?  I can see why CAP is viewed like wingnuts' post.  My solution, until there is somethin new kwitcher[censored]in' and drive on CAP er soldiers, the rest of you keep worryin to worry

[RiverAux]

Common sense tells everyone that these are not open book tests.  For those who apparently have no common sense, then maybe we should specifically state that. 

If you're testing students the way you're supposed to, the taskbooks are just fine though I would introduce a few tweaks here and there. 

[heliodoc]

RiverAux

I would like a DEFINITE citation in any CAP regulation about the common sense about 'these are not open book tests"

I may then , standown, but there is NOTHING anywhere that I have read that states how to conduct this curriculum

We are testing the way it ought  to be done BUT we are NOT being so anal as to make a 10 minute tailgate training session a PHd thesis, in any way shape or form

[PHall]

Common sense tells everyone that these are not open book tests.  For those who apparently have no common sense, then maybe we should specifically state that. 

If you're testing students the way you're supposed to, the taskbooks are just fine though I would introduce a few tweaks here and there. 

There is NO COMMON SENSE when it comes to evaluations. You do what is written in the manual/regulation/task guide, etc...

That way everybody is playing by the same rules.

[SJFedor]

Okay folks, are you SERIOUSLY saying that you think that GT task O-0409 (Identify Missing Person Search Clues) is supposed to be evaluated in this way:
SET: Briefs the student that he is on a missing person search.  Tell him to identify eight missing person search clues.
Student:  Student opens up the task guide to Tasl 0-0409 and reads off 8 search clues to the SET.
SET: Thanks student, you passed this evalution. 

I don't get to use the NREMT skills evaluation sheets for a reference during skills exams. Why should any of our operators not have to have this stuff memorized?

[Short Field]

The issue shouldn't be how much a person memorizes to pass a task evaluation, but how comfortable they were doing the task.  If they used a check-list, pick up the task guide for a quick review of something, then it should be no big deal - pass them.   NOW - if they have to search and search for the information, read it like they are seeing it for the first time, and still stumble through it, that should be a fail.  I see too many screwups because people rely on their memory instead of learning the source material and using checklists. 

[SarDragon]

Thanks for the return to checklists.

Pilots (specifically) and aircrew (in general) use checklists all the time. But, there are certain items (commonly called boldface) that must be executed from memory. A change to the task lists defining those boldface items might be a useful change.

YMMV.

[arajca]

Let's take a look at a task from the GTM task guide, choosen at random - O-0204 LOCATE A POINT ON A MAP USING LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE:
Condition (describes the scenario):
Given an aeronautical chart, road map, or topographical map with latitude and longitude lines. You are away from mission base, mounted or dismounted, and must locate your location on map in order to report your location to mission base, an aircraft or another ground element using latitude and longitude. Or, you are coordinating with another search element (ground or air) who has told you his location using the latitude and longitude. You want to plot this point on your map.

Evaluation Preparation:
Setup: Mark a point on a map or chart gridded with latitude and longitude, and give the map to the student. .Tell him whether or not she must report seconds, or just degrees and minutes (depends on the scale of the map). Pick a different grid location from the point and write down the latitude and longitude coordinates. Ensure you have a timer. Because this task is timed, it is necessary to make sure that the student and work area is prepared for testing. The map should be open and complete. If copies of maps are used, they should include all references normally available on the full map to take the exam.
Brief Student: Ask the student if s/he is prepared. Tell the student to tell you the latitude and longitude of the point. Then orally give him the latitude and longitude you wrote down and tell him to show you where that point is on the map.

No where does it mention using the task guide/reference text.

How about another (not so random) - L-0003 EMPLOY APPROPRIATE RADIO FREQUENCIES AND REPEATERS
Condition:
You are the radio operator for a ground team, and have been told by the team leader to contact another station. You must choose what frequency to use.

Evaluation Preparation:
Setup: Prepare a list of the five frequency groups listed above for your area of operation with assignments in each group. Give the list to the trainee. The student may use any item from his field gear, including this book or a "cheat sheet".
Brief Team Leader: Tell the student to identify each frequency and its use, within 2 minutes total time.

Here, use of the guide is explicitely permitted, indicating that, unless stated, using the task guide or reference text is not permitted for the task evaluation. So, for most tasks, the test is 'closed-book'.

[ZigZag911]

The standard should always be "Can this person perform the task adequately?"

How the member demonstrates this to the evaluator may depend on local circumstances -- or, even, the member's own background.

As an evaluator, I am likely to be satisfied with someone that I know has significant experience in the area being evaluated (whether in AP,LE, military, NASAR training, etc) describing processes and procedures to me....I'm not going to make someone like Flying Pig, for instance, demonstrate physically that he can pre-flight an aircraft....the man does it for a living!

Someone with little or no background, then I do my Harry Truman impression and say "Show Me"!

By the way, I like the idea of multiple evaluators, if it can be done in a way that doesn't make it seem like the trainee is getting the 3rd degree.

[Duke Dillio]

Here is my issue with the qualification process.  Let's say I go to a SAREX and I evaluate someone on certain tasks within the qualification.  I take his/her SQTR, put my signature, date, and my CAPID number on the form and give it back.

Later on, said person could possibly enter all of the tasks into eServices/WMU with my CAPID saying that I signed this person off.  Now, let's make it fun and say that the person is from a different squadron.  I have no idea what they are signing off and I cannot put the tasks in myself.  The squadron commander could ask the person who signed the tasks off, they provide my name, and the CC will generally click the Approval button.

Here is my recommendation:  When a person puts your CAPID in for signing off a task, you should receive a notification and then you should have some way of confirming or denying.  I know this will probably cause a headache for the IT guys but I think it is a necessary check that needs to be put in.  This is a loophole in the online qualification system.

As for training signoffs, I used to set up a weekend where my squadron would prepare stations for the basic ground team tasks.  We used the reference texts for the evaluations.  I also prepared forms for each station which were returned to the primary station.  I modeled it off of the Army CTT training that I went through.  It seemed to work out pretty well and our people seemed to have good comments for us.

[Eclipse]

As an evaluator, I am likely to be satisfied with someone that I know has significant experience in the area being evaluated (whether in AP,LE, military, NASAR training, etc) describing processes and procedures to me....I'm not going to make someone like Flying Pig, for instance, demonstrate physically that he can pre-flight an aircraft....the man does it for a living!

Someone with little or no background, then I do my Harry Truman impression and say "Show Me"!

The above is asking for trouble, and is actually the textbook definition of whipping.

You're signing a document that says the student actually did what you say he did.  Assuming he can because of outside experience is a problem, because if it turns out he actually doesn't know how to pre-flight our aircraft, and lawn-darts it because a gust thingie is still in one of the flaps, or whatever, they could potentially track back direct to you on why he did it wrong.

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not signing my name on something that says you did it unless I've seen you do it.  And any student, regardless of experience, who has an issue with that will need to find a different evaluator.

[RiverAux]

How the member demonstrates this to the evaluator may depend on local circumstances -- or, even, the member's own background.

No, no, no, no.  The task guides say EXACTLY what the student must do to pass the task.   

[Eclipse]

How the member demonstrates this to the evaluator may depend on local circumstances -- or, even, the member's own background.

No, no, no, no.  The task guides say EXACTLY what the student must do to pass the task.   

+1  The tasks are very clear and objective, there is no lee-way for circumstances or experience.

[arajca]

The standard should always be "Can this person perform the task adequately?"

Define "adequately". Since the task guides are specific in what they are looking for, if the student does not complete the task IAW the guide, the student fails. Period. Pass/Fail. No room for interpretation.

How the member demonstrates this to the evaluator may depend on local circumstances -- or, even, the member's own background.

Incorrect. See above.

As an evaluator, I am likely to be satisfied with someone that I know has significant experience in the area being evaluated (whether in AP,LE, military, NASAR training, etc) describing processes and procedures to me....I'm not going to make someone like Flying Pig, for instance, demonstrate physically that he can pre-flight an aircraft....the man does it for a living!

Someone with little or no background, then I do my Harry Truman impression and say "Show Me"!

By the way, I like the idea of multiple evaluators, if it can be done in a way that doesn't make it seem like the trainee is getting the 3rd degree.

Discrimination, anyone? How can you be certain someone meets the standard if you do not have them perform to the standard. As a former Commercial Driver's License examiner, I tested many folks that I knew had the knowledge and skills because I had seen it in training. I still had them perform to ensure they did know it. And I falied some who did know, but couldn't demonstrate it to the standard at that time. This had a far greater affect than getting a rating - this was affecting their livelihood.

[Short Field]

Here is my recommendation:  When a person puts your CAPID in for signing off a task, you should receive a notification and then you should have some way of confirming or denying.  I know this will probably cause a headache for the IT guys but I think it is a necessary check that needs to be put in.  This is a loophole in the online qualification system.

I would proposed the only way to enter a CAPID number in a sign-off block is for the person with that CAPID to actually sign-in to eServices and sign off the member in Ops Quals.   I could be talked into letting the Squadron commanders and their ES officer have permissions to enter other CAPID numbers as the trainer but that would be it.

While on wing staff, I saw a Ops Qual in eServices pending Wing approval.  A person was getting FOUR Ops Quals for a one day SAREX.  Then I noticed the person was signed off on his BCUT and ACUT on the same SAREX.   I happen to know the person signing off on the ACUT was not qualified to teach the course.  Then I pinged on the member - a Cadet Airman.  I raised the BS flag.  The cadet had simply used another member's CAPID to get signed off.  The "trainer" was not aware of any of this going on.  What was really sad was the Squadron Commander had approved everything and sent it to Wing.  Do you think maybe that Sq CC just automatically signs off any SQTR sent to him??

[JoeTomasone]

While on wing staff, I saw a Ops Qual in eServices pending Wing approval.  A person was getting FOUR Ops Quals for a one day SAREX.  Then I noticed the person was signed off on his BCUT and ACUT on the same SAREX.   I happen to know the person signing off on the ACUT was not qualified to teach the course.  Then I pinged on the member - a Cadet Airman.  I raised the BS flag.  The cadet had simply used another member's CAPID to get signed off.  The "trainer" was not aware of any of this going on.  What was really sad was the Squadron Commander had approved everything and sent it to Wing.  Do you think maybe that Sq CC just automatically signs off any SQTR sent to him??

FLWG now requires that all supporting paperwork (signed SQTR worksheets, Form 91's, ICS Certificates, etc) be visually checked AND MAINTAINED at all levels.   So unless you can provide signatures for each task, your SQTR is not approved.   That should substantially cut down on that problem and on the other that I see a lot of -- people being evaluated and signed off for Advanced Training tasks BEFORE completing the Familiarization and Preparatory Tasks.

[Eclipse]

FLWG now requires that all supporting paperwork (signed SQTR worksheets, Form 91's, ICS Certificates, etc) be visually checked AND MAINTAINED at all levels.   So unless you can provide signatures for each task, your SQTR is not approved.   That should substantially cut down on that problem and on the other that I see a lot of -- people being evaluated and signed off for Advanced Training tasks BEFORE completing the Familiarization and Preparatory Tasks.

How do they deal with NESA?  They do blanket sign-offs for all participants, sometimes with the same date, mission number, and SET name for all, in MIMS.

No documentation is sent back to the home units that I am aware of.

[JoeTomasone]

FLWG now requires that all supporting paperwork (signed SQTR worksheets, Form 91's, ICS Certificates, etc) be visually checked AND MAINTAINED at all levels.   So unless you can provide signatures for each task, your SQTR is not approved.   That should substantially cut down on that problem and on the other that I see a lot of -- people being evaluated and signed off for Advanced Training tasks BEFORE completing the Familiarization and Preparatory Tasks.

How do they deal with NESA?  They do blanket sign-offs for all participants, sometimes with the same date, mission number, and SET name for all, in MIMS.

No documentation is sent back to the home units that I am aware of.

Good question as I've never been -- but maybe a graduation certificate from NESA would suffice.   I'd have to check with Wing.

[RiverAux]

I do think the current enter-your-own ability needs a check.  I wouldn't think it would be very hard to basically require that SET's whose CAPID has been noted in someone's record approve that use just like Commanders have to approve the qualification.  It would probably slow the approval process down a bit, but would be a needed check.  I don't think we want to go backwards to shuffling papers around since we could do this all electronically. 

[Al Sayre]

We're lucky I guess.  Being a small Wing, it's easy enough to check the quals of the SET and call him/her if there is any question about the sign-off.  I usually know when a squadron is having a training exercise...

[husker]

This is how it is done at NESA/GSAR

All tasks are evaluated IAW the task guide.  The trainer is different from the evaluator IAW 60-3.  Tasks are divided up into modules - for example, in Basic GSAR, ELT/DF is on a day, Nav is on a day, search line tasks on another day, etc.  Knowledged based tasks are spread throughout the week.  The classroom work is done (generally in the morning), then some practice.   The evaulations are done after that.  The evaluations are generally done by the student's team leader (students are divided up into teams for the week).  At times, the evaulator may be an FTA (TAC Officer).  In Basic and Advanced, all GSAR staff are qualified to at least GTM-1 with SET.  In the Team Leader school, all GSAR staff are qualified GTLs with SET. 

It is not allowed to use the task guide to accomplish the knowledge based tasks. 

All tasks are input as they are evaluated into a PDA (actually a Windows mobile computer) in the field.  Each night, all the PDAs are collected and uploaded into a database so that the GSAR staff can see how the student's are progressing (which students are behind, did we have problem tasks, etc.).  At the end of the week, all the tasks are automatically uploaded into OpsQuals.  For those individuals who completed all the tasks (and graduated), the achievement level is also input.  The mission number for all the tasks is always that year's NESA mission number.  There are always some student's who may have completed all the tasks, but are still not quite ready to be qualified.  In such circumstances, mission credit is withheld.

The only documentation that is sent home is the graduation certificate (if the student actually passed).

[ZigZag911]

Quality control would be much simplified if everyone followed the rule that trainer and evaluator be separate persons.

Perhaps eServices ought to be modified:

1) to require trainer ID as well evaluator ID
2) to reject attempts at entry where the two are identical

[Short Field]

^^^ Great idea if they would implement it.  There shouldn't be a rush to get signed off on ops quals.  Once signed off, I should be able to assume a fully qualified person can walk into mission base and go directly to work without direction and supervision.   That is rarely the case.

I would also like to see the Ops Quals software not allow mission participation credit until AFTER all the prerequisites are finished.  Specific task completion is a bit different as many carry over from previous qualifications.

[John Bryan]

This is how it is done at NESA/GSAR

All tasks are evaluated IAW the task guide.  The trainer is different from the evaluator IAW 60-3.  Tasks are divided up into modules - for example, in Basic GSAR, ELT/DF is on a day, Nav is on a day, search line tasks on another day, etc.  Knowledged based tasks are spread throughout the week.  The classroom work is done (generally in the morning), then some practice.   The evaulations are done after that.  The evaluations are generally done by the student's team leader (students are divided up into teams for the week).  At times, the evaulator may be an FTA (TAC Officer).  In Basic and Advanced, all GSAR staff are qualified to at least GTM-1 with SET.  In the Team Leader school, all GSAR staff are qualified GTLs with SET. 

It is not allowed to use the task guide to accomplish the knowledge based tasks. 

All tasks are input as they are evaluated into a PDA (actually a Windows mobile computer) in the field.  Each night, all the PDAs are collected and uploaded into a database so that the GSAR staff can see how the student's are progressing (which students are behind, did we have problem tasks, etc.).  At the end of the week, all the tasks are automatically uploaded into OpsQuals.  For those individuals who completed all the tasks (and graduated), the achievement level is also input.  The mission number for all the tasks is always that year's NESA mission number.  There are always some student's who may have completed all the tasks, but are still not quite ready to be qualified.  In such circumstances, mission credit is withheld.

The only documentation that is sent home is the graduation certificate (if the student actually passed).

When you said "If the student actually passes"....made me wonder what is the pass /fail rate for NESA? How many members (seniors and cadets) don't pass each year?

[husker]

When you said "If the student actually passes"....made me wonder what is the pass /fail rate for NESA? How many members (seniors and cadets) don't pass each year?

I can only speak for GSAR (MAS and ICSS probably have their own non-pass rates).   We can divide "not passing" into two different types - those who don't pass all the required tasks, and those who pass all the tasks, but clearly are not ready to be "qualified."   I would say in Basic and Advanced, around 5% don't pass the tasks, and maybe a few more pass the tasks, but we withhold mission credit.  In those cases, the unit commander is notified that they need a bit more experience.  It is very rare that a senior member does not pass Basic or Advanced.  The Team Leader school is quite different, as 90% of the students are senior members.  Again, maybe 1 out of 20 don't pass all the tasks, but it is more often that they would need a bit more experience to be rated as a TL. 

The numbers are relatively low, I think.  NESA GSAR does not purport to be some "elite" school.  I make the point to every graduate that passing NESA does not make one an "expert" at anything.  It is only the beginning of what we hope is constant training.