AF Funded Training After Action Lesson Learned Reports?

[RADIOMAN015]

Perhaps at my level (squadron) I'm not aware of this being done.

I know to get approved for AF funded training a training operations plan for that specific mission has to be attached to the WMIRS request.  HOWEVER, I've never seen an after actions report that would indicate problems identfied/mitigated, lessons learned, innovative methods, etc that would also be submitted (uploaded) after the training is completed.

I'm surprised that since taxpayer funds are being used that CAP-USAF oversight management via it's various regions & wing representatives would ensure this was a requirement of receiving funds . 

I know that in my AF career every time we had an exercise there was a evaluation report generated.   I had the opportunity to be on a Base Exercise Evaluation Team, and we had both an outbriefing as well as a formal report which was reviewed & signed by the Wing Inspector that went to all (units) participating.

RM     

[Short Field]

Good God man, what are you thinking!!!  You expect people to actually show results from training?   

We are in a 10 day  "Fly all the Money Off" SAREX now.  No scenario, crews just fill out a 104, say they are going to do Fm 91 stuff, and go fly.  Objective is to burn up the money.   It was touted as a "Back to Basics" with everyone using checklists.  Too bad no one is evaluating how well the checklists are used.  However, it works really well for the flying club folks.

[SJFedor]

Good God man, what are you thinking!!!  You expect people to actually show results from training?   

We are in a 10 day  "Fly all the Money Off" SAREX now.  No scenario, crews just fill out a 104, say they are going to do Fm 91 stuff, and go fly.  Objective is to burn up the money.   It was touted as a "Back to Basics" with everyone using checklists.  Too bad no one is evaluating how well the checklists are used.  However, it works really well for the flying club folks.

There's results from that....their PIC and total time is rising!

[RiverAux]

This is one (of many) pet peeves of mine.  CAP just hasn't developed the culture that the military has developed over the years that allows for legitimate criticisms to be made of operations.  This ability to figure out what has gone wrong so it doesn't happen again is one of the main reasons our military is as good as it is.  In CAP, I've learned, if you try to write an AAR, even a fairly "sanitized" one, the people in charge will take it as a personal insult if you imply that something didn't go right. In my Wing at least, there is absolutely no interest in a more formal AAR process, though lately there are some informal discussions that happen every now and again. 

[FW]

It would be nice if after action reports be included on the CAPF 10.  It is the state directors job to insure the money is spent properly. One wing may end up with some major problems because of alledged missapropriation of "mission flying" funds.   

[flynd94]

I don't know about you (or other wings) but, every SAREX I put on in CAWG, I did an AAR.  It was always sent up the chain and, I got good feedback.  Why not do it on your own, instead of it being mandated.  Maybe we could start a grass roots effort. 

[RiverAux]

Why not do it on your own, instead of it being mandated.  Maybe we could start a grass roots effort. 

Tried for a few years, but no one showed any interest in following up on them (when they didn't get mad at me for pointing out problems).

[Gunner C]

It requires command emphasis.  Here's a thought:

The wing commander requires a written AAR after a funded exercise.  If the unit doesn't produce, they don't get funding the next quarter or two.  I think compliance would become universal!

[Smithsonia]

I've never run a program (and I run several per year) that hasn't had a final report/ or After-action report.
Sometimes a summary of events works best. Sometimes - lessons learned is added. And on occasions. I have even raised a safety alert to the lessons learned. In this I don't mean a thing we did wrong, but after some thought, I discvered some things we didn't do, perhaps some check lists we didn't have, some problems which didn't occur but could have been a big problem.

I've even used these as Captalk topics:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8762.0
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8676.0

I also add commendations to those who performed very well, mostly. 

I file these reports with the authorizing party for the event. I can't say that anyone has gotten back to me, read the reports, or taken any action.

[KyCAP]

I have thought about starting an AAR list server...  The big issues that I see are if I would have to be concerned about "who" could read them from an OPSEC issue.. Ie.. not open to anyone, but what if they dropped out of CAP and were still on the list... bad stuff..

NHQ could easily manage this since they have the membership data and in e-services you could elect to be on the list or not..   could be wing or region or you could select to just pick other wings to subscribe to if you wanted..   It's ONE CAP.. after all right..

[RiverAux]

It would be fairly simple to have this as a file in e-services that you could only get to after signing in.  That would be as protected as anything else we've got. 

[KyCAP]

True - but that would require some kind of content management system being integrated to allow for the end users at least at the wing level to be able to publish the docs..  Something useful for the IT committee to work on ..

[RiverAux]

Not necessarily.  I would suggest that an AAR committee be formed to review the AARs before posting anyway.  After they review them, they could send them to be posted. 

[arajca]

Actually, you could put them on WMIRS without a problem. I think most member have read access to WMIRS, but I could be wrong.

[KyCAP]

I don't think that I have access to other wings missions in WMIRs though.  It would only be useful at the wing level and not useful for national standardization unless we can see them as ONE CAP per se.

[RiverAux]

Well, most AARs are going to be so specific that they won't be of great relevance to many outsiders and I don't see a need for AARs to be available outside the home wing.   They are more of a way of improving the performance of that unit being reviewed. 

Lets say AARs were done on every SAREX.  I just don't think it likely that many members would be interested in reviewing those done by other Wings.  Maybe a few ES geeks (might), but most would not.

However, having those collections of AARs could be the basis for regional or national committees that would look for common problems across Wings and look for more general solutions.  For example, say they noticed that in 25% of AARs there was some criticism about some specific problem in WMIRs or some task that GTs were asked to do for that CAP training didn't prepare them for.  They would be in a place to start suggesting ways to fix those issues. 

Now, I would recommend a section for national-level AARs that would include AARs for all multi-state missions.  These would be your major missions that we generally don't have the opportunity to train for and will experience very different problems from your average SAREX or other typical missions.  Having the AARs open to everybody for those missions would be necessary to make sure that those lessons learned are spread far and wide would be important. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Not necessarily.  I would suggest that an AAR committee be formed to review the AARs before posting anyway.  After they review them, they could send them to be posted.

Actually, all of our training exercise really aren't set up to be evaluated per say.   Shouldn't there be a separate "evaluation" team at all exercises that actually plans & implements the exercise?   Once you send anything to committe in CAP it take forever to get it done!!!  again FOREVER!!!   
What is needed is a report that gets completed within two to three weeks after the exercise completion and it is sent to the participants via their commanders and the appropriate staff offices get copies also.

This really isn't that difficult to do, but again you need any honest, but respectful report completed.

I guess I again should state that I am astonished that the USAF would not require this for any training exercise they are funding
RM

[RiverAux]

There is no need for evaluators at every exercise.  The participants themselves are generally going to be able to make note of any issues. 

There is also no need for a simulation team on most CAP exercises.  There are certain types of exercises where this makes sense (those designed primarily to test the capability of mission staffs) and others where it does not (where the focus is on individual or team/crew training). 

[Short Field]

The key to using AARs is that they go to someone who is willing and able to correct any problems the reports identify.  If no one is empowered (or desires) to make changes, take corrective actions, etc, then it becomes just another paperwork drill.