Idea: Specialty Track in Quality Assurance

[Eagle400]

I've been thinking... what if CAP had personnel that specialized in Quality Assurance?  Personnel who are STAN/EVAL inspectors that inspect not only aircraft and pilots in Operations, but Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services as well. 

Currently, CAP only has STAN/EVAL personnel for Operations.  If Quality Assurance was a specialty track, there would be a need for STAN/EVAL personnel for all missions within CAP.  For CP, AE and ES, this would ensure compliance with regulations all the time, not only during inspections or visits from high-ranking officers.  

These STAN/EVAL personnel would be answerable only to the National IG, so as to prevent any conflict of interest. 

[arajca]

Logic failure - your S/E folks will not be standing over everyone's shoulder every minute so compliance would only be assured only at those time when S/E folks are actually there. Sound like a familiar problem?

General Failure - since you obviously do not think anyone can follow the regs without constant supervision, who is going to do the job? I do not know of any member - senior or cadet - who is going to take on a job with someone standing over them at all times to make sure everything is done right.

General Failure - Since no one is going to do the jobs, there will be no one for S/E to watch.

General Failure - With no one doing the jobs, CAP dies.

General Failure - Who has the time to learn EVERY CAP reg, pam, form, instruction, etc and still have a life?

General Failure - CAP does not have enough money to cover this idea.

[pixelwonk]

I've been thinking... what if CAP had personnel that specialized in Quality Assurance?  Personnel who are STAN/EVAL inspectors that inspect not only aircraft and pilots in Operations, but Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services as well. 

Currently, CAP only has STAN/EVAL personnel for Operations.  If Quality Assurance was a specialty track, there would be a need for STAN/EVAL personnel for all missions within CAP.  For CP, AE and ES, this would ensure compliance with regulations all the time, not only during inspections or visits from high-ranking officers.   

These STAN/EVAL personnel would be answerable only to the National IG, so as to prevent any conflict of interest. 

Your Stan-Eval-over-all is called the IG, who is in charge of all the Subordinate Unit Inspections around the wing.  He, his designate, and their SUI teams are the ones making sure CAP units follow regulations.

solution looking for a problem = null

[jimmydeanno]

The only issue that I have with the current SUI is well...the SUI.

The "check boxes" in the SUI have no real practical value of determining the overall health of a squadron.  Most of the things they ask, can easily be determined by looking at CAPWATCH...how many mitchell awards, how many members do you have, how many pilots, etc...

There is no real feedback, and it's played as a "gotcha" game.  Instead of providing meaningful feedback and help, the SUI just makes sure you are filling out the forms right.

A squadron could outright suck to be a member of, but since the IGs team doesn't talk to any of the actual members, they'd never know.  As long as the PAO report is turned in, the squadron is OK!

I also don't like the fact they "gig" you on optional programs..."I'm sorry, your squadron only got a satisfactory because you didn't participate in the OPTIONAL AEX program..."

Then it says things like...do you have a local way of monitoring Cadet Orientation flights...YES! IT'S CALLED CAPWATCH! Why re-invent the wheel.

So, IMO instead of creating a whole new specialty track to have these people, just change the SUI so it means something...

[pixelwonk]

The only issue that I have with the current SUI is well...the SUI.
...

So, IMO instead of creating a whole new specialty track to have these people, just change the SUI so it means something...

Sorry to hear yours seem ineffective. You're right, perhaps a change in how your teams conduct them is in order.

[jimmydeanno]

The only issue that I have with the current SUI is well...the SUI.
...

So, IMO instead of creating a whole new specialty track to have these people, just change the SUI so it means something...

Sorry to hear yours seem ineffective. You're right, perhaps a change in how your teams conduct them is in order.

Using the current SUI guide, there is no way to evaluate whether a squadron is healthy. It is a waste of time to ask me how many Mitchell Awards I had this year when you can look before you come.

I am not an IG, and I don't have "my teams," so I am not in a situation to change how they are run.  The current SUI is really designed for inspecting higher echelons, Wings, Regions, Etc. to see if all the appropriated fund stuff is being maintained...

Things I think should be on it (a few ideas):

1. Active Participation vs. on the books.
2. Types of activities squadron does.
3. Innovative programs the squadron has.
4. Whether or not those assigned to positions are rated and are actively involved instead of just being "penciled in."
5. Training the squadron offers and if people are being trained properly.
6. Squadron Goals.
7. Records being maintained.
8. Community Involvement.
9. Public Image-initiatives, etc.

[pixelwonk]

The only issue that I have with the current SUI is well...the SUI.
...

So, IMO instead of creating a whole new specialty track to have these people, just change the SUI so it means something...

Sorry to hear yours seem ineffective. You're right, perhaps a change in how your teams conduct them is in order.

Using the current SUI guide, there is no way to evaluate whether a squadron is healthy. It is a waste of time to ask me how many Mitchell Awards I had this year when you can look before you come.

I am not an IG, and I don't have "my teams," so I am not in a situation to change how they are run.  The current SUI is really designed for inspecting higher echelons, Wings, Regions, Etc. to see if all the appropriated fund stuff is being maintained...

Things I think should be on it (a few ideas):

1. Active Participation vs. on the books.
2. Types of activities squadron does.
3. Innovative programs the squadron has.
4. Whether or not those assigned to positions are rated and are actively involved instead of just being "penciled in."
5. Training the squadron offers and if people are being trained properly.
6. Squadron Goals.
7. Records being maintained.
8. Community Involvement.
9. Public Image-initiatives, etc.

Every one of those items you mentioned has been monitored /measured on the SUI's I've been on, both Inspector and Inspectee.

[jimmydeanno]

I am not trying to argue with you, but I am glad that your inspectors realize the difference between filling out the check boxes and actually seeing what a unit does.

using this guide...

http://www.ohwg.cap.gov/SUI_Guide_01_Oct_05.pdf

look at the first section...AE.

None of those questions are anything that someone at the squadron level should even have to answer.  It is all information the inspector can get without visiting the squadron.

Is an Aerospace Education Officer (AEO) appointed by
the commander? (CHECK CAPWATCH)

2.How is the Aerospace Education Program for Senior
Members (AEPSM) monitored? (CAPWATCH?)
a. Has the AEO passed the AEPSM exam?(CAPWATCH)
b. Are CAPFs 126 promptly forwarded to the wing
upon completion of AEPSM exams, if not completed on-line? (ASK THE WING AEO)
c. How many AEPSMs were completed YTD? (CAPWATCH)
d. How many seniors have not completed AEPSM?(CAPWATCH)

3.Is the AEO progressing in the Aerospace Education
Officer specialty track (CAPP 215) or has he/she completed the program?(CAPWATCH)

4.
Is the unit Aerospace Education Activity Report sent to
the wing DAE by 15 Jan? (Review the Activity Report
and the required documentation) (ASK THE WING)
a. Is the report thorough?; well documented? (USUALLY A STANDARDIZED REPORT, SO UNLESS YOU DON'T FILL IT OUT BEFORE YOU SEND IT.)
b. Is a signed copy sent to the unit commander?; to the
group AEO? (ASK THEM)

5. Is the unit participating in the voluntary Aerospace
Education Excellence (AEX) Award Program? (CHECK WITH NATIONAL)
Describe the unit's AEX activities. (I'D HOPE THAT THEY USED THE AEX GUIDE FOR AEX ACTIVITIES)

6.When was the last cadet current affairs activity at the
unit? - Legititmate question for the squadron AEO.
a. Who conducted the activity? Legitimate Question.
b. What was discussed? Legitimate Question.
//*The only thing here is it only looks at the last one, so if it was 2 days ago you're covered.  If you hadn't had one in 3 years prior, no one will ever know.*//

7.
Is there an AE bulletin board at the unit? (LOOK FOR IT)
• How current is the information on the bulletin
board? (What if it's about AE History...)

8.
Did the unit consider submitting nominations for (AEO
should provide copies of completed nomination forms):
a. Brewer Awards (Cadet, Senior Member, Individual,
Organization categories)?
b. A. Scott Crossfield Aerospace Education Teacher
of the Year Award?
c. Crown Circle Award?
//*Yep, we considered it, for about 3 seconds, decided the paperwork was too much and didn't.  Since we considered it though, we're ok.*//

See what I mean?

[acarlson]

... instead of creating a whole new specialty track to have these people, just change the SUI so it means something...

Hey  we can always get ISO on board!