i heard a rumor at our squadron meeting that skills evaluator qualifications will now have to be renewed every 30 days. is there any truth to this?
thanks,
bill
Negative, I'd think it doesn't make much sense to renew SET every 30 days. Even Safety currency lasts more than 30 days. And F5 is good for a year. Why would SET be so much more stringent? ???
There is nothing to support that rumor in the regulations or in what has been done recently to change the systems.
All SETs need to be approved by wing, be current and qualified, have been qualified in the respective rating for a calendar year, and be be safety current.
Pull any one of those and the SET goes away until it is fixed, but nothing about having to redo them every month.
I'd be in favor of an annual review as a CI item, but beyond that, see no point in anything more frequent.
I think an annual review would be beneficial. I'm even in favor of some type of evaluation beyond SET to guarantee that said skills evaluator is proficient enough on the skills he is to evaluate. I've seen individuals appointed as skills evaluators after reaching the one-year qual period, but that have not kept proficient in that particular specialty. While it's up to the unit commander to ensure that that's not the case, they don't always do. In fact, depending on the specialty, they may not be qualified themselves to pass judgment on someone's proficiency, yet alone ability to train and evaluate on particular skills.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 21, 2013, 03:51:28 PM
I think an annual review would be beneficial. I'm even in favor of some type of evaluation beyond SET to guarantee that said skills evaluator is proficient enough on the skills he is to evaluate. I've seen individuals appointed as skills evaluators after reaching the one-year qual period, but that have not kept proficient in that particular specialty. While it's up to the unit commander to ensure that that's not the case, they don't always do. In fact, depending on the specialty, they may not be qualified themselves to pass judgment on someone's proficiency, yet alone ability to train and evaluate on particular skills.
This is the reason we generally required that SET's be approved at the unit and group level for years. The odds of three CC's all
paying no attention to someone's ability or integrity are fairly low.
Even big wings are "small", we're mostly old grandmas gossiping about each other and yelling at the kids to get off our lawns. It's amazing that
even in that paradigm, ineffective or incapable instructors and SETs can continue to exist because no one will just say "no".
I respectfully disagree. There are no set criteria to evaluate someone's ability or proficiency after they've been qualified. I've seen aircrew members get qualified as UDF or GTM3 and not participate as such in a mission or exercise for over a year, yet they're authorized evaluators because they meet the basic criteria. I've seen the same regarding aircrew and mission base specialties.
As an Air Force aircrew member, I have minimum proficiency and currency requirements I must meet during a quarter, semester, etc., in addition to a check ride every 18 months. Other than the qual renewal, I have no such requirements in CAP. Some commanders may be strict when authorizing skills evaluators, but I'm pretty sure that not everyone is. And you're making an assumption that group or wing knows firsthand the ability of an individual to be an evaluator. Even if they know the person, just because someone is a great MP, doesn't mean that they would be proficient as a GTM. The group and wing staff may not necessarily know that. Without specific guidance (i.e. participating in a set amount of sorties/missions with that specialty within a set period of time) to maintain currency and proficiency, and an evaluation on an individual's ability to train and evaluate in that specialty, there's no way to guarantee that all evaluators will be proficient on particular specialties. I'm not making this up; I've seen it.
i roger all that, and thanks. appears to be a misunderstanding.
bill
Quote from: starshippe on May 21, 2013, 05:31:31 PM
i roger all that, and thanks. appears to be a misunderstanding.
bill
There is a
temporary appointment that lasts 30 days, but not the regular appointment.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 21, 2013, 05:24:18 PM
I respectfully disagree. There are no set criteria to evaluate someone's ability or proficiency after they've been qualified. I've seen aircrew members get qualified as UDF or GTM3 and not participate as such in a mission or exercise for over a year, yet they're authorized evaluators because they meet the basic criteria. I've seen the same regarding aircrew and mission base specialties.
As an Air Force aircrew member, I have minimum proficiency and currency requirements I must meet during a quarter, semester, etc., in addition to a check ride every 18 months. Other than the qual renewal, I have no such requirements in CAP. Some commanders may be strict when authorizing skills evaluators, but I'm pretty sure that not everyone is. And you're making an assumption that group or wing knows firsthand the ability of an individual to be an evaluator. Even if they know the person, just because someone is a great MP, doesn't mean that they would be proficient as a GTM. The group and wing staff may not necessarily know that. Without specific guidance (i.e. participating in a set amount of sorties/missions with that specialty within a set period of time) to maintain currency and proficiency, and an evaluation on an individual's ability to train and evaluate in that specialty, there's no way to guarantee that all evaluators will be proficient on particular specialties. I'm not making this up; I've seen it.
I don't disagree at all, but you have to have some sort of standard, and annual is a good place to start.
The sad reality is that, even at the wing level, the pool of evaluators is generally small enough that, in fact, we know
most of them, but the reality is that we have to depend on the chain and the commanders to act as safety valves.
At the unit level it is all about demonstrably proving you can, at the wing level it is drawing enough attention to yourself to show that you can't, and at the group it's somewhere in between.
The system will now take care of the basics - currency, membership, approvals, etc., but ability is still a subjective call for those who actual observe the behavior.