Hey, I'm a cadet and I'm looking to become a skills evaluator for ICUT. I have completed SET, I obviously have ICUT, I have MRO and I'm working on CUL, what do I need to do for this?
You need the approval of your wing commander, or other designated person it your chain of command.
And you have to be 18 or over. This was the last I heard of it, at least when I was in Arkansas...but you know how they do things there...
CAPR 100-1, para 5-2.c. Communications staff member recorded in eServices at any level may serve as mentors/evaluators. All mentors/evaluators must have completed ICUT and Skills Evaluator Training (SET) before they may supervise performance of skills and procedures of ICUT students, except as provided in paragraph e, below.
5-2.e deals with the first 6 months, which has passed.
We have a 17 year old C/LtCol who is a CUL Evaluator, a holder of the Senior Communications Badge, and she has been an ICUT evaluator since the cadet duty positions module went live. Obviously cadets can be ICUT evaluators before they turn 18.
Unless your wing has a supplement prohibiting it, cadets under 18 are allowed to be ICUT skills evaluators. They can also become qualified CULs.
In addition to completing SET and ICUT, you will need to be appointed as a cadet communications officer/NCO in eServices. ICUT skills evaluators appointments currently don't require wing approval, as other qualifications do.
Administratively the key is the "staff member at any level" language. A cadet assigned as a Communications Officer, even a cadet one, fulfills this language and triggers it in eServices from our experience.
One thing I don't like about the new system is that a brand new Asst Comm Officer who just completed ICUT, and has basic knowledge and little experience in comm, is automatically granted ICUT skills evaluator status, with no review or approval process. In the mean time, a CUL, MRO, former Comm Officer, with ICUT, BCUT and ACUT and years of experience, who is not currently assigned to a comm staff position is not granted ICUT skills evaluator status. It doesn't make much sense.
So given them a comm assignment.
One major issue ICUT was developed to solve was the restricted opportunities some wings had for B-CUT and A-CUT. My wing used to have requirement for B-CUT instructors to have a senior rating in Comm. We had like 7 or 8 'qualified' and active instructors in the wing. That was one of the first things I changed when I took over as DCT (wing comm training officer). Some wing DCs were highly upset with the opening of the ICUT availability and still wanted to control who could evaluate ICUT.
Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
So given them a comm assignment.
Or CAP could treat it like other skills evaluator appointments in Ops Quals, which would be a more consistent and smarter approach.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 25, 2014, 01:04:04 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
So given them a comm assignment.
Or CAP could treat it like other skills evaluator appointments in Ops Quals, which would be a more consistent and smarter approach.
Yeah, just route them via the Group and Wing DCs instead of DOS.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 25, 2014, 01:04:04 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
So given them a comm assignment.
Or CAP could treat it like other skills evaluator appointments in Ops Quals, which would be a more consistent and smarter approach.
Then you're back to the same issue as before - limited evaluators. Again, several wing DCs argued for the OPS SET approach, but were rejected by National since that runs counter to the concept of readily available Comm training that ICUT was designed around.
There was comm GOB network that restricted comm training in some wings.
Quote from: arajca on August 25, 2014, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 25, 2014, 01:04:04 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
So given them a comm assignment.
Or CAP could treat it like other skills evaluator appointments in Ops Quals, which would be a more consistent and smarter approach.
Then you're back to the same issue as before - limited evaluators. Again, several wing DCs argued for the OPS SET approach, but were rejected by National since that runs counter to the concept of readily available Comm training that ICUT was designed around.
There was comm GOB network that restricted comm training in some wings.
Part of the reason for that in some cases was low-quality training from members who were not skilled in it. Not every subject matter expert is a good teacher.. And not every teacher is a subject matter expert.
Joe
So NHQ decided to do without a human instructing. The ICUT SET is not an instructor, he is an evaluator. The instruction is delivered via video.
Just like the American Red Cross and American Heart Association First Aid and CPR classes. The instructors evaluate, they do not teach. The instruction is really delivered via their videos.
Having said that, I will now duck under the table!
Quote from: arajca on August 25, 2014, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 25, 2014, 01:04:04 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
So given them a comm assignment.
Or CAP could treat it like other skills evaluator appointments in Ops Quals, which would be a more consistent and smarter approach.
Then you're back to the same issue as before - limited evaluators.
How so? The proposed system would have the opposite effect. Anyone having ICUT for at least a year could potentially be appointed as skills evaluator at the discretion of the commander. That would increase the pool of available or potential ICUT evaluators.
Under the current system, comm officers with ICUT, and only them, are automatically made evaluators by eServices, whether they have the necessary skills and experience or not. If a unit has only one comm officer, then it only has one ICUT evaluator. If it needs more evaluators, then the commander is forced to appoint additional comm officers, wether the unit needs them or not. How is this a better system?
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 25, 2014, 04:07:00 PM
So NHQ decided to do without a human instructing. The ICUT SET is not an instructor, he is an evaluator. The instruction is delivered via video.
Just like the American Red Cross and American Heart Association First Aid and CPR classes. The instructors evaluate, they do not teach. The instruction is really delivered via their videos.
Having said that, I will now duck under the table!
First, ICUT can be taught in a classroom environment. That re-introduces the potential problem again.
Second, if the evaluator is not skilled, mistakes made during the evaluation (especially prowords and procedures in the message transmission) may be missed.
I don't get why Communications has to be "different".
The ES SET system has worked for a while. The IT side of it is mature and functional. They even grafted on Driver's Licenses into the same architecture, just with different approvers (Transportation and Logistics Officers instead of ES and Operations Officers).
They could do precisely the same with Communications...but instead they went and build a whole new system and regulations. And at the same time took away what quality control existed before at Group/Wing level...now anyone with an SET can be appointed by their unit Commander and voila, ICUT SET with no other communications people vetting it at all.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on August 25, 2014, 06:17:05 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 25, 2014, 04:07:00 PM
So NHQ decided to do without a human instructing. The ICUT SET is not an instructor, he is an evaluator. The instruction is delivered via video.
Just like the American Red Cross and American Heart Association First Aid and CPR classes. The instructors evaluate, they do not teach. The instruction is really delivered via their videos.
Having said that, I will now duck under the table!
First, ICUT can be taught in a classroom environment. That re-introduces the potential problem again.
Second, if the evaluator is not skilled, mistakes made during the evaluation (especially prowords and procedures in the message transmission) may be missed.
Agree and that can happen right now under the current system. A brand new comm officer who may not have the necessary skills or experience to be an effective ICUT skills evaluator is made one automatically by virtue of the position. In the other hand, an experienced, skilled and qualified communicator cannot be appointed as ICUT skills evaluator without being assigned as a communications officer first.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on August 25, 2014, 06:17:05 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 25, 2014, 04:07:00 PM
So NHQ decided to do without a human instructing. The ICUT SET is not an instructor, he is an evaluator. The instruction is delivered via video.
Just like the American Red Cross and American Heart Association First Aid and CPR classes. The instructors evaluate, they do not teach. The instruction is really delivered via their videos.
Having said that, I will now duck under the table!
First, ICUT can be taught in a classroom environment. That re-introduces the potential problem again.
Second, if the evaluator is not skilled, mistakes made during the evaluation (especially prowords and procedures in the message transmission) may be missed.
First - ICUT in the classroom is facilitated by the unit. The materials are the videos and quizzes from LMS. The facilitators do not instruct, they merely que up the videos and administer the quizzes. Anyone doing doing something different is not doing ICUT, but some unofficial hybrid program. The hands-on part is the same. STANDARDIZATION was one driving force behind ICUT. I had the 'pleasure' of converting a BCUT presentation from another wing to match our program. Much of what I had to delete was not wing specific stuff, but materials not part of BCUT as outlined in the regs, such as in depth materials on radio systems far beyond what a radio operator needs, or information that was contrary to the regs. Multiple that time 52 wings and there was no standardized program. And many wings required a test to be passed, even though the regs specifically prohibited tests for BCUT.
Second, true, but the evaluation is simple enough that there should not be an issue.
By implementing the SET process for ICUT, you'll be back to the smae issue of only those "qualified as determined by the XXWG DC" will be able to evaluate ICUT and we'll be back to units trying to find ICUT evaluators, just like they were trying to find "approved" BCUT instructors.
Anyone can be ICUT SET by virtue of being named a communications officer? Then I would think that the commander doing that is irresponsible if not choosing and approving carefully!
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 25, 2014, 08:18:29 PM
Anyone can be ICUT SET by virtue of being named a communications officer? Then I would think that the commander doing that is irresponsible if not choosing and approving carefully!
To be an ICUT SET you must:
1) Have taken the SET test
2) Have ICUT yourself for 1 year
3) Be appointed as a Communications Officer
That's it. There is no discretionary appointment to be an SET for ICUT whatsoever. If you Communications Officer is there because he's good with the logistics side of things, but isn't really a communicator per se, he's an ICUT SET. The unit deputy commander who's a CUL, has his amateur radio license, and has been doing radios for 30 years is not.
Then make the old guy an Ass't Comm Officer, and be done with it.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 25, 2014, 08:32:10 PM
Then make the old guy an Ass't Comm Officer, and be done with it.
Unless, of course, he's an IG.
Then why the heck did that squadron commander named that logistics person Comm Officer instead of the CUL? Twisted reasoning? Make one an Asst Comm Officer.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 25, 2014, 08:54:40 PM
Then why the heck did that squadron commander named that logistics person Comm Officer instead of the CUL? Twisted reasoning? Make one an Asst Comm Officer.
Because sadly the job is mostly logisitics.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on August 25, 2014, 09:45:20 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 25, 2014, 08:54:40 PM
Then why the heck did that squadron commander named that logistics person Comm Officer instead of the CUL? Twisted reasoning? Make one an Asst Comm Officer.
Because sadly the job is mostly logistics.
+1 Being a CUL is an operational job, being a DC is managing assets and training.
So you do not consider training to be related to Logistics?
Quote from: JoeTomasone on August 25, 2014, 09:45:20 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 25, 2014, 08:54:40 PM
Then why the heck did that squadron commander named that logistics person Comm Officer instead of the CUL? Twisted reasoning? Make one an Asst Comm Officer.
Because sadly the job is mostly logisitics logistics.
True dat. Sadly, there is frequently a disconnect between what CAPP 214 says are the duties of a CUL, and what they are actually doing in the field. I've seen many instances of the CUL being the comm supervisor, actually the senior MRO, instead of sitting back after setting up the comm station, and letting the operators run the show like they are supposed to. As the more senior CULs depart, I think this will work itself out. We've managed the transition in duties pretty well in my unit.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 25, 2014, 09:51:34 PM
So you do not consider training to be related to Logistics?
Not unless it's training >in< Logistics, which in CAP = "nothing but ORMS".
CAP has a Grand-Canyon-sized whole in ES Operations regarding Logistics,
essentially we don't do much of anything other then check boxes, makes coffee and
get people lunch.
As someone who has been sent places for CAP with no Logistical support whatsoever,
I have seen first hand how detrimental to OPS it is when you have to worry about
saving lives >and< whether you still have a base camp, or someplace to poop.
You mean CAP has the whole Grand Canyon at a mission base? No wonder the aircraft are always so far from the de-briefing table. ;)