The National Board has voted to include an additional requirement that those acting as supervisors to trainees in an ES specialty must have had that specialty themselves for at least one year. While the intention behind this is good, we have way to many under qualified SETs running around, it doesn't adequately address the real problem of inexperience. Someone could hold the specialty for a year but never go out on any additional missions, while an active member may go out on many missions before a year has gone by. I think the latter would be far more qualified to supervise, having had the experience of going out on perhaps 8 sorties (training or real).
As it is currently written the change would be, in my opinion, overly restrictive. Since the NB has already voted on it, the only way to change it during the comment period (which expires 5/23/2009) would be for a majority of Wing and Region Commanders to comment. If you agree that the proposed change needs to be modified before implementation, please put together an email and send it up your chain of command as soon as you can.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/publications_for_comment.cfm (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/publications_for_comment.cfm)
"Evaluators who are current and qualified supervisors must complete the current emergency
services Skills Evaluator Training (SET) as outlined on the NHQ CAP/DOS website. SET will
be reflected on the CAPF 101 with "NO EXPIRE". The member must also have held the
specialty achievement qualification in which they are to evaluate for at least one year.
Exceptions to the one year requirement can be approved by the wing commander or their
designees in cases where the member's professional background meets the experience criteria.
Evaluators must also be approved by their unit commander, group commander (if applicable)
and wing commander or their designees to serve in each specialty they are authorized to
evaluate. Commanders or their designees are able to limit what specialty qualifications a
member is allowed to evaluate in Ops Qualifications. The default authority for an evaluator
being submitted for approval would allow them to evaluate in any area that they themselves have
been current and qualified in for at least a year."
Looks fine to me - about time, too.
There's already the allowance for Wing CC-approved exceptions.
It's about time they did something like this. It annoys me when I see someone getting signed of by someone else who just got GTM3 a few weeks ago and think they know everything.
I agree, something needs to be done, but the exceptions are only for those with professional experience. It doesn't specify whether CAP sorties qualify as such. With it written this way you're still going to end up with ill-qualified SETs who just waited out the year but didn't do anything with their ES specialty. If you link it to experience, rather than just time, we can feel more comfortable that they know what they're talking about.
As written, it provides for a few checks on inexperience:
1. Must hold the qual in question for a year before evaluations.
2. Must have each echelon approve up to Wing.
3. Commanders can limit what quals can be signed off.
Seems to me that if Capt. Snuffy hasn't done a UDF mission but has held the qual for a year that the Commander at each echelon has the option of restricting his SET thusly.
If Capt. Snuffy signs someone off for GTM3 and that member later shows gross incompetence, Capt. Snuffy's SET for GTM3 can be rescinded.
I think this is a winner -- AS LONG AS OPS QUALS CHECKS FOR SET CURRENCY WHEN AN SQTR ENTRY IS MADE.
We have very active members who have gained a significant amount of experience in their specialty even before a year has gone by, shouldn't they be allowed to train? There are situations where units/groups have had their ES capability decimated by years of neglect, and people are now trying to rebuild from the ashes, we need all the qualified people we can get to train others.
Just because you've got a few sorties under your belt doesn't mean you have a holistic enough understanding of CAP to be training others. Further, we don't let our members be "members" long enough, insisting that people step up and start taking leadership and staff positions almost the day they walk in.
I don't know how many SET's you have in your state(s), but in mine that responsibility is held pretty close to the vest by wing - few are sneaking through that are underqual'ed, while the units that need to grow some organically can do it with a little effort.
Again, the Wing CC can make exceptions, and we should leave the exception criteria vague on purpose to allow flexibility.
I, personally, don't want new guys being SET's. That's as much of a problem as anything being caused by making people wait.
Quote from: flyingscotsman on May 14, 2009, 02:57:00 PM
We have very active members who have gained a significant amount of experience in their specialty even before a year has gone by, shouldn't they be allowed to train? There are situations where units/groups have had their ES capability decimated by years of neglect, and people are now trying to rebuild from the ashes, we need all the qualified people we can get to train others.
SET is needed to sign off tasks not teach, and if you do the teaching you are not supposed to be the one qualifying people.