After Action Reports Crossfeed Funded Mission Training?

[RADIOMAN015]

Gee, just a quick look in WMIRS one can see large differences in approved CAP training proposals that are being funded by US taxpayers.   One would think that the State Directors and even HQ CAP-USAF would ensure that an 'after actions' reports were filed and uploaded to WMIRS that addressed how well the training objective was attained as well as lessons learned, improvements needed, etc. and this would be cross feed CAP wide to the different functional mission areas as applicable.  Perhaps each state director does get a "secret squirrel" report, but it just isn't cross feed

I can remember in my USAF days that EVERY exercise (including just base level initiated) we ever had resulted in a report being written and cross feed to all participants, showing the results of the exercise and if there were any discrepancies/issues those had to be formally answered.

Perhaps those monitoring this board from HQ CAP-USAF will look at this, especially as it applies to cross feeding of results/lessons learned/problems encountered.  It would seem a logical way as an operational budget effectiveness multiplier to do this :angel:
RM         

[RiverAux]

You're writing as if AARs were a requirement, which they are not. 

Should they be a requirement?  Yes.

How much would they really help?  Hard to say.  I would like to think that they would be honest in identifying issues that would then be addressed.  However, I have seen CAP-USAF mission evaluation reports that have identified the same general area of weakness in at least two previous evals that have not received any attention.  I've never heard of my wing staff (or those focused on areas covered by such evals) sitting down afterwards and figuring out what needs to be done so that the same problems don't show up again next time.

And, having at one time written after action reports that got me pounded for pointing out problems, I'm a little skeptical of having them be accepted by the leadership. 

[Spaceman3750]

I would rather not spend 8 hours writing a good AAR in exchange for $500 AF dollars (or less). A one or two paragraph activity summary is one thing, but remember that in CAP anything worth doing is worth requiring someone else to overdo.

[RADIOMAN015]

I would rather not spend 8 hours writing a good AAR in exchange for $500 AF dollars (or less). A one or two paragraph activity summary is one thing, but remember that in CAP anything worth doing is worth requiring someone else to overdo.

Well perhaps each wing could establish some Exercise Evaluation Teams (EET's), that could evaluate the training exercise(s) and write the reports.    At the AF base (wing) level, there is an EET that develops the exercise & evaluates it.     
RM

[davidsinn]

I would rather not spend 8 hours writing a good AAR in exchange for $500 AF dollars (or less). A one or two paragraph activity summary is one thing, but remember that in CAP anything worth doing is worth requiring someone else to overdo.

Well perhaps each wing could establish some Exercise Evaluation Teams (EET's), that could evaluate the training exercise(s) and write the reports.    At the AF base (wing) level, there is an EET that develops the exercise & evaluates it.     
RM

And who is going to pay for them to get to the exercise?

[Spaceman3750]

I would rather not spend 8 hours writing a good AAR in exchange for $500 AF dollars (or less). A one or two paragraph activity summary is one thing, but remember that in CAP anything worth doing is worth requiring someone else to overdo.

Well perhaps each wing could establish some Exercise Evaluation Teams (EET's), that could evaluate the training exercise(s) and write the reports.    At the AF base (wing) level, there is an EET that develops the exercise & evaluates it.     
RM

And who is going to pay for them to get to the exercise?

More importantly, does someone have to complete a separate AAR to justify that funding?

[RADIOMAN015]

I would rather not spend 8 hours writing a good AAR in exchange for $500 AF dollars (or less). A one or two paragraph activity summary is one thing, but remember that in CAP anything worth doing is worth requiring someone else to overdo.

Well perhaps each wing could establish some Exercise Evaluation Teams (EET's), that could evaluate the training exercise(s) and write the reports.    At the AF base (wing) level, there is an EET that develops the exercise & evaluates it.     
RM

And who is going to pay for them to get to the exercise?

More importantly, does someone have to complete a separate AAR to justify that funding?

Well, look at it this way, when you spend money for Avgas for the aircraft or regular gas for the vehicles during a mission you have to submit a receipt for reimbursement.   An after actions reporting detailing what was learned, what needed improvement, what innovations were used, etc is the overall receipt for the funding received.   Likely some sort of standard format would have to be developed (nothing too fancy) and I would think upload to WMIRS provides the best "auditable" method.  Also an EET doesn't necessarily have to be a large number of personnel. 
RM       

[lordmonar]

Seeing as how the USAF does not really ask for a detailed request in the first place.....I don't see how an AAR would do anyone any good.

I do agree that CAP ES needs to have more USAFish requirments....

Starting with detailed OPLANS, weekly SORTS reports, detailed training plans, and detailed exercise plans with a formal AAR.

But beyond that.....CAP-USAF or your congressman is the appropriate place to lodge your complaint.

[JeffDG]

Why does everything have to be "standardized"?

I know that I'm answerable for every exercise.  I provide a report to my wing commander and the rest of wing staff detailing what the exercise accomplished and what we managed to do.  The precise contents of that report are not standardized, they are up to the commander in question.

If you establish a "standard" report, you breed mediocrity.  Check the box and move on.  While having something more flexible means that the individual units will determine what's important to them and focus their reporting on what they want to measure.

[RiverAux]

Well, part of the point is that there isn't any requirement to do reviews at all.   Get that done and then we can worry about standardization.  In this context that probably just means the general topics that would need to be addressed in the AAR. 

[Eclipse]

Why does everything have to be "standardized"?

Standardization sets the expectation.  As we have it today, we have some people who write a master's thesis, some who write a paragraph, and some who provide nothing, and all are read by the same people - no one.

With standardized reporting, yes, some would just check the boxes, but at least they would be checked.

It's moot, anyway, because until there is an expectation that AAR's will inform future expectations and that there will be ramifications for poor performance indicated in the report, it's a waste of everyone's time.

[ammotrucker]

I agree with what Eclipse is saying.  After the last two AAR/IP I wrote it is amazing that either 1. no one reads what is sent or 2. The people who read them think that any critizism or negitive comments or reflective of the person writing them.

I was told the the Wing CC tikkd ny Group CC to inform me that "if Capt Little  has such a negitive attitude about CAP, the Capt needs to find other organization to volunteer in."

[RiverAux]

After the last two AAR/IP I wrote it is amazing that either [deleted by RA] 2. The people who read them think that any critizism or negitive comments or reflective of the person writing them.

I was told the the Wing CC tikkd ny Group CC to inform me that "if Capt Little  has such a negitive attitude about CAP, the Capt needs to find other organization to volunteer in."

Almost the same reaction I got when I wrote two AARs of wing sarexs when I first started out as a squadron commander.

I think that so long as AARs are not required anyone who bothers to write one will be seen as a troublemaker.   

The problem with writing a single AAR for an entire SAREX or mission is that it takes a lot of effort to really get the views of as many participants as possible to get a real view of what happened.  If the IC writes the AAR it is likely that only major problems will be noted (if at all) and that what was seen as a problem down at the team level might not even have been noticed at the IC level. 

[ammotrucker]

If both of my cases I conducted a AAR meeting with anyone that participated could come to and espress their feeling.  All comments where included in the AAR/IP.

But, with the one we had some sixty members comme to the meeting and WING still did not accept the findings.
The second the only way that they ackowledged the fact that we might have a problem was that the current WG-DC also did a similar AAR specifically for the WG-CC at the CC's request with a similar outcome.

[RADIOMAN015]

After the last two AAR/IP I wrote it is amazing that either [deleted by RA] 2. The people who read them think that any critizism or negitive comments or reflective of the person writing them.

I was told the the Wing CC tikkd ny Group CC to inform me that "if Capt Little  has such a negitive attitude about CAP, the Capt needs to find other organization to volunteer in."

Almost the same reaction I got when I wrote two AARs of wing sarexs when I first started out as a squadron commander.

I think that so long as AARs are not required anyone who bothers to write one will be seen as a troublemaker.   

That's a pretty bizarre response to a well intended effort to document issues and ensure that future training emphasized the weak points discovered
Now I will admit that even in my AF days, some of these exercise reports/out briefs did cause a bit of professional disagreement at times. :angel: 

I would guess that when HQ CAP-USAF performs its' SAR/DR evaluations on wings, than they could see IF prior funded training was effective or not.   HOWEVER, my understanding is we may see a change in the inspection cycle (longer periods between) due to budget constraints on travel.   I know on the active force side that is already occurring.   So in this time of limited funding/getting the most out of training and cross feeding the results will be very important.  It would also be possible for CAP-USAF to monitor funded training effectiveness via these reports.   In regards to the Exercise Evaluation Teams (EET), maybe the various Regional HQS staffs could also be trained/utilized.   

I personally don't think that these summary "after actions" exercise reports are that difficult to do.
RM