New SQTR / SET Module

[Eclipse]

Why must everything be standardized?  Seriously, excessive standardization most often leads to mediocrity.

Yes, it does.  Comfortable, functional mediocrity.

CAP is not about finding "creative solutions", it is about accomplishing specific missions in the easiest way for the lowest cost, using volunteer, inconsistently trained volunteers.

We have far too many "Arteests" and far too few technicians. 

Standardization is what gives people the time to actually get something done besides maintaining servers and making things "better".   Everything should be fully standardized at the
national level, and if the organization ever rises to baseline, then we can talk about "creative".

[arajca]

Standardized systems permit easy transportabiity of members. Say you have a custom system A and Eclipse has system B and I use system C, if anyone of us goes to the other's base, we'll be useless until we can figure out how the system works and what each function we need is called. Not to mention if your IT tech has to leave, the IT tech I may have brought will by useless with your system.

For years, a unit had a good mission management system, but it was dependent on one particular member being present to set it up and deal with the issues from 30 different laptops hooking in. When he left for a flying sortie, we had a crash and ended up using paper and no one bothered with using the system any more during that SAREX. Local expertise, local development, non-standard, pain-in-the-backside. The system was slowly replaced by IMU, but that had its own problems, including getting written up when it could get running to sign folks in.

Actually, CAP should not be developing its own incident management software. It should be using what's commercially available and adding CAP specific modules, if needed.

[Storm Chaser]

Why must everything be standardized?  Seriously, excessive standardization most often leads to mediocrity. 

Tell that to the military. Standardization is not what leads to mediocrity. Mediocrity is caused by not embracing our core value of excellence [in all we do]. Quality and proficiency can't be achieved by just following the minimum standards. Standards are meant to provide a common framework. Not to limit creative and analytical thinking and problem solving.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Since apparently you do not like standardization, think for a moment.

Why do you think communications training was made into an online class? Too many instructors teaching ACUT and BCUT in a face-to-face situation with inconsistent training opportunities and possibly inconsistent results so NHQ now has one online class.

Results? Consistency across the spectrum!

Flyer

[JeffDG]

Since apparently you do not like standardization, think for a moment.

Why do you think communications training was made into an online class? Too many instructors teaching ACUT and BCUT in a face-to-face situation with inconsistent training opportunities and possibly inconsistent results so NHQ now has one online class.

Results? Consistency across the spectrum!

Flyer

Where did you get the impression that I do not like standardization.

What I'm saying is that over-standardization leads to mediocrty and stifles innovation.

[ol'fido]

There seems to be a disconnect between the ideas of organization wide standardization and individual initiative that goes beyond that training. Now when I say "individual initiative that goes beyond that training", some will say that you can't do your own thing. That's not what is being said here in my opinion. We need CAP to say that these are the things that we need to train in and these are the standards we need to train to, but if you want to learn other skills or train to a higher level of excellence on our core skills, go for it. As long as there is no  contradiction between the standards and the training provided, there should be no heartburn. Training must be made challenging and engaging if we are to retain the highest quality people. If we say that this is all we teach and you're not allowed to learn more, there are going to be a lot of members hanging up their 24 hr kits and going to find an organization that doesn't stifle individual initiative and a desire to excel.

I have said many times on this forum, that the current structure of ES training encourages mediocrity. People train to GTM1 standard and say, "DONE!" and never try to do anything else to enhance their skills beyond the basics.

[ctrossen]

the current structure of ES training encourages mediocrity. People train to GTM1 standard and say, "DONE!" and never try to do anything else to enhance their skills beyond the basics.

+1

Right there with you Randy.

[PSA]
Our state emergency management agency has a great online training calendar, and I've been advertising more than just ICS-300 & -400, especially to our mission base staff folks. I've gotten some bites, especially on the PIO classes, but there's only been three or four of us in the wing who have really taken advantage of the variety of training opportunities that are out there.

In the past two years, I've taken:

DHS/OEC All-Hazards Communication Unit Leader
DHS/OEC All-Hazards Communication Tech
FEMA Command & General Staff
FEMA Position Specific Planning Section Chief
FEMA Position Specific Resource Unit Leader
Basic Public Information Officer

And I've got a few more I'm lined up for in the next few months.

Now the top four classes were all four or five day commitments (the other two were just a couple of days), but I'm self-employed so I built those into my schedule. Let me tell you, this is precisely the kind of training we *should* have available to our members, but aside from the week-long Inland SAR School or the weekend Basic Inland SAR Course, I haven't yet seen anything that approaches the same level of training.

(That said, I know we're starting to talk about that very thing here in GLR, and here in Wisconsin we've built quite an intense Mission Base Staff academy that's designed to give you the skills you actually need to do your job, not just sign off SQTRs.)

No matter what, though, check out the training your local emergency management offices are offering. A lot of it should be free, and it's definitely worth your time.
[/PSA]

[ctrossen]

I've got e-mails in to NHQ, but I'm still more than happy to hear if anyone has successfully pushed a renewal through, and if so how.

Just to move back on topic for a bit...

I have managed to successfully push a renewal through, though I still have plenty of reservations.

Watching over the shoulder of another member (SARKID, my unit's ES Officer), it does require entering all of the tasks as well as the exercise participation.

Now, the interesting thing is that SARKID entered me as the SET for the member being renewed. As soon as he'd done so, OpsQual came back with each of those sitting in pending VALIDATIONS. He (SARKID) validated them, and then finished the process off by approving it in APPROVALS. As soon as he'd done so, the member was renewed as an MSA.

Now here's the thing... if I (the SET evaluator) hadn't been watching over his shoulder, I never would have known that I was "used" as a Skills Evaluator. OpsQual did not inform me (via e-mail or within the system) that I had been entered as the SET. (Also note, there was no need for a scanned SQTR to be uploaded.) The approval did not go any further beyond the unit (not to group and not to wing).

(And for the record, yes, the option to validate those tasks/exercise participation did show up in my VALIDATIONS as well as in SARKID's, but as soon as he made those validations, they disappeared from mine.)

[bflynn]

Well, as soon as he did the validations, the validation task was done, so they disappeared from everyone's queue.

Is the system supposed to notify you when your ID is used as SET?  I didn't think that was the case.

As far as validation - it was and still is up to the validator to know that the entries are valid.  If he knew because you were standing next to him, then that's a validation.  If he did this, did not have a SQTR uploaded and you did not personally validate it to him, that would be his wrong.  The major thing that changed here is that if the SET's ID is not in the magic list, then the system will reject it.

[Eclipse]

Is the system supposed to notify you when your ID is used as SET?  I didn't think that was the case.

The only notification is the approval queue when you log in to eservices.

Staff officers with specific rights can accomplish everything in one click, which is a bad idea, especially in light of the assertion by some that paper is no longer needed.

The only person who should be able to validate a task is the the member who's ID is entered, that's the only way to maintain the integrity of the system, especially
if the expectation here is to go paperless.

[Storm Chaser]

Is the system supposed to notify you when your ID is used as SET?  I didn't think that was the case.

The only notification is the approval queue when you log in to eservices.

Staff officers with specific rights can accomplish everything in one click, which is a bad idea, especially in light of the assertion by some that paper is no longer needed.

The only person who should be able to validate a task is the the member who's ID is entered, that's the only way to maintain the integrity of the system, especially
if the expectation here is to go paperless.

I would be perfectly fine with that if it got rid of the paper SQTR. We haven't received any guidance from FLWG, so we're doing business as usual (i.e. signing and uploading the paper SQTR). I think the validation required for each task is a step in the right direction. The policy in our unit, until we receive guidance from Group/Wing or the process or system changes, is that evaluators can validate the tasks they signed off and/or Ops/ES staff can validate tasks signed off by other evaluators after reviewing an initialed SQTR or confirming with the appropriate evaluator.

[JeffDG]

My main worry with this new system is bottlenecks, waiting for folks to validate tasks.  Especially with the volume that there could be.

As an approver, I would have been happy with the "Mission Participation" signoffs being validated by the evaluators.  That's where you demonstrate that you can do the job holistically, and if you pass that, that means more to me than 20 task signoffs.

(And no, I'm not saying people should pencil whip the task signoffs, just that the mission participation signoffs say more to me)

[Eclipse]

My main worry with this new system is bottlenecks, waiting for folks to validate tasks.  Especially with the volume that there could be.

Could be?  Yes.

Is?  Sadly, no.

I've been hearing about bottlenecks almost continuously since I assumed my role about 2 years ago.
I don't know where the volume is hiding because I haven't seen it.  We get upticks in activity after training events, but
nothing unmanageable.

If you want to be an SET, you have to commit to checking the queue regularly.  If you can't do that, no harm, we'll make more.

I will say that there are far too many CC's who would prefer to "not be bothered", but as more and more moves online, they are left with little choice.

I am very hopeful this gets to, or near, paperless ES ops, but it has to do that with integrity and confidence, not the "wink and nod" system we've
had for the last 10 years.

[lordmonar]

My main worry with this new system is bottlenecks, waiting for folks to validate tasks.  Especially with the volume that there could be.

As an approver, I would have been happy with the "Mission Participation" signoffs being validated by the evaluators.  That's where you demonstrate that you can do the job holistically, and if you pass that, that means more to me than 20 task signoffs.

(And no, I'm not saying people should pencil whip the task signoffs, just that the mission participation signoffs say more to me)

Not necessarily.......and it is one of the reasons why we should ditch the mission sign off requirement.

You should demonstrate/show the ability to perform each task as per the task guides as you do them.   Mission participation is supposed to be where you put it all together......but there is no requirement to actually do any of the individual tasks during a mission.

Let's take MP as an example.......you sign off all their training tasks prior to the mission....but during the mission you only fly an expanding square grid....and no other search type......still counts.

MRO.....spend your six hours in the mission base and only answer the radio 3 times....counts.

FLM......spend your six hour at mission base marshal in and out two aircraft....but the pilots fill it up at the gas island or the FBO does it......still counts.

[Eclipse]

Well, not exactly - during a qualification mission you're supposed to demonstrate a sampling of the advanced tasks
with the intention of proving you can do the job.

The squishy is there's no requirement as to how many, but SET's with integrity are going to require more then "keep a log".

You picked out a couple which are easier to sleep through - most of them have more to do in order to just get off the bench then
the two you picked.

[lordmonar]

Well, not exactly - during a qualification mission you're supposed to demonstrate a sampling of the advanced tasks
with the intention of proving you can do the job.

Sorry.....I have to call you on that one.    That may be what is intended.....but I have not seen that in the regulations.

The squishy is there's no requirement as to how many, but SET's with integrity are going to require more then "keep a log".

You picked out a couple which are easier to sleep through - most of them have more to do in order to just get off the bench then
the two you picked.

I agree.    To take a line from the USAF way of doing business......the "qualification mission" should be a check ride....where you have to do specific tasks and demonstrate them correctly.   But then each specialty would have to have their own check ride checklist.

On that same note though.......I still don't really see the need for "mission" participation for most specialties.........not if we keep the training and evaluation part of the system strong.....to me it just seems to be another bottle neck.

I would use MRO and FLM as examples of tasks that could be easily signed off, certified and the member good to go in full on mission with out having to do the two "mission participation" events.

[Eclipse]

Well, not exactly - during a qualification mission you're supposed to demonstrate a sampling of the advanced tasks
with the intention of proving you can do the job.

Sorry.....I have to call you on that one.    That may be what is intended.....but I have not seen that in the regulations.

Well that's certainly the expectation on a renewal, why would it be different for an initial? Though there's plenty of
squishy there.

As to mission participation - a mission environment, especially a large-scale mission, and double-especially
for a real-world, is a very different environment from most training, where the member is sitting comfortably with
people he knows and there's plenty of time to re-do things he misses or screws up.

In a mission environment, there's a lot more stress and pressure and far too many people with a finger-tip
grasp on their own duties, let alone helping new guys who have ever signed in before.

Navigating in a wooded environment you've never been in before is a lot different then the parking lot / coffee can
land nav course too many members have used to get qual'ed.

Those missions are eye-openers in most cases, and are supposed to set the tone for what the actual expectation
of performance is.

[lordmonar]

That assumes that the mission participation is going to be "large scale" and "real world".....but there is no standard for that.

Your squadron may participate in "wing wide" exercise by setting up and running a simple single asset missions base (say one aircraft or one ground team) that only does 1-2 sorties.

Or you could be at a large sarex where 4-5 squadrons are all in one place doing multi sorties with lots of assets and moving parts.

Or your mission participation could be in a live mission with limited task completion.......the MP who goes out flies his grid and comes home.....no time to do anything else.

If the EXPECTATION is to stress the trainee in a worse case scenario........then that needs to be spelled out.

And yes navigating in the woods is much harder then the coffee can.......ergo we need to change the standard on the training.  Because just because you go out on a mission real or training.....does not mean you will ever use your compass to navigate.......again there is no standard no requirement to do any evaluation during the mission participation phase of the SQTR.

[Eclipse]

Agreed.

[Storm Chaser]

Agreed.

With lordmonar?