New SQTR / SET Module

[Storm Chaser]

There has been a problem in the past with barely qualified, or very inexperienced people signing off tasks when they really shouldn't be doing so. This is the solution the wing came up with.

This is a problem many wings are facing; not sure if this particular "solution" will solve this problem. The only way, IMHO, to ensure currency and proficiency on these qualifications is to add requirements to be completed every quarter or semester. Heck, at this point even once a year would be more than what we have right now, where someone gets qualified in a specialty and doesn't do it again until the specialty has to be renewed three years later. These same individuals are often assigned as evaluators after being qualified for a year even though it's been that long since they actually accomplished these tasks.

[Flyboy86]

There is a crowd that believes the rules should apply across the entire organization, no exceptions. But Wings do have unique issues and rule modifications ie "supplements" are allowed and they do have to be approved by National.

Certainly we have all seen the member who has a rating and has no idea what they are doing. We all ask, who signed off the SOB. So is CAWG they have required the next level to do sign offs. Is that really so bad? There is very good chance that next level person is available to do the training and sign off. Experience does really count.

As for the new SQTR process, while national will let a MRO sign off a MRO the Wing has instituted a policy not to allow a MRO to be a Appointed evaluator. So eServices will prohibit the MRO signing off a MRO.

Yes some ratings don't actually require all subordinate rating like mentioned MSA. The Fix would be to require MSA before you could advance. There other parallel issues like a IC not needing to be Air and Ground qualified, just one does it. So its not perfect.


I also talked to National about the 60-3 rule regarding "Not all tasked need to be demonstrated". The response was they know, It will be dealt with in a rules revision. There was no programing way to determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated. The rule leaves that to the evaluator so this is problematic in writing HTML code.

I actually like all the tasks to be reviewed. Just use the standard we use on a check ride that not every item on the check list has to be actually completed, many items are verbally reviewed.

[Eclipse]

I also talked to National about the 60-3 rule regarding "Not all tasked need to be demonstrated". The response was they know, It will be dealt with in a rules revision. There was no programming way to determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated. The rule leaves that to the evaluator so this is problematic in writing HTML code.

Are you serious?

We can't figure out how to write a simple program so we change the rules instead?

There's no need to "determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated", it's subjective to the evaluator and could be as much as one task. 

That doesn't sound too hard to program to me.

And what, exactly, are expected to do in the interim of the a "rules" change?  Guess?

This may well explain why my tickets have no response to the follow up questions.

[Spaceman3750]

Some SQTRs have a huge number of advanced tasks (30-40), GTL for example. If I'm expected to re-demonstrate each one and do a sortie, because the programmers can't figure out how to write ops qual, I may as well redo GTL school at NESA every 3 years.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Some states have their own schools, like New York which has SARTAC. Another is I think LESA. Is LESA from Texas?

Nevertheless, I agree with you. Some of us may not be able to get out of Trainee status with that requirement of "renew all."

Why not in the case of many tasks, set it up in a rotation basis like "in this 3-year cycle renew task # through ##. In the next 3-year cycle renew tasks ### through ####?"

Flyer

[JeffDG]

I also talked to National about the 60-3 rule regarding "Not all tasked need to be demonstrated". The response was they know, It will be dealt with in a rules revision. There was no programming way to determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated. The rule leaves that to the evaluator so this is problematic in writing HTML code.

Are you serious?

We can't figure out how to write a simple program so we change the rules instead?

There's no need to "determine which tasks need or do not need to be demonstrated", it's subjective to the evaluator and could be as much as one task. 

That doesn't sound too hard to program to me.

And what, exactly, are expected to do in the interim of the a "rules" change?  Guess?

This may well explain why my tickets have no response to the follow up questions.

Good lord.

Why not just do the requires x of y that they do now for things like ICUT/BCUT/ACUT.  Have a group look at the SQTR and say "OK, for GTM3, you need to cover not less than 5 of these tasks" 

They already have it coded.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Good lord.

Why not just do the requires x of y that they do now for things like ICUT/BCUT/ACUT.  Have a group look at the SQTR and say "OK, for GTM3, you need to cover not less than 5 of these tasks" 

They already have it coded.

KISS  :clap:

[Tim Medeiros]

So, what you're saying is that you cannot complete in the span of 3 years what you completed in the span of 2 for trainee status?

[Eclipse]

So, what you're saying is that you cannot complete in the span of 3 years what you completed in the span of 2 for trainee status?

Yes - if for no other reason then once you're out of trainee status you are likely working on real missions and don't have the time or the need
to be breaking out a task guide and demonstrating 6-8 items per task.

The current standard is more then appropriate - demonstrate yo can still do the job.  That's all that should be necessary.

[Eclipse]

More fun.

Renewing a member's GTL also clicked GTM2/1 & UDF, but did not update GTM3, I had to do it manually.

More fun #2.

Regardless of the date entered into a task or mission, the renewal date is "now", meaning that a member sitting on an old
SQTR gets "free time" added to their ticket.

[EMT-83]

^ Sounds like good incentive for the Wing ESO or DO to not sit on requals for weeks (or months).

[Eclipse]

^ Sounds like good incentive for the Wing ESO or DO to not sit on requals for weeks (or months).

I hear about this kind of thing all the time, but I can't imagine how it's possible except for a rare exception.  I know it happens, I
just can't see how it's allowed to continue.

I check the queues several times a day, as does the DO, and even my predecessor, who was not nearly as "wired" was in there
several times a week.

[JackFrost3k]

More fun.

Renewing a member's GTL also clicked GTM2/1 & UDF, but did not update GTM3, I had to do it manually.

More fun #2.

Regardless of the date entered into a task or mission, the renewal date is "now", meaning that a member sitting on an old
SQTR gets "free time" added to their ticket.

[vento]

Something that I just noticed with the current SET setup in eServices:

If someone is qualified to teach a task but is not qualified as SET in the specialty for the SQTR where the task is required, then that someone can not enter the task or validate the task within eServices.

Example: Maj Donuteater is fully qualified as MRO, CUL, etc, etc, and is also SET for CUL, MRO, etc.. He is invited to instruct in an UDF course covering tasks L-0001, L-0002, and L-0003. Maj Donuteater does a terrific job teaching the tasks, as matter of fact much better than the UDF instructor, but the Major is not UDF SET qualified and therefore nobody can update the SQTR using the Major's CAP ID.

It seems funny that the Major can instruct and validate the exact same tasks if he was teaching a MRO or CUL course, but not able to do anything if he is instructing an UDF course for the exact same tasks! Task L-0001 within the UDF SQTR is no different than task L-0001 in any other SQTR.

I am not sure if this is by design or it is just an oversight. If it is by design, then it does not make much sense to me.

[bflynn]

If someone is qualified to teach a task but is not qualified as SET in the specialty for the SQTR where the task is required, then that someone can not enter the task or validate the task within eServices.

...

I am not sure if this is by design or it is just an oversight. If it is by design, then it does not make much sense to me.

Yes, this is correct and by design.  Anyone can teach anyone else about a task, there are no qualifications for teaching.  But only the SET can evaluate whether or not that person has actually learned it.

[a2capt]

Considering it transferes tasks between ratings on it's own.

[vento]

If someone is qualified to teach a task but is not qualified as SET in the specialty for the SQTR where the task is required, then that someone can not enter the task or validate the task within eServices.

...

I am not sure if this is by design or it is just an oversight. If it is by design, then it does not make much sense to me.

Yes, this is correct and by design.  Anyone can teach anyone else about a task, there are no qualifications for teaching.  But only the SET can evaluate whether or not that person has actually learned it.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
For example, a person is SET MRO and teaches L-0001 will be able to validate task L-0001 within the MRO SQTR.
The same person teaching the same task L-0001 can't validate the task within the UDF SQTR because he is not SET UDF.

Yet, as a2capt said, if the person enters the task L-0001 under MRO SQTR, it will actually show up (indirectly) in the UDF SQTR. So, why not allow the person to enter it directly into the UDF SQTR?

[Eclipse]

So, why not allow the person to enter it directly into the UDF SQTR?

Because he's not UDF qualified, and frankly, should not be teaching those tasks in the context of UDF.

Externally they may look the same, but the procedures and information gathered, in the case of something like "keep a log" may not be.
It's just a nod towards members' time that this cross-posting is possible at all.

[vento]

So, why not allow the person to enter it directly into the UDF SQTR?

Because he's not UDF qualified, and frankly, should not be teaching those tasks in the context of UDF.

Externally they may look the same, but the procedures and information gathered, in the case of something like "keep a log" may not be.
It's just a nod towards members' time that this cross-posting is possible at all.

Which then bear the question, are we utilizing the "greatest common factor" or the "least common multiple"?

I understand that not all tasks should be crossed like the way it is now, but there are tasks that are common across the board. Use of pro-words is the same in what we do at CAP regardless if one is aircrew or ground team.

If something is important enough for that particular SQTR, then it should be a task by itself instead of piggy riding a common task. Just my two cents.

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure I see the issue - the member is able to submit the tasks, they cross-populate, so what is the angst?

I'd guess it's just a programming issue in the check for currency in a given qual before accepting the number, but at least it still works.
Probably just more growing pains from going from "no checks whatsoever" to "full checks".