New SQTR / SET Module

[JeffDG]

So, take for example an IC signing off a FASC, specifically the task that says "Prepares all obligation paperwork for IC"

An IC who is not a FASC can certainly both supervise AND evaluate (speaking logically here, don't have the regs in front of me right now) that task.

[Eclipse]

Supervise, yes. Evaluate, no.

Being an IC makes you a manager of managers, not an end-all expert.

[bflynn]

I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make.

Yes....

The hassle comes from finding those very few busy senior people and arranging a SET session to demostrate renewal tasks.  It is more difficult to do now than it was previously.  Things that are more difficult create more hassle.  Things that create more hassle predict that more people will not be willing to put up with the increased aggrevation.

Do you not understand or do you disagree?  I can try to explain it differently if you're just not understanding it.  If you disagree, then you just disagree.

I'm making an observation.  It's what I do.

Sounds like you need a new greeter standing at the door.

This is not the matter of a door greeter.  It is someone coming in and us saying "Great, glad you're a CFI!  We could really use the help, excited that you're here.  Ummm...before you can fly with us, you have to do A and B and C and D and E and F and G, then take another CFI checkride to the FAA PTS standard.  It will probably only take 2-3 months".  Then the CFI says "Seriously?  There's a school in the next hanger that will get me flying in 2 days if not 2 hours.  I'm out of here, I don't need this heartache."

Hassle.  We've talked about it before.  I was referrring back to it as support that things that increase hassle decrease membership.

It's an observation...it might not even be right.

[Eclipse]

It is more difficult to do now than it was previously.

OK, then I disagree.

Nothing has changed in this regard whatsoever.

[bflynn]

It must look different from above than below...

[Eclipse]

It must look different from above than below...

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please feel free to indicate a single thing which has changed in regards to regs or process for initial or renewal qualifications.

[SarDragon]

It must look different from above than below...

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please feel free to indicate a single thing which has changed in regards to regs or process for initial or renewal qualifications.

The thing that has changed is that there's much less likelihood for pencil-whipping stuff. Some equate that with increased hassle.

[vento]

The thing that has changed is that there's much less likelihood for pencil-whipping stuff...

x2  :clap:

[arajca]

Sounds like you need a new greeter standing at the door.

This is not the matter of a door greeter.  It is someone coming in and us saying "Great, glad you're a CFI!  We could really use the help, excited that you're here.  Ummm...before you can fly with us, you have to do A and B and C and D and E and F and G, then take another CFI checkride to the FAA PTS standard.  It will probably only take 2-3 months".  Then the CFI says "Seriously?  There's a school in the next hanger that will get me flying in 2 days if not 2 hours.  I'm out of here, I don't need this heartache."

Hassle.  We've talked about it before.  I was referrring back to it as support that things that increase hassle decrease membership.

It's an observation...it might not even be right.

We're not a flying club, contrary to what some pilots may think. If a CFI doesn't want to follow our rules, we don't want them. If they decide not to join because it is inconvienent for them to get checked out on our aircraft before they can fly them, they are looking at the wrong reasons to join.

[bflynn]

We're not a flying club, contrary to what some pilots may think. If a CFI doesn't want to follow our rules, we don't want them. If they decide not to join because it is inconvienent for them to get checked out on our aircraft before they can fly them, they are looking at the wrong reasons to join.

I think the CFI expected to follow rules.  But he came to us with the understanding he was offering his services for free and we offered him a pain in the neck.  So, he went somewhere where there was less pain.  He gets paid a little and we do without an instructor.  Who loses?  Certainly not him.

It's a single data point.  There are others that I'm aware.  Because the club I belong to outside CAP is so large, I sometimes run across people who thought they wanted to join until they became aware of the amount of effort CAP requires. 

Providing a diagnosis of issues with processes is part of my regular job; it's what I do.  I made it my job because it comes pretty naturally to me.  I'm just doing what I do, if you don't get it's no big deal.

[Eclipse]

I think the CFI expected to follow rules.  But he came to us with the understanding he was offering his services for free and we offered him a pain in the neck.  So, he went somewhere where there was less pain.  He gets paid a little and we do without an instructor.  Who loses?  Certainly not him.

It appears he made a financial decision as to the best use of limited free time.  If he was offered a "pain in the neck" it was offered specifically
by those who were recruiting him.  The fault lies squarely there, not with CAP.

Providing a diagnosis of issues with processes is part of my regular job; it's what I do.  I made it my job because it comes pretty naturally to me.  I'm just doing what I do, if you don't get it's no big deal.

Everyone reading this can see exactly what comes "naturally" to you...

[Luis R. Ramos]

It looks like a new box was added to replace the yellow "training" barely visible. This box clearly states whether the achievement is "active," "in training" or "expired."

I think this is a great addition...

Flyer

[bflynn]

Everyone reading this can see exactly what comes "naturally" to you...

You know, I thought we had established already that you disagreed with me.

I have no idea why you choose to show such disrespect, but I really wish you would stop it.  I percieve a problem in CAP and so I'm raising it so it can be known.  I do not want to be the subject of the discussion.

I'm done.  Every time I think I can come back, you figure out a way to drive me off and demotivate me again.  You did it on your response to my first post and you've done it with almost every other post since.  What is wrong with you?

Cap Kittyhawk whatever OUT.

[SarDragon]

Back on topic.

This morning, when I checked in to OpsQuals, I found out that my MS qual had expired. Last week, the expiration date was 2014. I am so confused.

[Eclipse]

I've got basically a hot mess, and I have to decide how to handle it - renewals inexplicably popping up with 100% blank (not empty, the page is just white)
entry pages, pre-requisites which are clearly complete showing open, etc., etc.

Obviously NHQ  is in there making constant fixes, so I don't know if I should toss in another 11 or 12 tickets to the Help Desk, or just wait a
while for things to cool off.

I also don't like the fact that the validations for tasks are showing up in queues all over the place based on staff appointments - Commanders, ESOs,
people with explicitly granted rights, etc., all can validate what should only be clicked by the SET of record.  The last thing we need is people
entering a CAPID for an SET, a CC validates it, and the SET has no idea they were even involved - that pretty much defeats the whole point here.

And where's the email notifications to the SETs?

[sarflyer]

I do know you can never make everyone happy but IMHO I think the new SET module is better than it was.  Being one of the people that was very closely involved in some of the problems with the previous way we SET our members this should at least solve some of the more major issues we had.

This should help increase the integrity of the qualifications.

A short round of applause for the hard working people at National IT and others please!  :clap:

[Eclipse]

A short round of applause for the hard working people at National IT and others please!  :clap:

I second that - we all know this is just a speed bump.

[Storm Chaser]

Prior to the new SQTR and Skills Evaluations module, it was a requirement in Florida Wing to scan an initialed/signed paper SQTR and upload it into eServices Ops Quals. Does anyone know if that's still a requirement?

[Eclipse]

Prior to the new SQTR and Skills Evaluations module, it was a requirement in Florida Wing to scan an initialed/signed paper SQTR and upload it into eServices Ops Quals. Does anyone know if that's still a requirement?

That's not just Florida, that's 60-3, and nothing's changed in that regard.

[Storm Chaser]

Prior to the implementation of Phase II, there were conversations in my group claiming that paper STQRs were going away. I guess the only benefit of the new system then is to ensure the CAP IDs used are in fact from authorized evaluators, instead of having to rely on a personnel authorization letter.