New SQTR / SET Module

[Eclipse]

It happens more often then you might think...

[bflynn]

The 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.

I think this is a fine way to do it, it's how we've been doing it for years.  The system will tell you when someone isn't a SET, all you have to do is make sure the SQTR ID matches the ID in the system.  Now, short of outright forgery, you have a system where you can be fairly sure that someone was evaluated by the proper SET.  Since I don't think forgery is a problem with our members and because I know it would be severly and justly dealt with if it did occur, I'm comfortable with what we have.

I still think there are potential issues lurking with requiring junior members to impose on senior members for checkouts, but we'll see if that actually materializes.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Can someone explain this?

I am a qualified MRO. I am also a CUL Trainee.

On my MRO, several tasks I passed to get MRO are now grayed out while the box at the top right says "Active" with an expiration date in 2015.

On my CUL, several of those tasks I passed to get MRO are green, and are those that appear gray in the above.

For example, L-0001 and CAPT 117 part 3. These are gray in an "Active" achievement, and green on a "Training" achievement.

Also, isn't CAPT 117 part 3 one of those "Does not expire" achievements? If so, why is it grayed out? If it is grayed, does it mean I have to take it again to renew my MRO in 2015?

Flyer

[Storm Chaser]

Those are the tasks you would have to complete for your qualification renewal.

[Luis R. Ramos]

But appearing right now when the qualification is "Active," and not "Expired?" I would have expected it to show until later. And CAPT 117 Part 3 being shown grayed out? That means I have to retake that quiz that has not expired?

Flyer

[Eclipse]

But appearing right now when the qualification is "Active," and not "Expired?" I would have expected it to show until later. And CAPT 117 Part 3 being shown grayed out? That means I have to retake that quiz that has not expired?

Flyer

You don't have to (and really shouldn't) wait until after you drop out of qualification to renew.  You can renew anytime you want.

No idea on the 117, sounds broken.  We're seeing issues with other certs like BCUT that the system isn't recognizing as well.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I was also looking at my IS 100, 200, 700, 800, and ICS 300. These appear on the SQTRs as "Active" with the phrase "View/Update this achievement."

All say "Active" in the box to the right, with a green bar. However, the black bar says "Renew Achievement: 0 Tasks Completed / 0 Tasks Required."

Under that bar nothing shows.

There is no box to click to resubmit or "renew" these achievements.

Is this normal? Should it be reported? Who can submit this report, can I do it or should I contact a SET qualified person for this?

[Eclipse]

You can put in a help desk ticket, anyone can.

[Eclipse]

I received an email notification this AM of pending task validations.

[Eclipse]

So, now that we're stressing the system harder, we're running in to a >real< problem.

Far too many members did not catch up their taskings and quals from the WMU, they did button-click renewals,
uploaded nothing, backfilled-nothing.

Now we have experienced, capable members unable to do legit renewals because their eSQTRs are blank, and they
have nothing to show their old work.  The system will not allow a renewal unless all the advanced fields have something in them.
(Plus we have more then a few who say that info which was in there has disappeared).  As a regulatory reminder,
60-3 only requires a sample of advanced tasks be done, not all of them, for a renewal.

So that leaves:

Substantiate and back-date tasks from saved documents (not possible for some who didn't pay attention)

Pencil-whip tasks not really redone just to game the system (bad idea from every angle, but we have plenty of people who like to click boxes).

Expect members to re-accomplish the entire advanced SQTR (reps never hurt, and no one is an expert at this stuff, but
there are some practical realities to expecting that, not the least of which is that in some wings, the SETs themselves can't get requal'ed to
help other members).

There's also the non-trivial issue of people who have say on taskings and the SET either left CAP, or is no longer active themselves.
I have little sympathy for this issue, because it smacks of the typical CAP "last minute / bare minimum / I procrastinated, now make it your priority" attitude, but that also doesn't help the reality that we need to get these people qual'ed and not totally disfranchise them.

HelpDesk ticket sent, will advise on the response.

[Eclipse]

Another follow-up.

The system automatically clears >all< the advanced tasks, and removes FAM/Prep stuff once a qual is active.  So an active GBD, for example,
will have a blank eSQTR with all gray tasks, apparently losing the evaluation history completely (unless someone knows another place to find it).

More troubling though is that the system is forcing all the the advanced fields be completed in order to pop the renewal.
This is contrary to 60-3, and not going to be a practical reality for some specialties.

CAPR 60-3, Page 28 (renewals)
(a) During the evaluation, candidates will be required to demonstrate their
ability to perform and/or evaluate annotated tasks on the SQTR required to qualify in that
specialty. Not all tasks are required to be demonstrated; generally only advanced level tasks are
required to be re-demonstrated. Most formal courses do not have to be re-accomplished though
some are recommended like first aid training.

Another issue is the way the system is calculating the renewal.  In the test case I just did, the
evaluated mission was from last year, however the member completed iCut in Feb this year.
So the system viewed the iCut as the last advanced task completed and actually granted the
member an extra undeserved year on his renewal.

Lastly, with the task validations showing up in queues for anyone with command or ops rights,
we have people approving things they were not involved in, defeating the purpose of the module to start with.
It also opens the door to people with the necessary rights being able to use some SET's ID and push it through
with (apparently) no easily accessible trail, since they could enter and approve it in one step.  Yes, the notification
emails show what is expected to be reviewed by he SET, but that's it.

Ticket reopened.

I find it very difficult to believe that I am the first person, nationally, to find or raise this issue, and
so have to wonder if other wings are just pencil whipping the advanced tasks to get things done.
It is not unusual for a good evaluated sortie to not include "everything" on the advanced tasks, common
in fact.  The standard is to determine whether a person is still capable.  So...

[Storm Chaser]

I find it very difficult to believe that I am the first person, nationally, to find or raise this issue, and
so have to wonder if other wings are just pencil whipping the advanced tasks to get things done.
It is not unusual for a good evaluated sortie to not include "everything" on the advanced tasks, common
in fact.  The standard is to determine whether a person is still capable.  So...

I noticed this too, but I'm not conducting any renewals/requals in my squadron until a SAREX scheduled for next month. I assumed that National was now requiring all these tasks to be accomplished, even though it contradicts CAPR 60-3.

I did find another issue with one of my members. His GTM3 and GTL are expired. He started GTM2 and GTM1 (even though GTM2 was never completed) about 10 years ago. All his tasks for GTM2 and GTM1 are showing active (green). Has anyone else seen this? Should I open a ticket for this?

[vento]

There are a few changes in CAWG as the result of the new module.

Document uploads
The requirement to upload SQTR worksheets has been eliminated.

We (CAWG) have expanded who can evaluate two specialties, Mission radio operator (MRO) and Mission Staff Assistant (MSA).
To Evaluate a MRO the evaluator must be a MRO and be any one of the following: IC, CUL or OSC, 
To Evaluate a MSA the evaluator must be a MSA and be any one of the following: IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD.
Squadron Commanders recommend appointments.

Validations should be done by the Evaluator that observed the training task. The Evaluator will receive an email notification of the pending request when the member submits the evaluator's ID number. Members on wing staff who have permissions will also see these validation requests, but should not validate such tasks unless there is a special need. 

Validations require either direct first hand knowledge the task was completed, "I did the training for the member" or the member has shown you a signed SQTR worksheet demonstrating the task was completed. A phone call or email message with the evaluator is also acceptable. Please do not perform validations that don't meet these criteria -- nothing should be validated based on "tribal knowledge" (ie. I know this person can do this).

Staff should also be careful of making entries for members, as the entry will be validated and approved at the highest level of the staff members permission level skipping normal processing. If you are helping a member get their tasks entered, you should ask the member to log in and use their eServices account, not yours.

[Spaceman3750]

There are a few changes in CAWG as the result of the new module.

Document uploads
The requirement to upload SQTR worksheets has been eliminated.

We (CAWG) have expanded who can evaluate two specialties, Mission radio operator (MRO) and Mission Staff Assistant (MSA).
To Evaluate a MRO the evaluator must be a MRO and be any one of the following: IC, CUL or OSC, 
To Evaluate a MSA the evaluator must be a MSA and be any one of the following: IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD.
Squadron Commanders recommend appointments.

Validations should be done by the Evaluator that observed the training task. The Evaluator will receive an email notification of the pending request when the member submits the evaluator's ID number. Members on wing staff who have permissions will also see these validation requests, but should not validate such tasks unless there is a special need. 

Validations require either direct first hand knowledge the task was completed, "I did the training for the member" or the member has shown you a signed SQTR worksheet demonstrating the task was completed. A phone call or email message with the evaluator is also acceptable. Please do not perform validations that don't meet these criteria -- nothing should be validated based on "tribal knowledge" (ie. I know this person can do this).

Staff should also be careful of making entries for members, as the entry will be validated and approved at the highest level of the staff members permission level skipping normal processing. If you are helping a member get their tasks entered, you should ask the member to log in and use their eServices account, not yours.

So even if a member meets the 60-3 requirements to be an evaluator for MSA or MRO, they still have to be an IC, OSC, or CUL to evaluate MRO and IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD to evaluate MSA? That's crazy.

[vento]

^^^ Yes, according to the CAWG supplement, if you are a member of CAWG. I wouldn't call it crazy though... 

[SarDragon]

So even if a member meets the 60-3 requirements to be an evaluator for MSA or MRO, they still have to be an IC, OSC, or CUL to evaluate MRO and IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD to evaluate MSA? That's crazy.

Not crazy at all. There's no supervisor matrix in the new version of the reg, but the requirements above are very similar to the old matrix.

This is the old reg. See Attachment 5, on page 45.

[Spaceman3750]

So even if a member meets the 60-3 requirements to be an evaluator for MSA or MRO, they still have to be an IC, OSC, or CUL to evaluate MRO and IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD to evaluate MSA? That's crazy.

Not crazy at all. There's no supervisor matrix in the new version of the reg, but the requirements above are very similar to the old matrix.

This is the old reg. See Attachment 5, on page 45.

Yep, and as you can see, everyone can be supervised by someone who is a SET in their own specialty (MSA supervising MSA, GTM3 supervising GTM3, etc). None of this "must be a GBD, AOBD, IC, or God" crap.

But, if it's an NHQ approved supp, whatever. I just don't like it when wings add on extra layers of pointless hoops. It's not that I set the bar low, I just don't like putting up unnecessary barriers that NHQ has already decided don't need to exist.

[Eclipse]

We (CAWG) have expanded who can evaluate two specialties, Mission radio operator (MRO) and Mission Staff Assistant (MSA).
To Evaluate a MRO the evaluator must be a MRO and be any one of the following: IC, CUL or OSC, 
To Evaluate a MSA the evaluator must be a MSA and be any one of the following: IC, OSC, FASC, LSC, PSC, AOBD or GBD.
Squadron Commanders recommend appointments.

How do you add a layer of administrative nonsense, and then eliminate the need to upload the paper?
The system is only going to recognize what the regs or NHQ says is the "way", and won't care what CAWG's supplements
have to say about it.

Further, while not an issue with MRO / CULs, there is no requirement that any of those ICS positions be MSA's to be active themselves.
I'm an MSA "because", but I would hazard most GBDs aren't, same goes for the rest.  which means you could very
well wind up with no one who can actually evaluate an MSA for renewal or initial. 

Being a mission IC doesn't mean you ever met the LSC MSA, let alone were able to evaluate their performance.

Here we have a national system that is only a couple months old and we're already diverging the timelines.
We need to knock off this local nonsense - if it's a good idea for one wing, it's likely a good idea for all of them,
or not a good idea, period.  And that goes for local "policies" about equipment and operations as well.

Guaranteed this is one person's "idea" of a way to fix deficient performance in the area's indicated.
What it actually "is", is a great way to further reduce the number of people in those areas due to not being able to
get renewals done, >or< defeating your own purpose because it encourages higher staffers to whip
the renewals for expediency.

Again, we make things so much then they need to be to no one's benefit.  The process of getting trained
and mentored should be direct and simple.

[vento]

^^^ Being an ordinary member of the CAWG, I don't have the inside story and reasoning about why the higher echelons made the supplements the way it is. The intention was to share about what one wing is doing. I don't think we (me and you included) should make harsh criticism without knowing the whole picture. 

[SarDragon]

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.