New SQTR / SET Module

[Alaric]

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.

Have to disagree, the task (in the case L-0001) is the same, and should be being validated against its evaluation measures.  If you look at the task in the Ground and UDF Task book it is identical in every way (Description, Evaluation measures) as it is listed in the Mission Base Task book.  There is no reason that an SET for MRO shouldn't be able to sign off on the tasks which he has the knowledge of.  It would also allow for more in depth specialty training, (Ground Team and Air Crew attend a Mission Comms course and get credit for those L tasks that the MRO SET can sign off for)

[Luis R. Ramos]

I agree with Vento.

Some tasks are common, then the SET for one specialty should be allowed to enter for the other.

Although "Keeping a Log (P-0001)" may have a few differences whether it is Ground Team or Mission Base Tasks, the differences in context are covered in the task description. The teacher and the SET can take care of that at that time.

Other tasks are different, then they are given their own number.

Consider "Ground Team Member Equipment (O-0001)" and "UDF Equipment (O-0010)." UDF do not carry as many items as a GTM, but includes some items that only GTL carries. In this case it is valid to separate and prevent one SET from signing into the other.

I think this is more of the case of it being easier for the computer programmer to prevent one SET from signing tasks on the other SET list, than having each task assigned exceptions.

Or is anyone also going to argue that "Use a Compass (O-0201)" will be different for a UDF or and a GTM?

Flyer

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Or is anyone also going to argue that "Use a Compass (O-0201)" will be different for a UDF or and a GTM?

Better yet
L-0001 Basic Communications Procedures for ES Operations
L-0002 Perform radio operating procedures
L-0003 Employ appropriate radio frequencies repeaters

Should be EXACTLY the same for all.

[vento]

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

The issue is the member is NOT able to submit the tasks. Again it's because the instructor while fully qualified as SET in other SQTR for the exact same task, is not SET for the SQTR for which the member is submitting the task.

The angst is for 1). inconsistency; and 2). lack of common sense (the system, not you).

[Eclipse]

The issue is the member is NOT able to submit the tasks.

Yes they can, just not under UDF.

The angst is for 1). inconsistency;

Agreed

[Luis R. Ramos]

Vento-

Careful, your blood pressure is rising! 

I agree again with him.

If we cannot use a SET id for tasks shared with another specialty because that SET is not SET for another, it makes it more difficult. Why open a training SQTR if you know you are not going to pursue that task?

And what if it is an advance task the SET is teaching? We have been told that no advanced task is to be taken before familiarization and/or preparatory tasks are taken? So member trainee has advanced beyond those preparatory and familiarization tasks on specialty ABC but not for specialty DEF. A SET for DEF teaches task L-0001 but cannot be posted since member trainee has not achieved preparatory tasks on specialty ABCDEF?

This is where Vento's angst, and some others, can come up!

Flyer

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The issue is the member is NOT able to submit the tasks.

Yes they can, just not under UDF.

The angst is for 1). inconsistency;

Agreed

If the trainee has gotten to the point of checking those tasks off in a rating the trainer is SET.

[johnnyb47]

IF cross-populate is the actual standard, shouldn't everyone be walking around with a TRAINING status on all qualifications that have cross-pop tasks?
Meaning in order for you to enter the task on my MRO (where you are SET) so that it populates over to my GTM3 (where you are NOT SET, where I AM in training) shouldn't I have commanders approval of pre-req's / TRAINING status completed on the MRO (where I am NOT training) before you enter the task?

Boy... that felt an awful lot like a ramble....

[SarDragon]

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.

Horse pucky, Bob. In the progression of training, ICUT teaches you fundamentals, and how to operate the radio (knobology). L-0001 teaches you how to use the radio (procedures), and is appropriate for any setting. Other tasks within each ES specialty go more in depth, depending on the situation.

[Eclipse]

Lord knows why I was even trying to figure out the logic (The Lord, not our Lord(s)).

Anyway.

A couple other things I have found in conversation with NHQ.

"Renewal Tasks" vs. "Current 60-3 verbiage on renewals"
I was told that this is an issue of the programming running ahead of anticipated changes to 60-3.  Owing to the
cost of re-programming it temporarily only to put it back, they will be leaving it as-is.  The person I heard from
said they are considering an ICL or memo to explain things.

Inconsistent behavior in regards to equivalency renewals.
Both renewing things downstream such as UDF/GT when a GTL is renewed, and circular logic of renewals when
a prerequisite is also expired (i.e. GT3 for a GTL renewal)
These are programming issues which are being addressed.

[JackFrost3k]

Lord knows why I was even trying to figure out the logic (The Lord, not our Lord(s)).

Anyway.

A couple other things I have found in conversation with NHQ.

"Renewal Tasks" vs. "Current 60-3 verbiage on renewals"
I as told that this is an issue of the programming running ahead of anticipated changes to 60-3.  Owing to the
cost of re-programming it temporarily;ly only to put it back, they will be leaving it as-is.  The person I heard from
said they are considering an ICL or memo to explain things.

Inconsistent behavior in regards to equivalency renewals.
Both renewing things downstream such as UDF/GT when a GTL is renewed, and circular logic of renewals when
a prerequisite is also expired (i.e. GT3 for a GTL renewal)
These are programming issues which are being addressed.

Should send info over to NHQ Ops.

[Eclipse]

Should send info over to NHQ Ops.

That's who this info came from.

[JackFrost3k]

Should send info over to NHQ Ops.

That's who this info came from.

[jeders]

Lord knows why I was even trying to figure out the logic (The Lord, not our Lord(s)).

Anyway.

A couple other things I have found in conversation with NHQ.

"Renewal Tasks" vs. "Current 60-3 verbiage on renewals"
I was told that this is an issue of the programming running ahead of anticipated changes to 60-3.  Owing to the
cost of re-programming it temporarily only to put it back, they will be leaving it as-is.  The person I heard from
said they are considering an ICL or memo to explain things.

Does this mean that we will soon have to redemonstrate every single advanced task for a renewal? That's annoying. Also, if we're still going to have downstream equivelancy, e.g. renewing GTL renews GTM, doesn't that create somewhat of a double standard?

It's not that I'm absolutely against this per se, I just think that the current system regarding what has to be demonstrated for renewals isn't broken, so why, or rather what, are we fixing?

[Eclipse]

Does this mean that we will soon have to redemonstrate every single advanced task for a renewal?

If by "soon" you mean "now", then yes.  This has actually been in place since the upgrade.  If you look at the list of tasks, it isn't all of them, it's a sub-set
that someone must have determined were important, akin to the olden days of METLs.

That's annoying. Also, if we're still going to have downstream equivelancy, e.g. renewing GTL renews GTM, doesn't that create somewhat of a double standard?

I'm not sure I understand the double standard the downstream equivalency was always this way, just not automatic.

[a2capt]

There's no such thing as "in context" with UDF or whatever. The task guide is quite clear on what it expects to be taught and evaluated.
It does not say "as this pertains to UDF, MRO, etc."

If that were the case, then the tasks would be two separate things.

My solution, I enter it where it needs to be entered and leave it at that. When someone signs off on the whole thing and submits it, it works.

Unless they busted that, and in that case .. they do need to fix it.

[vento]

Speaking of renewals, that is another area that causes some heartburn. 

Under the new (current) SET system, it will be hard to renew some qualifications, especially the advanced or the not so popular ones. MSO, AOBD, etc. In most cases there is only one MSO (or AOBD, or insert your own specialty) working at a given mission or SAREX, but since the system requires another MSO (or AOBD, etc) who is also SET to sign off on the renewals, it will be hard for current Officers to renew on time. The Officer who worked the mission may have demonstrated total competency, but since there is no "qualified" person to sign him/her off for renewal, the rating will probably lapse. Do we have a workable and reasonable workaround without sacrificing quality?

It is not so much of a problem with the more common specialties like MSA, or MS, or MO, etc since we usually have plenty of SETed guys around.

This is not necessarily a new problem, but the system just makes it even harder.
Just an observation.

[Eclipse]

I think it's just more of the same mantra - more people.

The last time I spoke with those NHQ folks, they indicated that they will be stressing an increase
in participation and ongoing tasking over the three year cycle.

That's great, but in the interim, my wing has most people on the "requal sortie" mentality, made more difficult
by the current reg which still supports that.

[a2capt]

You can only demand so much of volunteers. If there is only one at a given mission, plus trainee or renewal candidate, then what do you do? Tell the ones who put in their time, "tough"?

That's a force multiplier if I ever saw one.

..and don't go off on the "volunteer" bit, it's not the focal point of the argument in full. If these were paid staff positions, it's a lot easier to fill. But finding people who can give up time is just not as easy. You can't demand it.

[Luis R. Ramos]

A2-

The task guide reads, for example P-0101 - and separates - between "For Ground Operations" from "For Air Operations" and "For Mission Base Operations." As long as the tasks include language that separates in that way, I will call it "in context with."

Flyer