Mission Participation Durations

[heliodoc]

After reading SAR - EMT 1's post....

IF there really is a "NATIONAL HQ STANDARD" then it is high time every one starts going by it.  In most SQTR's it says "Discuss" other say "Demonstrate."

With ALL these SET quals out there, then it is high time it becomes STANDARD.  Everyone sits down and does it then when people move onto other States then it should follow them.

MY Army 68B, 67T, 67N (former), ALSE, Safety School, etc goes nationwide.  Gets checked by NCO's above me thru a taskbook.  I do not have to redo everything.  I have to show competency just as pilots do on drills and tests.  I fi mess something up, I get to demonstrate THAT day or a predetermined meet time to requal and NOT 6 weeks to 8 months later.  Get my drift??

Reading this CAP stuff sure starts to make wonder who is on top of this.  To refuse another Wing's training is just another reason why there needs to be NATIONAL ACCREDITATION.  Now before anyone flames me about pencil whipping, which I DO know happens on this forum, In the former Wing we did alot of show me and discuss me stuff and everyone learned and had fun doing it.

SAR EMT's experience just shows there is lack of trust in the training and training materials that CAP "metes" out.  Maybe we need some PJ's to start driving around and assessing the assessors at each Wing starting with the ESO's.  How do you suppose that would make everyone feel then???

I think CAP needs an assessment by some of the former ARRS folks and maybe some tough PJ types...

I KNOW I don't everything GT or SAR.  I learned THAT when I went to PJOC in 1979 as a cadet.  Those boys could put you thru your paces.

I feel CAP needs that.

[IceNine]

Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...

Your Wing ESO is in violation of 60-3, unless your wing has a supplement to it.

Yeah, I've stopped fighting that battle, and moved on to more productive tasks

Our wing ESO also refused to acknowledge training I recieved when I attended an Iowa Wing Training Assembly. I had to redo everything in front of an ILWG member.
I politely refused and do not have the qual.

I too would request that you re demonstrate appropriate qualifications and there should be no particular issue with doing that.  Refusing to demonstrate skills tells me that you are not comfortable with the approved standards and were greased through by someone less caring.

So essentially you dissed the person who instructed you in the first place, because had you shown those skills there would be no question of their ability to instruct to approved standards in the future, and more importantly proved that that wing is requiring performance to approved standards.

Repetition is not always a bad thing, and you can expect these types of hurdles all through life.  Might as well accept them and move on now

[arajca]

It would depend if the member were required to demonstrate the skills or redo the training. Skill demonstration should be no big deal, but I've seen and heard of members being required to redo training that was done in another wing instead of just demonstrating the skills.

[IceNine]

Agreed

Very true, but I was replying off of the implication that he was asked to redemonstrate

[NavLT]

I agree whole heartedly with the Idea that if they meet the demonstrated standards I don't care if they did 3 jobs in one day.

I don't envy the PJOC invasion to check examiners to the examined since just about everybody gets my CAPID and the SQTR does not require signatures except for final check out.  Although the PJOCs would like the # of trainees I boot for not knowing the tasks.

V/R
LT J.

[heliodoc]

Proud of booting???

I'd be training rather than worrying who to boot??

CAP needs to train and the trainers need to demonstrate and allow those folks to demo the "skill"

I too have folks who can not recall everything and until CAP becomes a paid job then I would to some degree allow more retraining.and request a better performance than before. There are plenty of super sleuth CAP'ers who live and breathe things all CAP.  BUT CAP has to improve alot to call themselves EXPERTS!   Are you booting just to boot, tough guy??

The text and training, including all the typos, in the MART and Aircrew and Flightline Tasks leave ALOOTTT to be desired, that is for sure.  I will take them for what they are worth, for reference only.  AND instead of people having to pay 6.00 from CAPMART for the taskbook ( BDU pocket sized) those SHOULD behande out as a package to the membership, just like the US Army does.  I know I'll get flak and be told that cost the organization dinero, but you know what?  Cessna 182's do too.

V/r heliodoc

[IceNine]

Not real sure how there is any correlation to a search asset such as a 182 and the cost of a task guide.  That is a reach for any stretch of the imagination.

And add to that the fact that the aircraft are at least by majority funded by Air Force Appropriations. 

HQ has no reason to send out taskbooks because there is a large percentage of our membership that does not participate in ES. It would be wasted dollars to send them to everyone.

They have provided the information online and you can do with it as you please.  But after some research you will be hard pressed to fine a printer that will run those half sheet guides, staple and put card stock fronts on them for 6.00.  It is a steal and not one that nationals should have to fund

[NavLT]

Last time I checked the SET quiz hammers on the examining vs training issue in detail.

When I take a trainee out for evaluation for the ability to do the things they were trained in the advanced training, and they cannot do them they don't get signed off for the sortie and get sent back for more advanced training.

I would not say proud of booting, perhaps not ashamed of doing my job as an evaluator.  The signature block says performed the job under my supervision not with me hand holding them through every function of the job.  If they are at that point they are not ready by a long shot. 

Now when they are sent to me for advanced training, I train and if they think they are getting a signature for mission completion as a trainee again they are wrong and do not understand testing vs training.

I have trained hundreds of Military, EMTs, Paramedics, CAP Cadets and Seniors; and I don't loose any sleep about anyone I ever gave my endorsement to. I also have faith in their ability to protect my nation, my family and my life.

Perhaps in some peoples opinion I take my job "Too" seriously but I would rather that then the apparent alternative.

V/R
Lt J.

[IceNine]

^ bingo

There is no reason that people should expect certification from the person that really matters, their commander.

As a commander I have certain people that I trust and don't even thing to question should someone walk into my office and show me a SQTR with that person's name on it.

But, if I don't know the trainer or don't trust their methods you better believe that I am going to ask you to re demonstrate the skills before myself or one of my trusted advisors.

It is just bad form to pout and whine because someone asks you to prove yourself. 

Because as I mentioned before ultimately it is my fault if you are not ready to perform on a mission.  It has nothing to do with the person that performed the training, their name is not on the approval portion of the form.

[SAR-EMT1]

Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...

Your Wing ESO is in violation of 60-3, unless your wing has a supplement to it.

Yeah, I've stopped fighting that battle, and moved on to more productive tasks

Our wing ESO also refused to acknowledge training I recieved when I attended an Iowa Wing Training Assembly. I had to redo everything in front of an ILWG member.
I politely refused and do not have the qual.

I too would request that you re demonstrate appropriate qualifications and there should be no particular issue with doing that.  Refusing to demonstrate skills tells me that you are not comfortable with the approved standards and were greased through by someone less caring.

So essentially you dissed the person who instructed you in the first place, because had you shown those skills there would be no question of their ability to instruct to approved standards in the future, and more importantly proved that that wing is requiring performance to approved standards.

Repetition is not always a bad thing, and you can expect these types of hurdles all through life.  Might as well accept them and move on now

It was not a "demonstration" I was asked to perform. I was bluntly told that nothing done in Iowa counted and that i must start from scratch on the SQTR with a SET qual'd individual from ILWG