Flight Evaluation Board (FEB)

[BashiChuni]

Sounds like a shit bag 

maybe too harsh... just my snap judgement knowing no facts...

Edited August 6, 2017 by BashiChuni

[Hacker]

3 hours ago, GypsyGhost said:

Well from my understanding, I am awaiting the review from AFRC. If that decision is not for me to keep my wings, then I'm looking at the next course of action.

That's what my entire post was discussing -- what your options are going forward.  At this point, there aren't many that are going to get you back in the saddle with your current organization (e.g. the AF Reserves, apparently).

Other services aren't going to be interested in you flying with this kind of baggage, regardless.  I know guys who have been cleared by their FEBs, yet grounded by 4-star leadership anyway, and could not get hired by guard/reserve units at all, much less in an aviation job.

 

3 hours ago, GypsyGhost said:

 I feel there was too much prejudicial material that clouded the black and white reasons why they felt an FEB was the only other avenue.

The decision to convene an FEB is an administrative process, and one in which you don't have any "right" of recourse, so the idea that there's "prejudicial material" involved makes no difference.  The IG and the BCMR will answer that argument by saying, "it was within the Commander's authority to make the decision he did," and that will be the end of it, unfortunately.

If you want to fight it with the IG or the BCMR, go for it...but be prepared to get no satisfaction, and get on with moving on in your professional career and life.

 

[matmacwc]

Your writing and statements are confusing at best for the most seasoned of aviators, we don't live (when we are able) to live in this area of aviation and do not usually welcome it.  If you could articulate it better, we may have a sympathetic ear, if not, most aviators believe you are being vague on purpose.  Do not see this an attack, but what your leadership and any board you may meet as the thought in the forefront of their minds.

[Hacker]

2 hours ago, GypsyGhost said:

MFR stating anything relating to a mental state and not being a phycologist/psychiatrist is in fact prejudice as well as it was written 6-7 weeks after the event, and was after being successful in the first gambit of getting signed off, so I had a mentoring session, got qualified then tank'd because it was all around a bad flight. I wasn't the only member downgraded..

I think you're missing the point here.  You can say, "it is in fact prejudice" all you want, but that doesn't impact the rules by which these administrative processes are governed.

There's no rule that says the Commander can only be influenced in making their FEB decision by certain types of information.  So, with respect to this situation, no, that MFR isn't wrong, illegal, against any rule, etc.

I get that you think you got a raw deal, but here's a dose of reality: the system doesn't care.

You came here asking for information and help, and there are several people who have actual experience with the FEB process, as well as the follow-up processes I mentioned before, like the BCMR.  We are trying to give you a straight answer.  If you don't like what we have to say, then pony up the cash to get yourself an actual attorney's opinion.  Some of us have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on attorney's fees to even get this knowledge in the first place, but suit yourself.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Hacker

[Plus15]

I had the unfortunate experience of being the Recorder in an FEB against a young pilot who was represented by both civil and military lawyers.  They questioned the veracity of some of the Form 8 statements from multiple evaluators.  The thing about FEBs is the rules governing admissibility of evidence is not the same as most legal proceedings.  If the board wants to hear it (even hearsay) and weigh it, they can.  In my experience the board, as experienced pilots, could read between the lines and get to the truth quite easily.  The final board recommendation will go through many legal reviews.   Odds are not in your favor.  There it is.  

[Azimuth]

3 hours ago, Plus15 said:

I had the unfortunate experience of being the Recorder in an FEB against a young pilot who was represented by both civil and military lawyers.  They questioned the veracity of some of the Form 8 statements from multiple evaluators.  The thing about FEBs is the rules governing admissibility of evidence is not the same as most legal proceedings.  If the board wants to hear it (even hearsay) and weigh it, they can.  In my experience the board, as experienced pilots, could read between the lines and get to the truth quite easily.  The final board recommendation will go through many legal reviews.   Odds are not in your favor.  There it is.  

I've also seen the opposite.  Fairchild had a crew that got FEB'd two years ago.  The FEB recommended taking all three crew member's wings, however when a FEB goes to the MAJCOM/CC it will most likely be vetted through the A3V office.  In this case the A3V recommended retention for the Copilot and Boom, but to take aways the AC's wings, which was the right call in my opinion.  However the majority of the time the A3V office will just go with the board recommendations.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Azimuth

[Vito]

Azimuth,

 I'm  just curious, what was the issue that caused the FEB in your post...you can be General, but I'm curious how bad an event needs to be to warrant the FEB.  My only exposure to a FEB was a 130 dude who could not transition to the C-17.  He was asked nicely to take a non-flying job or risk an FEB..he chose the non-flying job.  Some of my airline buds who knew him at his old C-130 unit said he sucked at flying the Herc as well.  

 

[ThreeHoler]

It takes a lot of documentation to get to an FEB in the KC-10. It was a brutal experience sitting on one for a pilot years ago...but the individual's training record and testimony by all witnesses (regardless of whose "side" they were on) told the story very clearly that he should not continue as a pilot.

YMMV.

[FourFans]

There is nothing good about an FEB.  I've been party to a couple.  There has to be a whole lot of documentation, wrecked career(s),  maybe a wrecked airplane, and a lot of painful waiting (months, if not years) while squadron mates stew in speculation and sideline quarterbacking.  While FEBs do expose a lot of ground truth, they also open the door for a lot of opinion, personal and professional bias, hearsay, and straight up misinformation to enter in to the "judgment" process.  Often the FEB is the second or third major investigative event in a string that can politely be described as 'forcible body cavity examinations' for the crew member(s) involved.  One of the FEBs I saw was completely overturned by the convening official because the panel's judgments missed the mark so badly.

Just another perspective.

FF

[Plus15]

18 hours ago, Azimuth said:

I've also seen the opposite.  Fairchild had a crew that got FEB'd two years ago.  The FEB recommended taking all three crew member's wings, however when a FEB goes to the MAJCOM/CC it will most likely be vetted through the A3V office.  In this case the A3V recommended retention for the Copilot and Boom, but to take aways the AC's wings, which was the right call in my opinion.  However the majority of the time the A3V office will just go with the board recommendations.

First hand knowledge or squadron lore?  The reason I ask is it would be highly unusual to staff through A3V.  No need and I'm pretty sure 11-402 only directs legal reviews after the convening authority determination and prior to final determination.  Just curious.

[Lord Ratner]

I've also seen the opposite.  Fairchild had a crew that got FEB'd two years ago.  The FEB recommended taking all three crew member's wings, however when a FEB goes to the MAJCOM/CC it will most likely be vetted through the A3V office.  In this case the A3V recommended retention for the Copilot and Boom, but to take aways the AC's wings, which was the right call in my opinion.  However the majority of the time the A3V office will just go with the board recommendations.

The FEB recommended all three crew members keep their wings. The wg/cc agreed for the copilot and boom, but not the AC.

Regardless of where you stand on this particular mishap, I have a pretty big issue with having a board, but disregarding the results, especially when the board sides with the defendant. Have the board, or don't.

[Hacker]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

The FEB recommended all three crew members keep their wings. The wg/cc agreed for the copilot and boom, but not the AC.

Regardless of where you stand on this particular mishap, I have a pretty big issue with having a board, but disregarding the results, especially when the board sides with the defendant. Have the board, or don't.

For one, the WG/CC (likely the Convening Authority) doesn't make the decision to accept or reject the FEB findings -- that is the MAJCOM/CC's determination.  The Convening Authority makes a recommendation based on the findings of the FEB, but the actual decision and signature is the realm of the 4-Star.

Second, these differences between FEB findings and final decisions happen quite regularly, unfortunately.  The process is quite open about the fact that FEB findings are only recommendations.  It is moronic that the system has this "due process" and Commanders can do whatever they please regardless of the findings of that process, but it is part-and-parcel with other administrative things Commanders are authorized to do under the UCMJ.  The FEB is essentially just a decisionmaking aid for the Commander.

[NKAWTG]

12 hours ago, Vito said:

Azimuth,

 I'm  just curious, what was the issue that caused the FEB in your post...you can be General, but I'm curious how bad an event needs to be to warrant the FEB.  My only exposure to a FEB was a 130 dude who could not transition to the C-17.  He was asked nicely to take a non-flying job or risk an FEB..he chose the non-flying job.  Some of my airline buds who knew him at his old C-130 unit said he sucked at flying the Herc as well.  

 

There is a safety report on it if you do some digging.  Worst pilot judgement I've read about in a crew aircraft.  People closer to the story can verify, but I believe the copilot and boom operator were really new, like less than a year in the aircraft new. 

[the g-man]

21 minutes ago, NKAWTG said:

There is a safety report on it if you do some digging.  Worst pilot judgement I've read about in a crew aircraft.  People closer to the story can verify, but I believe the copilot and boom operator were really new, like less than a year in the aircraft new. 

Was this the guys on the way to a deployment?

[Azimuth]

12 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

There is a safety report on it if you do some digging.  Worst pilot judgement I've read about in a crew aircraft.  People closer to the story can verify, but I believe the copilot and boom operator were really new, like less than a year in the aircraft new. 

The were on their second deployment.  The AC was a crossflow C-130 guy.

[Azimuth]

26 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

Yes, I have a problem with this also.  During my one, brief peek into the FEB process, I saw the lack of due process to be something beyond what I thought it could be.  The heavy-handedness of the entire process was a major disappointment.  

If:

1. I was on the receiving end of an FEB like the one I witnessed, and 

2. I had a substantial amount of disposable income...

...then I'd make a list of those that cashed in their integrity to falsely go after me... and I'd take legal proceedings in civil court that would keep them very busy for many years to come.  This would include the 4-star that felt they knew more than the Board. 

 

Due process isn't a thing with administrative procedures.  In fact the UCMJ has been neutered enough with silly things called Military Rule of Evidence (MRE's) that due process doesn't exist in court martial either.  

[the g-man]

13 hours ago, Azimuth said:

The were on their second deployment.  The AC was a crossflow C-130 guy.

Cool.  I am 99% sure I have read the story you're referencing now.

[skibum]

I've seen/participated in several FEBs from the viewpoint of drunken spectator up to convening authority. While some FEBs had issues, I've not seen one where the person in question wasn't a problem. I have, however, seen MANY who should have been FEBed but leadership was too pussified to to take action. You got your day at the board. Call me a skeptic, but I ain't buying the sob story. I'm with Gearpig on this one.

[dream big]

12 hours ago, the g-man said:

Cool.  I am 99% sure I have read the story you're referencing now.

Quick cliffnotes version of what happened?

[the g-man]

8 hours ago, dream big said:

Quick cliffnotes version of what happened?

If for any reason you de-pressurize in flight make sure you check on your pax and seriously consider diverting to an excellent American air base before continuing 5 hours to the sandbox.

[BashiChuni]

Holy shit lol

[dream big]

Wow! Did the pax stay conscious ?

[mcbush]

1 minute ago, dream big said:

Wow! Did the pax stay conscious ?

Nope. Based on the briefing I got, it sounds like it was a literal shitshow.

[Azimuth]

1 hour ago, mcbush said:

Nope. Based on the briefing I got, it sounds like it was a literal shitshow.

It was.  The Boom and Copilot are back flying.  The AC also has an insane story about being accidentally RIF'd from Dyess back in 2010.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Azimuth

[Azimuth]

6 hours ago, the g-man said:

If for any reason you de-pressurize in flight make sure you check on your pax and seriously consider diverting to an excellent American air base before continuing 5 hours to the sandbox.

And not calling a IFE for say...physiological problems...