Stan Eval Shenanigans

[jice]

Not shenanigans on Stan-Eval's part, but seemed like an appropriate place for the question:

Had a form 8 check recently, ended up Q1 with a pair of downgrades for being a bonehead at the right time and place. How much do downgrades on a form 8 checkride matter? Obviously no downgrades would have been much better, but is this something that's going to have an impact down the road?

[dmeg130]

Very little, and no. Your 942 says "1" all the way down, not much chance anyone is going to dig through the individual Forms 8 in-depth.

[JPStryker]

Very little, and no. Your 942 says "1" all the way down, not much chance anyone is going to dig through the individual Forms 8 in-depth.

Concur. Individual area downgrades are only potentially useful for trend information, and even then only marginally so. Much better trend information can be gained by sitting around and shooting the poo over a beer or two.

[HuggyU2]

Your 942 says "1" all the way down, not much chance anyone is going to dig through the individual Forms 8 in-depth.

If you apply to the U-2, they will go through every Form 8 in detail, to include your testing scores.

[Muscle2002]

If you apply to the U-2, they will go through every Form 8 in detail, to include your testing scores.

Same goes for TPS.

[jice]

So if the U-2 is the goal in a few years could those downgrades potentially kill the dream?

[contraildash]

Had an interesting talk with some fighter dudes who were amazed at how willing AMC types are to give out Q2/3s on check rides AND normal flights. I related some stories I know and they just couldn't understand it.

"They gave that dude a Q3 for that?!? WTF!"

[JS]

Yeah, I heard the same thing from some fighter guys - "man, you guys eat your own in your community." I do think that it seems more systemic in the Herk/C-17 world than in other airframes. I have seen a lot of Q-other than 1's for what usually amounts to an honest mistake being made in a busy, task-saturating environment - flap overspeeds, shifting cago/platforms coming loose on the ground, stall indication in the final turn (not actual stall) after a random shallow, setting the wrong mins for circling, and not being able to land the second time out of an assault. I even witnessed a Q-3 (I think, maybe Q-2) for a post-checkride ground eval that wasn't that horrible, from what I heard second hand. I have heard the Q-2/Q-3 being used in this community in the name of "accountability" for people's mistakes. I am not sure that I totally agree with that - to mar someones permanent record due to an honest mistake such as overspeeding flaps or accidentally unlocking a palette on the ground (no injuries or damages in any of my examples....but, well, could be worse, I guess).

On the bright side, our last two guys to bolt for the airlines - both stan eval types at the squadron and group level - both had plenty of marks on their records. I guess (or hope, shall I say), that the guys on the other side of the interview table at the airline hopefully have some perspective about how we dish out the Q-3 and Q-2 in our community easier than they give out lashings to a thief in an arab country.

[Guest Crew Report]

KC-135 guys hand Q-3's like candy.

[PirateAF]

Yeah, I heard the same thing from some fighter guys - "man, you guys eat your own in your community." ...

You think we're bad, you should see our Evaluator Loads, FEs, and Booms. Yikes.

[Insubordinate & Churlish]

You think we're bad, you should see our Evaluator Loads, FEs, and Booms. Yikes.

My worst experience loading an aircraft is:

a.) doing EROs on a busy and poorly lit ramp in Iraq?

b.) loading at homestation under the supervision of a load on a checkride?

c.) blindly spotting myself into AN-12s because the Russians don't give a f***?

The correct answer is b. Eval gets those guys very wound up. But that's just my perspective.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Port Dog

[Spoo]

So if the U-2 is the goal in a few years could those downgrades potentially kill the dream?

Not necessarily. They are just one of many factors that help paint the big picture. We look at every facet of a guy's career and factor in everything. e.g. Checkrides, airframe type, experiences, a check of the bro network, etc. Although earning a Q-3 or two and getting downgrades on every checkride for poor judgment and lack of SA while also scoring 85 on every open-book test won't help your chances. (Seen that interview package before, STS.) BL, there's really no one silver bullet that kills your chances.

Now, to get back to the thread at hand: The Q-2 is a great technique...if you're a DB SEFE with no fucking people skills and a complete inability to make a decision.

EDIT: And by "fucking people skills" I didn't mean fucking people skills.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Spoo

[JS]

You think we're bad, you should see our Evaluator Loads, FEs, and Booms. Yikes.

Yeah, some of my examples were from the back of the plane. Again, I have seen many a good dude, very-well qualified, several of whom I have flown with in combat and will fly with again in combat, get Q-3s for honest, stupid-shit mistakes in the back of the plane. I could be wrong, but I sense that a lot of the fighter guys on this thread seem to think that if you are good from a big-picture standpoint, in other words, you can fly the plane day in and day out, that you should not have your permanent record marred by honest mistakes in your daily flights. Q-3s and downgrades should be reserved to be part of the process to get guys who are incapable of safely operating the aircraft long term.

My worst experience loading an aircraft is:

a.) doing EROs on a busy and poorly lit ramp in Iraq?

b.) loading at homestation under the supervision of a load on a checkride?

c.) blindly spotting myself into AN-12s because the Russians don't give a f***?

The correct answer is b. Eval gets those guys very wound up. But that's just my perspective.

Agreed, but the sad thing is that I have seen several guys get sat down with Q-other than 1's during contingency operations for loading mistakes or similar infractions. It seems that on one hand, we are instilling a "this is war - make it happen" mindset, until something goes wrong, then it changes to "this is not war, it is a cover your ass contingency, and you should have been more conservative while operating in the so-called 'war' zone."

Not necessarily. They are just one of many factors that help paint the big picture. We look at every facet of a guy's career and factor in everything. e.g. Checkrides, airframe type, experiences, a check of the bro network, etc. Although earning a Q-3 or two and getting downgrades on every checkride for poor judgment and lack of SA while also scoring 85 on every open-book test won't help your chances. (Seen that interview package before, STS.) BL, there's really no one silver bullet that kills your chances.

Now, to get back to the thread at hand: The Q-2 is a great technique...if you're a DB SEFE with no fucking people skills and a complete inability to make a decision.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a bunch of tanker/mobility guys competing for a U-2 or TPS slot, each with a few Q-3s on their record for busting altitude by 200 feet (seen it), briefing the wrong circling mins (seen it), and a flap overspeed (seen it), they probably won't be as competitive for such jobs compared to guys in a community that is generally speaking, more "big picture." So doesn't that mean that perhaps some good dudes are being excluded from the pool of qualified applicants simply because of how their community views the Q-2/Q-3? Something doesn't sound right about that to me.

[Spoo]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a bunch of tanker/mobility guys competing for a U-2 or TPS slot, each with a few Q-3s on their record for busting altitude by 200 feet (seen it), briefing the wrong circling mins (seen it), and a flap overspeed (seen it), they probably won't be as competitive for such jobs compared to guys in a community that is generally speaking, more "big picture."

Speaking only for my community, one Q-3 doesn't usually DQ somebody. Now a guy with "a few Q-3s" will have a tougher time getting an interview. I would think that would be true anywhere.

EDIT: I don't care how big or small the picture is in your community, if you have multiple Q-3s, you're doing it wrong.

So doesn't that mean that perhaps some good dudes are being excluded from the pool of qualified applicants simply because of how their community views the Q-2/Q-3? Something doesn't sound right about that to me.

1. A "good dude" does not = a good pilot.

2. All the more reason for a unit to carefully select SEFEs and accurately document training folders and Form 8s.

C. Sorry, right or wrong, life isn't fair dude.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Spoo

[HuggyU2]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a bunch of tanker/mobility guys competing for a U-2 or TPS slot, each with a few Q-3s on their record for busting altitude by 200 feet (seen it), briefing the wrong circling mins (seen it), and a flap overspeed (seen it), they probably won't be as competitive for such jobs compared to guys in a community that is generally speaking, more "big picture." So doesn't that mean that perhaps some good dudes are being excluded from the pool of qualified applicants simply because of how their community views the Q-2/Q-3? Something doesn't sound right about that to me.

Do you really think that we are that stupid and incompetent when it comes to selecting applicants for an interview?

Do you really think we don't understand how different communities do checkrides? Name me an aircraft type that you can't find a pilot that flew it (exceptions: AFSOC, because of their varied aircraft; B-2, although our 1st B-2 guy shows up for training very soon). If I get a Navy S-3 pilot's application, we have guys that than look it over and "translate" it.

I ran Recruiting & Acceptance for ~5 years. We do a pretty good job of keeping the big, accurate picture when looking for a pilot that will do well in the U-2.

BTW: our application process,... and especially our interview process,... look NOTHING like what they do in the B-2 or Thunderbirds.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Huggyu2

[Guest]

Do you really think that we are that stupid and incompetent when it comes to selecting applicants for an interview?

No, you're just not fair.

You should bring in every applicant for an interview and then hire everyone you interview.

That would be fair. And nice.

[Herk Driver]

Agreed, but the sad thing is that I have seen several guys get sat down with Q-other than 1's during contingency operations for loading mistakes or similar infractions. It seems that on one hand, we are instilling a "this is war - make it happen" mindset, until something goes wrong, then it changes to "this is not war, it is a cover your ass contingency, and you should have been more conservative while operating in the so-called 'war' zone."

Why are we doing things differently in wartime than in peacetime? Why not train the way we fight? Our TTPs don't really have a TTP for peacetime and a TTP for wartime. If you use your TTPs for training and the same ones for war fighting then you don't have this dilemma. The only caveat being if the powers that be have waived certain elements of the AFIs to give themselves more flexibility. But then again they are assuming the elevated risk associated with that decision, right?

[JS]

Do you really think that we are that stupid and incompetent when it comes to selecting applicants for an interview?

Do you really think we don't understand how different communities do checkrides?

No, I don't think you are that stupid in the U-2 community, but I am looking at the bigger picture (reference above posts about the importance of the big picture) of all flying jobs across the board; I only bring up U2's and TPS because it was referenced earlier in the thread. I am also thinking about all of the commercial flying jobs (cargo and passengers), corporate flying jobs, special flying jobs like DIA, NASA, NOAA, FAA, ICE, etc., as well as guys interviewing with other guard/reserve units. In some of those situations, I could see the interviewer possibly not having the breadth of perspective that you guys apparently do in your hiring process. I have seen first hand several times, and heard several first hand stories, of there being a hiring "board" of one or two dudes (guard/reserve interviews, corporate aviation, etc) who probably don't have the same luxury of having guys from different airframes at their disposal to give their interpretations of how different communities work. Probably not that big of a deal with larger airlines, etc. But it just seems that there should be some more standardization across different communities in the USAF flying world with regards to Q-3s.

[Chapter29]

1.

2.

C.

D. Documentation is important.

[JS]

1. A "good dude" does not = a good pilot.

Sorry for not clariflying, but the context of "good dude" was supposed to mean solid pilot.

2. All the more reason for a unit to carefully select SEFEs and accurately document training folders and Form 8s.

But like others have mentioned, douches will slip through the cracks quite often. I am only saying that they need to be contstrained by the community, instead of encouraged by the community by virtue of how many Q3s are given out for nit-picky shit.

C. Sorry, right or wrong, life isn't fair dude.

Thanks, man - up until this point, I really didn't know that.

[Nineline]

BTW: our application process,... and especially our interview process,... look NOTHING like what they do in the B-2 or Thunderbirds.

This statement peaked my curiousity. Can you expand on this at all?

-9-

[JS]

D. Documentation is important.

Are we up to "D" in this list, or "4?" Perhaps "iv" would be next in the series.

[JS]

Why are we doing things differently in wartime than in peacetime? Why not train the way we fight? Our TTPs don't really have a TTP for peacetime and a TTP for wartime. If you use your TTPs for training and the same ones for war fighting then you don't have this dilemma. The only caveat being if the powers that be have waived certain elements of the AFIs to give themselves more flexibility. But then again they are assuming the elevated risk associated with that decision, right?

That's a great f-ing question. We have had that discussion several times while over in the desert. I try to tell my guys, "look, this 'war' is not going to be won by that extra airlift or refueling mission - pushing the envelope to imaginary wartime limits while putting us all at greater risk is just not worth it here." Of course, trying to operate in the CENTCOM environment in a propeller=-driven plane while complying with all of the millions of rules and regulations (IFR/VFR rules, climb gradients, degraded equipment, etc) is next to impossible. The environment forces guys to get in a "wartime" mindset of taking risks because we blow off smaller stuff in the name of combat all the time.

But in general, I agree with you, the regs/rules are designed to allow higher-ups the authority to allow us to take on greater risks. One of the problems is that the rules were written with so much "cover-your-ass" legalese from back in the states, that nobody wants to be the one who authorizes a slightly higher level of wartime risk, because God-forbid something gets damaged or someone gets killed in a war. That, and it doesn't help matters when the waiver authority, such as the DIRMOBFOR, and his advisors in the ivory tower are not from your airframe and have little clue how you employ your aircraft.

I can't tell if your post is cynical or not, but do you feel that the training rules work and that guys playing the "this is war" card are wrong when they do things differently over there? Or are you saying that stateside training needs to be de-pussified to match the additional risks that are being taken on a regular basis in the CENTOM deployed environments?

[StainedClass]

My checkrides have always ceased on the ground in the AOR (per directive or not) and reengaged after departure from the AOR.

But I've always flown jets where that was possible.

[Spoo]

D. Documentation is important.

I thought that was covered by ii.)