Stan Eval Shenanigans

[JPStryker]

not sticking up for the Q-3'd at hand, but what kind of tool-bag EP pulls a motor before S1 on a AC checkride in the sim. . . . . let me guess, KLTS? Sim checkrides are retarded, for such bafoonery, EP's can dial up a "hook" with the press of a button. let's see I'll give this dude 25 kt crosswinds, 200' ceilings and 2 engines out on one wing and send him around because that is an accurate measure of one's ability to employ an MWS. .

we have EP sims annually to practice dial-a-death type stuff, all that is required for an AC checkride (EP wise) is an EFTOC and a 3 engine go, so why would a so called "big picture EP" take it upon himself to add to that profile unless he was fishing for a taco.

I'm not a proponent of hosing dudes in the sim either, but a clear cut reject call below decision speed isn't cosmic. If the guy is not performing it the way he should be, that's a possible training issue. Or a possible dumbshit issue, which is harder to fix.

[ThreeHoler]

not sticking up for the Q-3'd at hand, but what kind of tool-bag EP pulls a motor before S1 on a AC checkride in the sim. . . . . let me guess, KLTS? Sim checkrides are retarded, for such bafoonery, EP's can dial up a "hook" with the press of a button. let's see I'll give this dude 25 kt crosswinds, 200' ceilings and 2 engines out on one wing and send him around because that is an accurate measure of one's ability to employ an MWS. .

we have EP sims annually to practice dial-a-death type stuff, all that is required for an AC checkride (EP wise) is an EFTOC and a 3 engine go, so why would a so called "big picture EP" take it upon himself to add to that profile unless he was fishing for a taco.

The sub-V1 reject was standard on any sim check in my first MWS. It was also covered at least once per quarter per pilot.

My current MWS does not do sim checks, we also only do an EP sim every half. However, we do verbal EPs prior to step on every local trainer...start malfunctions, reject, V1 cut, or a "random sampling."

I would bet all that evaluator was hoping to hear was something along the line of "action the checks." But I could be wrong.

[Guest Crew Report]

not sticking up for the Q-3'd at hand, but what kind of tool-bag EP pulls a motor before S1 on a AC checkride in the sim. . . . . let me guess, KLTS? Sim checkrides are retarded, for such bafoonery, EP's can dial up a "hook" with the press of a button. let's see I'll give this dude 25 kt crosswinds, 200' ceilings and 2 engines out on one wing and send him around because that is an accurate measure of one's ability to employ an MWS. .

we have EP sims annually to practice dial-a-death type stuff, all that is required for an AC checkride (EP wise) is an EFTOC and a 3 engine go, so why would a so called "big picture EP" take it upon himself to add to that profile unless he was fishing for a taco.

Because if/when you're upgrading as an AC, you are expected to be an A Code and perform the mission and at least having some basic system knowledge of the aircraft you fly on. Not realizing TWICE that boldface is part of a checklist you're supposed to run due to an EP is flat out UNSAT. For the record this wasn't at KLTS.

Sometimes you have to call the baby ugly.

[Homestar]

For what it's worth, the AC upgrade in the KC-135 is a SPOT OME, so multiple legs, ideally with an overseas component. The AC upgrade candidate is given 3-engine work (including engine failure prior to S1) in the sim during training--the worst he'd get is a U for that training sortie with a chance for additional training. Emergency procedures aren't evaluated on the OME per se...there is normally a table top EPE given at some point, usually a big picture discussion with Dash-1-looking-up going on.

I've never heard of a Q3 for an OME, though I have heard of several "come-to-Jesus" talks with the evaluator during...

[Guest Crew Report]

For what it's worth, the AC upgrade in the KC-135 is a SPOT OME, so multiple legs, ideally with an overseas component. The AC upgrade candidate is given 3-engine work (including engine failure prior to S1) in the sim during training--the worst he'd get is a U for that training sortie with a chance for additional training. Emergency procedures aren't evaluated on the OME per se...there is normally a table top EPE given at some point, usually a big picture discussion with Dash-1-looking-up going on.

I've never heard of a Q3 for an OME, though I have heard of several "come-to-Jesus" talks with the evaluator during...

I've seen multiple KC-135 Q3's for AC upgrade. Like another guy who threw the speed brakes out with the flaps extended. Then got pissed when he was hooked (and the IP flying with him).

[Homestar]

That's too bad. The KC-135 AC OME really isn't that difficult. That you've seen multiple of these end in Q3 is just testament to why AC upgrade should not be conducted in-unit. But I digress...

Edited April 29, 2011 by Homestar

[Right Seat Driver]

Standby for No-Notice Sim checks.

[Guest Crew Report]

That's too bad. The KC-135 AC OME really isn't that difficult. That you've seen multiple of these end in Q3 is just testament to why AC upgrade should not be conducted in-unit. But I digress...

Which is why the C-17's switched back to PCO (AC Upgrade) at the FTU. And we (-135's) followed them by upgrading in-house originally and getting rid of PUP

[Right Seat Driver]

Which is why the C-17's switched back to PCO (AC Upgrade) at the FTU. And we (-135's) followed them by upgrading in-house originally and getting rid of PUP

It would be nice to get PUP back. While we may never get back to having PUP, I think that is going to be some pretty substantial changes done to the MPD Program/Process.

[Herk Driver]

That's too bad. The KC-135 AC OME really isn't that difficult. That you've seen multiple of these end in Q3 is just testament to why AC upgrade should not be conducted in-unit. But I digress...

2

[JarheadBoom]

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

It's a bad sign for the community when the ATOC reps at _______________ get on your airplane, and the first question they ask (once they figure out who the Booms are) is "Are you guys doing a checkride?", and not "what's your op weight/ACL/configuration/seat release?".

[arg]

Most tanker EP's are big picture. Then you get the idiot upgrading to AC who loses and engine on takeoff in the sim (before S1), does the Abort boldface (doesn't have the Copilot run the rest of the abort checklist), and thinks that's it. The EP then resets the sim, gives him the exact same EP, and he does the Abort boldface again (again, doesn't have the Copilot run the rest of the checklist), get's Q3'd, and then bitches about it how that scenario wasn't fair.

The EP puts on his Santa hat and gives him a "do over" and he still screws it up.

Based on this info only I don't see it as a Q-3. If he got the plane(sim)stopped without hurting anybody or breaking anything but forgot the checklist. Q-2. He did do the bold face correctly, right?

Edited May 1, 2011 by arg

[Guest Crew Report]

The EP puts on his Santa hat and gives him a "do over" and he still screws it up.

Based on this info only I don't see it as a Q-3. If he got the plane(sim)stopped without hurting anybody or breaking anything but forgot the checklist. Q-2. He did do the bold face correctly, right?

Q-2's are for people who can't make a decision and probably shouldn't be evaluators. You either know what you're doing or you don't. If you know pretty much what you're doing but had some "lapses in judgement" during your checkride...Q-1 with some downgrades.

It's a bad sign for the community when the ATOC reps at _______________ get on your airplane, and the first question they ask (once they figure out who the Booms are) is "Are you guys doing a checkride?", and not "what's your op weight/ACL/configuration/seat release?".

And there's a reason why they're ATOC and not flyers.

It would be nice to get PUP back. While we may never get back to having PUP, I think that is going to be some pretty substantial changes done to the MPD Program/Process.

When I was in AMC there was a trend of Copilots whining to Training/DO/Commanders about "So and so has been here less than I have and they're already an AC, how come I'm not?" Because you ing suck, that's why. I think by re instituting PUP at KLTS that will cut down on the trend of shitty people trying to upgrade with their buddies who happen to be their IP on their upgrade sorties.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Crew Report

[Right Seat Driver]

When I was in AMC there was a trend of Copilots whining to Training/DO/Commanders about "So and so has been here less than I have and they're already an AC, how come I'm not?" Because you fucking suck, that's why. I think by re instituting PUP at KLTS that will cut down on the trend of shitty people trying to upgrade with their buddies who happen to be their IP on their upgrade sorties.

Not to mention continuity in the crew force and the fact that while AC upgrade is formal training and you should focus on that only, we know that if you do it in-house you are going to get tagged to do some admin stuff outside of upgrade. Sending guys TDY to LTS for formal training accomplished both, dudes will be more focused throughout the whole process.

[WeMeantWell]

Q-2's are for people who can't make a decision and probably shouldn't be evaluators. You either know what you're doing or you don't. If you know pretty much what you're doing but had some "lapses in judgement" during your checkride...Q-1 with some downgrades.

What? So everyone that has given a Q2, "probably shouldn't be evaluators"? Really? Come on... with that statement you are blatantly disregarding the Vol 2, which makes you either unprepared or not knowledgeable enough to be an evaluator.... "I know what the reg says, but I am just going to ignore it"...? Giving a check ride with that mentality is unfair to the person being evaluated, and if that is your intent I would hope you have the balls to brief him/her beforehand that you don't follow the regs and that the only outcome of this check ride is a Q1 or Q3. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that no Q2s should be given, and if there is, then why don't you initiate a change to make it happen? If everyone believes that, then why does everyone sit on their hands and do nothing? Because, I think most people just listen to the party line and simply agree with what everyone else says and believes them to be worthless; as an evaluator you should read the reg and interpret it yourself. Ultimately, someone with stars on their shoulders has ordered you to follow that reg because (we hope) s/he and their staff have a lot more wisdom/experience with flying and check rides...

Honestly, they are not justified very often, but there is a need for them nonetheless. And the argument that they are a tool for someone that can't make a decision is invalid, I think it means the evaluator is actually looking at the reg and determining the best outcome for the check ride. This is not 10th grade physics, this is multi-million dollar aircraft and usually many people's lives at stake... I have never had the unfortunate circumstance of giving a check ride to someone that screwed up later-on, but I would have a very hard time knowing that I had the opportunity to catch or fix something and let it go because I did not utilize all the tools available to me.

Obviously, we do not know the full story of the check ride, but if the evaluator thought it was unsat in an uncritical area, then he would be completely justified with a Q-2; saving tax-payer money on something more than additional training.

Point 2: At least in the last vol 2 I looked at, "Judgement" is a critical area, how are you going to write that as a downgrade? You can not have "lapses in judgement" and still receive a Q1... "Sorry I had a lapse in judgement and bombed the wrong dudes"...unless you are going to call it something else to work the form 8, but really... should you be an evaluator if you are doing that?

[Guest Crew Report]

What? So everyone that has given a Q2, "probably shouldn't be evaluators"? Really? Come on... with that statement you are blatantly disregarding the Vol 2, which makes you either unprepared or not knowledgeable enough to be an evaluator.... "I know what the reg says, but I am just going to ignore it"...? Giving a check ride with that mentality is unfair to the person being evaluated, and if that is your intent I would hope you have the balls to brief him/her beforehand that you don't follow the regs and that the only outcome of this check ride is a Q1 or Q3. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that no Q2s should be given, and if there is, then why don't you initiate a change to make it happen? If everyone believes that, then why does everyone sit on their hands and do nothing? Because, I think most people just listen to the party line and simply agree with what everyone else says and believes them to be worthless; as an evaluator you should read the reg and interpret it yourself. Ultimately, someone with stars on their shoulders has ordered you to follow that reg because (we hope) s/he and their staff have a lot more wisdom/experience with flying and check rides...

I don't follow rules because I don't give Q-2's? So what's the difference between a Q-1 with downgrades and a Q-2? Nothing, they both passed with areas they need to work on that they showed a deficiency. Thanks for the reading Vol 2's, however my world (AETC) here's what the AETC Supt says about Evals under the Q-2 section.

11-202 V2 AETC Supt

5.3.3.2.2. (AETC) When a non-critical area/subarea is graded U, serious

consideration should be given to assigning an overall grade of Q-3. When two or

more non-critical areas/subareas are graded U, the overall grade will be Q-3.

Which I agree.

Honestly, they are not justified very often, but there is a need for them nonetheless. And the argument that they are a tool for someone that can't make a decision is invalid, I think it means the evaluator is actually looking at the reg and determining the best outcome for the check ride. This is not 10th grade physics, this is multi-million dollar aircraft and usually many people's lives at stake... I have never had the unfortunate circumstance of giving a check ride to someone that screwed up later-on, but I would have a very hard time knowing that I had the opportunity to catch or fix something and let it go because I did not utilize all the tools available to me.

And if someone shows a U in an non-critical area, they need corrective training. And 99.69% of the time on evaluations when you need have been identified needing corrective training you're going to be Q-3'd in my community. Speak for your own, which last time I checked had problems with airshow demos and running Approach & Landing checklists.

Point 2: At least in the last vol 2 I looked at, "Judgement" is a critical area, how are you going to write that as a downgrade? You can not have "lapses in judgement" and still receive a Q1... "Sorry I had a lapse in judgement and bombed the wrong dudes"...unless you are going to call it something else to work the form 8, but really... should you be an evaluator if you are doing that?

It was a figure of speech, lighten up Francis.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Crew Report

[Mike Honcho]

Not a heavy dude, so the nonchalant talk of Q3's is extremely odd, but this:

my world (AETC)

May explain something.

Edited to add,

Speak for your own, which last time I checked had problems with airshow demos

is a ######ing foul dude. Make your point without pissing on someone's grave. Edited May 2, 2011 by Mike Honcho

[Guest Crew Report]

May explain something.

Yeah, I got paroled from AMC.

[JarheadBoom]

And there's a reason why they're ATOC and not flyers.

You missed the point.

[Homestar]

Q2 is a qualified outcome with downgrades in a non-critical area, so I don't understand what the problem is.

[WeMeantWell]

I don't follow rules because I don't give Q-2's?

No, because you said any evaluator that gives them should not be evaluators, thus you are encouraging they disregard the Vol 2.

5.3.3.2.2. (AETC) When a non-critical area/subarea is graded U, serious consideration should be given to assigning an overall grade of Q-3. When two or more non-critical areas/subareas are graded U, the overall grade will be Q-3.

That does seem to tie your hands a bit, however it appears to be an AETC attempt to remove some decision making from the EPs. Maybe because AETC does not know how to handle the outcome of a Q2? Come back operational and purge the AETC bong water from your system, their rules exist for a purpose and they do not translate well operationally.

And if someone shows a U in an non-critical area, they need corrective training. And 99.69% of the time on evaluations when you need have been identified needing corrective training you're going to be Q-3'd in my community.

I think that is the key distinction (AETC can always afford the training). Q2 means training, Q3 means training, another pre-check and another check ride. Imagine the difference between a Q2 OME and a Q3, maybe one ride versus 3 locals, and 2-3 trips... That's an expensive distinction.

Speak for your own, which last time I checked had problems with airshow demos and running Approach & Landing checklists.

Must be nice to be in a community with no mistakes and where all your friends are still alive, that must make you correct.

[B.M.]

purge the AETC bong water from your system, their rules exist for a purpose and they do not translate well operationally.

That's one of the best non-Rainman quotes I've seen in awhile. Nicely done.

Say what you will about Q-2s being for douches who can't make a choice; They give an evaluator options and, properly used, can help to identify future problem children. Whether you choose to use that option is a different story.

[Guest]

Ultimately, someone with stars on their shoulders has ordered you to follow that reg because (we hope) s/he and their staff have a lot more wisdom/experience with flying and check rides...

Fail.

You don't work for some GO on the staff. You work for the unit commander.

Get over yourself.

This is not 10th grade physics, this is multi-million dollar aircraft and usually many people's lives at stake... I have never had the unfortunate circumstance of giving a check ride to someone that screwed up later-on, but I would have a very hard time knowing that I had the opportunity to catch or fix something and let it go because I did not utilize all the tools available to me.

It is not your job to "fix" anything. That is the unit commander's job.

To think you can evaluate someone's performance on any given day and predict whether or not that person will someday kill someone down the road is ridiculous and grandiose.

saving tax-payer money on something more than additional training.

You are not a financial analyst and this should not even enter your cranium when making decisions. You are not the squadron commander or operations officer or OG or Wg/CC. You give the checkride and let them manage the budget/flying hour program.

You can not have "lapses in judgement" and still receive a Q1... "Sorry I had a lapse in judgement and bombed the wrong dudes"...unless you are going to call it something else to work the form 8, but really... should you be an evaluator if you are doing that?

Are you fucking kidding me? Is this how you really think?

Imagine the difference between a Q2 OME and a Q3, maybe one ride versus 3 locals, and 2-3 trips... That's an expensive distinction.

Again, not your concern. You are just an evaluator, not a commander. Maybe you should go work in finance.

Must be nice to be in a community with no mistakes and where all your friends are still alive, that must make you correct.

Please. This is fucked up on so many levels.

You are not the savior. You're just an evaluator, checking the performance of a pilot on a given day.

I'm guessing you're the kind of guy that sees someone make a mistake and instead of putting your IP hat on you immediately jump to EP mode and take control/command of the situation with an instant Q-3 so you can save the fucking day...like an arsonist who is also a firefighter.

[WeMeantWell]

You don't work for some GO on the staff. You work for the unit commander.

I was referring to this order:

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY on the reg... "Get over myself"? because I choose to follow a written order?

To think you can evaluate someone's performance on any given day and predict whether or not that person will someday kill someone down the road is ridiculous and grandiose.

No, not to predict, but to judge their performance, based on your own experience of other pilots ICW the reg. I would like to know that I judged them based on the reg; I think it is "ridiculous and grandiose" to judge someone without reference to the reg, as though I know more than all those that came before me who wrote it.

You are not a financial analyst and this should not even enter your cranium when making decisions. You are not the squadron commander or operations officer or OG or Wg/CC. You give the checkride and let them manage the budget/flying hour program.

Not my intent to imply check ride scores are dependent on financial concerns, rather AETC has the resources to demand their EPs give Q3s and not Q2s. I was offering the outcome differences between the two, a blanket Q3 for every unsat grade costs everyone more.

You are not the savior. You're just an evaluator, checking the performance of a pilot on a given day.

I'm guessing you're the kind of guy that sees someone make a mistake and instead of putting your IP hat on you immediately jump to EP mode and take control/command of the situation with an instant Q-3 so you can save the ######ing day...like an arsonist who is also a firefighter.

Not sure how we got here. I thought the discussion was "should Q2s be allowed?" based on the original statement that an EP should not be an EP if he gives one. I am not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that I have to always give Q3s to fix a situation, when in fact, I am trying to justify the use of a Q2 when it is necessary INSTEAD of a Q3. Most people associate a Q2 as the same as a Q1 with downgrades, I see it as similar to Q3 but for non-critical areas. I don't think they are justified very often, but I can see situations when they are. I have yet to hear a single argument for EPs not to give Q2, except for the AETC V3 from Crew Report that says "serious consideration" should be given for a Q3. I am just giving my side, and I know I have been wrong on occasion [/sarcasm], but I would like to know people's rationale for not using them.

[Danny Noonin]

Speak for your own, which last time I checked had problems with airshow demos and running Approach & Landing checklists.

Foul.