Stan Eval Shenanigans

[Champ Kind]

You are both kind of coming across as tools.

[contraildash]

You are both kind of coming across as tools.

yup

[sputnik]

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

From "my own" I could care a less about Q2's or why they make you a better officer than everyone who disagress with you. That said, go fuck yourself.

They were good dudes I flew with and would give damn near anything to fly with again, so far you come across like a cheap shot asshole.

[uhhello]

From "my own" I could care a less about Q2's or why they make you a better officer than everyone who disagress with you. That said, go ###### yourself.

They were good dudes I flew with and would give damn near anything to fly with again, so far you come across like a cheap shot asshole.

If you only knew half of what he has offered...

[PirateAF]

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.

Excellent use of the English language.

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

You are a complete and utter tool. Q3 overall for pissing on fellow aviator's graves.

[itsokimapilot]

You are a complete and utter tool. Q3 overall for pissing on fellow aviator's graves.

FTW!

[Guest]

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?

Please.

This statement begs me to prove Godwin's Law but I'll resist since I'm sure it will happen eventually anyway.

FWIW, I know you. You're the guy who gave me a checkride once, was trying to downgrade me on something stupid and queepish that was weapons related, got lost when I started walking you through it and once cornered all you could say was "well, I don't care what you say because the -34 series regs are only advisory in nature..."

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.

Don't put words in my mouth and see if you can catch the context of the conversation you dumbass. Either STFU or go back and read what you're responding to and see if you can pick up my point.

Not sure how we got here...and I know I have been wrong

Fair enough.

[zrooster99]

Excellent use of the English language.

You are a complete and utter tool. Q3 overall for pissing on fellow aviator's graves.

3, 4, 5...whatever the count is up to... That was a chickenshit comment.

Edited May 5, 2011 by zrooster99

[Smokey]

It's been several years since I've worn an EP hat, but....

If by "downgrade" you mean discrepancy(ies) annotated on the Fm 8 (but Q-1 overall), then absolutely--hell, you already told him that, perhaps I don't understand the question. (?)

If you mean Q-2 (or Q-3) overall.... well, I'd say it falls in the "shitty situation" category, but you're still within the letter of the law. I'd argue also, however shitty, that it's within the intent as well, in the bigger picture. If your judgment is that the 4G inverted dive with the MiG 28 was performed at 2m range (when the checkride tolerance is clearly 1.5m), AND your judgment also is that there weren't mitigating circumstances that would make it inappropriate to document--well, that judgment is what your CC is paying you the evaluator bonus allowance for. Until you put your signature on the Fm 8, your discussions in the debrief are just that--discussion.

FWIW: One piece of advice that served me well during my Stan/Eval days, from my commander: consider the greater good (will a downgrade/bust and the subsequent training have a positive or negative effect on mission accomplishment & flying safety?), use your judgment in the gray areas, don't be afraid to hook or to EQ if/when warranted, and above all put your integrity ahead of your popularity. Worked for me....

ETA: Skibum posted while I was typing (interesting, he took it that you were the examinee, I assumed you were the examiner). He makes excellent points as well--chief among them being that this question wouldn't even arise if everyone involved kept their mouths shut....

Great post and I concur. As one who has worn that EP hat, I can say definitive Q-2, Q-3 situations happen. The were very few and far between in my experience and the squadrons I was in.

If I had any question about the validity of a rating less than Q-1, first, bad on me for not knowing my job, and second, I'd look at the instruction (reg in my day) for guidance ( and probably bounce off another EP or 2 ) before saying much of anything till the debrief. As for the debrief, regardless of the outcome, yes my duty was as an evaluator for the flight but I was also an IP as well. IMHO, every eval was also a chance to instruct if needed....of course in the debrief and not during the sortie.

Also, the concept of "extenuating or mitigating" circumstances is open to broad interpretation which I often did.....

In other words, a pilot would have to really prove they were deficient or completely unable prior to a 2 or 3 rating. I assume from the beginning they were qualified as a MQ pilot and as such deserved any appropriate benefit of doubt. Although I don't, everyone else has an off day.

Cheers,

Smokey

[BQZip01]

3, 4, 5...whatever the count is up to... That was a chickenshit comment.

Uh...6?

[amcflyboy]

Great post and I concur. As one who has worn that EP hat, I can say definitive Q-2, Q-3 situations happen. The were very few and far between in my experience and the squadrons I was in.

If I had any question about the validity of a rating less than Q-1, first, bad on me for not knowing my job, and second, I'd look at the instruction (reg in my day) for guidance ( and probably bounce off another EP or 2 ) before saying much of anything till the debrief. As for the debrief, regardless of the outcome, yes my duty was as an evaluator for the flight but I was also an IP as well. IMHO, every eval was also a chance to instruct if needed....of course in the debrief and not during the sortie.

Also, the concept of "extenuating or mitigating" circumstances is open to broad interpretation which I often did.....

In other words, a pilot would have to really prove they were deficient or completely unable prior to a 2 or 3 rating. I assume from the beginning they were qualified as a MQ pilot and as such deserved any appropriate benefit of doubt. Although I don't, everyone else has an off day.

Cheers,

Smokey

It's interesting reading here that most of you EP guys say that Q-2's and -3's are rarely handed out, yet I feel that my squadron is an exception to the rule. During our ASEV, AMC Stan/Eval was looking through our records and made a comment of, "Holy Crap, you guys hand out Q-3's like candy!" We fly the South Pole missions, and yes our flying is definitely non-standard, compared to the norm. Our leadership holds us to VERY high standards because of this. We also have dual qualified Ski/Combat Tactical ratings. Last year, I Q-3'd my TAC Mission checkride because I took off 10 minutes early, and tried to re-coordinate for a TOT for the airdrop enroute, to no avail. This resulted in me flying slower than normal in the low-level environment. Yeah, I screwed up, but some of the guys I fly with feel that should have been a Q-2, rather than a Q-3. Whatever, I guess. I re-flew the checkride, and passed it.

What do you guys think?

[Guest]

Our leadership holds us to VERY high standards because of this.

It sounds like the squadron leadership might want to focus on the training, scheduling and weapons shops and tell the flight commanders to get their guys trained properly. That is what prevents Q-3s.

Last year, I Q-3'd my TAC Mission checkride because I took off 10 minutes early, and tried to re-coordinate for a TOT for the airdrop enroute, to no avail. This resulted in me flying slower than normal in the low-level environment...What do you guys think?

Technique only but why would you do such a thing? You would never do that in combat, right?

Was this a no shit scheduled airdrop event or something "in scenario" that you could've tried to work out a new TOT BEFORE you took off and then been denied? If you had to take off early maybe you could hold for 10 min before you cross the fence or slap a few timing legs in there (before you fence in, if possible)?

I certainly wasn't there but this would be one of those situations where if I had been the SEFE I would've asked, as a Santa Clause crew member, why we were doing this and what the new plan and back-up plans were just to give you a chance to think about it...which probably would've delayed you enough to just stick with the plan on the ATO (which is an Air Tasking Order, not an Air Tasking Request) and then debriefed the decision making process.

[Muscle2002]

It sounds like the squadron leadership might want to focus on the training, scheduling and weapons shops and tell the flight commanders to get their guys trained properly. That is what prevents Q-3s.

Technique only but why would you do such a thing? You would never do that in combat, right?

Was this a no shit scheduled airdrop event or something "in scenario" that you could've tried to work out a new TOT BEFORE you took off and then been denied? If you had to take off early maybe you could hold for 10 min before you cross the fence or slap a few timing legs in there (before you fence in, if possible)?

I certainly wasn't there but this would be one of those situations where if I had been the SEFE I would've asked, as a Santa Clause crew member, why we were doing this and what the new plan and back-up plans were just to give you a chance to think about it...which probably would've delayed you enough to just stick with the plan on the ATO (which is an Air Tasking Order, not an Air Tasking Request) and then debriefed the decision making process.

Although it's an evaluation, I certainly think there are times when offering instruction is valid especially knowing that withholding said instruction will lead to a Q-3 in the mind of this particular SEFE/Sq leadership (I would not give a Q-3 for this particular error based on the story as told).

Q-3s are reserved for cut and dry safety/airmanship violations...generally mistakes I think only a brand new student should be making.

[amcflyboy]

It sounds like the squadron leadership might want to focus on the training, scheduling and weapons shops and tell the flight commanders to get their guys trained properly. That is what prevents Q-3s.

Technique only but why would you do such a thing? You would never do that in combat, right?

Was this a no shit scheduled airdrop event or something "in scenario" that you could've tried to work out a new TOT BEFORE you took off and then been denied? If you had to take off early maybe you could hold for 10 min before you cross the fence or slap a few timing legs in there (before you fence in, if possible)?

I certainly wasn't there but this would be one of those situations where if I had been the SEFE I would've asked, as a Santa Clause crew member, why we were doing this and what the new plan and back-up plans were just to give you a chance to think about it...which probably would've delayed you enough to just stick with the plan on the ATO (which is an Air Tasking Order, not an Air Tasking Request) and then debriefed the decision making process.

To answer your question Rainman, no I wouldn't have done this in real time combat. My copilot suggested we try to coordinate a new TOT enroute to the drop, only to do it unsuccessfully. The reason for the suggestion was because we got up to the hold short line 10 minutes prior to takeoff, so in the interests of not sitting there and wasting gas, that we takeoff early.

Essentially, I screwed up. In the debrief, it was recommended I could have held for 10 minutes before crossing "the gate." It was just a bad day for me, that's all. Will I ever do it again...hell no! I was told by the SEFE that "I was NOT unsafe, just that he felt I should take the ride over again." Whatever that meant. None the less, I just wanted some of your opinions, that's all. And no, it was just a regular mission checkride at home station, not real world.

[Guest markmanning]

In addition to the comments - here's something to entertain.

Not sure if this data is even maintained by the Air Force. That being said, it seems as though everytime we're briefed on a mishap, Class A etc, the Mishap Crew(s) usually have stellar records - no history of Q-2's Q-3's at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the C-5 mishap crew at Dover a few years have a few Evaluator's on board?

Does this ring a bell with any of you? "mishap crew, well within crew rest, VMC, winds calm, no previous down grades or history of checkride failures etc" I'm not saying this as being part of any particular incident. But generically, that seems to be what we tend to see.

Does anyone know if the Safety folks keep a 'tab' on the number of mishaps that had a crewmember with a history of Q-2's etc. I only bring this up because sometimes a CC will see an FEF with a one Q-2, then assume the crewmember is a problem. Sound familiar? I've seen it, and think the assumption is completely unfair!

Edited May 20, 2011 by markmanning

[Guest]

In addition to the comments - here's something to entertain.

Not sure if this data is even maintained by the Air Force. That being said, it seems as though everytime we're briefed on a mishap, Class A etc, the Mishap Crew(s) usually have stellar records - no history of Q-2's Q-3's at all.

I remember seeing a statistic that showed the number of Class A mishaps where the MP was a FWIC graduate. It was staggeringly high, especially considering the low percentage of FWIC grads in the general pilot population. It made me think about my own experience and it made sense, a big chunk of the Class A mishaps I could think of involved patch wearers.

There are a number of ways to look at that statistic but I would say, at least in fighters, there are more patchwearers crashing jets than there are guys with Q-2/3 dings in their FEF.

[Ram]

I remember seeing a statistic that showed the number of Class A mishaps where the MP was a FWIC graduate. It was staggeringly high, especially considering the low percentage of FWIC grads in the general pilot population. It made me think about my own experience and it made sense, a big chunk of the Class A mishaps I could think of involved patch wearers.

There are a number of ways to look at that statistic but I would say, at least in fighters, there are more patchwearers crashing jets than there are guys with Q-2/3 dings in their FEF.

Ah, but the WIC guys are often the most experienced in the squadron, and they're IPs that fly their asses off. Furthermore, fighter aviation isn't just about risk reduction (if it were, we'd never do anything more than instruments and AHC while single-ship). Risks have to be taken, and that means that class A's are going to happen.

It's science.

[contraildash]

I remember seeing a statistic that showed the number of Class A mishaps where the MP was a FWIC graduate. It was staggeringly high, especially considering the low percentage of FWIC grads in the general pilot population. It made me think about my own experience and it made sense, a big chunk of the Class A mishaps I could think of involved patch wearers.

There are a number of ways to look at that statistic but I would say, at least in fighters, there are more patchwearers crashing jets than there are guys with Q-2/3 dings in their FEF.

You are hitting a good point, and it's not just the fighter community, a very high % of Class A mishaps involve experienced IPs and EPs. There's a multitude of factors that go into that discussion.

[Standby]

You are hitting a good point, and it's not just the fighter community, a very high % of Class A mishaps involve experienced IPs and EPs. There's a multitude of factors that go into that discussion.

Don't they say the most dangerous dudes are the 500-1000 hour folks?

[brabus]

It's really similar in skydiving too...the larger portion of accidents are with experienced dudes and not so much the new jumpers.

[zrooster99]

Don't they say the most dangerous dudes are the 500-1000 hour folks?

I've heard a similar statistic, though never seen concrete support. The key idea, I think, is that there's a point where a pilot starts to become comfortable and complacent but is not quite as skilled/proficient as he thinks he is. As for the IPs/EPs, correlation doesn't imply causation, but again complacency/over confidence is probably a factor.

[B.M.]

The key idea, I think, is that there's a point where a pilot starts to become comfortable and complacent but is not quite as skilled/proficient as he thinks he is. As for the IPs/EPs, correlation doesn't imply causation, but again complacency/over confidence is probably a factor.

Especially when you cut corners and take a huge bite out of the safety cushion because you "know better than they do".

And then they wonder why the seat cushion has to be removed from the boomer's a$$ with a pair of pliers

[Guest]

And then they wonder why the seat cushion has to be removed from the boomer's a$$ with a pair of pliers

Is that what is happening on those big airplanes? Which crewmember has to do the removing?

Gross.

[B.M.]

Which crewmember has to do the removing?

"...Chief..."