commander directed q3, your opinion?

[Guest spar91]

here's a hypothetical situation:

crew aircraft with winglets.

part of before taxi checklist is to check the area outside the jet for obstacles before taxiing.

CP (from seat) scans, "all clear"

P scans (from seat), "all clear"

LM scans (from in front of the jet, on the ground outside), "all clear"

LM hops aboard, closes door, yadda yadda yadda, crew taxis.

[sound of something metal scraping]

P "what the heck was that?"

LM deplanes - sees fire bottle nudged by nose gear.

P and LM subsequently get commander directed Q3s.

thoughts? objections? comments?

i'll start.

i think it's crap that the P got Q3d.

sure they're responsible for everything, but crap, you can only lead a horse to the trough, you can't make him drink from it.

for the old hats - do you honestly believe that the pilot should have gotten a q3?

btw, hypothetically speaking of course, there was no damage to the plane or firebottle.

perhaps i'd like to be a commander some day. but there is one thing i don't understand at all - commander directed Q3s. they just do not make sense to me. i think they are way too liberally used, at least in the c17 community.

in my 3 years at etar, i never once heard of a commander directed q3. it was a foreign concept to me, until i learned about it in amc...

sometimes i wonder if sq/ccs are puppets of higher ranking officers?

sometimes i wonder if there really is an o-4 lobotomy.

sometimes i wonder why this is a "no mistake" air force - seems like you get disciplined for every minor thing. whatever happened to having the "punishment fit the crime?"

just wanted to know your opinions.

thanks.

[Hacker]

Originally posted by spar91:

i think it's crap that the P got Q3d.

sure they're responsible for everything, but crap, you can only lead a horse to the trough, you can't make him drink from it.

for the old hats - do you honestly believe that the pilot should have gotten a q3?

Think about this a different way...

If you were the squadron commander, and you had an airplane with bent metal that was *entirely* preventable...

What would YOU do?

Personally, yes, I can see the pilot taking the ding, too.

I have been grounded by my SQ/CC during combat operatons for things my wingman did. Why? Because I, as the flight lead, was responsible for the safe conduct of the mission, period.

So, on a crew airplane like the C-17, I can completely see where the SQ/CC gets to dinging both the loadmaster and the guy ultimately responsible, the aircraft commander.

[Guest C17AFPilot]

I can agree with your argument to some degree. In fact, this "hypothetical" situation happened to a crew in our squadron. I also thought it was BS that the AC was Q3'd because a LM obviously did not clear the front of the aircraft. But then I thought more about it and what the 2C-17 days in chapter 2, about an AC being responsible for everything, including the safe execution of the mission. I really dont think it is a "punishment", but based more on this principle, as Hacker said above. It was noted, debriefed, and the AC has moved on. They didnt need to get re-qualed, simply briefed on not what to do. In the end, its a lesson learned for all, and now you can see that it is always ask where the fire bottle is before taxiing.

[ClearedHot]

It's a tough situation and I can certainly see the arguments for both sides. I've seen situations where other members were given a Q-3 and the AC escaped, when in my opinion he should just as responsible as the others.

Ultimately, it's part of the game you have decided to play and the rules are not always fair. It happens more often than you would think. Take for example a squadron commander who takes care of his troops and trusts his people to do the right thing. Then one jackass does something stupid like a gross deviation in flight discipline and a plane gets bent or worse yet someone gets hurt. Odds are the SQ/CC is toast, even though he would never tolerate that type of behavior.

Checkrides and leadership are not always easy things. I've given a lot of checkrides and I always asked myself one question at the end of the day, "Would I go into combat with this person?". With that in mind on occasion I've overlooked a stupid mistake that could have been a legitimate bust. I've also been a part of a situation when the person got a SQ/CC directed Q-3 when I thought he should have lost his wings.

I know this seems unfair, and in this day and age, leadership is always going to play it on the conservative side. I wish I had a better answer for you but it is one of the tough parts of the job.

[Guest Jollygreen]

Originally posted by spar91:

thoughts? objections? comments?

To be honest, I've never heard of a "commander directed Q3". I have certainly seen commander directed downgrades (IP to MP, MP to MC, etc). But a Q3 grade in the FEF was never required. Simply an administrative downgrade to a lower qual.

i think it's crap that the P got Q3d.

sure they're responsible for everything, but crap, you can only lead a horse to the trough, you can't make him drink from it.

As you noted, they are responsible for everything. That's part of command, even if it is just a crew. Commanders are responsible for everything. Is the pilot being allowed, in your hypothetical situation, to upgrade to AC again? If so, then it isn't the end of the world.

sq/ccs are puppets of higher ranking officers?

Would be interested in seeing the same discussion once you've been a Sq/CC. Sq/CC's have their commanders too. And they (damn well better) support their commander's positions.

sometimes i wonder if there really is an o-4 lobotomy.

The USAF needs Captains. Always has, always will. There is no requirement to get promoted.

whatever happened to having the "punishment fit the crime?"

Good point. I agree. I'd contest that that belief is still there, alive and kicking, and being implemented.

[Nanook]

You have given us only part of the equation. There is no context here for an event to be compared to "the O-4 lobotomy". I have seen many people who, for one reason or another, skate when they've done something heinous. This has an effect on all the rest of the people in the unit as they see that some are not held as accountable as others. This individual may have been at the end of a long chain of things he had messed up and now it was time to pay the piper. We don't know this from your post. I have seen very few commanders that, when the chips were really down, messed a guy up for very little reason. Now that doesn't mean it doesn't happen...it probably happens far more often than it should. The point is there is probably a lot more to this situation, and many others, that on the surface don't seem "fair". You just have to trust that it was handled fairly and remember it when you get to the commander level. Now that I said all that, I came from SAC where they would take guys out because the Wing King determined that there weren't enough Q3s happening and the quota needed to come up. Maybe I got that lobotomy and didn't even know it. Cest la vie.

[Guest AWACker]

That's not the ACC answer to the question. The question is...was the fire bottle wearing a reflective belt??

[Guest spar91]

i guess what i meant by the 04 lobotomoy is that sometimes i wonder if that's when officers start to forget what it's like to be a line pilot.

looking back, it doesn't pertain to my hypothetical situation.

incidentally, i very much understand the need to be consistent with punishment, and the overall effect on morale (and respect) when that does not happen. furthermore, i've never seen an incident where someone should have gotten a cd q3, but didn't. probably because i haven't been around long enough, or maybe even because i don't know everything that goes on in the squadron (and i'm not saying i should.)

additionally, by the same token (cd q3), i do not understand why a commander gets "taken out" or whatever for something stupid that one of their troops does. and that just ties into my philosphy that you can lead a horse to the trough...

i guess in the end a q3 isn't the end of the world, like someone said.

i am a young grasshopper, and i want to understand some of the different aspects of leadership. this is one that i don't yet understand.

and nanook - c'est la vie is my line ;)

thanks for your opinions.

[Nanook]

Sorry Spar, haven't been around the site long enuff to know your lines. (really old sidebar, C'est la Vie is what AF gunners used to have on their patches...goes back to my SAC days) There are definitely guys at the top who forget their time as an Lt or Capt and what it's like to actually carry out the orders. Its certainly possible that the CC might have erred in this case. The best thing that you can do is go out there, do the absolute best you can do and file away the incident so that somewhere later on down the line, when faced with a similar situation, you can remember what it was like to be the CGO and handle the situation differently.

[Guest rangerbob5]

It should be an easy re-qual...just don't run over a fire bottle:)

[Toro]

Agree with nearly all of what was previously posted here. We had a crew roll of the perch for their full stop and didn't realize -- until tower / SOF told them - that they hadn't put their gear down. Both received commander directed Q3s and were grounded.

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Another story...

C-21's taking off from Stuggart. Passenger from the back, claims that there is a red disk ( standard fuel cap on lanyard) floating next to the aircraft. They are losing fuel from the tip tank.

The AC, who was IP qualified and a former KC-10 guy w/ over 2000 hrs, was in the jet the entire time while the brand new CP did the walk around.

Same thing happened...CC directed Q3 (administrative) the AC but nothing for the CP.

CH and Hacker hit it on the spot though.

[kkboris]

I disagree with the theory that because 11-2xx says "A/C's are responsible" it's Ok for a commander to Q3 a guy because another crewmember didn't do his job. Does that mean I need to carry a copy of everyone's checklist, asking "eng, did you do x,y, and z"? Does that mean I need to go to the back of my plane while I'm doing an engine-running on-load at Konduz, to ensure that my loads have secured the HUMMVE correctly? A sentence in a reg placing all responsibility on the A/C is no substitute for commander judgement, and it appears the CC in this hypothetical decided to CYA by throwing the A/C under the bus.

[ClearedHot]

No it means you need to set an environment where people pay attention to checklists and accomplishing their duties in the correct manner.

Taking short-cuts, or tolerating breaches in air disciple is one of the easiest ways to get yourself or those on your crew killed, especially in combat.

[ 22. August 2005, 07:09: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]

[Hacker]

Originally posted by kkboris:

I disagree with the theory that because 11-2xx says "A/C's are responsible" it's Ok for a commander to Q3 a guy because another crewmember didn't do his job.

It's the same reason that Squadron Commanders and Wing Commanders sometimes get fired for things that their subordinates have done.

It's called 'responsibility'.

[kkboris]

Cleared Hot:

From the information given, how did you determine that this A/C was taking short-cuts or tolerating breaches in air discipline?

Hacker:

I understand the theory of responsibility, but in this case I think it may be taken a bit too far. I don't want to be in a SQ where the CC is going to Q3 me for something another crewmember failed to do, unless he is pretty sure I created a situation that led to that outcome (which we were not told is the case here). Explain to me how a C-17 pilot is supposed to ensure that a fire bottle (which he cannot see) is clear of the nose after the load says it is clear. Is he supposed to say "are you sure it's clear" every time?

[Guest skipplet]

I've always been taught that a leader takes responsibility for a subordinate's mistake.

[kkboris]

"I've always been taught that a leader takes responsibility for a subordinate's mistake."

Anytime any subordinate makes a mistake, his superior takes responsibility, regardless of the situation? By that logic, the flight lead for the T-Birds (see thread on wingtip strike) should be Q-3'd immediately.

Blanket statements like that absolve a commander of using judgement. I don't want to work for someone who hides behind absolutes.

[Guest SnakeT38]

I've ALWAYS thought the AF approach to safety

was to "obliterate" the messenger. Honest

mistakes were subject to some half-witted CC that

has kissed more ass than any homosexual inmate to get where he is. SOMETIMES you get lucky and get

someone in charge who handles the situation w/o looking over their shoulder.

Our safety reporting program at AA allows for pilots to "self-report" themselves within 24 hours of the incident and as long as the incident didn't involve a negligent act or willful disregard of the rules, an "Event Review Team" comprised of a pilot, company rep and FAA doled out the "punishment" which usually involves nothing more than a letter in your folder that goes away after a period of time. Most importantly, issues that would be subject to non-reporting (ie I'm not telling cause nobody saw it happen)quite frequently are reported and the rest of the pilot force gets a sanitized version, if it is something worthy.

Many of you have seen/heard of a Chief Pilot AA had a few years ago who had the "voice" and reputation of a "John Wayne" type of guy. Cecil Ewell had more leadership skills in his little finger than most CC's of any organiziation in the military. His COMMANDMENT that was put in writing, simply stated, "If you are doing your job the way I tell you and screw up, "THEY" will have to get me, to get you, if you are screwing around, I will take your head off at the shoulders". He meant every word of it.

More than a few times I asked CC's I was going to work for if they would do the same, one openly said no.............and is now a Major General in the USAFR..........so there you have it.

[M2]

P and LM subsequently get commander directed Q3s.

So what you are saying is the person who made the mistake and the person ultimately responsible were held accountable for the incident. What doesn't make sense?

Stuttgart incident...CC directed Q3 (administrative) the AC but nothing for the CP.

This is crap. I hope some kicked the shit out of the CP for ****ing up.

Nothing worse than getting hammered for something that is beyond your control (well, getting hammered for you own mistakes sucks too!), but it is what you sign up for when you accept command responsibility. You just have to do your best and hope for the best as well.

But as Snake pointed out, there are too many CC's out there who over-react to CYA rather than actually apply some true leadership. Basically it is the 'All for One and Every Man for Himself' mentality. When more asskissers get promoted than leaders, it is time to go...

So where do we stand? Yes, I believe people should be held responsible for their actions, especially commanders; but honest mistakes happen and with some effective leadership appropriate action can be taken without ****ing up someone's career. The problem is you can't buy leadership in a can down at Costco's... :rolleyes:

Cheers! M2

[ClearedHot]

Originally posted by kkboris:

Cleared Hot:

From the information given, how did you determine that this A/C was taking short-cuts or tolerating breaches in air discipline?

Looking at my post where does it reference the C-17 crew was taking short-cuts?

It was a general statement about leadership and why the USAF tends to be conservative when holding people accountable. I don't know the details of this incident, as I was not there. The way it has been presented sounds like it is a bit unfair to the AC, but again, I was not there.

Is it fair to the entire crew when a Flight Engineer is using a non-standard method to feed the fuel system, the engines flame out and most of the crew dies? Is it fair when Dash-2 turns the wrong direction and hits lead, killing both of them? Is it fair when the Nav screws up and flies the crew into a box canyon and they all die? Is it fair when the Pilot is showing off and plows a B-52 into the dirt? Some of them honest mistakes but all with the same outcome.

If you want fair, you might want to check with Judge Judy, but things are different when it comes to flying. I am not trying to be harsh or mean, but sometimes it is like Bruce Hornsby says, "Thats just the way it is".

[ 22. August 2005, 07:20: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]

[JS]

Originally posted by Karl:

I've always been taught that a leader takes responsibility for a subordinate's mistake.

Wow! So if one of my subrodinates commits suicide, should I get charged for manslaughter?

Where does it stop? Some responsibility has to fall on the subordinate at some time. Where do you draw that line?

[M2]

JS

No one is saying the subordinate shouldn't be held accountable, they should; but what they are saying is that in most circumstances there is a level of responsibility a commander has to accept as well. If one of your subordinates commits suicide and you were negligent in doing anything about it, despite knowing it was a possibility, the you SHOULD be held accountable. As it has been noted previously, there is no hard/fast rule, each situation needs to be addressed individually and competently. That's the rub...

Cheers! M2

[Guest skipplet]

Originally posted by kkboris:

"I've always been taught that a leader takes responsibility for a subordinate's mistake."

Anytime any subordinate makes a mistake, his superior takes responsibility, regardless of the situation? By that logic, the flight lead for the T-Birds (see thread on wingtip strike) should be Q-3'd immediately.

Blanket statements like that absolve a commander of using judgement. I don't want to work for someone who hides behind absolutes.

:confused: How in any way does that absolve a commander of using judgement? It doesn't. Not even close. Taking responsibility for your own actions and your crew's actions is a part of being a leader and being an adult. Of course we can think up crazy exceptions like the load killing the sq/cc, but those cases are rare. In this case, the load made a mistake and he and his AC should take responsibility.

Whether the punishments fits the crime however, I couldn't tell you.

[Guest skipplet]

Originally posted by JS:

Wow! So if one of my subrodinates commits suicide, should I get charged for manslaughter?

Where does it stop? Some responsibility has to fall on the subordinate at some time. Where do you draw that line?