Fighting a commander directed Q3

[Nineline]

Has anyone ever successfully fought a commander directed Q3? If so, what is the winning strategy?

 

I realize that there are times when a commander directed Q3 is warranted, but I have also heard way too many stories of BS ones too - mainly from risk averse commanders attempting to save face in front of their boss. Other than an MFR to the next highest commander in the chain, what should one do to contest it?

 

-9-

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Breckey]

Accept it, get your additional training, and move on. 

[AFsock]

I've never seen it attempted or noted in an FEF.

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, Nineline said:

 

what is the winning strategy?

 

Get your ATP.

[Homestar]

I think the persuasion would have to happen before the CC directs a Q3. 

[raimius]

Unless it's some sort of retaliation/IG type issue, I think it's pretty much at their discretion...

Safety/Judgement issues are kind of hard to disprove.

[BashiChuni]

Did you deserve it?

[SocialD]

Not saying you're AMC, but a buddy was just telling me about a recent CC directed Q3 in AMC.  Naturally there are 3 sides to every story, but this isn't the first time I've heard stories of seemingly ridiculous sounding Q3s in AMC.  Some of the stuff I've heard would have just been a few days non-flying and maybe a briefing in front of the squadron...seems like AMC uses it more as a punishment tool.

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by SocialD

[Sua Sponte]

You can’t really officially contest it, read 11-202V2. You signing it just states you’ve been debriefed as why you’re receiving it.

[matmacwc]

I’m fairly certain it’s one of those things that cannot be wiggled out of, its why it’s used for more than just flying.

Edited June 23, 2019 by matmacwc

[Skitzo]

Speaking as a MAJCOM HHQ A3V type...

I don’t think you can fight a commander directed downgrade unless the downgrade is false.

If you exceeded V2 standards in some way you have no grounds.

However if the decision is not final and there are extenuating circumstances perhaps you can convince your cc that all evaluators have discretion and that Vol2 standards assume perfect plane, predictable weather etc, maybe you can get him to see your side.

If the allegation is false IG complaint all the way.

Maybe we need a process in the Vol2 where there is delayed action to ensure the accused is given proper due process. Much like a CC has to hear the accused side of an article 15 before ultimately deciding.

I know NJP and Q-3s are not currently the same... maybe they should be.

As a person who has given a cc directed Q3 I will say my decision was not final until I talked to the entire crew and thought about it for 24 hours. I did not presume anything until I spoke with everyone.

If others aren’t afforded the same then we should ensure that they are...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

First Q3 from Facebook?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nineline]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Did you deserve it?

The bros say no, but maybe they're just saying that to make me feel better.  I'll let you all be the disinterested third party judge...

UPT IP and the SP dorks up the touch-n-go to the point that when I take the plane we depart the runway off the side.  Nobody gets hurt, but the plane is going to need some mx to the tune of $100k.  After five days of being grounded following the mishap, I get advised of a CC directed Q3 for not preventing damage to the plane.

-9-

[magnetfreezer]

9 minutes ago, Skitzo said:

Speaking as a MAJCOM HHQ A3V type...

I don’t think you can fight a commander directed downgrade unless the downgrade is false.

 

Is there any way to prove a downgrade is false? Had an OG/CC give an IP a Q2 that most of the IPs on base believed was false, given the facts of the incident (did not violate any TO guidance based on the indications the crew had). New OG/CC took over a few months later, believed the Q2 was BS,  and reinstated the AC to IP status, etc. but couldn't pull the Q2 from the IP's record since it was explained the Q2 was 100% crew discretion.

Potential out (not an OGV type) - 11-202V2 4.3.3 requires evaluators to be qualified in the areas they're evaluating. 4.4.1 exempts senior FE (NAF/WG/OG leadership) from the requirement to be an instructor, but doesn't exempt them from currency requirements. So there's a chance you could use that if the Q3 issuer wasn't current, although their countermove would be to have a current OGV type sign off on it.

[Sua Sponte]

5 minutes ago, Nineline said:

The bros say no, but maybe they're just saying that to make me feel better.  I'll let you all be the disinterested third party judge...

UPT IP and the SP dorks up the touch-n-go to the point that when I take the plane we depart the runway off the side.  Nobody gets hurt, but the plane is going to need some mx to the tune of $100k.  After five days of being grounded following the mishap, I get advised of a CC directed Q3 for not preventing damage to the plane.

-9-

That might not even be your CC’s decision. It could’ve been “highly suggested” by the OG. I’ve seen that happen.

[Nineline]

7 minutes ago, magnetfreezer said:

Potential out (not an OGV type) - 11-202V2 4.3.3 requires evaluators to be qualified in the areas they're evaluating. 4.4.1 exempts senior FE (NAF/WG/OG leadership) from the requirement to be an instructor, but doesn't exempt them from currency requirements. 

What if the squadron commander is not an evaluator?  Can he still give a commander directed Q3?

 

-9-

Edited June 23, 2019 by Nineline
Clarity

[Skitzo]

What if the squadron commander is not an evaluator?  Can he still give a commander directed Q3?
 
-9-

Yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

The bros say no, but maybe they're just saying that to make me feel better.  I'll let you all be the disinterested third party judge...

UPT IP and the SP dorks up the touch-n-go to the point that when I take the plane we depart the runway off the side.  Nobody gets hurt, but the plane is going to need some mx to the tune of $100k.  After five days of being grounded following the mishap, I get advised of a CC directed Q3 for not preventing damage to the plane.

-9-

No IP can prevent every student error, especially when you’re dealing with a UPT student who has ~30 hours in a DA-20 before they’re given control of a lightweight, 1100 hp trainer. I think to Q3 a UPT IP, absent any recklessness or negligence, is crap. If the Air Force were truly concerned with preventing such mishaps, they would invest more time and money in IFS (maybe even have a second phase with a higher performance single-engine piston aircraft).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

8 minutes ago, Nineline said:

What if the squadron commander is not an evaluator?  Can he still give a commander directed Q3?

 

-9-

 

11-202V2

5.9. Commander-Directed Downgrade.

5.9.1. Aircrew Assigned to Flying Squadrons: The Aircrew Member's squadron commander or any commander in the aircrew member's chain of command above the Aircrew Member's squadron commander may direct a Commander-Directed Downgrade.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Sua Sponte

[tac airlifter]

18 minutes ago, Nineline said:

What if the squadron commander is not an evaluator?  Can he still give a commander directed Q3?

 

-9-

Totally irrelevant if the SQ/CC is an evaluator.  Stan/Eval is a commanders program.

in your situation, I’m guessing the Q3 was for “airmanship” or some other catch all which is intentionally vague to allow the SQ/CC the discretion to Q3 as he sees fit (or is ordered to by his leadership).  Fighting that is extremely unlikely.

[Danger41]

I’ll play devils advocate here and ask that if the touch and go was so dorked up that you had to take the airplane on the runway and do a Bob Hoover style save to keep the jet from departing, could you not see that developing on short final/in the flare? 

If the student landed with a brake locked and the airplane snapped into the dirt or something, then I’d say you had no chance to prevent that. Given the info you presented, it’s definitely in “it depends” territory.

Personally, it takes an unbelievable amount of buffonery to give a downgrade let alone a Q3, but I’ve seen extreme examples in the other direction. Sounds like you may have fallen under that side of the spectrum.

[raimius]

3 hours ago, Nineline said:

The bros say no, but maybe they're just saying that to make me feel better.  I'll let you all be the disinterested third party judge...

UPT IP and the SP dorks up the touch-n-go to the point that when I take the plane we depart the runway off the side.  Nobody gets hurt, but the plane is going to need some mx to the tune of $100k.  After five days of being grounded following the mishap, I get advised of a CC directed Q3 for not preventing damage to the plane.

-9-

That sucks, but you were the AC and the aircraft was damaged due to an error of the crew.
 

I don't know the AETC culture on student initiated mishaps, so I don't know if that is within the realm of ordinary.  Legally speaking, that sounds like a valid Q3...even if it's really lacking in bromanship or understanding.

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, raimius said:

That sucks, but you were the AC and the aircraft was damaged due to an error of the crew.
 

I don't know the AETC culture on student initiated mishaps, so I don't know if that is within the realm of ordinary.  Legally speaking, that sounds like a valid Q3...even if it's really lacking in bromanship or understanding.

This is an interesting topic. I think we've all had that one student in an FTU, or even an MQT program that noone "really" wanted to fly with. There were certainly students I had, even in the droid, where I was "extra" alert on things like airspace, and CAS procedures. If you set the tone that every student generated mistake can lead to a Q3, then who is realistically going to fly with them? I guess the counter argument is, if you don't believe you can prevent a student from initiating a mishap, you aren't ready for your instructor qual. That said, we live in the era that every student who can breath for 50 weeks and not get a DUI can get pilot wings. So I only see this problem exasperating.

[matmacwc]

It’s also tough to judge because we don’t know your flying history, it’s possible you’ve been clean as a whistle, it’s possible you’ve had a few bumps along the way.  If the latter is true, the CC may think this needs to be documented for future commanders and/or justify a future assignment or job.  How many times have UPT instructors wanted to eliminate a student but the “paperwork” doesn’t s support it?  In this case, the CC may be making sure the “paperwork” is in order due to a trend.  I’m just spitballing here, not saying you’re a bad dude.

[gearhog]

It's also possible this commander is, as many are today, hyper-vigilant in protecting his own career. 

Say the everyday typical student buffoonery happens, but this time it happens in a critical phase of flight requiring split second reaction time to correct it. Perhaps it's compounded by weather, gusty winds, com noise, etc. Metal gets bent and the CC is notified. 

The CC sits down behind his desk and weighs his options:

"This IP made a mistake that any one of us can reasonably make with a bad student in poor conditions. I can call this IP in, lecture him, put him on a couple CT sorties, and perhaps have him give a squadron safety brief.  I could go to bat for him at the OG and WG meetings. But metal was bent on my watch. What if it happens again? I'm going to get a lot of face time with the OG and WG over this and what if they think I didn't go far enough? If I give him a CC-directed Q3, it may be a little overkill, but then I have a high-vis corrective action paper-trail that I can wave around in the meetings letting them know that I'm an aggressive problem solver, and perhaps this won't affect my next assignment or chances for 0-6."