B-1 Down at Ellsworth

[Danger41]

There’s a tension within squadrons against A3V because (to quote you) they should be “feared”. It’s like having a dad that beats you if you tell him you need help with your homework. 

[jice]

3 hours ago, Skitzo said:

What context of intent are you inferring?

I feel like you think the point of my post was to flex all over the little guy to show how much riz the MAJCOM has fr fr no cap.

I think you are missing the point of my original post. When ASEVs were lumped into overall IG inspections it became included into the overall mindset of emphasis on “detecting unidentified non compliance” versus measuring compliance in the Stan/Eval programs.

With standalone ASEVS I was in squadrons where there were prep sessions (MQT testing internal to the squadron, OGV SAVs, and N/N evals independent of the ASEV). I once saw a guy removed from IP upgrade or was it AC for failing the practice test required by the squadron commander.

That was my original point and the point of my anecdote.

||BREAK BREAK||

As far as the MAJCOM role to help subordinate units — certainly there is a time and place for that. But the MAJCOM can’t just unilaterally SAV a unit unless asked. And in my experience we more than helped units that did ask for help with no penalty to the unit being SAVed. As far as other efforts I more than certainly subscribed to the motto “a call from the unit isn’t it a nuisance it is the reason your job [expletive] exists.”

There is a tension between a MAJCOM’s purpose to OT&E and A3V’s role to also provide oversight of subordinate OGVs / CCVs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Understand your main point fully.

Re: inference of context: I’m not inferring any, but if you have some additional data I might understand better. If homeslice was being openly hostile to the rules and pressing to test: he deserves to walk away with a Q2. If your prior efforts never broke squelch at the unit and it’s normal to wear rings (like not wearing gloves is accepted in some communities)… his FEF isn’t a useful tool, and an evaluator giving the patch a Q2 for a ring under those circumstances is teaching the wrong lesson at the wrong level. I don’t know what the examinee’s intent and context was, so I don’t know if the evaluator in your story was being a turbodouche. If turbodouchey: I hope ops sups are checking his safe to fly boots and not-tumble-dried flight suits at step on every flight. 

I don’t understand the gen Z speak.

Tension? I think I understand. I would say A3V fulfills a role within the MAJCOM’s OT&E responsibility: quality control. For many, the only MAJCOM staffer they’ll see in daily life is a HHQ FE.  When those dudes show up worried/mark up FEFs at the unit for things that don’t break squelch at the lower echelons, the ability of the MAJCOM (not it’s 3V) to support the unit is degraded due to a lack of mutual trust. 

Edited July 31 by jice

[BashiChuni]

focusing on gloves, baseball hats, rings, sock color, zipper length, sleeves rolled up too high, patches, etc etc etc is nauseating.

i'm sure you had good intentions, but Q2ing a patch for a ring seems excessive. maybe he just forgot to take the ring off before engine start? if he told you to pound sand after you asked him to remove it then point taken. evaluators should have the "big picture"...i can't imagine a smaller one than focusing on a guys wedding ring.

"has made Stan/Eval inspections friendly instead of feared."

as a former evaluator in 2x MWS i vehemently disagree with you that stan/eval inspections and/or check rides should be "feared". respected certainly. but when you talk about wanting someone to "fear" your inspections i think you need to check your motivations and ego. you should be explaining to the crew that this is a normal ride and you are only there to make sure they are executing per the vol 3 like they do every single day. mistakes will be made, documented, and debriefed. Q3/Q2 should be the rare exception for heinous/dangerous mistakes or BLATANT/WILFUL disregard of flight rules. wearing a ring doesn't rise to that occasion. if anything you owed the patch the professional courtesy of not embarrassing him, pulling him aside privately, and voicing your views on the matter. you assumed that since YOU debriefed his sq/cc and other crews that HE heard it. maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but Q2ing someone for that makes me roll my eyes. what kind of remedial training did your Q2 accomplish? besides piss off a whole squadron of crew dogs? much, much more effective and mature/professional ways to solve that issue than throw paperwork at the guy.

now cue the "if you can't do the little things right HOW CAN WE TRUST YOU to do the big things". i have no time for that foolishness.

 

reattack: the best evaluators i saw were the ones everyone went to with questions. approachable. imagine that.

the worst evaluators were the ones everyone "feared".

Edited August 1 by BashiChuni

[TreeA10]

If I sent word out through informal channels to Sq CCs, DOs and Weapons shops that too many pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures or failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings and then I show up on an announced check ride only to find pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures, and failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings, I'd have no problem complying with checkride grade criteria and grading appropriately.  

[Skitzo]

If I sent word out through informal channels to Sq CCs, DOs and Weapons shops that too many pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures or failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings and then I show up on an announced check ride only to find pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures, and failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings, I'd have no problem complying with checkride grade criteria and grading appropriately.  

This

Also, maybe fear is the wrong word?

Whatever adjective that would drive a change in action / training prior to the inspection that would focus the unit on getting back to basics that might have fallen off in the last 18 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

If I sent word out through informal channels to Sq CCs, DOs and Weapons shops that too many pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures or failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings and then I show up on an announced check ride only to find pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures, and failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings, I'd have no problem complying with checkride grade criteria and grading appropriately.  

100%

The wedding ring stuff was just going to be another U area on the Form 8 since the rest of the flight was the reason I handed out the Q-2/Q-3. In the MAF world Q-2s are very rare. One is either Q-1, Q-3/1, or Q-3'd. 

Edited August 1 by Sua Sponte

[jice]

5 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

If I sent word out through informal channels to Sq CCs, DOs and Weapons shops that too many pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures or failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings and then I show up on an announced check ride only to find pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures, and failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings, I'd have no problem complying with checkride grade criteria and grading appropriately.  

You’re absolutely within your rights to do this. You’re flat out right… but (IMO) informal isn’t the best answer when the result is a formal process that takes things away from subordinate commanders. (Humans, time, resources for retraining.)

There’s a formal process already, and that formal process exists so that commanders at all levels (the ones buying risk for their formations) are informed and have input/recourse.

The formal answer is an SII plus HHQ N/N and/or SPOTs (usually ICW a planned inspection/visit.)  A good HHQ Stan-eval program will also send informal coord that might sound something like “Bros, we have a problem. This is a command priority. Expect spot objectivity checks with an emphasis on SIIs. Don’t make your dudes force a choice between your Q3 or theirs.”

The folks running those HHQ 3Vs are just schmucks (div/branch chief) working for a dork (director) working for the commander, who actually buys risk. They’re not the MAJCOM speaking unless they’re explicitly and formally speaking for the MAJCOM. (Doesn’t need to be queepy; “I trust you, do what you think is right” is just as good as a 100-page eSSS.)

It’s all about risk. Abort criteria & instrument proficiency? Guarantee a 3V staffer and commander are of the same mind for corrective actions that are going to take somebody out of the fight for retraining. Send it.

Rings and boots? Dude, depending on how maintenance is doing, it might be faster to medically return to fly after an unplanned 4th finger amputation than a Q-3 (tongue in cheek… except for the B-1.) I wouldn’t want to table drop the 3/4-star his new “no rings” SII, but would bust the door down with actions I took on his behalf if folks are nearly morting as a trend.

Everything has a cost, even following the rules, but following them harder.  Commanders are the ones who decide how to pay the bill; that’s why the formal process exists.

Edited August 1 by jice

[Standby]

Regarding the rings…brought to you by the same command threatening to Q3 folks on homestation evals for not wearing safe to fly boots. Meanwhile, you deploy the next week flying in tennis shoes and polos. I get your point about willful noncompliance. That can be absolutely devastating to the safe and disciplined approach to flying. Where I fall off the support wagon is when it’s about a nothingburger, WGAF, non-mission detracting thing like rings.

[Danger41]

Show the ring picture of that one dudes filleted finger I saw in UPT and they’ll never wear a ring flying again (if you know, you know).

It’s always interesting to see the different SEFE techniques. I’ve been evaluating for 10 years and never given anything other than a Q1, no downgrades. There have been downgradeable offenses, but the booze usually took care of those. However, easily the most effective is the debrief where I hammer the point home and leave an impression then move on.
 

In this ring example with a Patch, I’d hit him with the whole “you are supposed to be the example of what right looks like to this squadron” then ask why you take the time with the straight lines, color coded markers, ALSA comm, etc when you can still get it done without being tight on those. Would you accept a young guy being late, not preparing his specific items, being late to step/check-in/sloppy admin? The Air Force spent millions on you, your squadron bros had to pick up your slack while you larp’d for 5.5 months, and now you think you’re special and don’t have to do the little things right? And I’d make sure to do that in front of the crew/flight and say this is where you demonstrate some humility, credibility, and approachability to the dudes you work for. Last thing is you tell him his remedial training is to brief the bros in the bar on Friday on this stuff and don’t let them slack. Then open the Buffalo Trace and learn something. My $0.02.

Any Patch worth a shit will be massively impacted by that way more than form 8 comments. Not sharpshooting Skitzo, just my thought.

[BashiChuni]

14 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures or failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings

one of those things is not like the other.

risk management/decision making. i'd expect evaluators to have the appropriate RM/DM lens and not throw Q2s for a ring.

[1:1:1]

Q2 for wearing a wedding ring? You've gotta be shitting me.

I wonder if Robin Olds wore his flight-approved gloves when he took off out of Udorn and dropped his mask for a quick cigarette before getting shot at for the next 2 hours. Probably could have found a few Q3 offenses over there.

Not surprised though. Being from HHQ or the NAF is pretty much shorthand for being out of touch with reality and obsessed with all the wrong things.  I'm sure this incident just reminded the entire Wing of that.

[brabus]

14 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I’ve been evaluating for 10 years and never given anything other than a Q1, no downgrades

When I became a SEFE many years ago, the best thing my IP said was, “you fly with these guys all year, if you’re always an instructor, then you’re also always an evaluator. So when a one off day chosen via a dart at a board is that guys checkride, you already know if he’s what he should be , or not, the ride itself is just a paperwork generator and nothing more.”

Took that philosophy forward happily. The problem with the dbag SEFEs is they were never worth a shit to begin with, couldn’t instruct, and they finally wore their knee pads down enough to be shoved into an evaluator position.

 

[SocialD]

Q-3s in the MAF world seem to be way more prevalent than the CAF.  Now retired and the only Q-3 that I can ever remember was from a roommate on his form-8 ride in the B-Course.  It was a pretty buffonerous event and I think he got his CAF callsign from that ride.  He later became a patch so it didn't hurt him too much.   I will say, I don't remember ever seeing a pilot wear his wedding ring while flying.  We even had a few pilots lose their rings after removing them for flights...likely story. 

[brabus]

“Why aren’t you wearing your ring going TDY?!”

”Safety honey, you do want me to be safe, right?!”

[Danger41]

45 minutes ago, SocialD said:

Q-3s in the MAF world seem to be way more prevalent than the CAF.  Now retired and the only Q-3 that I can ever remember was from a roommate on his form-8 ride in the B-Course.  It was a pretty buffonerous event and I think he got his CAF callsign from that ride.  He later became a patch so it didn't hurt him too much.   I will say, I don't remember ever seeing a pilot wear his wedding ring while flying.  We even had a few pilots lose their rings after removing them for flights...likely story. 

Same story. Only Q-3 I saw was a bro in the B course during his EPE that managed to shut down both engines and crash. He’s now a Thunderbird lol.

[08Dawg]

Oof…OG/CC canned

[uhhello]

56 minutes ago, 08Dawg said:

Oof…OG/CC canned

Wasn't this the standard way back in the day?

[Lord Ratner]

On 7/31/2024 at 6:48 AM, jice said:

Ok… regarding rings in the cockpit and a particular evaluator, sure. I suspect Joe average also learned something about a forest, trees, and to not trust the humans on staffs that supposedly support the mission.

Wasn’t there; context of the examinee’s intent matters. I’m sure you did the right thing. This just strikes me as perpetuating the “you’re incapable of understanding the divine calculus that resulted in an AFI” attitude that’s resulted in a generation of officers who choose compliance over problem solving and reading assignments over leadership. 

Sorry dude, but there's a difference between being sniped by an evaluator in your squadron on a daily flight and flying with a majcom evaluator. Not knowing when to play the game is a foul in itself. 

 

And this absolutely translates to the airlines. There are all sorts of regulations and directives that are bent or ignored based on the aircrew's experienced understanding of what rules are and are not critical. But when you have an FAA jumpseater, you better believe we follow every damn rule in the book. Those who don't are rightfully punished, if not for violating the rules, then for violating the rules of common sense.

 

[jice]

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Sorry dude, but there's a difference between being sniped by an evaluator in your squadron on a daily flight and flying with a majcom evaluator. Not knowing when to play the game is a foul in itself. 

 

And this absolutely translates to the airlines. There are all sorts of regulations and directives that are bent or ignored based on the aircrew's experienced understanding of what rules are and are not critical. But when you have an FAA jumpseater, you better believe we follow every damn rule in the book. Those who don't are rightfully punished, if not for violating the rules, then for violating the rules of common sense.

 

Yeah… dude. Play the game. Protect yourself.  But if an evaluator is leaning on that game or focusing on queepy, non-mission-related things: that evaluator is a non-mission-enhancing waste of time and the org and/or process is broke. The organization should weed those humans out and fix those processes, not punish folks for failing to waste their life on behalf of a MAJCOM 3V staffer’s ego. 
 

Yeah, still protect yourself when you go to the airline. Common sense. But the FAA doesn’t work for your airline; that douchey FAA jump-seater isn’t paid to care whether your airline is effective at its job. That should be the MAJCOM’s only concern if they’re sitting in my cockpit.

[Sua Sponte]

The 11-202 V3 and MDS V3 series literally tells someone what they can’t and can’t do. The 11-202 V2 and MDS V2 literally tells someone how they’ll be evaluated. If someone is too stupid to not understand what they can and can’t do, maybe they don’t need to be flying.

In my experience of giving checkrides for over a decade the flyers that wanted to argue the most about they deemed queep were the ones who’s FEF looked like a mess with Q-3s and downgrades. 

[arg]

So, everybody wants to wear rings and nobody wants to wear gloves. Am I reading this right?

[SurelySerious]

So, everybody wants to wear rings and nobody wants to wear gloves. Am I reading this right?

Don’t forget they also want beards.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, jice said:

Yeah… dude. Play the game. Protect yourself.  But if an evaluator is leaning on that game or focusing on queepy, non-mission-related things: that evaluator is a non-mission-enhancing waste of time and the org and/or process is broke. The organization should weed those humans out and fix those processes, not punish folks for failing to waste their life on behalf of a MAJCOM 3V staffer’s ego. 
 

Yeah, still protect yourself when you go to the airline. Common sense. But the FAA doesn’t work for your airline; that douchey FAA jump-seater isn’t paid to care whether your airline is effective at its job. That should be the MAJCOM’s only concern if they’re sitting in my cockpit.

Yeah, great in theory, except in practice what you are describing is how complacency festers. There's always an excuse for why this rule isn't that important or you don't really have to follow that reg, or yeah maybe you're supposed to do it that way but does it really matter?

 

Complacent squadrons with mishaps don't consciously create an environment that is ripe for catastrophe. There isn't some dipshit who walks in saying "I can't wait to break the rules and eventually lead to calamity." I don't say this as some evaluator who had a boner for downgrading people. I say this as someone who is reflexively anti-authoritarian and always looking for a reason to do something differently. And that little shit adds up in your brain and builds the habit pattern of excusing regulatory deviance. Then when something goes wrong, or you screw something up, or something unplanned puts you in a position where the easier answer is to violate or keep violating the regulation, that habit pattern kicks in. It only has to kick in for a few minutes or seconds to put you in a position you would have assumed prior to the flight you wouldn't find yourself in. I remember this conflict when stabilized approach criteria came out.

Maybe you've been able to shake the bonds of human nature, but the rest of us mortals are very much susceptible to all the things that created the need for these regulations in the first place. It is the literal function of the evaluator to enforce the regulations as they are written, and as we all remember from training, these regulations are written in blood. Including the blood of whatever dipshit had his finger degloved because he was wearing a wedding ring. Expecting the evaluators to have a secondary set of unwritten regulations that discriminate between "queep" rules and the ones that actually matter is easy to say with a beer in your hand, but very difficult to do when you're the one enforcing the standards. When I got downgraded on my T-6 instructor check ride for taking my mask off right after takeoff, it wasn't the evaluator's fault. I was the dummy. 

 

Does that mean guys should be sent to an FEB for wearing a wedding ring on a regular flight? Obviously not, considering I don't think pilots should be punished for uncharacteristic mistakes that might result in damage to the aircraft or person either. Sometimes you just have a hard landing. If it's not a trend, just debrief it. 

 

But if you can't play the game with an evaluator then it's very difficult to imagine that same person isn't applying their own layer of judgment subconsciously to all sorts of regulations day-to-day. Again, I speak from experience, not as the judge and jury. And it's not a moral judgment on that person. There are stupid rules. The real question is, are you violating the rule because it's keeping you from accomplishing the mission, or just because you think it's dumb/inconvenient? In my experience 99.9% of the time it's the latter, and while that may absolutely be true, the obvious follow-up question is "why not just take the fucking ring off?"

It's funny, as I get dangerously close to 40 I finally understand why the majors and lieutenant colonels in the squadron all wore the damn reflective belt when we were on the flight line in Bagram. When I was younger and dumber and always looking for a fight I just thought they were sellouts or too afraid of getting in trouble. Now I realize that as you get older and more boring, which I absolutely am, you simply perform a more logical calculation:

 

Is the reflective belt actually stopping me from doing anything in any way? No? *shrug* I guess I'll wear it then, not my circus, not my clowns. 

 

Anyway that's a really long-winded way of saying that the purpose of a majcom evaluator is literally to make sure *all* of the rules are being followed, and anybody flying with them should be smart enough to know that. And if you can't understand that, it's not the evaluator with their head up their ass. It's the job of the DO, the squadron evaluator, and the instructor pilots to determine whether or not a pilot is failing at the actual "important" shit. If you're waiting for a majcom evaluator to make sure you can perform the basic squadron mission, things have already gotten pretty bad.

Edited August 3 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, jice said:

But the FAA doesn’t work for your airline; that douchey FAA jump-seater isn’t paid to care whether your airline is effective at its job. That should be the MAJCOM’s only concern if they’re sitting in my cockpit.

Sorry, just to add, this is incorrect. The FAA and the majcom evaluators exist for effectively the same function. To ensure the smooth operation of the civil/military aviation Enterprise, and to protect the organization from mishaps and liability. 

Sometimes an adversarial relationship is simply a required component for compliance. Human nature. Hang out at any grocery store until you see some little puke screaming at his parents because he wants a candy bar, and you'll see exactly why a purely cooperative existence is rarely desirable or effective.

[jice]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah, great in theory, except in practice what you are describing is how complacency festers. There's always an excuse for why this rule isn't that important or you don't really have to follow that reg, or yeah maybe you're supposed to do it that way but does it really matter?

…

Nobody’s arguing for violating the rules. Copy the normalization of deviance discussion. It’s a good one and I agree with you.
 

I’m saying there’s a better way to ensure compliance when commanders deem something important than making a random example of some schmuck (and yeah, that schmuck should have done better.) I think we agree: that evaluator remains right. The examinee remains wrong. My point is that evaluator ALSO remains a human choosing the wrong tools for the right job and can do better, in order to further the mission of his organization.

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Sorry, just to add, this is incorrect. The FAA and the majcom evaluators exist for effectively the same function. To ensure the smooth operation of the civil/military aviation Enterprise, and to protect the organization from mishaps and liability. 

Sometimes an adversarial relationship is simply a required component for compliance. Human nature. Hang out at any grocery store until you see some little puke screaming at his parents because he wants a candy bar, and you'll see exactly why a purely cooperative existence is rarely desirable or effective.

Negative. The reason the MAJCOM, its staff organs (including 3V), and subordinate units exist is to OT&E forces to fight wars (and sometimes fight wars, COMREL depending.)

The airline flying your FAA evaluator exists to make money. The FAA is there (in part) to protect the interests of the traveling public and ensure safe and smooth operations within the entire NAS (not of that airline.)

The squadron and the 3V have different functions within the same mission. The FAA and airline have different missions and meet at the point of function. 
 

The day to day might feel the same for a line guy, but the FAA doesn’t HAVE to care about doing its job in a way that maximizes the performance of the airline. The MAJCOM absolutely SHOULD, which is why pulling the most efficient and effective levers is important.