Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
spit21fire

Flight Evaluation Board (FEB)

Recommended Posts

brickhistory    450
5 hours ago, Azimuth said:

 However when my Sq/CC went to take it out of my buddy's FEF the OG/CC, who's a piece of shit, told my Sq/CC if he removed the Form 8 from his FEF, he would put one in his FEF with the OG's signature on it.  So my buddy has a Q-3 for something that a safety report said he wasn't the cause of.

 

And the Sq/CC said, "Sir, you will have to do that because I am removing mine."

Did he?

And Big Blue wonders why people are bailing...

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azimuth    353
3 hours ago, icohftb said:

So the sq/cc rushed to judgment and was willing to screw your buddy rather than hurt his own career. 

Sounds about right for the AF.

Well I mean Commanders HAVE to do something about EVERTHING, right?  That's what they learn in their little charm schools and "mentoring" from senior Commanders.  Of course my Sq/CC didn't remove his Form 8 after his chat with the OG/CC.  Who writes who's OPR?  You only get to fall on your sword once and if you fall on your sword multiple times, you just get bloody.  He wasn't going to do the right thing, though unpopular, for my friend.  He was going to do the less controversial thing to not piss his boss off and preserve his promotion potential.

In the end, much like the O promotion system, the E promotion system doesn't really factor anything about doing your actual job, so his FEF doesn't meet a promotion board.   My buddy is currently a happy MSgt.

Edited by Azimuth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azimuth    353
3 hours ago, FUSEPLUG said:

Ahhhh... the LTS standard. 

He's now the head civilian in charge of C-17 Academics. Totally worthless. However the OG/CC after him was the one who got pubically chewed out by Gen Welsh for the VSP debacle a few years ago. Thankfully he retired after that.

Edited by Azimuth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gearpig    1,553
23 hours ago, Azimuth said:

You can fight a Form 8 all you want, however read 11-202V2 where it says it's the examiner's judgement.   It's not going to get removed.  Buddy of mine taught in the -135 FTU with me (Boom) and was refueling the C-17 FTU Sq/CC years ago when he crushed the ice shield, then my buddy called a breakaway.  My Sq/CC at the time said he's Q-3'ing my buddy, however if the safety report comes back and exonerates him, he'd remove the Form 8 from his FEF.  The safety report came back stating that the reason for the crushed ice shield was 100% the C-17 FTU Sq/CC's fault, which he openly admitted to.  However when my Sq/CC went to take it out of my buddy's FEF the OG/CC, who's a piece of shit, told my Sq/CC if he removed the Form 8 from his FEF, he would put one in his FEF with the OG's signature on it.  So my buddy has a Q-3 for something that a safety report said he wasn't the cause of.

In the end after being an evaluator for 10-years I can tell you that unless you caused a Class A mishap, or you almost killed people, it's going to take more than one Form 8 to send you to an FEB.  If people got FEB'd based on fucking up aircraft flying there wouldn't be one Boom Operator in the USAF.

A devil's advocate might say just because you didn't cause the problem doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to keep things from getting bent.

All I'm saying is it may not be a giant injustice from every perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azimuth    353
2 hours ago, gearpig said:

A devil's advocate might say just because you didn't cause the problem doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to keep things from getting bent.

All I'm saying is it may not be a giant injustice from every perspective.

Well in that case why not Q-3 the pilots up front? Why not the A-Code? I mean ultimately he was responsible for the jet, crew, and mission, right? Where do we draw a line in the sand for accountability?

Pretty tough sell when the receiver pilot was accepting 100% of the responsibility for the mishap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gearpig    1,553
35 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

Well in that case why not Q-3 the pilots up front? Why not the A-Code? I mean ultimately he was responsible for the jet, crew, and mission, right? Where do we draw a line in the sand for accountability?

Pretty tough sell when the receiver pilot was accepting 100% of the responsibility for the mishap.

So you're saying there should be a logical and reasonable expectation that a pilot in the front of the aircraft and a boom operator in rear of the aircraft equally share the same responsibility to take action if the receiver f's up?

I don't know a whole lot about operating a boom, but I surmise that if you have a seat and a window in the back of the plane built exclusively for the purpose of allowing you to stare intently at the other aircraft and you don't say anything until after damage occurs... I can understand how multiple people in the chain of command might arrive at the conclusion of "Hey, it wasn't entirely your fault, but you were in a position to act before damage occurred, and didn't. Q3".

I'm not saying that happened in this case. Maybe he didn't have time to react. But I can see how it could have. Although there is some bad leadership out there, my experience says it is extremely rare for a person's flight records to be wrecked without a lot of careful consideration and due diligence by many people. There's plenty of instances of Copilot Q-3s for failing to verbalize or attempt to correct a Pilot's mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azimuth    353
1 hour ago, gearpig said:

So you're saying there should be a logical and reasonable expectation that a pilot in the front of the aircraft and a boom operator in rear of the aircraft equally share the same responsibility to take action if the receiver f's up?

I don't know a whole lot about operating a boom, but I surmise that if you have a seat and a window in the back of the plane built exclusively for the purpose of allowing you to stare intently at the other aircraft and you don't say anything until after damage occurs... I can understand how multiple people in the chain of command might arrive at the conclusion of "Hey, it wasn't entirely your fault, but you were in a position to act before damage occurred, and didn't. Q3".

I'm not saying that happened in this case. Maybe he didn't have time to react. But I can see how it could have. Although there is some bad leadership out there, my experience says it is extremely rare for a person's flight records to be wrecked without a lot of careful consideration and due diligence by many people. There's plenty of instances of Copilot Q-3s for failing to verbalize or attempt to correct a Pilot's mistake.

No, I was being facetious, you didn't pick up on that.  A breakaway had already been called by my friend before the ice shield was damage.  There's really not much more he could've done, as he doesn't have control of the receiver jet, nor does he know what the receiver is actually going to do (as opposed required to do during a breakaway).

Don't really know "due diligence by many people" means when it's a Commander Directed Downgrade.  Should the boss talk to people before making a decision?  Sure, I've heard that's what happens in the CAF/AFSOC.  Does he have to talk to anyone before making the decision?  Nope, and a lot of time knee jerk reactions are the norm in the MAF when it comes to flight records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prozac    229
2 hours ago, gearpig said:

Although there is some bad leadership out there, my experience says it is extremely rare for a person's flight records to be wrecked without a lot of careful consideration and due diligence by many people. There's plenty of instances of Copilot Q-3s for failing to verbalize or attempt to correct a Pilot's mistake.

You must've had good luck with your leadership.  In my experience, this was absolutely not the case.  I saw several instances where CCs disregarded their Evaluators/DOs/ADOs recommendations and hand out questionable Q3s.  It is one of the many reasons I left and advise those who are still in to be wary.  I think the point you make about shared responsibility is valid, but don't disregard the fact that there are a lot of overzealous CCs out there who are looking out primarily for number one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NKAWTG    32
58 minutes ago, Prozac said:

You must've had good luck with your leadership.  In my experience, this was absolutely not the case.  I saw several instances where CCs disregarded their Evaluators/DOs/ADOs recommendations and hand out questionable Q3s.  It is one of the many reasons I left and advise those who are still in to be wary.  I think the point you make about shared responsibility is valid, but don't disregard the fact that there are a lot of overzealous CCs out there who are looking out primarily for number one.

This is just a culture thing within the MAF.  If you bend metal, everyone associated with the flight gets a Q3, irregardless of the facts or if you could have prevented it.  This is same command that tries to track down aircrew for ASAP reports when self reporting a breach of flight discipline, or court martials a pilot for an off DZ drop.  Non AMC MAF units like LTS can make smarter decisions, but rarely do since the leadership is drawn from AMC.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dream big    129
1 hour ago, NKAWTG said:

This is just a culture thing within the MAF.  If you bend metal, everyone associated with the flight gets a Q3, irregardless of the facts or if you could have prevented it.  This is same command that tries to track down aircrew for ASAP reports when self reporting a breach of flight discipline, or court martials a pilot for an off DZ drop.  Non AMC MAF units like LTS can make smarter decisions, but rarely do since the leadership is drawn from AMC.  

The answer might be blatantly obvious and leadership (or lack therof) 101...but what does a commander have to gain by issuing a Q-3 in a questionable situation versus turning it into a learning point? (Assuming no pressure from the OG.) Surely commanders are not graded on how many Q-3s they hand out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThreeHoler    413
2 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

This is just a culture thing within the MAF.  If you bend metal, everyone associated with the flight gets a Q3, irregardless of the facts or if you could have prevented it.  This is same command that tries to track down aircrew for ASAP reports when self reporting a breach of flight discipline, or court martials a pilot for an off DZ drop.  Non AMC MAF units like LTS can make smarter decisions, but rarely do since the leadership is drawn from AMC.  

While the ASAP shenanigans did happen under Johns, it has not been the case for several years. The AMC ASAP office does a fantastic job protecting people while working with the reports.

It is about the only positive thing I will say about AMC these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prozac    229
1 hour ago, dream big said:

The answer might be blatantly obvious and leadership (or lack therof) 101...but what does a commander have to gain by issuing a Q-3 in a questionable situation versus turning it into a learning point? (Assuming no pressure from the OG.) Surely commanders are not graded on how many Q-3s they hand out?

Any time there is bent metal, or even just a simple inspection required, there is leadership above the squadron level that wants answers (i.e. blame assigned).  Maybe this is more of an issue in heavy units than in pointy nose ones, but it seems there is no shortage of CCs at all levels willing to throw their people under the bus in order to prove that they are solving the problem.  Often times the problems are systemic and these practices serve only to exacerbate them.  Doesn't matter.  Too many times, the blame/consequences fall on the most junior person possible.  I don't mean to suggest the majority of commanders act in this manner.  The truth is its probably a minority.  But it happens often enough that at some point in one's career, one is likely to encounter this leadership style, thus everyone needs to beware all the time.  And that's how the CYA vicious cycle continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NKAWTG    32
1 hour ago, ThreeHoler said:

While the ASAP shenanigans did happen under Johns, it has not been the case for several years. The AMC ASAP office does a fantastic job protecting people while working with the reports.

It is about the only positive thing I will say about AMC these days.

John's was an egregious example of AMC leadership, but he is the rule, and not the exception.  I love ASAP as a concept.  We are so busy on the tanker/airlift side of the house, we lack the time to reflect and hanger fly.  ASAP could provide some institutional lessons learned, but I have no faith in AMC senior leaders.  The choice is CYA or share what you've learned with a risk of adverse actions.  I'm not convinced the risk is negligible.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duck    852
On 8/21/2017 at 9:03 AM, Azimuth said:

You can fight a Form 8 all you want, however read 11-202V2 where it says it's the examiner's judgement.   It's not going to get removed.  Buddy of mine taught in the -135 FTU with me (Boom) and was refueling the C-17 FTU Sq/CC years ago when he crushed the ice shield, then my buddy called a breakaway.  My Sq/CC at the time said he's Q-3'ing my buddy, however if the safety report comes back and exonerates him, he'd remove the Form 8 from his FEF.  The safety report came back stating that the reason for the crushed ice shield was 100% the C-17 FTU Sq/CC's fault, which he openly admitted to.  However when my Sq/CC went to take it out of my buddy's FEF the OG/CC, who's a piece of shit, told my Sq/CC if he removed the Form 8 from his FEF, he would put one in his FEF with the OG's signature on it.  So my buddy has a Q-3 for something that a safety report said he wasn't the cause of.

In the end after being an evaluator for 10-years I can tell you that unless you caused a Class A mishap, or you almost killed people, it's going to take more than one Form 8 to send you to an FEB.  If people got FEB'd based on fucking up aircraft flying there wouldn't be one Boom Operator in the USAF.

What year was this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heavywanabe    14
17 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

 This is same command that tries to track down aircrew for ASAP reports when self reporting a breach of flight discipline, or court martials a pilot for an off DZ drop. 

Cliff notes on the ASAP reporting shenanigans? I'm assuming its similar to ASRS reporting? Sounds like a witch hunt.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThreeHoler    413
1 hour ago, Heavywanabe said:

Cliff notes on the ASAP reporting shenanigans? I'm assuming its similar to ASRS reporting? Sounds like a witch hunt.

  

Gen Johns (AMC/CC at the time) was known for using ASAP reports and MFOQA data to hunt down crews who screwed up but didn't bend metal or injure someone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truman08    3
1 hour ago, ThreeHoler said:

Gen Johns (AMC/CC at the time) was known for using ASAP reports and MFOQA data to hunt down crews who screwed up but didn't bend metal or injure someone. 

I'm not defending Johns by any means, but if you're referring to crews getting taken down via data points derived from MFOQA, from the one instance I heard of involving a C-17 crew in the AOR, gross negliance and failure to maintain simple principals of basic flight discipline led to them getting taken down. That said, ASAP reports and info derived from MFOQA data should not be punitive (in 99% of the instances). 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homestar    360
59 minutes ago, Truman08 said:

I'm not defending Johns by any means, but if you're referring to crews getting taken down via data points derived from MFOQA, from the one instance I heard of involving a C-17 crew in the AOR, gross negliance and failure to maintain simple principals of basic flight discipline led to them getting taken down. That said, ASAP reports and info derived from MFOQA data should not be punitive (in 99% of the instances). 

ASAP reporting should never be punitive. Otherwise nobody would report. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prozac    229
41 minutes ago, Homestar said:

ASAP reporting should never be punitive. Otherwise nobody would report. 

Well, there is this tidbit about willful disregard for regulations, but yes, you are correct.  My view was always that if a crew was willing to self report something, and they hadn't hurt anybody, a candid hangar fly was the most appropriate response.  This was the example set for me early in my career.  By the time I left, the AF had gone full retard and was willing to hang guys by the balls for very minor infractions even when they self identified.  I think an Office Space quote is appropriate here:

 

Edited by Prozac
poor embed skillz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Azimuth    353
5 hours ago, Heavywanabe said:

Cliff notes on the ASAP reporting shenanigans? I'm assuming its similar to ASRS reporting? Sounds like a witch hunt.

  

The OG/CC, Jim Dittus, was trying to do that in 2014 at the Deid.

Then Wing Safety told him that was super illegal to do and went against the purpose of filing an ASAP report (duh).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truman08    3
2 hours ago, Homestar said:

ASAP reporting should never be punitive. Otherwise nobody would report. 

Couldn't agree with you more. The 99% part I was referring to was the willful disregard for following T.O.  I'm still of the mindset, as Prozac eluded to, as long as no metal was bent and everybody came home with 10 fingers/toes, just open up discussion about what happened. We've used both programs for years to start up "there i was" stories during our Hangar Fly sessions. That said, when it comes to the information taken from these two programs, I don't trust Big AF and the MAF leadership. I've seen far too many dudes get taken out just so an example can be made of them without the CC having to potentially sacrifice their career over the incident. That may be an issue at the Sq level depending on who your CC is, but I feel like upper level leadership gets word of things that are reported through ASAP/MFOQA and go on a witch hunt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×