Jump to content

Command Directed Q3 Q?


Guardian

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Fair enough...some of those may be deserved in the Cud Chewing community. 

However, was it in the middle when he crucified a U-28 bro with non-judicial punishment for losing his weapon then lost his own weapon in the shitter with ZERO consequences?  How funny that his command chief found the weapon and returned it to him quietly.

Was it in the middle when he ran a CV-22 into the trees and tried to keep going...then almost dodged the Q-3 when everyone else got one?  I've personally talked to someone on that flight who thought for sure "he was dead" when they almost flipped over into the trees.

I am far to close to the situation and know much of the inside baseball...He was toast but another maniac GO stepped in and told the boss "I can save and fix him."  I was also in the room with that boss when he said "some people we can't let fail because they are so many years below the zone."  They are so obsessed with making AFSOC/GOs they were willing to overlook a narcissistic lunatic. 

Sounds like AFSOC has AMC Managerialship problems.

“Rules for thee, not for me.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I said it before and I'll say it again.  Sounds like the reservists and any other IP worth a damn need to take a page from the old airline union playbook and start having a sick out if the leadership does not fix this.  'My neighbor just tested positive for COVID, and we had some beers Friday night, so I should quarantine for a couple weeks.'  Then make every flight an NE-WX or NE-MX or anything to put the program behind timeline and draw higher leadership attention to the brokenness of the the unit.  If the OG can jump the SQ/CC and demand a Q-3, the WG/CC can just as easily trump the OG and revoke it.

 

Minus not having a barrier available, what good would it do to have the airfield manned as long as the runway is clear?  And, the T-38 still needs the net barrier right?  Don't recall any net barriers available at any SPS divert.  Also, not once has someone on the ground been of actual use to me in the air during an EP.  I know that sometimes the SOF or someone else chimes in with some critical info and can save the day, but I doubt a civilian controller is going to be helpful.  Fire and crash rescue would be desirable if the EP is serious, but unless I think I might go off the end or something, I'm not going to overfly a landable piece of concrete for that.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Danger41 said:

T-38

Then Ruh Roh, is what ill potentially say to that. With Lawton open, the only justification you'd have left to pull that stunt is a right gen no cross situation (left gen no cross might not even make the cut honestly), making you a no trim no flap jet. That one requires a checklist stipulated outsized urgency and the longest qualifying  runway you can find on the way down, tower or no tower, second only to total DC out or, engine compartment fire.

That AND/OR the rather exceptional compounding happenstance of being in such a degraded fuel state that it would have put you at emergency fuel a mere 35nm north. That itself would be a source of scrutiny on its own if true, given SPS was not the intended destination in the first place. 

BL, the guy is gonna have to demonstrate a compound EP here. If LAW was open, and he landed fat on gas at tower-closed home plate, with a good cross? Oof. Good night Irene. I hope for his sake one of those three can be answered in the negative.

Now, taking my 38 SEFE hat off for a second and putting a hypothetical OG hat. Would i Q3 the guy if the above 3 strike hypothetical was true? Nah. Not if the jet didn't get bent. Id retrain the guy notionally, have him do the slut shaming rounds. 

Id understand not sharing further details to protect those being currently scrutinized. Happy to keep this in the realm of the hypothetical. Cheers.

 

 

Edited by hindsight2020
grammerz
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to let Guardian get to it but he’s not so I’ll just add the Paul Harvey rest of the story. The T-38 Sq/CC was fired for not wanting to give the Q-3’s, as well. I’ve got info from some folks there and there’s always more to the story but this is also an interesting detail that I’m sure will take this thread into a productive direction lol.

I wasn’t familiar with that. I’m guessing you are talking about the active duty CC and not the reservist CC. Cause that wouldn’t make sense.

I still don’t think I would have gone to KLAW unless WX or radar were required to get into the clear. I’m not sure what the wx was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2021 at 11:50 AM, FLEA said:

The disconnect is its a German OG and the Germans grow up with different flight rules that have different thresholds of conservativity built into them. Germans believe its ludicrous to every fly VFR, land at an uncontrolled field, and lots of other crazy non sense. 

I find this extremely hard to believe, considering the complete lack of flight discipline and numerous safety issues I’ve seen flying around Deutschland for the past year. Everything from scud running gliders handing around the final approach fix for hours on end to helos and fighters crossing in front of aircraft on final. There is certainly not a lot of conservatism built into German aviation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaptainMorgan said:

If I got Q3’d by a Luftwaffe pilot. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQ_8sGU8CN5brp0VkxW-2XxLDOy2SfqjonDw&usqp=CAU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL indeed. I was watching a ze german YT video of a guy in a D- registered RV-8 flying across the atlantic to attend OSH with his German flag proudly on the tail...and an ALLIED invasion paint scheme. I had to do a double take. Indeed, I made a comment linking to a google search of irony, which wasn't received well. 😄

:usa::thefinger:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not their flight skill it's the cultural difference in how they view rules and regulations and the difference between how they view a check-ride failure versus us. Some generalizations here but:

Germans will always attempt to follow every rule to the T, and if rules are broken have no issue ensuring person is properly shamed. However in respect to that, breaking rules are just seen as a fact of life and when you do it just take your consequence and move on. 

This German likely doesn't understand the major career implications in the US to a failed check-ride. 

He sees it through German eyes where the pilot broke a rule and he should be shamed. He can requal anyway so why does he care? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2021 at 1:42 PM, Danger41 said:

I was going to let Guardian get to it but he’s not so I’ll just add the Paul Harvey rest of the story. The T-38 Sq/CC was fired for not wanting to give the Q-3’s, as well. I’ve got info from some folks there and there’s always more to the story but this is also an interesting detail that I’m sure will take this thread into a productive direction lol.

Actually firing the Sq/CC seems even more over the top. It's not that unusual for a next level CC to disagree or even step in. Firing a CC because of it is pretty questionable. I can attest that as a Sq/CC I was a little close the bros and may not have always had the full objectivity. My OG never stepped in, but then I probably never had that crisis moment where one of my buds stepped in a really, really big pile. As an OG I did have to step in and direct a court martial when the Sq/CC had trouble pulling the trigger. I treated it more as a mentoring moment than a firing offense. After it was all over the Sq/CC admitted the charge was clearly warranted (absolute felony), but he just had a hard time because it was one of his own. I sat him down with a scotch and cigar and lamented that this was the hard part about command, and eventually he'd grow into his big boy pants. That said, I usually just stayed out of Sq business -- their time to lead.

Edited by skibum
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2021 at 5:01 PM, hindsight2020 said:

If LAW was open, and he landed fat on gas at tower-closed home plate, with a good cross? Oof. Good night Irene.

So what is so dangerous about landing at an airfield with 2x runways, 10/13k long vs. a single runway that’s 8.6k…the latter is better because some guy in the tower says “cleared to land?” Not trying to imply 8.6 is too short, but what the hell is the big deal with not having a civilian tell me I’m cleared to land (who collectively across my career have multiple times give me clearance to land which would have resulted in a mishap had I not caught the problem and reacted accordingly).

Sure, talk to the guy and tell him the preference is LAW/another towered airport in the event of a land as soon as practical EP, but anything beyond that is egregious BS/CYA.

Edit: Last week sent a 4 ship into a NTA with multiple GA in the pattern…turns out pilots can pilot and everything was fine. That OG would probably have a heart attack hearing this. 

Edited by brabus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Sq/CC thing was just that the guy was a PITA and this was finally the last straw. Ironically he’s now going down as a hero when the week prior he wasn’t liked lol. This is all second hand so who knows but I can peddle in rumors at a truly elite level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you’re saying because there wasn’t anyone to say you’re cleared to land and there is no fire support that it potentially deserves a Q3? Does KLAW have fire support when Sheppard is closed?

I don’t understand your last paragraph.

Again. Not trying to be difficult. I just don’t understand the Q3 in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

So you’re saying because there wasn’t anyone to say you’re cleared to land and there is no fire support that it potentially deserves a Q3? Does KLAW have fire support when Sheppard is closed?

I don’t understand your last paragraph.

Again. Not trying to be difficult. I just don’t understand the Q3 in the slightest.

Just playing devils advocate here. 
 

You can’t taxi a 38 with a Gen failure regardless if there was a good crossover or not. Besides the potential for fod, that’s the biggest issue I can immediately think of for landing at a closed airfield off the top of my nugget. 
 

I’m not sure I understand a Q3 if they landed and acted in accordance with the IFG/Dash 1, which would direct them to clear the active then shut down…I.e walk back to Ops if no support agencies available.
 

Now I don’t have any inside baseball on this event and I’m not insinuating the crew in this case did taxi back, but if they landed the jet then decided to taxi and shut down then I could see the argument for a Q3. 

Assuming they followed the IFG, did they properly secure the jet with pins/chocks/etc. afterwards? Just questions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Guardian said:

So you’re saying because there wasn’t anyone to say you’re cleared to land and there is no fire support that it potentially deserves a Q3? Does KLAW have fire support when Sheppard is closed?

I don’t understand your last paragraph.

Again. Not trying to be difficult. I just don’t understand the Q3 in the slightest.

 

Tower control means d$ck all, though in general towers tend to be proxies for ARFF services (part 139 certifications is a better proxy). KLAW is an ARFF index B facility during air carrier ops (aka operating hours), and it is 7 minutes away by T-38. That's just not in dispute.

The argument could be made that the risk of a botched landing attempt of an otherwise non-emergency aircraft (I'm sorry if you all disagree, but that is the T.O. categorization of a single gen good cross in the T-38, unless a compound EP/failure presents itself), in a field without crash services, where one was available 7 minutes away, is not justifiable and demonstrates a pattern of improper decision making in the eyes of the guy who owns the iron.

That's it man. You don't agree? Cool. Feel free to win the hearts and minds when they make you OG. This isn't an abstraction for me in the least. I work in the same community and know who I'm beholden to when I decide that a quick-tempered Leroy Jenkins is warranted, and shine my #ss out there in the NAS with a tail I don't have personal OPCON over. I further decide I don't like that construct? I can always sit on my hands, turn in my wings and eat the paddle I got coming to my *ss like a full-retard-Scheller. There are hills to die on in this life.... but not everything is one. To each their own.

But you tell me. You're the one who started a thread asking about what could warrant a Q3, but don't provide any truth data required to inform the position you're arguing against in the first place. That reads to me like you know the answer you want, but have heartburn with any position that doesn't feed that confirmation bias. 

Corroborate that any compounding factor to that simpleton non-emergency is at play here, and you'll have my 100% vote on that Q3 being bullsh$t. Until then, we're just throwing hypotheticals here, and my guess is as good as yours.

Edited by hindsight2020
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

 

non-emergency aircraft (I'm sorry if you all disagree, but that is the T.O. categorization of a single gen good cross in the T-38, unless a compound EP/failure presents itself),

 

Incorrect. IFG decision matrixes are gouge, not T.O.s

 

Land as Soon As Practical.

“Emergency conditions are less urgent and, although the mis-sion is to be terminated, the degree of the emergency is such that an immediate landing at the nearest adequate airfield may not be necessary.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d like to see us move away from a Q-3 risk adverse flying culture. 
 

Better way to teach lessons than just slap Q-3’s on aircrew for every incorrect decision. 
 

It builds a mindset and culture that is afraid of failure and afraid to take risks in combat. 

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

Incorrect. IFG decision matrixes are gouge, not T.O.s

 

Land as Soon As Practical.

“Emergency conditions are less urgent and, although the mis-sion is to be terminated, the degree of the emergency is such that an immediate landing at the nearest adequate airfield may not be necessary.”

 

Fair enough. I stand corrected on the semantics of "as soon as practical". I am aware the IFG matrix is not a T.O.  Either way, an emergency declaration is not a requirement for a single gen good cross was my point. Your 6 of one, my half a dozen.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

I’d like to see us move away from a Q-3 risk adverse flying culture. 
 

Better way to teach lessons than just slap Q-3’s on aircrew for every incorrect decision. 
 

It builds a mindset and culture that is afraid of failure and afraid to take risks in combat. 

You say that like management isn’t already trying to develop better comms so they can speak, I mean direct you while you are in combat. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Tower control means d$ck all, though in general towers tend to be proxies for ARFF services (part 139 certifications is a better proxy). KLAW is an ARFF index B facility during air carrier ops (aka operating hours), and it is 7 minutes away by T-38. That's just not in dispute.
The argument could be made that the risk of a botched landing attempt of an otherwise non-emergency aircraft (I'm sorry if you all disagree, but that is the T.O. categorization of a single gen good cross in the T-38, unless a compound EP/failure presents itself), in a field without crash services, where one was available 7 minutes away, is not justifiable and demonstrates a pattern of improper decision making in the eyes of the guy who owns the iron.
That's it man. You don't agree? Cool. Feel free to win the hearts and minds when they make you OG. This isn't an abstraction for me in the least. I work in the same community and know who I'm beholden to when I decide that a quick-tempered Leroy Jenkins is warranted, and shine my #ss out there in the NAS with a tail I don't have personal OPCON over. I further decide I don't like that construct? I can always sit on my hands, turn in my wings and eat the paddle I got coming to my *ss like a full-retard-Scheller. There are hills to die on in this life.... but not everything is one. To each their own.
But you tell me. You're the one who started a thread asking about what could warrant a Q3, but don't provide any truth data required to inform the position you're arguing against in the first place. That reads to me like you know the answer you want, but have heartburn with any position that doesn't feed that confirmation bias. 
Corroborate that any compounding factor to that simpleton non-emergency is at play here, and you'll have my 100% vote on that Q3 being bullsh$t. Until then, we're just throwing hypotheticals here, and my guess is as good as yours.
 
As to my last paragraph, don't worry about it. It wasn't germane to the Q3 question, which is why I put break lines in there. 

Dude. Seriously? You must be really close to this because it seems that me asking questions or saying what I think drums up a lot of emotion in you which wasn’t the point. And I wasn’t looking for support or opposition when I started this thread. I did have an opinion but not all the facts. Nor do I now. Thanks for your opinion.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Guardian said:


Dude. Seriously? You must be really close to this because it seems that me asking questions or saying what I think drums up a lot of emotion in you which wasn’t the point. And I wasn’t looking for support or opposition when I started this thread. I did have an opinion but not all the facts. Nor do I now. Thanks for your opinion.

My sincere apologies, I wasn't trying to convey personal emotional investment, I'm just emphatic for effect when i talk/type. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2021 at 6:51 PM, DirkDiggler said:

Just so we don’t get it twisted, I’m not a fan of said individual. At all.  Just saying that everyone always goes to the 28 CC directed Q3s as the primary reason he’s a raging asshole even though some of those were earned.  He’s committed far greater douchebaggery above the Sq/CC level.

  He actually gave NJP to 3 people for losing weapons, which made the karma on that one all the more amusing.  Anyone else would’ve been done after crashing the CV-22 the way he did but some people really are Teflon I guess.

  Tracking on how close you are to said situation/individual, if I’d been done that way I’d be pissed too.  The one thing I can’t understand is how the current AFSOC/CC has tolerated his dicknannagans given that Slife is a pretty black and white guy on stuff like that.  I think it’s real unfortunate that he’s probably going to be the next CC, cause he’s a pretty vindictive person and if/when he gets in the seat there will be blood.

I never once saw a general who held his subordinate generals accountable to their leadership vision. I'm not sure you could find a more revered leader than Welsh as CSAF, yet for all his talk of "if it doesn't make sense, we don't do it," he never fired a general or O-6 who ignored that philosophy within their own command. And there were plenty to make examples of.

 

It might be the single greatest leadership failing of the AF. Wing commanders and above are only held accountable if they do something illegal or something that generated publicity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I never once saw a general who held his subordinate generals accountable to their leadership vision. I'm not sure you could find a more revered leader than Welsh as CSAF, yet for all his talk of "if it doesn't make sense, we don't do it," he never fired a general or O-6 who ignored that philosophy within their own command. And there were plenty to make examples of.

 

It might be the single greatest leadership failing of the AF. Wing commanders and above are only held accountable if they do something illegal or something that generated publicity.

That’s a slippery slope. Fire someone beneath you for not ‘following your vision’ is, to me, the very definition of intrusive leadership. Give a vision, give an intent, and let your people loose to figure it out. 

 

Edited by Bigred
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...