Another Cheating Probe

[Stiffler]

Pilot candidates face cheating probe

By Erik Holmes

Staff writer

Pilot candidates from the 80th Flying Training Wing at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas, are being investigated for cheating, a base spokesman said Wednesday.

The number of officers under investigation, their ranks and the nature of the allegations are not yet known, said Maj. Michael Young, the base spokesman.

“They just initiated an investigation,” he said, “so it is really in its infancy.”

Young said the wing commander alerted the base detachment of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations to the allegations on Nov. 3. The OSI began an investigation that same day, he said.

All the officers being questioned are in the same undergraduate pilot training class, Young said.

The 80th Flying Training Wing conducts the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program, the world’s only internationally manned and managed undergraduate pilot training program. The wing has about 200 students.

— The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[JVBFLY]

This will be interesting. I have heard this story third party, and this sucks for everyone in the class. You gotta love rats and an overly PC BIG BLUE. More will come out of this investigation than the one of the Maj who was abducted. The sad thing is, at least according to what I have heard, this is no outside shoe clerk who started it.

[Stiffler]

Then the Bro network needs to kick in and find out who did this, and deal with it in squadron bars

[Guest homewith4]

JVBFLY,

are you implying that it's OK for these students to cheat? Of course, I don't have any of you "what I have heard" inside information you indicate you have received. But, it sounds like your saying, the one who did wrong is the person who was the "rat".

[Guest Hydro130]

Homewith4,

This is a touchy issue with aviators... And very complicated. The moral ground here is not as clear or simple as it would seem to be to an outsider (someone who hasn't BTDT in Flight Training). I'm not playing weekend-lawyer here or anything, nor am I trying to skew core values or any of that yadda-yadda; just please realize that cases like these are rarely simple from a "is that right or wrong to do?" standpoint.

Nuts. That crappy explanation is probably just muddying the waters. Try reading this and this and this thread; they may give you a little more insight on the complexity/delicacy of these kinda situations in terms of morality...

Not trying to poke anyone in the eye here; just trying to add perspective...

Cheers, Hydro

[Guest Fuse]

I'm interested in why having an unfair advantage is not ok to "outsiders" like myself, but with military aviators it's a complicated situation that takes lots of time and money to research and might be ok in so-and-so situation if the stars align just right. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but please explain it to me.

If you take an unfair advantage in a class environment for personal gain, I would doubt your abilities when you had no shortcut option when you goto battle. Morality doesn't stop at the blue line.

Right=Not cheating and working hard to do well.

Wrong=Taking an unfair advantage to appear better than you really are.

Does UPT fall outside those guidlines?

[Guest Hydro130]

Originally posted by Fuse:

I'm interested in why having an unfair advantage is not ok to "outsiders" like myself, but with military aviators it's a complicated situation that takes lots of time and money to research and might be ok in so-and-so situation if the stars align just right. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but please explain it to me.

If you take an unfair advantage in a class environment for personal gain, I would doubt your abilities when you had no shortcut option when you goto battle. Morality doesn't stop at the blue line.

Right=Not cheating and working hard to do well.

Wrong=Taking an unfair advantage to appear better than you really are.

Does UPT fall outside those guidlines?

Read those threads I posted above. Pay attention to the posts from the experienced BTDT dudes and hopefully it'll make more sense. No one is advocating "pulling a fast one" here or advocating that blatant, selfish cheating is OK.

Morally invigorated cadets and other "outsiders" (I didn't intend for that term to be any slam, only as a discerner) like to try to put situations like this in terms of simple black-and-white. My only point is that it's not that easy. If you don't believe me now, just wait and see for yourself if you are fortunate to ever have the opportunity.

Cheers, Hydro

[Guest Hoser]

There is a difference between taking a crib sheet with "A,C,D,B,A..." marked on it (cheating) and sharing some gouge (with the entire class, not just 1-2 people)that you happened to find when making copies at the local Kinko's. The gouge might be out of date (gain vs risk of studying wrong data) and even if's current, you still have to remember the info and be able to put it down on paper come test day, or stand up or in flight.

Which one of these occured at Sheppard? I don't know.

Cap-10

[ 16. November 2006, 11:13: Message edited by: Cap-10]

[Toasty]

There's a fine line between gouge and cheating. Some gouge I wouldn't take to a sim with me, because I thought it might be seen as questionable.

Here's an example of a fine line. The first can be explained through thorough prep, the second cannot:

Gouge: You may go to one of these 10 airfields, so here is the routing and times for all ten.

Cheating: You're going to this airfield, so here is the routing and times.

Hopefully they didn't do something entirely stupid. Although for the CC to call OSI instead of handling it on a lower level kinda leads me to believe it was pretty blatant.

[Guest homewith4]

I realize I haven't BTDT, I have read the noted threads and to me they are best summed up by the "cliff's notes" take on the issue.

OK...so let's make them crew chiefs in level training (not sure what it's called). So we have a kid who is really motivated to do well in class and has a fair amount of natural talent, but had a busy weekend and didn't study adequately for the test. The instructor played basketball with this kid in high school. So he helps out giving him a list of the actual test questions...not just a list of possible questions. (At least based on the links that's what happened in the CBM scandal, who knows about this one.) Somewhere on the line, the kid will learn what it takes to be a "real" aircraft maintainer.

Do you want him fixing your jet?

[Guest Hydro130]

Originally posted by homewith4:

I realize I haven't BTDT, I have read the noted threads and to me they are best summed up by the "cliff's notes" take on the issue.

OK...so let's make them crew chiefs in level training (not sure what it's called). So we have a kid who is really motivated to do well in class and has a fair amount of natural talent, but had a busy weekend and didn't study adequately for the test. The instructor played basketball with this kid in high school. So he helps out giving him a list of the actual test questions...not just a list of possible questions. (At least based on the links that's what happened in the CBM scandal, who knows about this one.) Somewhere on the line, the kid will learn what it takes to be a "real" aircraft maintainer.

Do you want him fixing your jet?

I wouldn't have the luxury of choice to answer that question. If the kid is normally a hard worker and a good egg overall and that's his only blemish, then I would have exactly zero problems with him wrenching on my jet. I'd take that dude over a clean-record dunce anyday of the week, and twice on Sunday. No human is perfect, and no training system is perfect. Now, I'm not saying that no one did anything wrong here (situation at hand). There are plenty of weak links in every system, whether that's a result of a slacker cheating his way through completely (unlikely), or just being dumb as a rock (those types are plentiful!). I don't particularly desire to work with either sort, but I have worked with my fair share of lazy and down-right stupid people. That's why there is redundancy in every system (MX QA, crew airplanes, wingmen, etc, etc). I haven't ever cheated as I have defined cheating for myself, but I've participated in plenty of "cooperate and graduate" and "hook a brother up" -- although the vast majority of aviators (and maintainers!) would agree with me, other people "outside looking in" likely don't. Fair enough; I've come to learn that it's very rarely my place to cast stones. I know I live in a glass house! ;)

Cheers, Hydro

EDIT: just because...

[ 16. November 2006, 12:06: Message edited by: Hydro130 ]

[Stiffler]

Come on. Just because someone (a crew chief in your example) uses gouge, doesnt mean they cant fix the plane. A pilot will never be able to get out of pilot training without being good...cuz he still has to fly.

And homewith4, ever read any of the questions we had to memorize? Stuff that has absolutely no relevance and is only meant to harrass.

Until you sit in a flight room 12 hours a day, and see how hard we DO work and how sharing gouge and stuff really ISNT cheating, then you dont have much of a leg to stand on.

[Guest Fuse]

One of my favorite teachers back in college had a few rules for tests. He said we can use books, notes, the internet, anything except our neighbor/verbal questions or something that simply gave the answers to the test. His reasoning was that in "the real world" you will be asked questions all the time you have no clue about and that's what you will have to do to get the answers. This is a good example of how cheating in one area can be acceptable in another. I think the main thing in question here is if what the students did was both allowed and available to everyone.

[ 16. November 2006, 13:25: Message edited by: Fuse ]

[Guest thefranchise]

Morally invigorated cadets and other "outsiders" (I didn't intend for that term to be any slam, only as a discerner) like to try to put situations like this in terms of simple black-and-white. My only point is that it's not that easy. If you don't believe me now, just wait and see for yourself if you are fortunate to ever have the opportunity.

well odds are someone was cheating on the academeic tests or the EPQs. I cant think of a clean cut kill single cheating tool one could use in the jet or in a sim. Gouge that resembles tests bank questions isnt wrong to have. If you study the crap and memorize you are getting the point of why they even quiz you on it. If you are taking an academic test as a "student 4 ship" you are gonna piss someone off pretty bad who spent the night before studying his ass off for it while you coast. Since academics are weighted 30% at least and after all UPT is all about class rank there def shouldnt be tolerance for blatent cheating of academic tests.

[Toro]

Originally posted by Hydro130:

Try reading this and this and this thread; they may give you a little more insight on the complexity/delicacy of these kinda situations in terms of morality...

Notice that every one of those threads has something in common - every single one of them got locked because they ended up being runaround mud-slinging name-calling threads. Let's keep two things in mind here

1 - We have no details on this situation

2 - We simply will not come to a conclusion on the details of what is cheating and what is 'fair use of gouge' in UPT. Let's not waste more bandwidth trying.

If you have something new and original to add to this discussion, then by all means go ahead. If you have speculation and old arguments, then just keep them to yourself.

[Guest Hydro130]

Copy all. For the record, it wasn't my intent to start another flame war bringing up those threads, but rather to prevent one (ala "Let's not kick this dead equine anymore. You can look, but don't touch").

Anyhoo, "Winchester"...

Cheers, Hydro

[HerkDerka]

Originally posted by Fuse:

I'm interested in why having an unfair advantage is not ok to "outsiders" like myself, but with military aviators it's a complicated situation that takes lots of time and money to research and might be ok in so-and-so situation if the stars align just right.

Can we not go down this road again?

If you haven't been to UPT, you don't know the perspective that's being discussed. It doesn't make sense to people who haven't been to UPT and it never will unless they do go.

HD

[Flare]

FWIW....just so you know, had people kept this in our squadron (where it belonged), this whole thing would have been a lot less severe than it's going to be. Not saying those involved do or don't deserve the punishment they're going to get.....but next time you go around sharing a story like this, stop and think.....you might be sealing someone else's grave.

[BFM this]

Originally posted by ENJJPT IP:

FWIW....just so you know, had people kept this in our squadron (where it belonged), this whole thing would have been a lot less severe ...

its like a bad acid flashback...

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by homewith4:

Do you want him fixing your jet?

Be careful, there are some Eagle guys around here and you might get some answers you weren't expecting...

I do if he can fix the jet. Especailly if he is the best jet fixer on the line. I don't care how he did on some stupid test any more than I care about his race or religion or what he had to eat for breakfast.

USAF training is about more than academics. Training never stops and it is based on repitition and practical application of classrom principles. That is especially true for formal flying training. Academic tests for aviators are more often used as teaching tools than tools to evaluate mastery of subject matter. We use another tool to determine the level of mastery of the subject matter, and there is simply no way to cheat when using that tool. Thanks to the Wright brothers for providing that tool.

Therefore, the people administering the academic tests very often know there is gouge out there, especially since they may have provided that gouge in some form of an MQF.

I am quite surprised that there is a sudden concern over all this academic crap. Have the students at UPT stopped actually flying the airplanes? Are the tests the only tool available for the IPs to determine who can fly?

I am totally with ENJJPT IP. This is something a Flt CC or Squadron DO/CC at the most should be tasked to deal with. I am saying that without knowing what happened or how "severe" the cheating was. If it happened in your flight/Sqdn you should be allowed to deal with it. Period. That's what they're paying you for. Lead, please.

Running this up the chain to the Wg/CC who hands it off to OSI cheats the Flt/CC and Sqdn/DO or CC of a valuable leadership opportunity.

BL: Cheating on a test is not that big a deal. We have the best Air Force on the planet. It got that way while holding firm to the Boyd derived fighter pilot motto "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'."

[HerkDerka]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

We use another tool to determine the level of mastery of the subject matter, and there is simply no way to cheat when using that tool. Thanks to the Wright brothers for providing that tool.

Any questions?

Well put.

HD

[Guest KoolKat]

Originally posted by Rainman:

I am quite surprised that there is a sudden concern over all this academic crap. Have the students at UPT stopped actually flying the airplanes? Are the tests the only tool available for the IPs to determine who can fly?

Your point is a good one. However, the fact of the system is that just as the tests are not the only tool, neither is the airplane.

Those "tests," be they the EPQs or the straight up academic tests, count for quite a bit of the overall pie.

Now, the reason these events are so sickening is because you simply can't make it through the program without getting at least 70% (on each test) of the overall 30% for the tests. That means you're, at most, 9% behind. The Commander's rating is larger than this number and we haven't even gotten to the real equalizer yet.

This conversation is a tough one. It seems to make people very defensive. I think it probably should, there certainly is a different culture that someone in another academic environment can't fully understand.

There have been alot of really great ideas brought up over the course of the "discussions" we've had about this issue (unfourtunately issues now,) but the really sad part is that nothing will change.

It would be nice to know that we have done a good job of explaining what is acceptable and what is not. I think we have attempted to do that, but it's hard to be certain from my perspective. It's probably not best to just fall back on the mottos and cliques here.

In that interest, I offer a few things:

It IS okay:

a. to look at OLD exams. There will be questions that they will use again and some they won't, but you should know them all anyways.

b. to use the Master Question File (MQF.) We didn't have one in UPT when I went through, the old EPQ exams were the next best substitute.

c. for everyone to play baseball signals during the EPQ to help each other out. Be as covert as possible about this, your IP already knows your doing it, he doesn't need to see it too. If he does, he's NOT going to send you to the WG/CC, he's going to tell you to stop and that you're a moron who can't even cheat without being obvious.

d. to use EVERY MEANS at your disposal to make your performance in the jet the best it can be. There is NOTHING you can study or bring as kneeboard gouge that will fly the plane for you. If it helps you, use it.

On the other side, it IS NOT okay:

a. To aquire, or attempt aquire, the actual exam that is going to be given. If this confuses you, that means literally the same test, same questions, same order, same incorrect choices.

supp a. Should this test somehow fall into your possession, which would mean that your class are academic retards and someone is trying to help you out, it IS NOT okay to burn them by getting caught with this document or shouwing any proof that you ever had it. It IS NOT okay to use this document without sharing it with EVERYONE in your class, to include your sister flight. You WILL call EVERY person and tell them you have it. (They will come to you to get it, trust me.) You are not obligated to say where it came from and you should do nothing of the sort.

b. to bring any material, whether it be information written on paper or ink on your hand into an exam. Put that shit in your locker before the test. You'd be better served to leave that shit at home, but you locker is safe. They will not rummage your locker unless you give them a VERY good reason. Much like the airplane, test time is "game time." You can't bring the answers with you. Either you and your wingmen have it, figure it out right then or you don't.

c. Some may feel differently, but this is what I think (and item b applies to this as well:) to interact with others once your formal academic testing has begun. By formal testing, I mean the 50-100 question tests you take on navigation or performance, etc., NOT EPQs.

If EPQs ever become an accurate depiction of what their definition is, I would no longer consider item c in the acceptable category to be valid. I do not expect them to change in content anytime soon, although some questions here and there do possess that content.

I, personally, find the Formal Testing different from EPQs because it tests the knowledge that you are required to have gained control of by that point in the program. They are not misc. questions from an MQF that you may or may not have. You had an academic class on this material with an instructor and your ability to learn this stuff has a direct link to your ability to learn more complicated and in-depth stuff later on.

Originally posted by homewith4:

But, it sounds like your saying, the one who did wrong is the person who was the "rat".

Violation of items a, supp a or item b, as you perhaps can more clearly see, could potentially put you into the "rat" category.

I have no comment on the current situation that this thread addresses. If I did, it would likely be a simple reiteration of what I wrote above.

Bottom line, and it makes it really easy...It may help you more than the next guy, but if it's not helping everyone, then it's probably wrong.

BENDY

EDIT: If others have amendments or comments to what I've said, it would a good thing if you found a constructive way to say it for the better of all.

[ 19. November 2006, 16:41: Message edited by: Bender ]

[Quartz]

This could probably go in a couple different fourm topics, but I'll link it here. Looks like it's not just pilots. And do we all know a, "Webb"?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/health/prescription-for-cheating/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[sky_king]

Sounds like a standard closed book test to me..... which I still don't understand the point of memorizing questions.

[guineapigfury]

I'll point out that whatever airframe a student ends up in will probably have an MQF for annual/periodic testing, so this may just be an instance of "training like we fight".