Afman11 2f 22av2

BY ORDER OF THE AIR FORCE MANUAL 11-2F-22A,
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE VOLUME 2
16 AUGUST 2018
Flying Operations
F-22A--AIRCREW EVALUATION
CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY
ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-Publishing web site at
www.epublishing.af.mil for downloading or ordering.
RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.
OPR: ACC/A3TV Certified by: AF/A3T

(Major General Scott F. Smith)
Supersedes: AFI11-2F-22AV2, Pages: 54
25 August 2003
This volume establishes criteria and procedures for F-22A flight evaluations, implements AFPD
11-2, Aircrew Operations, AFPD 11-4, Aviation Service, and references AFI 11-200, Aircrew
Training, Standardization/Evaluation, and General Operations Structure, and AFI 11-202V2,
Aircrew Standardization/Evaluation Program. It applies to all F-22A units, including those in
the Air Force Reserve (AFR)
This publication requires the collection and or maintenance of information protected by the
Privacy Act (PA) of 1974. The authorities to collect and or maintain the records prescribed in
this publication are Title 10 United States Code, Chapter 857 and Executive Order 9397,
Numbering System for Federal Accounts Relating to Individual Persons, 30 Nov 1943. Forms
affected by the PA have an appropriate PA statement. System of Records Notice F011 AF XO A,
Aviation Resource Management System (ARMS) covers required information. The authority for
maintenance of ARMS is Title 37 U.S.C. 301a (Incentive Pay), Public Law 92-204, Section 715
(Appropriations Act for 1973), Public Laws 93-570 (Appropriations Act for 1974), 93-294
(Aviation Career Incentive Act of 1974), and Executive Order 9397 as amended by Executive
Order 13478, Amendments to Executive Order 9397 Relating to Federal Agency Use of Social
Security Numbers, November 18, 2008. Major Commands (MAJCOM), Direct Reporting Units
(DRU), and Field Operating Agencies (FOA) may forward proposed MAJCOM/ DRU/FOA-
level supplements to this volume through ACC/A3TV to AF/A3TF for approval prior to
publication. After approved and published, MAJCOM/ DRU/FOA OPR will provide copies of
those supplements to ACC/A3TV and the user MAJCOM/DRU/FOA offices of primary
responsibility (OPRs). Field units below MAJCOM/DRU/FOA level will forward copies of their
2 AFMAN11-2F-22AV2 16 AUGUST 2018
supplements to this publication to their parent MAJCOM/DRU/FOA OPR for pre-publication

review. NOTE: The terms DRU and FOA as used in this paragraph refer only to those
DRUs/FOAs that report directly to USAF. Recommendations for improvements to this volume
should be submitted on AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication, through
Numbered Air Force (NAF) standardization/evaluation (Stan/Eval) channels, to the parent
MAJCOM Stan/Eval. Parent MAJCOM Stan/Eval will forward approved recommendations to
lead command OPR (HQ ACC/A3TV, 204 Dodd Blvd, Suite 133, Langley AFB VA 23665-
2789).
The authorities to waive wing/unit level requirements in this publication are identified with a
Tier (“T-0, T-1, T-2, T-3”) number following the compliance statement. See Table 1.1 of AFI
33-360, Communications and Information, for a description of the authorities associated with the
Tier numbers. Submit requests for waivers through the chain of command to the appropriate Tier
waiver approval authority, or alternately, to the ACC/A3TV for non-tiered compliance items.
Records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are to be maintained in
accordance with Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 33-363, Management of Records, and disposed of
in accordance with the Air Force Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) maintained in the Air
Force Records Information Management System (AFRIMS).
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
This publication has been substantially revised and must be thoroughly reviewed. Major changes
include updates to the use of simulators for evaluations, renumbering of graded areas, re-
structure of publication content and the conversion from an AFI to AFMAN.
Chapter 1— ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4
1.1. Flight Examiners (FEs). ......................................................................................... 4
1.2. Examinees. ............................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2— Evaluation Requirements 5
2.1. General. ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Instrument/Qualification (INSTM/QUAL) Evaluations. ....................................... 6
2.3. Mission (MSN) Evaluations. ................................................................................. 7
2.4. Formal Course Evaluations. ................................................................................... 8
2.5. Instructor Evaluations. ........................................................................................... 8
2.6. Formal Training Unit (FTU) Instructor and Weapons Instructor Course (WIC)
Instructor, and Operational Test Mission Evaluations. ........................................... 8
Table 2.1. Aircrew Evaluation Grading Areas. ........................................................................ 8
2.7. Emergency Procedures Evaluations (EPEs). .......................................................... 13

AFMAN11-2F-22AV2 16 AUGUST 2018 3
Table 2.2. EPE Grading Areas. ................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 3— EVALUATION CRITERIA 19
3.1. General Grading Standards. .................................................................................... 19
Table 3.1. General Aircraft Control Criteria. .......................................................................... 19
3.2. Documentation of Weapons Employment Results. ............................................... 20
Table 3.2. Weapons Employment Scores. ............................................................................... 20
3.3. General Aircrew Evaluation Criteria. ..................................................................... 20
3.4. Aircrew Evaluation Criteria—Instruments. ............................................................ 34
3.5. Aircrew Evaluation Criteria—Tactical Employment. ............................................ 37
3.6. EPE Criteria. ........................................................................................................... 47
Attachment 1— GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 52

Chapter 1
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1. Flight Examiners (FEs). FEs:

1.1.1. Should exercise judgment when assigning subjective area grades, when assigning the
overall qualification level, and when evaluating in situations not covered explicitly by this
document.
1.1.2. Will brief the examinee on the purpose, conduct, and extent of each evaluation. (T-3).
1.1.3. May assist in evaluation mission planning/briefing as tasked by the examinee.
1.1.4. May evaluate from any flight or formation position (to include chase and sensor trail)
necessary to conduct a thorough evaluation.
1.1.5. Will apply the grading criteria contained in Chapter 3, as applicable. (T-2).
1.1.6. Will debrief the examinee’s overall rating, specific deviations, area grades assigned (if
other than qualified), and any required additional training, at a minimum. (T-3).
1.1.7. Should use all electronic means available, to reconstruct, evaluate, and debrief the
mission adequately.
1.2. Examinees. Examinees:
1.2.1. Will accomplish required flight planning in accordance with the flight position
assigned during the evaluation, furnishing FEs a copy of necessary mission data and mission
materials, if appropriate. (T-2).
1.2.2. Will brief the mission if qualified as a flight lead or instructor pilot. (T-3). For
Mission (MSN) evaluations a qualified flight lead (which may be the FE) will conduct the
briefing for examinees qualified as wingmen unless the MSN evaluation is part of an upgrade
program. (T-3). Wingmen may conduct the briefing of Instrument (INSTM)/Qualification
(QUAL) evaluations. (T-3).
Chapter 2
EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS
2.1. General.
2.1.1. Publications Check/Currency of Flight Publications. All QUAL evaluations include a
currency and accuracy check on all flight-required publications/checklists/Flight Information
Publications (FLIP)/in-flight guides. Unit commanders may specify additional publications to
be evaluated in the unit supplement to AFI 11-202V2.
2.1.2. Cockpit/Crew Resource Management (CRM). In accordance with AFI 11-290,
Cockpit/Crew Resource Management Program, all evaluations include assessment of CRM
skills. CRM skills are integral to all phases of flight, but evaluations include specific CRM
grading under Area 37. As all the CRM skills listed on the AF Form 4031, CRM Skills
Criteria Training/Evaluation Form, are included, use of the Form 4031 is unnecessary for
evaluations in the F-22A. The Stan/Eval trend program can be used to measure the
effectiveness of CRM training.
2.1.3. Combined Evaluations. With the approval of Operations Group Stan/Eval (OGV), the
INSTM/QUAL and MSN evaluations may be combined as a single evaluation. This option is
intended only for experienced pilots. Squadron Stan/Eval chiefs should request this option
through OGV. Document approval on the AF Form 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification,
by stating in the additional comments “OGV has approved a combined evaluation” and
having the OGV chief sign as an additional reviewer if his/her signature is not elsewhere on
the Form 8.
2.1.3.1. Combined evaluations include all current INSTM/QUAL and MSN evaluation
requirements, including requisites.
2.1.3.2. One event may satisfy both the INSTM and MSN Emergency Procedure Events
(EPEs), as long as the EPE includes the required areas for both evaluations.
2.1.4. Required Graded Areas. Required graded areas are annotated in Tables 2.1 and 2.2,
respectively. When it is impractical or impossible to accomplish a required evaluation area
in-flight, an alternate method (i.e., Mission Training Center (MTC), Weapons and Tactics
Trainer (WTT), or verbal examination) may be used in order to complete the evaluation. FEs
will document the reason and type of alternate method used in the “Additional Comments”
portion of the Form 8. (T-2). If the FE determines the required item cannot be adequately
evaluated by an alternate method, an additional flight is required to complete the evaluation.
In Tables 2.1 and 2.2:
2.1.4.1. Areas annotated with an "R" are necessary items for that event.
2.1.4.2. Areas indicated with an “R2” require evaluation of at least two of the items
under the associated section.
2.1.4.3. Areas indicated with an “R3” require evaluation of at least three of the items
under the associated section.
2.1.4.4. Areas not indicated as being required for evaluation are graded and marked
accordingly as observed by the FE or during discussions.
2.2. Instrument/Qualification (INSTM/QUAL) Evaluations.

2.2.1. Procedures.
2.2.1.1. A mission flown according to instrument flight rules (IFR), to the maximum
extent practical, best fulfills the objective of the INSTM/QUAL evaluation.
2.2.1.2. For inexperienced pilots, to the maximum extent practical, this evaluation should
include approaches at airfields other than home or deployed locations.
2.2.1.3. Approaches may be flown to fields which have a non-published, practice
approach available (e.g. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions only approach), rather than
a published FLIP approach. For these approaches, OGV shops will ensure that:
2.2.1.3.1. Non-published approaches are built using the standards applied to
published approach plates. (T-3).
2.2.1.3.2. Approval for use of such an approach on evaluation missions is
documented in the local unit supplement to AFI 11-202V2. (T-3).
2.2.1.4. INSTM/QUAL evaluations may be administered on any compatible training
mission and should be flown with the FE as the wingman for the instrument portions of
the flight.
2.2.1.5. With the approval of the Operations Group Commander (OG/CC), experienced
pilots may accomplish some graded areas of periodic INSTM/QUAL evaluations in the
simulator. Those items are annotated in Table 2.1. Document approval on the AF Form
8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification, by stating in the additional comments “OG/CC
has approved a Simulator (SIM) evaluation” and having the OG/CC initial in the
additional reviewer remarks, if his/her signature is not elsewhere on the Form 8. The
method of this approval is at the discretion of the OG/CC.
2.2.1.5.1. This evaluation should be labeled “INSTM/QUAL (SIM)” on the Form 8
in the Flight Phase with an EPE documented as a requisite, even if the EPE is
accomplished concurrently with the evaluation.
2.2.1.5.2. An in-flight evaluation is required for inexperienced pilots, Initial (INIT)
or Re-Qualification (RQ) evaluations or for evaluations to regain a qualification (e.g.,
after loss of qualification due to commander directed downgrade or failed checkride).
2.2.1.5.3. The graded areas that cannot be accomplished in the simulator must be
completed in-flight. Document the evaluation of these items as an additional line
entry on the Form 8 under Flight Phase as “INSTM/QUAL”. For example, the FE
who conducts the preponderance of the evaluation in the “INSTM/QUAL (SIM)” line
ensures the airborne VFR pattern/landing is accomplished, ensures the flight portion
is annotated in the “INSTM/QUAL” line, and signs as the flight examiner.
2.2.2. Minimum Requisites. The minimum requisites for an INSTM/QUAL evaluation are:
2.2.2.1. an instrument examination,
2.2.2.2. a closed book examination,
2.2.2.3. an open book examination, and an
2.2.2.4. EPE.
2.3. Mission (MSN) Evaluations.
2.3.1. Procedures.
2.3.1.1. Squadron Commanders:
2.3.1.2. Ensure that FEs administer initial MSN evaluations in the primary Designed
Operational Capability (DOC) of the unit, unless that unit has a different assigned
mission or contingency for which to prepare.
2.3.1.3. Ensure that FEs administer a sampling of Aerospace Control Alert (ACA)
mission evaluations, if squadron pilots are tasked to such missions.
2.3.1.4. FEs:
2.3.1.4.1. Should tailor MSN evaluations IAW current tactics, unit DOC statement,
theater Area of Responsibility (AOR) scenarios, and should incorporate all
appropriate evaluation requirements from Table 2.1. The profiles should be designed
to evaluate the training/flight position/special qualifications as well as basic
airmanship of the examinee.
2.3.1.4.2. Will evaluate examinees in the position of their highest certification (i.e. 2-
ship flight lead, 4-ship flight lead, instructor pilot, etc.), even if a portion of the
evaluation is flown in another position. (T-3).
2.3.1.4.3. May allow wingmen to brief and/or lead certain phases of the mission, but
should not evaluate flight leadership.
2.3.1.5. Evaluations during exercises are encouraged.
2.3.1.6. Evaluations during contingency/combat deployments should be given as a last
resort in order to maintain mission qualification status.
2.3.1.7. Basic Mission Capable (BMC) aircrew should only be evaluated on those
missions routinely performed.
2.3.1.8. With the approval of the OG/CC, experienced pilots may accomplish some
graded areas of periodic MSN evaluations in the simulator. Those items are annotated in
Table 2.1. Document approval on the AF Form 8, by stating in the additional comments
“OG/CC has approved a SIM evaluation” and having the OG/CC initial in the additional
reviewer remarks, if his/her signature is not elsewhere on the Form 8. The method of this
approval is at the discretion of the OG/CC.
2.3.1.8.1. This evaluation should be labeled “MSN (SIM)” on the Form 8 in the
Flight Phase with an EPE documented as a requisite, even if the EPE is accomplished
concurrently with the evaluation.
2.3.1.8.2. An in-flight evaluation is required for inexperienced pilots, INIT or RQ
evaluations or for evaluations to regain a qualification (e.g., after loss of qualification
due to commander directed downgrade or failed checkride).
2.3.1.8.3. The graded areas that cannot be accomplished in the simulator must be
completed in-flight. (T-3). Document the evaluation of these items as an additional
line entry on the Form 8 under Flight Phase as “MSN”.
2.3.2. Minimum Requisites. The MSN EPE is the only MSN evaluation requisite.
2.4. Formal Course Evaluations. Syllabus evaluations should be flown IAW syllabus
mission profile guidelines, if stated, or on a mission profile developed from syllabus
training objectives. FEs may modify course guidelines based on other factors, such as local
operating considerations, in order to complete the evaluation.
2.5. Instructor Evaluations. Except for Area 33, Instructor Performance, FEs determine
specific profiles and events for instructor evaluations. Subsequent evaluations (for example,
INSTM/QUAL, MSN) include instructor portions during the evaluations. If an
instructional ride allows completion of all requirements for a periodic check, the evaluation
may be used to update periodic evaluation providing all other requisites are completed.
2.6. Formal Training Unit (FTU) Instructor and Weapons Instructor Course (WIC)
Instructor, and Operational Test Mission Evaluations.
2.6.1. Profiles. WIC and FTU IP periodic mission evaluation profiles should normally
be IAW the formal course syllabus for any mission that the IP is qualified to instruct.
The only required items for a WIC or FTU IP mission check are those items required
by the syllabus for the specific syllabus sortie flown.
2.6.2. FTU IP initial qualification. FTU IP initial certification should be on a syllabus sortie
IAW Paragraph 2.6.1. Document FTU IP certifications on a Form 8 as an INSTR or
INSTR/MSN evaluation and include in the additional comments: “This evaluation is the
examinee’s FTU instructor certification.”
2.6.3. Operational test aircrew MSN evaluation profiles may be conducted on any test
mission.
Table 2.1. Aircrew Evaluation Grading Areas.
AREA NOTE AREA TITLE I/Q MSN
AIRCREW EVALUATION CRITERIA - GENERAL
1 6 MISSION PLANNING R R
2 6 BRIEFING (if applicable) R R
3 6 PRE-TAKEOFF R R
4 6 TAKEOFF R R
6 6 DEPARTURE R
7 6 LEVEL OFF R
8 6 CRUISE/NAVIGATION R
9 7 FORMATION R R
10 6 IN-FLIGHT CHECKS R R
11 6 FUEL MANAGEMENT R R
12 6 COMMUNICATION/NAVIGATION/IFF (CNI) R R
14 1 AIRWORK / AHC / BFM R
15 2, 6 UNUSUAL ATTITUDE RECOVERIES R
16 6 WEAPONS SYSTEM/BIT CHECKS R
17 AIR REFUELING
18 6 DESCENT R
19 6 GO-AROUND
20 6 RECOVERY
21 3 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC PATTERNS R
22 3 EMERGENCY APPROACH/LANDING R
23 VFR PATTERN/APPROACH R
24 6 FORMATION APPROACH
25 LANDING R
26 6 AFTER LANDING R
27 6 FLIGHT LEADERSHIP (if applicable) R R
28 6 DEBRIEFING/CRITIQUE R R
29 6 KNOWLEDGE R R
30 Critical, AIRMANSHIP/ SITUATIONAL AWARENESS R R

6
31 Critical, SAFETY R R
6
32 Critical, FLIGHT DISCIPLINE R R

6
33 6 INSTRUCTOR PERFORMANCE (if applicable) R R
34 6 INSTRUMENT INTERPRETATION R
35 6 SENSOR INTERPRETATION R
36 6 TASK PRIORITIZATION R R
37 6 COCKPIT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT R R
INSTRUMENTS
61 6 HOLDING
62 6 INSTRUMENT PENETRATION/ENROUTE DESCENT R
63 6 INSTRUMENT PATTERNS R
64 6 NONPRECISION APPROACH R
65 4, 6 PRECISION APPROACH (PAR) R
66 4, 6 PRECISION APPROACH (ILS) R
67 6 MISSED APPROACH/CLIMB OUT R
68 6 CIRCLING/SIDESTEP APPROACH
69 6 INSTRUMENT CROSS-CHECK R
TACTICAL EMPLOYMENT
GENERAL
81 6 TACTICAL/MISSION PLAN R
82 6 AEROSPACE CONTROL ALERT (ACA) TASKING (Air

Defense Units)
83 6 TACTICAL/MISSION EXECUTION R
84 6 COMPOSITE FORCE INTERFACE
85 6 TACTICAL COMMUNICATION R
86 6 VISUAL/SENSOR LOOKOUT R
87 6 MUTUAL SUPPORT R
88 6 TACTICAL NAVIGATION
89 6 INGRESS
90 6 EGRESS
91 COMBAT SEPARATION
92 6 TIMING
93 6 TRAINING RULES/ROE R
94 6 THREAT REACTIONS
95 6 IN-FLIGHT REPORT
96 6 EW/EXCM/AAMD
98 5, 6 SENSOR MANAGEMENT R
99 5, 6 SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT R
100 5, 6 WEAPONS MANAGEMENT R
AIR-TO-AIR
111 5, 6 SENSOR SEARCH/SORTING R
112 5, 6 TACTICAL INTERCEPT R

113 8 AIR COMBAT MANEUVERING
115 5, 6 AIR-TO-AIR WEAPONS EMPLOYMENT R
116 6 AIR-TO-AIR SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
117 6 COMMAND AND CONTROL INTEGRATION
AIR-TO-SURFACE
131 5, 6 TARGET/THREAT ACQUISITION/VALIDATION R
132 5, 6 AIR-TO-SURFACE WEAPONS EMPLOYMENT R
133 6 RANGE/AIRSPACE PROCEDURES
134 6 AIR-TO-SURFACE SENSOR OPERATIONS
139 6 DYNAMIC TARGETING
151 6 ELECTRONIC THREAT/ORDER OF BATTLE

MANAGEMENT
153 6 ELECTRONIC ATTACK
161 9 DEGRADED/DENIED GPS
162 9 DEGRADED/DENIED COMMUNICATIONS
163 9 DEGRADED/DENIED DATALINK
Notes:
1. Airwork/Advanced Handling/Tactical Maneuvering. Maneuvers can be:
a. Aerobatics, to include a G-awareness exercise
b. Advanced handling characteristics / Confidence maneuvers
c. Any Air-to-air mission (e.g., Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM), Air Combat Maneuvering
(ACM), Air Combat Training (ACT), adversary training aid etc.)
d. Threat reaction
2. Unusual attitude recoveries are not performed in the aircraft and are evaluated in the
simulator, during the evaluation or the EPE.
3. Emergency Traffic Patterns/Approach/Landing is evaluated in the EPE. If an actual
emergency occurs in-flight, these areas may be evaluated in-flight at the discretion of the
FE.
4. Precision Approach. FEs ensure that at least one precision approach (PAR or ILS) is flown
and annotated to complete the flight evaluation. INSTM/QUAL (SIM) evaluations include
both PAR and ILS.
5. Mission evaluations should be conducted in the primary DOC of the unit. The flight should
be planned to evaluate performance in a mission in which the unit may be tasked IAW
guidance from the SQ/CC/DO or weapons officer. Annotate mission type and document
weapons employment on the Form 8.
6. This item may be evaluated in the F-22 MTC.
7. Evaluation on formation tasks in the simulator are limited to day formation only.
8. ACM evaluation in the simulator is limited to beyond visual range (BVR) tasks.
9. Degraded/Denied task evaluation in the simulator may not include Air-to-Surface tasks.
2.7. Emergency Procedures Evaluations (EPEs).

2.7.1. The EPE should be conducted in the simulator (MTC) to the maximum extent
possible, the WTT when an MTC is not available, and table top if neither are available (e.g.,
deployment). Grading criteria for each required item are listed in Chapter 3.
2.7.2. The following graded areas are required on all EPEs:
2.7.2.1. Aircraft General Knowledge.
2.7.2.2. Cockpit/Crew Resource Management (CRM).
2.7.2.3. Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions.
2.7.2.3.1. The FE will evaluate a minimum of two emergency procedures per the pre-
takeoff, takeoff, and landing phases of flight. (T-3).
2.7.2.3.2. The FE will evaluate a minimum of three emergency procedures during the
inflight phase. (T-3).
2.7.2.4. Checklist Usage.
2.7.3. The following additional graded areas are required on all INSTM and/or QUAL EPEs:
2.7.3.1. Abort,
2.7.3.2. Instrument Flight Procedures, IAW AFMAN 11-217 Vol 1, Instrument Flight
Procedures. This area includes a minimum of one Heads-Up Display-Out (HUD–Out)
Approach, where the FE should focus on whether or not the approach permits landing,
and the use of standby/emergency instruments.
2.7.3.3. Unusual Attitude Recoveries

2.7.3.4. Alternate/Divert Airfields. This area includes a minimum of one approach at a
divert/alternate airfield, other than home base.
2.7.4. The following items are required on all MSN EPEs, as the FE tailors the MSN
evaluation scenario to the unit tasking/mission:
2.7.4.1. Aerospace Control Alert (ACA) tasking (ACA qualified pilots in wings that
support a full-time ACA detachment (or home-station alert) are required to complete at
least one ACA intercept during every MSN EPE),
2.7.4.2. Weapon System Operation, and
2.7.4.3. Weapons Employment and Aircraft Switch Operations.
Table 2.2. EPE Grading Areas.
AREA NOTES AREA TITLE I/Q MSN
GENERAL
29 AIRCRAFT GENERAL KNOWLEDGE R R
37 COCKPIT/CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT R R
82 1 AEROSPACE ALERT (ACA) TASKING (Air R

Defense Units)
301 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES/AIRCRAFT

MALFUNCTIONS (GENERAL)
302 CHECKLIST USAGE R R
305 WEAPON SYSTEM OPERATION R
306 WEAPONS EMPLOYMENT AND R

SWITCHOLOGY
PRE-TAKEOFF R2 R2
321 HYDRAULIC EMERGENCY

PROCEDURES/AIRCRAFT MALFUNCTIONS
(PRE-TAKEOFF)
331 ELECTRICAL EMERGENCY

(PRE-TAKEOFF)
341 FUEL EMERGENCY PROCEDURES/AIRCRAFT

MALFUNCTIONS (PRE-TAKEOFF)
351 ECS/OXYGEN EMERGENCY

(PRE-TAKEOFF)
361 ENGINE/APU EMERGENCY

(PRE-TAKEOFF)
371 AVIONICS EMERGENCY

(PRE-TAKEOFF)
381 WEAPONS EMERGENCY

(PRE-TAKEOFF)
391 FLCS EMERGENCY PROCEDURES/AIRCRAFT

401 BRAKES/LANDING GEAR EMERGENCY

(PRE-TAKEOFF)

TAKEOFF R2 R2

(TAKEOFF)

(TAKEOFF)

MALFUNCTIONS (TAKEOFF)

(TAKEOFF)

(TAKEOFF)
463 ABORT R

(TAKEOFF)

(TAKEOFF)


(TAKEOFF)

INFLIGHT R3 R3

PROCEDURES/AIRCRAFT MALFUNCTIONS (IN-
FLIGHT)

FLIGHT)

MALFUNCTIONS (IN-FLIGHT)

FLIGHT)

FLIGHT)


FLIGHT)

FLIGHT)


FLIGHT)

614 UNUSUAL ATTITUDE RECOVERIES R
615 AFMAN 11-217V1 PROCEDURES/HUD OUT R

APPROACH/USE OF STANDBY INSTRUMENTS
616 ALTERNATE/DIVERT AIRFIELDS R
LANDING R2 R2

(LANDING)

(LANDING)

MALFUNCTIONS (LANDING)

(LANDING)

(LANDING)

(LANDING)

(LANDING)


(LANDING)

Notes:
1. ACA certified aircrew only.
Chapter 3
EVALUATION CRITERIA
3.1. General Grading Standards.

3.1.1. FEs assign appropriate area grades by comparing examinee performance against
standards per descriptions in this chapter. The overall flight evaluation grade should be
derived from individual area grades based on a composite for the observed events and tasks.
The grading criteria in this chapter are divided into three sections: General, Instrument, and
Tactical Employment.
3.1.2. If the examinee receives an unqualified area grade in any of the areas identified as
“critical” by this volume, the overall qualification level must be a "Q3."
3.1.3. If an FE assigns a qualification level of unqualified (Q3), or if the FE assigns a
qualification level of qualified (Q1 or Q2) but assigns additional training:
3.1.3.1. FEs recommend whether or not such an examinee is allowed to fly before the
additional training or re-evaluation is successfully completed.
3.1.3.2. Squadron commanders determine whether or not such an examinee is allowed to
fly before the additional training or re-evaluation is successfully completed.
Table 3.1. General Aircraft Control Criteria.
Aircraft Control Criteria. The following general criteria apply at all times unless more specific
criteria from Table 2.1 or Table 2.2 apply.
Q Altitude +/- 200 feet
Airspeed +/- 5%
Course +/- 5 degrees/3 NM (whichever is greater)
TACAN Arc < 2 NM
Q- Altitude +/- 300 feet
Airspeed +/- 10%
Course +/- 10 degrees/5 NM (whichever is greater)
TACAN Arc > 2 NM

U Exceeded Q- limits
3.2. Documentation of Weapons Employment Results.

3.2.1. FEs document weapons employment results in the Mission Description Section of the
AF Form 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification, for MSN evaluations. Include entries for
each type of actual and simulated ordnance employed.
3.2.2. Air-to-surface results should be recorded as Hit or Miss for each air-to-surface record
delivery. Document results as in Table 3.2.
3.2.3. The number of simulated air-to-air missile/gun firing attempts and valid attempts are
recorded as in Table 3.2.
3.2.4. FE judgment should be the determining factor in deciding the weapons employment
grade. The FE may elect to award a higher area grade than warranted by the score(s), and
include the justification in the Comments Section of the AF Form 8.
Table 3.2. Weapons Employment Scores.

Weapons employment scores were: (examples)
Air-Surface (A/S) Scoring

Precision Guided Munition (PGM)
*Hit
Air-Air (A/A) Scoring
ATTEMPTED VALID
A/A Gun 2 1
Air Intercept 2 2
Missile (AIM) 120
AIM 9 1 1
Video tape recording assessment is considered normal operations, otherwise enter:*Simulator
assessed or **Range scored
3.3. General Aircrew Evaluation Criteria.

3.3.1. Area 1--Mission Planning:
3.3.1.1. Mission Preparation:
3.3.1.1.1. Q. Clearly defined the mission overview and mission goals. Effectively
accomplished directed mission planning tasks. Developed a sound plan to
accomplish the mission. Provided specific information on what needed to be done.
Solicited feedback from others to ensure understanding of mission requirements.
Thoroughly critiqued plans to identify potential problem areas and ensured all flight
members understood possible contingencies. Checked all factors applicable to flight
in accordance with applicable directives. When required, extracted necessary
information from air tasking order. Aware of alternatives available if flight cannot be
completed as planned. Read and initialed for all items in the flight crew information
file and read files. Prepared at briefing time.
3.3.1.1.2. Q-. Did not adequately define the mission overview and mission goals.
Did not adequately address potential problem areas. Did not adequately solicit
feedback or critique the plans to ensure understanding of possible contingencies.
Minor error(s) or omission(s) detracted from mission effectiveness, but did not affect
mission accomplishment. Demonstrated limited knowledge of performance
capabilities or approved operating procedures/rules in some areas.
3.3.1.1.3. U. Did not define the mission overview and goals. Did not accomplish
directed mission planning tasks. Lack of specific information on required items. Did
not solicit feedback from other crewmembers to ensure understanding. Did not
critique plans to identify potential problem areas. Major error(s) or omission(s) would
have prevented a safe or effective mission. Displayed unsatisfactory knowledge of
operating data or procedures. Did not review or initial Go/No Go items. Not prepared
at briefing time.
3.3.1.2. Publications:
3.3.1.2.1. Q. Publications were current and usable for any of the unit’s combat
taskings. Contained only minor deviations, omissions, and/or errors.
3.3.1.2.2. Q-. Publications contained deviations, omissions, and/or errors; however,
contained everything necessary to effectively accomplish the mission and did not
compromise safety of flight.
3.3.1.2.3. U. Not up to "Q-" standards. Contained major deviations, omissions,
and/or errors.
3.3.2. Area 2--Briefing (if applicable):
3.3.2.1. Organization:
3.3.2.1.1. Q. Well organized, included all applicable information and presented in a
logical sequence. Briefed flight member responsibilities, deconfliction contracts,
combat mission priorities and sensor management. Concluded briefing in time to
allow for element briefing (if applicable) and preflight of personal equipment, aircraft
and ordnance.
3.3.2.1.2. Q-. Events out of sequence, hard to follow, some redundancy. Not fully
prepared for briefing.
3.3.2.1.3. U. Confusing presentation, poorly organized and not presented in a logical
sequence. Did not allow time for element briefing (if applicable) and preflight of
personal equipment, aircraft and ordnance. Failed to brief required areas.
3.3.2.2. Presentation:
3.3.2.2.1. Q. Presented briefing in a professional manner covering all pertinent

items. Effectively used available briefing aids. Flight members clearly understood
mission requirements.
3.3.2.2.2. Q-. Some difficulty communicating clearly. Did not make effective use of
available briefing aids. Dwelt on nonessential mission items.
3.3.2.2.3. U. Failed to conduct/attend required briefings. Failed to use available
briefing aids. Redundant with lack of continuity. Lost interest of flight members.
Demonstrated lack of knowledge of subject. Presentation created doubts or confusion.
3.3.2.3. Mission Coverage:
3.3.2.3.1. Q. Established objectives for the mission. Presented all training events
and special interest items. Included effective technique discussion for accomplishing
the mission.
3.3.2.3.2. Q-. Omitted items pertinent, but not critical, to the mission. Limited
discussion of training events or special interest items. Dwelt on non-essential items.
Limited discussion of valid techniques.
3.3.2.3.3. U. Did not establish relevant objectives for the mission. Omitted essential
items. Failed to discuss training events or special interest items. Presented erroneous
information and/or did not correct erroneous information that would affect
safe/effective mission accomplishment. Omitted major training events. Did not
discuss valid techniques.
3.3.2.4. Flight Member Consideration:
3.3.2.4.1. Q. Properly assessed the abilities of all flight members. Briefed corrective
action from previous mission and probable problem areas when appropriate.
3.3.2.4.2. Q-. Did not correctly assess all flight members' abilities. Did not identify
probable problem areas.
3.3.2.4.3. U. Ignored flight members' abilities and past problem areas.
3.3.3. Area 3--Pre-Takeoff:
3.3.3.1. Q. Established and adhered to step, start, taxi and take-off times to assure
thorough preflight, check of personal equipment, etc. Accurately determined readiness of
aircraft for flight. Performed all checks and procedures prior to takeoff in accordance
with approved checklists and applicable directives.
3.3.3.2. Q-. Same as above except for minor procedural deviations which did not
detract from mission effectiveness.
3.3.3.3. U. Omitted major item(s) of the appropriate checklist. Major deviations in
procedure which would preclude safe mission accomplishment. Failed to accurately
determine readiness of aircraft for flight. Pilot errors directly contributed to a late takeoff
which degraded the mission or made it non-effective.
3.3.4. Area 4--Takeoff:
3.3.4.1. Q. Maintained smooth aircraft control throughout takeoff. Performed takeoff in

accordance with TO 1F-22A-1 Flight Manual—F-22A and AFTTP 3-3.F-22A Tactical
Employment F-22A, procedures.
3.3.4.2. Q-. Minor procedural deviations. Control was inconsistent, rough or erratic.
3.3.4.3. U. Takeoff potentially dangerous. Exceeded aircraft/systems limitations and/or
violated applicable flight rules. Over-controlled aircraft resulting in excessive deviations
from intended flight path.
3.3.5. Area 6--Departure:
3.3.5.1. Instrument/Visual Flight Rules:
3.3.5.1.1. Q. Performed departures as published/directed and complied with all
restrictions.
3.3.5.1.2. Q-. Minor deviations in airspeed and navigation occurred during
completion of departure.
3.3.5.1.3. U. Failed to comply with published/directed departure instructions.
3.3.5.2. Trail Departure/Rejoin:
3.3.5.2.1. Q. Effective use of sensors. Trail departure/rejoin accomplished using
proper procedures and techniques. Provided efficient commentary throughout
departure and/or rejoin.
3.3.5.2.2. Q-. Minor deviations from established or appropriate procedures. Slow to
obtain sensor acquisition and/or contact due to poor technique. Delayed rejoin due to
poor sensor technique or inefficient commentary.
3.3.5.2.3. U. Unable to accomplish trail departure or rejoin. Gross overshoot or
excessively slow rejoin caused by poor technique. Missed rejoin.
3.3.6. Area 7--Level Off:
3.3.6.1. Q. Leveled off smoothly. Promptly established proper cruise airspeed.
3.3.6.2. Q-. Level off was erratic. Slow in establishing proper cruise airspeed. Slow to
set/reset altimeter, as required.
3.3.6.3. U. Level-off was erratic. Exceeded Q- limits. Excessive delay or failed to
establish proper cruise airspeed. Failed to set/reset altimeter, as required.
3.3.7. Area 8--Cruise/Navigation:
3.3.7.1. Q. Demonstrated satisfactory capability to navigate using all available means.
Used appropriate navigation procedures. Ensured navaids were properly tuned, identified,
and monitored. Complied with clearance instructions. Aware of position at all times.
Remained within the confines of assigned airspace.
3.3.7.2. Q-. Minor errors in procedures/use of navigation equipment. Some deviations in
tuning, identifying, and monitoring navaids. Slow to comply with clearance instructions.
Had some difficulty in establishing exact position and course.
3.3.7.3. U. Major errors in procedures/use of navigation equipment. Could not establish

position. Failed to recognize checkpoints or adjust for deviations in time and course. Did
not remain within the confines of assigned airspace. Exceeded parameters for Q-.
3.3.8. Area 9--Formation:
3.3.8.1. Flight Lead:
3.3.8.1.1. Q. Established and maintained appropriate formations utilizing published
and briefed procedures. Maintained positive control of flight/element. Smooth control
and considered the wingman appropriately. Planned ahead and made timely decisions.
Ensured wingman position and adherence to deconfliction contracts. Effectively
coordinated with other flight members throughout the mission. Ensured smooth and
efficient flight operation.
3.3.8.1.2. Q-. Made minor deviations from published and/or briefed procedures.
Demonstrated limited flight management. Occasionally rough on the controls.
Maneuvered excessively, making it difficult for wingman to maintain position. Did
not always plan ahead and/or hesitant in making decisions. Flight coordination was
adequate to accomplish the mission. Deficiencies in communication or interaction
resulted in degraded flight or mission efficiency.
3.3.8.1.3. U. Formation flight not accomplished in accordance with published
and/or briefed procedures. Did not establish appropriate formations. Continually
rough on the controls. Maneuvered erratically causing wingman to break out or
overshoot formation. Provided little consideration for wingman. Indecisive. Failed to
ensure wingman maintained proper position. Failed to maintain deconfliction
contracts. Poor flight coordination seriously degraded mission accomplishment or
safety of flight.
3.3.8.2. Wingman:
3.3.8.2.1. Q. Maintained position in accordance with published and briefed
procedures with only momentary deviations. Demonstrated smooth and immediate
position corrections. Maintained appropriate separation and complied with leader’s
instructions. Rejoin was smooth and timely. Contributed to the smooth and efficient
operation of the flight. Maintained mutual support during the entire sortie.
3.3.8.2.2. Q-. Made minor deviations to published procedures. Slow to comply with
leader’s instructions. Varied position considerably. Over-controlled. Slow to rejoin.
Made minor mistakes reducing mutual support. Minor errors in performing assigned
flight tasks.
3.3.8.2.3. U. Formation flight not accomplished in accordance with published
and/or briefed procedures. Did not comply with leader’s instructions. Unable to
maintain a formation position. Failed to maintain deconfliction contracts. Made
abrupt position corrections. Did not maintain appropriate separation. Rejoin was
unsafe. Poor flight coordination seriously degraded mission accomplishment or safety
of flight.
3.3.9. Area 10--In-Flight Checks:
3.3.9.1. Q. Performed all in-flight checks as required.
3.3.9.2. Q-. Same as qualified, except for minor deviations or omissions during checks.
Did not detract from mission accomplishment.
3.3.9.3. U. Did not perform in-flight checks or monitor systems to the degree that an
emergency condition would have developed if allowed to continue uncorrected or would
have severely degraded mission accomplishment.
3.3.10. Area 11--Fuel Management:
3.3.10.1. Q. Properly managed fuel throughout the mission. Complied with all
established fuel requirements. Adhered to briefed Joker/Bingo calls.
3.3.10.2. Q-. Errors in fuel management procedures that did not preclude mission
accomplishment.
3.3.10.3. U. Failed to monitor fuel status or comply with established fuel requirements.
Poor fuel management precluded mission accomplishment or required intervention for
safety. Did not adhere to briefed fuel requirements.
3.3.11. Area 12—Communications, Navigation, and Identify Friend/Foe (IFF) (CNI) Usage:
3.3.11.1. Q. Complete knowledge of and compliance with correct communication and
IFF procedures. Transmissions concise, accurate and utilized proper terminology.
Complied with and acknowledged all required instructions. Thoroughly familiar with
communications security requirements, HAVE QUICK and secure voice equipment (if
applicable).
3.3.11.2. Q-. Occasional deviations from correct procedures required retransmissions or
resetting codes. Slow in initiating or missed several required calls. Minor errors or
omissions did not significantly detract from situational awareness, threat warning or
mission accomplishment. Transmissions contained extraneous matter, were not in proper
sequence or used nonstandard terminology. Demonstrated limited knowledge of
applicable).
3.3.11.3. U. Incorrect procedures or poor performance caused confusion and
jeopardized mission accomplishment. Omitted numerous required radio calls. Inaccurate
or confusing terminology significantly detracted from situational awareness, threat
warning or mission accomplishment. Displayed inadequate knowledge of
applicable).
3.3.12. Area 14—Airwork/AHC/Basic Flight Maneuvering (BFM):
3.3.12.1. Q. Aircraft control during maneuvers was positive and smooth. Maneuvers
performed IAW directives and appropriate to the tactical situation/environment. Adhered
to established procedures.
3.3.12.2. Q-. Aircraft control during maneuvers not always smooth and positive, but
adequate. Minor procedure deviations or lack of full consideration for the tactical
situation.
3.3.12.3. U. Aircraft control erratic. Aircraft handling caused unsatisfactory

accomplishment of maneuvers. Exceeded Q- criteria. Failed to consider the tactical
situation. Temporary loss of aircraft control.
3.3.13. Area 15--Unusual Attitude Recoveries:
3.3.13.1. Q. Smooth, positive recovery to level flight with correct recovery procedures.
3.3.13.2. Q-. Slow to analyze attitude, or erratic in recovery to level flight. Correct
recovery procedures used.
3.3.13.3. U. Unable to determine attitude. Improper recovery procedures were used.
3.3.14. Area 16--Weapons System/Built In Test (BIT) Checks:
3.3.14.1. Q. Completed all checks. Thorough knowledge and performance of weapons
system checks.
3.3.14.2. Q-. Completed most weapons system checks. Limited knowledge of checks.
Unsure of systems degradation due to check failure.
3.3.14.3. U. Failed to complete weapons system checks. General lack of knowledge on
how to perform weapons system checks. Unable to determine systems degradation due to
check failures.
3.3.15. Area 17--Air Refueling:
3.3.15.1. Air Refueling Rendezvous:
3.3.15.1.1. Q. Rendezvous effectively accomplished using proper procedures.
Demonstrated effective use of radio communications. Used proper communication
procedures for briefed emission control level.
3.3.15.1.2. Q-. Rendezvous delayed by improper techniques, procedures or radio
communications.
3.3.15.1.3. U . Displayed lack of knowledge or familiarity with procedures to the
extent that air refueling was or could have been jeopardized. Failed rendezvous as a
result of improper procedures. Gross overshoot, spent excessive time in trail or safety
of flight jeopardized due to poor judgment.
3.3.15.2. Air Refueling Procedures/Techniques:
3.3.15.2.1. Q. Expeditiously established and maintained proper position. Used
proper procedures. Aircraft control was positive and smooth. Refueled without pilot-
induced disconnects.
3.3.15.2.2. Q-. Slow to recognize and apply needed corrections to establish and
maintain proper position. Aircraft control was not always positive and smooth, but
adequate. Accomplished published/directed procedures with deviations or omissions
that did not affect the successful completion of air refueling.
3.3.15.2.3. U. Erratic in the pre-contact/refueling position. Made deviations or
omissions that affected flight safety and/or the successful completion of the air
refueling. Used unacceptable procedures. Excessive time to hookup delayed mission
accomplishment. Performance caused excessive and unnecessary pilot-induced

disconnects and/or delayed mission accomplishment.
3.3.16. Area 18--Descent:
3.3.16.1. Q. Performed descent as directed, complied with all restrictions.
3.3.16.2. Q-. Performed descent as directed with minor deviations.
3.3.16.3. U. Performed descent with major deviations.
3.3.17. Area 19--Go-Around:
3.3.17.1. Q. Initiated and performed go-around promptly in accordance with flight
manual and operational procedures and directives.
3.3.17.2. Q-. Slow to initiate go-around or procedural steps.
3.3.17.3. U. Did not self-initiate go-around when appropriate or directed. Applied
incorrect procedures.
3.3.18. Area 20--Recovery:
3.3.18.1. Q. Performed recovery IAW applicable procedures using proper techniques.
Effective use of sensors during sensor assisted trail recovery. Provided efficient
commentary throughout recovery.
3.3.18.2. Q-. Performed recovery with minor deviations from established or appropriate
procedures. Slow to obtain sensor track and/or contact due to poor technique during
sensor assisted trail recovery. Inefficient commentary.
3.3.18.3. U. Recovery not performed IAW applicable procedures. Unable to accomplish
sensor assisted trail recovery (if applicable) due to poor technique.
3.3.19. Area 21--Emergency Traffic Pattern (Prior to configuration):
3.3.19.1. Q. Complied with all TO, AFTTP 3-3.F-22A, and other applicable
procedures. Maintained safe maneuvering airspeed/Angle of Attack (AOA). Flew
approach compatible with the situation. Adjusted approach for type of emergency.
3.3.19.2. Q-. Minor procedural errors. Erratic airspeed/AOA control. Errors did not
detract from safe handling of the situation but were inappropriate for the
situation/emergency.
3.3.19.3. U. Did not comply with applicable procedures. Erratic airspeed/AOA control
compounded problems associated with the emergency. Flew an approach that was
incompatible with the simulated emergency. Did not adjust approach for the emergency.
3.3.20. Area 22--Emergency Approach/Landing (Configuration through rollout):
3.3.20.1. Q. Used sound judgment and safely landed. Configured at the appropriate
position/altitude for the situation and emergency. Flew final, based on recommended
procedures, airspeed/AOA and glide path, that was appropriate for the situation and
emergency. Smooth, positive control of aircraft. Touchdown point was IAW TO and
other guidance and/or permitted safe stopping on available runway. Arrestment gear was
safely used (if applicable).
3.3.20.2. Q-. Safety not compromised. Configured at a position and altitude which
allowed for a safe approach. Could have landed safely, however deviations from
recommended procedures, airspeed/AOA and altitudes were not appropriate for the
situation or emergency. Unnecessary maneuvering due to minor errors in planning or
judgment.
3.3.20.3. U. Major deviations from recommended procedures, airspeed/AOA and
altitudes. Required excessive maneuvering due to inadequate planning or judgment.
Could not have landed safely. Touchdown point was not IAW applicable guidance and
did not or would not allow for safe stopping on available runway. Arrestment gear could
not have been used. Did not attempt go-around if approach was unsuccessful.
3.3.21. Area 23--VFR Pattern/Approach:
3.3.21.1. Q. Performed patterns/approaches IAW TO and AFTTP 3-3.F-22A
procedures, techniques, and local directives. Aircraft control was smooth and positive.
Accurately aligned with runway. Maintained proper/briefed airspeed/AOA. Airspeed -
5/+10 knots.
3.3.21.2. Q-. Performed patterns/approaches with minor deviations to TO and AFTTP 3-
3.F-22A procedures, techniques, and local directives. Aircraft control was not
consistently smooth, but safe. Alignment with runway varied. Slow to correct to
proper/briefed airspeed/AOA. Airspeed -5/+15 knots.
3.3.21.3. U. Approaches not performed IAW TO and AFTTP 3-3.F-22A procedures,
techniques, and local directives. Erratic aircraft control. Large deviations in runway
alignment. Exceeded Q- parameters.
3.3.22. Area 24--Formation Approach:
3.3.22.1. Flight Lead:
3.3.22.1.1. Q. Smooth on controls and considered wingman. Flew approach as
published/directed.
3.3.22.1.2. Q-. Occasionally rough on the controls. Made it difficult for wingman to
maintain position. Some procedural deviations. Slow to comply with published
procedures.
3.3.22.1.3. U. Did not monitor wingman's position or configuration. Rough on the
controls. No consideration for wingman. Major deviations in procedures. Did not fly
approach as published/directed. Flight could not land from approach.
3.3.22.2. Wingman:
3.3.22.2.1. Q. Maintained position with only momentary deviations. Smooth and
immediate corrections. Maintained appropriate separation and complied with
procedures and leader's instructions.
3.3.22.2.2. Q-. Varied position considerably. Over-controlled.
3.3.22.2.3. U. Abrupt position corrections. Did not maintain appropriate separation.
Erratic wing position and/or procedural deviations.
3.3.23. Area 25--Landing. Listed criteria only applicable to normal VFR approaches. Where
runway configuration, arresting cable placement or applicable guidance requires an
adjustment to the desired touchdown point, a simulated runway threshold should be
identified and the grading criteria applied accordingly. For instrument approaches, the
examinee should utilize a normal glideslope from either the decision height or from a point
where visual acquisition of the runway environment is made.
3.3.23.1. Q. Performed landings IAW TO and AFTTP 3-3.F-22A procedures,
techniques, and local directives. Touchdown Point 0' to 1500' from the runway threshold.
3.3.23.2. Q-. Performed landings with minor deviations to TO and AFTTP 3-3.F-22A
procedures, techniques, and local directives. Touchdown Point 1501' to 2000' from the
runway threshold.
3.3.23.3. U. Landing not performed IAW TO and AFTTP 3-3.F-22A procedures,
techniques, and local directives. Touchdown Point exceeded Q- criteria or departed the
prepared surface.
3.3.24. Area 26--After Landing:
3.3.24.1. Q. Appropriate after landing checks and aircraft taxi procedures accomplished
in accordance with TO and applicable directives. Completed all required forms
accurately.
3.3.24.2. Q-. Same as qualified except some deviations or omissions noted in
performance of after landing check and/or aircraft taxi procedures in which safety was
not jeopardized. Required forms completed with minor errors.
3.3.24.3. U. Major deviations or omissions were made in performance of after-landing
check or aircraft taxi procedures which could have jeopardized safety. Data recorded
inaccurately or omitted.
3.3.25. Area 27--Flight Leadership (if applicable):
3.3.25.1. Q. Positively and effectively led the flight and made timely comments to
correct discrepancies when required. Made sound and timely in-flight decisions. Provided
direction/information when needed. Adapted effectively to meet new situational
demands. Knew assigned tasks of other flight members. Asked for inputs and made
positive statements to motivate flight members/other agencies when appropriate.
Coordinated effectively with other flight members/other agencies without
misunderstanding, confusion, or undue delay.
3.3.25.2. Q-. In-flight decisions delayed mission accomplishment or degraded training
benefit. Flight coordination was limited though adequate to accomplish the mission.
Provided limited direction/information when needed. Slow to adapt to meet new
situational demands. Demonstrated only limited knowledge of assigned tasks of other
flight members. Did not consistently seek inputs from other flight members/other
agencies when appropriate. Limited effort to motivate flight members/other agencies
through positive statements.
3.3.25.3. U. Did not accomplish the mission or failed to correct in-flight discrepancies.
In-flight decisions were unsafe and/or jeopardized mission accomplishment. Failed to
maintain briefed formation roles and responsibilities. Did not provide
direction/information when needed. Did not adapt to meet new situational demands. Did
not know the assigned tasks of other flight members. Did not ask for inputs when
appropriate. Made no effort to make positive statements to motivate flight members/other
agencies. Lack of flight/other agency coordination resulted in significant degradation of
mission accomplishment.
3.3.26. Area 28--Debriefing/Critique:
3.3.26.1. Q. Thoroughly debriefed the mission (or applicable portions) in a timely
manner. Correctly analyzed mission results with respect to established objectives.
Provided specific, objective, non-threatening positive and negative feedback on team and
individual performance. Debriefed deviations. Offered corrective guidance as
appropriate. Thoroughly debriefed any breakdowns in deconfliction contracts, roles and
responsibilities. Asked for reactions/inputs from other mission participants. Re-capped
key points and compared mission results with mission objectives.
3.3.26.2. Q-. Limited debriefing. Did not thoroughly discuss performance relative to
mission objectives. Minor time management problems. Debriefed mission without
specific, non-threatening positive and negative feedback on individual and team
performance. Did not debrief significant deviations to an acceptable level. Did not
consistently seek input from other mission participants. Incomplete or inadequate re-cap
of key points and comparison of mission results to mission objectives.
3.3.26.3. U. Did not correctly debrief mission deviations or offer corrective guidance.
Used excessive time to debrief. Failed to debrief breakdowns in deconfliction contracts,
roles and responsibilities. Did not provide non-threatening positive and negative feedback
during debriefing. Did not seek input from other mission participants. Did not re-cap key
mission points nor compare mission results to mission objectives.
3.3.27. Area 29--Knowledge. Evaluate all applicable subareas.
3.3.27.1. Aircraft General:
3.3.27.1.1. Q. Demonstrated thorough knowledge of aircraft systems, limitations
and performance characteristics.
3.3.27.1.2. Q-. Knowledge of aircraft systems, limitations, and performance
characteristics sufficient to perform the mission safely. Demonstrated deficiencies
either in depth of knowledge or comprehension.
3.3.27.1.3. U. Demonstrated unsatisfactory knowledge of aircraft systems,
limitations or performance characteristics.
3.3.27.2. Emergency Procedures:
3.3.27.2.1. Q. Displayed correct, immediate response to emergency situations.
Effectively used checklist.
3.3.27.2.2. Q-. Response to certain emergencies was slow/confused. Used the
checklist when appropriate, but slow to locate required data.
3.3.27.2.3. U. Unable to analyze problems or take corrective action. Did not use
checklist, or lacks acceptable familiarity with its arrangement or contents.
3.3.27.3. Flight Rules/Procedures:

3.3.27.3.1. Q. Thorough knowledge of flight rules and procedures.
3.3.27.3.2. Q-. Deficiencies in depth of knowledge.
3.3.27.3.3. U. Inadequate knowledge of flight rules and procedures.
3.3.27.4. Weapon/Tactics/Threat:
3.3.27.4.1. Q. Thorough knowledge of all aircraft weapons systems, weapons
effects, tactics and threats applicable to the unit mission.
3.3.27.4.2. Q-. Deficiencies in depth of knowledge or comprehension of weapons
systems, weapons effects, tactics and threat knowledge which would not preclude
successful mission accomplishment.
3.3.27.4.3. U. Insufficient knowledge of weapons, tactics and threat contributed to
ineffective mission accomplishment.
3.3.27.5. Local Area Procedures:
3.3.27.5.1. Q. Thorough knowledge of local procedures.
3.3.27.5.2. Q-. Limited knowledge of local procedures.
3.3.27.5.3. U. Inadequate knowledge of local procedures.
3.3.27.6. Plans/Alert Procedures:
3.3.27.6.1. Q. Adequate knowledge of plans applicable to the unit mission.
Thoroughly familiar with alert procedures and contingencies.
3.3.27.6.2. Q-. Deficiencies in depth of knowledge or comprehension of plans or
alert procedures applicable to the unit.
3.3.27.6.3. U. Knowledge of plans/alert procedures insufficient to ensure effective
mission accomplishment.
3.3.27.7. Authentication Procedures:
3.3.27.7.1. Q. Performed authentication with no errors.
3.3.27.7.2. Q-. Minor errors in authentication. Required numerous attempts to
complete authentication.
3.3.27.7.3. U. Unable to authenticate or authenticated incorrectly.
3.3.28. Area 30--Airmanship/Situational Awareness (Critical):
3.3.28.1. Q. Executed the assigned mission in a timely, efficient manner. Conducted the
flight with a sense of understanding and comprehension. Made appropriate decisions
based on available information. Recognized the need for action. Aware of performance of
self and other flight members. Aware of on-going mission status. Recognized, verbalized
and correctly acted on unexpected events.
3.3.28.2. U. Decisions or lack thereof resulted in failure to accomplish the assigned
mission. Misanalysed flight conditions and/or failed to recognize/understand mission
developments, or demonstrated poor judgment to the extent that flight safety could have
been compromised. Did not recognize the need for action. Not aware of performance of
self and other flight members. Not aware of on-going mission status. Failed to recognize,
verbalize and act on unexpected events.
3.3.29. Area 31--Safety (Critical):
3.3.29.1. Q. Aware of and complied with all safety factors required for safe aircraft
operation and mission accomplishment.
3.3.29.2. U. Was not aware of or did not comply with all safety factors required for safe
operation or mission accomplishment. Did not adequately clear aircraft flight path.
Operated the aircraft in a dangerous manner.
3.3.30. Area 32--Flight Discipline (Critical):
3.3.30.1. Q. Provided required direction/information. Correctly adapted to meet new
situational demands. Demonstrated strict professional flight and crew discipline
throughout all phases of the mission.
3.3.30.2. U. Did not provide direction/information when needed. Did not correctly adapt
to meet new situational demands. Failed to exhibit strict flight or pilot discipline.
Violated or ignored rules or instructions.
3.3.31. Area 33--Instructor Performance (if applicable).
3.3.31.1. Briefing/Debriefing:
3.3.31.1.1. Q. Presented a comprehensive, instructional briefing/debriefing which
encompassed all mission events. Made excellent use of training aids. Excellent
analysis of all events/maneuvers. Clearly defined objectives. Gave positive and
negative performance feedback at appropriate times—feedback was specific,
objective, based on observable behavior, and given constructively. Re-capped key
points/compared mission's results with objectives. When appropriate, took the
initiative and time to share operational knowledge and experience.
3.3.31.1.2. Q-. Minor errors or omissions in briefing/debriefing or mission critique.
Occasionally unclear in analysis of events or maneuvers. Some feedback given, but
was not always given at appropriate times and not always a positive learning
experience for the entire formation. Debrief covered the mission highlights but was
not specific enough.
3.3.31.1.3. U. Major errors or omissions in briefing/debriefing. Analysis of events or
maneuvers was incomplete, inaccurate or confusing. Did not use training
aids/reference material effectively. Briefing/debriefing below the caliber of that
expected of instructors. Failed to define mission objectives. Feedback not given or
given poorly. Attempted to hide mistakes. Elected not to conduct flight debrief.
3.3.31.2. Instructor Knowledge:
3.3.31.2.1. Q. Demonstrated in-depth knowledge of procedures, requirements,
aircraft systems/performance characteristics, mission and tactics beyond that expected
of non-instructors.
3.3.31.2.2. Q-. Deficiencies in depth of knowledge, comprehension of procedures,

requirements, aircraft systems/performance characteristics, mission or tactics.
3.3.31.2.3. U. Unfamiliar with procedures, requirements, aircraft
systems/performance characteristics, mission or tactics. Lack of knowledge in certain
areas seriously detracted from instructor effectiveness.
3.3.31.3. Ability to Instruct:
3.3.31.3.1. Q. Demonstrated excellent instructor/evaluator ability. Clearly defined
all mission requirements and any required additional training/corrective action.
Instruction/evaluation was accurate, effective and timely. Was completely aware of
aircraft/mission situation at all times.
3.3.31.3.2. Q-. Problems in communication or analysis degraded effectiveness of
instruction/evaluation.
3.3.31.3.3. U. Demonstrated inadequate ability to instruct/evaluate. Unable to
perform, teach or assess techniques, procedures, systems use or tactics. Did not
remain aware of aircraft/mission situation at all times.
3.3.31.4. Training/Evaluation Forms Preparation:
3.3.31.4.1. Q. Completed appropriate training/evaluation records accurately.
Adequately assessed and recorded performance. Comments were clear and pertinent.
3.3.31.4.2. Q-. Minor errors or omissions in training/evaluation records. Comments
were incomplete or slightly unclear.
3.3.31.4.3. U. Did not complete required forms or records. Comments were invalid,
unclear, or did not accurately document performance.
3.3.32. Area 34--Instrument Interpretation:
3.3.32.1. Q. Demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of basic instrument procedures, in-
flight penetration and approach procedures. Quickly analyzed flight instruments.
3.3.32.2. Q-. Demonstrated limited knowledge of instrument procedures. Slow to
interpret instruments.
3.3.32.3. U. Displayed faulty or insufficient knowledge of instrument procedures.
Unable to properly interpret instruments.
3.3.33. Area 35--Sensor Interpretation:
3.3.33.1. Q. Correctly interpreted sensor display. Had no difficulties compensating for
errors or unanticipated developments.
3.3.33.2. Q-. Slow to interpret sensor display. Had difficulties compensating for system
errors or unanticipated developments.
3.3.33.3. U. Could not interpret sensor display. Could not compensate for or identify
system errors or unanticipated developments.
3.3.34. Area 36--Task Prioritization:
3.3.34.1. Q. Correctly identified, prioritized and managed tasks based on existing and
new information that assured mission success. Used available resources to manage
workload, communicated task priorities to other flight members. Asked for assistance
when required. Displayed sound knowledge of systems. Effectively identified
contingencies and alternatives. Gathered and crosschecked available data before acting.
Clearly stated decisions and ensured they were understood. Investigated doubts and
concerns of other flight members when necessary.
3.3.34.2. Q-. Made minor errors in prioritization, management of tasks, system
knowledge which did not affect safe or effective mission accomplishment. Did not
completely communicate task priorities to other flight members. Made minor errors in
identifying contingencies, gathering data, or communicating a decision which did not
affect safe or effective mission accomplishment.
3.3.34.3. U. Incorrectly prioritized or managed tasks. Displayed lack of systems
knowledge causing task overload that seriously degraded mission accomplishment or
safety of flight. Failed to communicate task priorities to other flight members. Failed to
ask for assistance when overloaded. Improperly or ineffectively identified contingencies,
gathered data, or communicated a decision that seriously degraded mission
accomplishment or safety of flight.
3.3.35. Area 37--Cockpit Resource Management:
3.3.35.1. Q. Effectively employed available resources to mitigate identified and/or
emerging risks during the mission.
3.3.35.2. Q-. Adequately employed available resources to mitigate identified and/or
emerging risks during the mission.
3.3.35.3. U. Failed to employ available resources to mitigate identified and/or emerging
risks during the mission.
3.3.36. Area 38--Takeoff and Landing Data:
3.3.36.1. Q. Accurately computed and checked all required takeoff and landing data.
Complete understanding of abort considerations, runway condition, and impact of
weather on takeoff and landing operations. All distances computed to within ± 500 feet
and all speeds ± 5 knots.
3.3.36.2. Q-. Computed and checked required takeoff data with minor omissions or
errors, which did not detract from mission accomplishment or safety. Limited
understanding of abort considerations, runway condition, and impact of weather on
takeoff and landing operations. Computed distances within ± 800 feet and speeds ± 8
knots.
3.3.36.3. U. Major errors or omissions which compromise safety. Faulty or improper
knowledge of takeoff and landing data. Computed distances and speeds tolerances greater
than Q- parameters.
3.4. Aircrew Evaluation Criteria—Instruments.
3.4.1. Area 61--Holding:
3.4.1.1. Q. Performed entry and holding IAW published procedures and directives.
Holding pattern limit exceeded by not more than: Leg Timing ± 15 seconds, Tactical Air
Navigation (TACAN) ± 2 NM.
3.4.1.2. Q-. Minor deviations to procedures or directives. Holding pattern limit
exceeded by not more than: Leg Timing ± 20 seconds, TACAN ± 3 NM.
3.4.1.3. U. Holding was not IAW published procedures and directives. Exceeded criteria
for Q- or holding pattern limits.
3.4.2. Area 62--Instrument Penetration (Initial Approach Fix to Final Approach Fix/Descent
Point)/Enroute Descent (Radar Vectors To Final Approach):
3.4.2.1. Q. Performed the penetration/enroute descent and approach as
published/directed and IAW applicable flight manuals. Complied with all restrictions.
Made smooth and timely corrections.
3.4.2.2. Q-. Performed the penetration/enroute descent and approach with minor
deviations. Complied with all restrictions. Slow to make corrections.
3.4.2.3. U. Performed the penetration/enroute descent and approach with major
deviations. Erratic corrections.
3.4.3. Area 63--Instrument Patterns (Downwind/Base Leg):
3.4.3.1. Q. Performed procedures as published or directed and IAW TO procedures.
Smooth and timely response to controller instruction.
3.4.3.2. Q-. Performed procedures with minor deviations. Slow to respond to controller
instruction.
3.4.3.3. U. Performed procedures with major deviations/erratic corrections. Failed to
comply with controller instruction.
3.4.4. Area 64—Non-Precision Approach:
3.4.4.1. Q. Adhered to all published/directed procedures and restrictions. Used
appropriate descent rate to arrive at Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) at or before
Visual Descent Point (VDP)/Missed Approach Point (MAP). Position would have
permitted a safe landing. Maintained proper/briefed AOA.
3.4.4.1.1. Airspeed +10/-5 knots.
3.4.4.1.2. Heading +/-5 degrees (ASR).
3.4.4.1.3. Course +/-5 degrees at MAP.
3.4.4.1.4. Localizer less than one dot deflection.
3.4.4.1.5. Minimum Descent Altitude +100/-0 feet.
3.4.4.2. Q-. Performed approach with minor deviations. Arrived at MDA at or before
the MAP, but past the VDP. Position would have permitted a safe landing. Slow to
correct to proper/briefed AOA.
3.4.4.2.1. Airspeed +15/-5 knots.
3.4.4.2.2. Heading +/-10 degrees (ASR).
3.4.4.2.3. Course +/-10 degrees at MAP.

3.4.4.2.4. Localizer within two dots deflection.
3.4.4.2.5. Minimum Descent Altitude +150/-50 feet.
3.4.4.3. U. Did not comply with published/directed procedures or restrictions. Exceeded
Q- limits. Maintained steady-state flight below the MDA, even though the 50 foot limit
was not exceeded. Could not land safely from the approach. Note: The 50 foot tolerance
applies only to momentary excursions.
3.4.5. Area 65--Precision Approach (Precision Approach Radar [PAR]) (See Note 4, Table
2.1.):
3.4.5.1. Q. Performed procedures as directed and IAW TO procedures. Smooth and
timely response to controller’s instructions. Complied with decision height. Position
would have permitted a safe landing. Maintained proper/briefed AOA. Maintained glide
path with only minor deviations.
3.4.5.1.1. Airspeed +10/-5 knots.
3.4.5.1.2. Heading within 5 degrees of controller’s instructions.
3.4.5.1.3. Initiated missed approach (if applicable) at decision height.
3.4.5.2. Q-. Performed procedures with minor deviations. Slow to respond to
controller’s instructions. Position would have permitted a safe landing. Slow to correct to
proper/briefed AOA. Improper glide path control.
3.4.5.2.1. Airspeed +15/-5 knots.
3.4.5.2.2. Heading within 10 degrees of controller’s instructions.
3.4.5.2.3. Initiated missed approach (if applicable) at decision height, +50/-0 ft.
3.4.5.3. U. Performed procedures with major deviations. Did not respond to controller’s
instructions. Erratic corrections. Exceeded Q- limits. Did not comply with decision height
and/or position would not have permitted a safe landing. Erratic glide path control.
3.4.6. Area 66--Precision Approach (Instrument Landing System [ILS]) (See Note 5, Table
2.1.):
3.4.6.1. Q. Performed procedures as published and IAW FSD procedures. Smooth and
timely corrections to azimuth and glide slope. Complied with decision height and
position would have permitted a safe landing. Maintained proper/briefed AOA.
3.4.6.1.1. Airspeed +10/-5 knots.
3.4.6.1.2. Glide Slope/Azimuth within one dot.
3.4.6.1.3. Initiated missed approach (if applicable) at decision height.
3.4.6.2. Q-. Performed procedures with minor deviations. Slow to make corrections or
initiate procedures. Position would have permitted a safe landing. Slow to correct to
proper/briefed AOA.
3.4.6.2.1. Airspeed +15/-5 knots.
3.4.6.2.2. Glide Slope within one dot low/two dots high.

3.4.6.2.3. Azimuth within two dots.
3.4.6.2.4. Initiated missed approach (if applicable) at decision height, +50/-0 ft.
3.4.6.3. U. Performed procedures with major deviations. Erratic corrections. Exceeded
Q- limits. Did not comply with Decision Height or position at Decision Height would not
have permitted a safe landing.
3.4.7. Area 67--Missed Approach/Climb Out:
3.4.7.1. Q. Executed missed approach/climb-out as published/directed. Completed all
actions IAW TO procedures.
3.4.7.2. Q-. Executed missed approach/climb-out with minor deviations. Slow to
comply with published procedures, controller's instructions or flight manual procedures.
3.4.7.3. U. Executed missed approach/climb-out with major deviations, or did not
comply with applicable directives.
3.4.8. Area 68--Circling/Sidestep Approach:
3.4.8.1. Q. Performed circling/sidestep approach in accordance with procedures and
techniques outlined in the TO and AFMAN 11-217V1. Aircraft control was positive and
smooth. Proper runway alignment.
3.4.8.2. Q-. Performed circling/sidestep approach with minor deviations to procedures
and techniques outlined in the TO and AFMAN 11-217V1. Aircraft control was not
consistently smooth, but safe. Runway alignment varied, but go-around not required.
3.4.8.3. U. Circling/sidestep approach not performed in accordance with procedures and
techniques outlined in the TO and AFMAN 11-217V1. Erratic aircraft control. Large
deviations in runway alignment required go-around.
3.4.9. Area 69--Instrument Cross-Check:
3.4.9.1. Q. Effective instrument cross-check. Smooth and positive aircraft control
throughout flight. Meets "Q" criteria listed in General Criteria, applicable special events
or instrument final approaches.
3.4.9.2. Q-. Slow instrument cross-check. Aircraft control occasionally abrupt to
compensate for recognition of errors. Meets "Q-" criteria listed in General Criteria,
applicable special events or instrument final approaches.
3.4.9.3. U. Inadequate instrument cross-check. Erratic aircraft control. Exceeded Q-
limits.
3.5. Aircrew Evaluation Criteria—Tactical Employment.
3.5.1. General:
3.5.1.1. Area 81--Tactical/Mission Plan:
3.5.1.1.1. Q. Realistic, well-developed plan that encompassed mission objectives,
threats and capabilities of all flight members. Addressed contingencies in
development of plan.
3.5.1.1.2. Q-. Minor omissions in the plan resulted in less than optimum
achievement of objectives and detracted from mission effectiveness. Planned tactics
resulted in unnecessary difficulty.
3.5.1.1.3. U. Major errors in the plan precluded accomplishment of the stated
objectives.
3.5.1.2. Area 82—Aerospace Control Alert (ACA) Tasking (Air Defense Units):
3.5.1.2.1. Q. Responded properly to directive commentary. Completed all required
armament/safety checks. Successfully completed visual identification pass. Properly
performed procedures for air defense operations.
3.5.1.2.2. Q-. Slow response to directive commentary contributed to delayed
completion of a visual identification pass or required large position corrections to
complete a firing pass. Completed all required armament/safety checks. Minor
deficiencies during performance of procedures for air defense operations.
3.5.1.2.3. U. Failed to complete intercepts/visual identification passes because of
improper procedures. Did not complete an armament/safety check. Failed to perform
proper procedures for air defense operations.
3.5.1.3. Area 83--Tactical/Mission Execution:
3.5.1.3.1. Q. Applied tactics consistent with the threat, current directives, and good
judgment. Executed the plan and achieved mission goals. Quickly adapted to
changing environment. Maintained situational awareness.
3.5.1.3.2. Q-. Minor deviations from tactical plan which did not result in an
ineffective mission. Slow to adapt to changing environment. Low situational
awareness.
3.5.1.3.3. U. Unable to accomplish the mission due to major errors of commission or
omission during execution of the plan. Situational awareness lost.
3.5.1.4. Area 84--Composite Force (CF) Interface:
3.5.1.4.1. Q. Effectively planned for and used CF assets to enhance mission and
achieve objectives.
3.5.1.4.2. Q-. Minor confusion between CF assets and fighters. Less than optimum
use of Composite Force Assets which did not affect the fighter’s offensive advantage.
3.5.1.4.3. U. Inadequate or incorrect use of CF assets resulted in loss of offensive
potential.
3.5.1.5. Area 85--Tactical Communications:
3.5.1.5.1. Q. Radio communications were concise, accurate and effectively used to
direct maneuvers or describe the tactical situation.
3.5.1.5.2. Q-. Minor terminology errors or omissions occurred, but did not
significantly detract from situational awareness, mutual support or mission
accomplishment. Extraneous comments over primary or secondary radios presented
minor distractions.
3.5.1.5.3. U. Radio communications over primary/secondary radios were inadequate

or excessive. Inaccurate or confusing terminology significantly detracted from mutual
support, situational awareness or mission accomplishment.
3.5.1.6. Area 86—Visual/Sensor Lookout:
3.5.1.6.1. Q. Demonstrated thorough knowledge and effective application of visual
lookout techniques and integration of sensor information throughout all phases of
flight. Maintained deconfliction contracts.
3.5.1.6.2. Q-. Demonstrated limited knowledge of visual lookout techniques. Slow
to establish lookout responsibilities for all phases of flight. Slow to integrate visual
lookout and sensor information to acquire threats to flight or targets to be attacked.
Made minor deviations in deconfliction contract adherence.
3.5.1.6.3. U. Demonstrated unsatisfactory knowledge and/or application of visual
lookout and sensor integration. Allowed threat to penetrate to short range undetected.
Failed to maintain deconfliction contracts.
3.5.1.7. Area 87--Mutual Support:
3.5.1.7.1. Q. Maintained mutual support during entire engagement thus sustaining
an offensive posture and/or negating all attacks. Adhered to all engaged and
supporting responsibilities and deconfliction contracts.
3.5.1.7.2. Q-. Mutual support occasionally broke down resulting in temporary
confusion or the loss of an offensive advantage. Demonstrated limited knowledge of
engaged and supporting responsibilities or deconfliction contracts.
3.5.1.7.3. U. Mutual support broke down resulting in the flight being put in a
defensive position from which all attacks were not negated. Demonstrated inadequate
knowledge of engaged and supporting responsibilities and deconfliction contracts.
Caused an unsafe deconfliction issue.
3.5.1.8. Area 88--Tactical Navigation:
3.5.1.8.1. Q. Navigated to desired destination and remained geographically oriented
during the tactical portion of the mission. Altitude and route of flight reflected
consideration for enemy threats. Maintained terrain awareness. Complied with
established altitude minimums. Adhered to airspace restrictions.
3.5.1.8.2. Q-. Deviations from planned route of flight were recognized and
corrected. Maintained terrain awareness. Altitude control contributed to exposure to
threats for brief periods.
3.5.1.8.3. U. Failed to locate desired destination. Deviations from planned route of
flight exposed flight to threats. Violated airspace restrictions or altitude minimums.
Poor airspeed/altitude control contributed to disorientation. Inadequate terrain
awareness.
3.5.1.9. Area 89--Ingress:
3.5.1.9.1. Q. Aware of all known/simulated threats and defenses. Employed
effective use of evasive maneuvers, and/or route and altitude selection.
3.5.1.9.2. Q-. Ignored some of the known/simulated threats and defenses. Improper
use of evasive maneuvers, and/or route and altitude selection resulted in unnecessary
exposure.
3.5.1.9.3. U. Failed to honor known/simulated threats and defenses significantly
reducing survivability. Failed to employ effective evasive maneuvers, and/or route or
altitude threat deconfliction.
3.5.1.10. Area 90--Egress:
3.5.1.10.1. Q. Effectively used evasive maneuvers to complete an expeditious
egress from the target area. Formation was reestablished as soon as possible without
undue exposure to enemy defenses.
3.5.1.10.2. Q-. Egress contributed to unnecessary exposure to threats and delayed
return to formation and departure from target area.
3.5.1.10.3. U. Egress caused excessive exposure to threats. Return to formation was
not accomplished or resulted in excessive exposure to threats.
3.5.1.11. Area 91--Combat Separation:
3.5.1.11.1. Q. Adhered to briefed/directed separation procedures. Positive control of
flight/element during separation. Adversary was unable to achieve valid simulated
missile/gun firing parameters.
3.5.1.11.2. Q-. Minor deviations from briefed/directed separation procedures.
Allowed mutual support to break down intermittently.
3.5.1.11.3. U. Did not adhere to briefed/directed separation procedures to the degree
that an emergency fuel condition would have developed if allowed to continue
uncorrected. Could not effectively separate from the engagement or could not regain
mutual support.
3.5.1.12. Area 92--Timing. Time should be based on preplanned time on target (TOT),
time to target (TTT) for ordnance impact or vulnerability period (VUL) Suppression of
Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)/Defensive Counter Air (DCA) or push time (Offensive
Counter Air Sweep). Adjustments in TOT should be made for non-pilot caused delays.
The FE may widen this timing criterion if the examinee was forced to maneuver
extensively along the ingress route due to simulated enemy air or ground defense
reactions, ATC instructions, and/or weather.
3.5.1.12.1. Conventional attack:
3.5.1.12.1.1. Q. ± 1 minute.
3.5.1.12.1.2. Q-. ± 2 minutes.
3.5.1.12.1.3. U. Exceeded Q- parameters.
3.5.1.12.2. Air-to-Air Escort/Sweep/DCA:
3.5.1.12.2.1. Q. Arrived on station not more than 1 minute late. Covered VUL.
3.5.1.12.2.2. Q-. Arrived on station not more than 2 minutes late. Covered VUL.
3.5.1.12.2.3. U. Exceeded Q- parameters. Failed to cover VUL due to inadequate
planning or use of resources.

3.5.1.13. Area 93--Training Rules/Rules of Engagement (ROE):
3.5.1.13.1. Q. Adhered to and knowledgeable of all training rules/ROE.
3.5.1.13.2. Q-. Minor deviations. Made timely and positive corrections. Did not
jeopardize safety of flight.
3.5.1.13.3. U. Significant deviations indicating a lack of knowledge of training
rules/ROE. Jeopardized safety of flight.
3.5.1.14. Area 94--Threat Reactions:
3.5.1.14.1. Q. Threat reactions were timely and correct. Accomplished appropriate
countermeasures and performed maneuvers to counter threat.
3.5.1.14.2. Q-. Threat reactions were slow or inconsistent. Slow to accomplish
appropriate countermeasures or perform maneuvers to counter threat.
3.5.1.14.3. U. Numerous threat reactions were omitted or incorrect. Failed to
accomplish countermeasures or perform maneuvers to counter threat.
3.5.1.15. Area 95--In-Flight Report:
3.5.1.15.1. Q. Gave accurate, precise in-flight reports in correct format.
3.5.1.15.2. Q-. Deviated from established procedures/format. Completed reports.
3.5.1.15.3. U. Failed to make in-flight reports. Unfamiliar with in-flight reporting
procedures.
3.5.1.16. Area 96—Electronic Warfare (EW) / Expendable Countermeasures (EXCM) /
All Aspect Missile Defense (AAMD)
3.5.1.16.1. Q. Displayed thorough knowledge and operation of Electronic Attack
(EA)/Electronic Protection (EP) systems.
3.5.1.16.2. Q-. Displayed limited knowledge and/or minor errors in operation of
EA/EP systems.
3.5.1.16.3. U. Displayed unsatisfactory knowledge and/or significant errors in
operation of EA/EP systems.
3.5.1.17. Area 98--Sensor Management:
3.5.1.17.1. Q. Correctly planned, briefed, prioritized and executed a sound sensor
management plan IAW applicable guidance. Identified high task periods and
primary/secondary/tertiary sensors based on mission priorities and flight member
responsibilities. Accounted for threats, changes in tasking, weather and flight member
experience. Re-prioritized sensor tasks based on existing and new information to
ensure mission success. Displayed sound knowledge of sensor systems.
3.5.1.17.2. Q-. Made minor errors in planning, prioritization and management of
sensor tasks. Did not completely account for threats, changes in tasking, weather or
flight member experience.
3.5.1.17.3. U. Incorrectly prioritized or managed sensor tasks in a manner which

seriously degraded mission accomplishment or safety of flight. Overtasked other
flight members or failed to communicate task overload. Displayed lack of knowledge
of sensor systems.
3.5.1.18. Area 99--Signature Management:
3.5.1.18.1. Q. Correctly planned, briefed, prioritized and executed a sound signature
management plan. Accounted for threats, changes in tasking, and weather. Displayed
sound knowledge of aircraft signature.
aircraft signature. Did not completely account for threats, changes in tasking, or
weather.
3.5.1.18.3. U. Incorrectly prioritized or managed aircraft signature in a manner
which seriously degraded mission accomplishment or safety of flight. Displayed lack
of knowledge of aircraft signature.
3.5.1.19. Area 100--Weapons Management:
3.5.1.19.1. Q. Correctly planned, briefed, prioritized, and executed a sound
weapons management plan. Operated weapons IAW all technical requirements.
Executed effective troubleshooting when required. Accounted for threats, weather
and changes in tasking. Re-prioritized tasks based on existing and new information to
ensure mission success. Displayed weapons systems knowledge. Successfully placed
the air vehicle in position to allow optimum weapons employment IAW mission
requirements.
3.5.1.19.2. Q-. Made minor errors in planning, prioritization, management and
troubleshooting of weapons without seriously degrading mission accomplishment.
Did not completely account for threats, changes in tasking, weather, Air vehicle
maneuvering or poor positioning affected or reduced weapons employment.
3.5.1.19.3. U. Incorrectly prioritized or managed weapons in a manner which
seriously degraded mission accomplishment or safety of flight. Displayed lack of
weapons systems knowledge. Unable to troubleshoot and follow technical directives
for weapons abnormal conditions. Air vehicle maneuvering or poor positioning
affected or reduced weapons employment.
3.5.2. Air-to-Air:
3.5.2.1. Area 111--Sensor Search/Sorting:
3.5.2.1.1. Q. Correctly planned, briefed, prioritized and executed a sound sensor
management plan. Adhered to sensor timeline. Identified high task periods and
primary/secondary/tertiary sensors based on mission priorities and flight member
responsibilities. Accounted for threats, changes in tasking, weather and flight member
experience. Re-prioritized sensor tasks based on existing and new information to
ensure mission success. Displayed sound knowledge of sensor systems.

sensor tasks. Minor deviations in sensor timeline. Did not completely account for
threats, changes in tasking, weather or flight member experience.
3.5.2.1.3. U. Incorrectly prioritized or managed sensor tasks in a manner which
seriously degraded mission accomplishment or safety of flight. Inadequate adherence
to sensor timeline that led/could have led to mission failure. Overtasked other flight
members or failed to communicate task overload. Displayed lack of knowledge of
sensor systems.
3.5.2.2. Area 112--Tactical Intercept:
3.5.2.2.1. Q. Thorough knowledge and correct employment of tactical intercept
procedures. Effective aircraft positioning and sensor use resulting in successful threat
identification and intercept, if applicable. Successfully engaged all factor threats.
3.5.2.2.2. Q-. Limited knowledge of tactical intercept procedures. Intercept resulted
in successful threat identification; however, excessive corrections were required to
complete the intercept and/or threat engagement. Sensor use/aircraft positioning could
have been more effective.
3.5.2.2.3. U. Did not adequately cover designated airspace. Threat identification
and/or intercept unsuccessful due to poor techniques and/or improper procedures.
Engagement terminated in a defensive position.
3.5.2.3. Area 113--Offensive Maneuvering:
3.5.2.3.1. Q. Effective use of basic fighter maneuvering and air combat
maneuvering or Beyond Visual Range (BVR) weapons employment IAW the ROE to
successfully engage opposing aircraft. Effectively managed energy level during
engagements. Maintained offensive advantage.
3.5.2.3.2. Q-. Limited maneuvering proficiency. Did not effectively counter
opposing aircraft. Occasionally mismanaged energy levels, jeopardizing offensive
advantage.
3.5.2.3.3. U. Unsatisfactory knowledge or performance of maneuvers, aircraft
handling or energy management. Lost offensive advantage.
3.5.2.4. Area 114--Defensive/Counteroffensive Maneuvering:
3.5.2.4.1. Q. Performed correct initial move to counter attack of opposing aircraft.
Used correct maneuvers to negate the threat. Effectively gained counteroffensive
advantage.
3.5.2.4.2. Q-. Some hesitation or confusion during the defensive situation. Minor
errors in energy management or maneuvering delayed negating the attack of opposing
aircraft.
3.5.2.4.3. U. Unable to negate attack of opposing aircraft.
3.5.2.5. Area 115--Air-to-Air Weapons Employment. Snapshots assessed as misses may
be discounted from computations if attacks were tactically sound and attempted within
designated parameters.
3.5.2.5.1. Q. Demonstrated proper knowledge of weapons employment procedures

and attack parameters. Simulated weapons employment was accomplished at each
opportunity and within designated parameters. 75 percent (or two of three or one of
two) of all attempted weapons employment were valid.
3.5.2.5.2. Q-. Demonstrated limited knowledge of weapons employment or attack
parameters. Simulated weapons employment was successful but slow to recognize
appropriate parameters. Did not meet Q criteria for attempted shots, but minor errors
did not affect mission accomplishment.
3.5.2.5.3. U. Demonstrated inadequate knowledge of weapons employment
procedures or attack parameters. All attempts to simulate weapons employment were
unsuccessful due to pilot error.
3.5.2.6. Area 116--Air-to-Air Systems Integration:
3.5.2.6.1. Q. Effective use and integration of sensors. Optimized information flow
to other flight members and participants.
3.5.2.6.2. Q-. Slow to integrate use of sensors. Passed sub-optimal information to
other flight members and participants.
3.5.2.6.3. U. Failed to effectively integrate sensors. Failed to pass appropriate
information to other flight members and participants.
3.5.2.7. Area 117--Command and Control (C2) Integration:
3.5.2.7.1. Q. Effectively integrated Airborne Warning and Control System
(AWACS)/Ground Control Intercept (GCI) information into tactical plan when
necessary. Requested threat declarations when required. Communicated changes in
the tactical situation, weather and threats to C2 agencies.
3.5.2.7.2. Q-. Slow to integrate AWACS/GCI information into tactical plan when
necessary. Slow to request threat declarations. Incomplete communication of changes
in the tactical situation, weather and threats to C2 agencies.
3.5.2.7.3. U. Failed to integrate AWACS/GCI information into tactical plan when
necessary. Failed to request or did not abide by threat declarations. Inadequate
communication of changes in the tactical situation, weather and threats to C2
agencies.
3.5.3. Air-to-Surface:
3.5.3.1. Area 131--Target (TGT)/Threat Acquisition:
3.5.3.1.1. Q. Target acquired on the first attack with radar, if missed due to safety,
clearance to expend, or difficult target identification features, a successful reattack
was accomplished. For multiple target scenarios, all targets were acquired on the first
attack or with a successful reattack.
3.5.3.1.2. Q-. Late to acquire the target with radar, degraded the initial attack or
reattack. For multiple target scenarios, 50 percent or more of the targets were
acquired on the first attack or with a successful reattack.
3.5.3.1.3. U. Target was not acquired. For multiple target scenarios, less than 50
percent of the targets were acquired on the first attack or with a successful reattack.
Note: A successful reattack is defined as being within parameters to effectively
employ the planned weapons against the target.
3.5.3.2. Area 132--Air-to-Surface Weapons Employment:
3.5.3.3. Note 1 . Scorable Ranges. When weapons deliveries are performed on different
ranges during the same mission, or like deliveries constituting separate events are
performed on the same range, all events count for evaluation, and the area grade should
be predicated upon the criteria below.
3.5.3.4. Note 2. Unscorable Ranges. The FE should determine Hit/Miss based on impact
of the ordnance and/or desired weapons effects for the attack.
3.5.3.5. Note 3. Simulated Releases. FEs determine Hit/Miss based on video debrief
review.
3.5.3.6. Note 4. FEs determine Hit/Miss by reference to video debrief in cases where
unexplained weapons delivery misses occur (e.g., wind shears, weapons malfunctions,
etc.).
3.5.3.6.1. Single Weapon Event:
3.5.3.6.1.1. Q. Demonstrated complete knowledge of weapons delivery
procedures, attack parameters, weapons computations and error analysis for the
events performed. At least 50% of all weapons were within hit criteria.
3.5.3.6.1.2. Q-. Minor errors in knowledge of weapons delivery procedures,
attack parameters, weapons computations, or error analysis for the events
performed. At least 50% of all weapons were within hit criteria.
3.5.3.6.1.3. U. Demonstrated inadequate knowledge of weapons delivery
procedures, attack parameters, weapons computations or error analysis for the
events flown. Less than 50% of all weapons were within hit criteria.
3.5.3.6.2. Multiple Weapon Events:
3.5.3.6.2.1. Q. Qualified within the applicable criteria in all events attempted.
At least 50% of all bombs in each event were within hit criteria.
3.5.3.6.2.2. Q-. Minor errors in knowledge of weapons delivery procedures,
attack parameters, weapons computations, or error analysis for the events
performed. Less than Q criteria.
3.5.3.6.2.3. U. Demonstrated inadequate knowledge of weapons delivery
procedures, attack parameters, weapons computations, or error analysis for the
events flown. Unqualified in greater than 50% of all events attempted.
3.5.3.7. Area 133—Range/Airspace Procedures:
3.5.3.7.1. Q. Used proper procedures for entering and exiting the range. Range
operations followed established procedures.
3.5.3.7.2. Q-. Minor deviations from established procedures for range entry, exit or
operations.
3.5.3.7.3. U. Major deviations from established procedures for range entry, exit or
operations.
3.5.3.8. Area 134—Air-to-Surface Sensor Operation:
3.5.3.8.1. Q. Correctly operated the sensor to acquire the target. Was able to
properly search and set up the sensor display to permit weapons delivery.
3.5.3.8.2. Q-. Poor use of sensor hindered target identification degrading weapons
delivery. Did not thoroughly understand system set-up procedures.
3.5.3.8.3. U. Improper search technique resulted in late or no target acquisition.
Improper set-up of sensor created an unusable picture and prevented target
identification or weapons delivery.
3.5.3.9. Area 139—Dynamic Targeting
3.5.3.9.1. Q. Effective coordination with outside agencies and contract execution
within the flight resulted in prompt employment IAW the ROE, given restrictions or
tactical situation.
3.5.3.9.2. Q-. Minor errors during contract execution or slow/confused coordination
with outside agencies resulted in delayed employment IAW the ROE, given
restrictions or tactical situation.
3.5.3.9.3. U. Major errors during contract execution or ineffective coordination with
outside agencies resulted in employment outside the ROE, given restrictions or
tactical situation.
3.5.4. Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD):
3.5.4.1. Area 151--Electronic Threat/Order of Battle Management:
3.5.4.1.1. Q. Effective detection, analysis, and prioritization of factor threats.
Efficient and timely use of available on or off-board systems to effectively detect,
engage, and/or suppress threat emitters. Identified factor threats IAW pre-briefed
tactical plan. Effectively reacted to pop-up threats or unplanned threats.
3.5.4.1.2. Q-. Slow to detect, prioritize, target, or suppress briefed or pop-up factor
threat emitters. Inefficient use of on or off-board systems.
3.5.4.1.3. U. Failed to detect, prioritize, or target to effectively suppress factor
threats. Incorrect identification of threats. Ineffective reactions to pop-up threats.
3.5.4.2. Area 153—Electronic Attack:
3.5.4.2.1. Q. Employment parameters and settings were correct.
3.5.4.2.2. Q-. Minor deviations noted in employment parameters.
3.5.4.2.3. U. Excessive deviations noted in employment parameters. Incorrect
settings led to failure to achieve mission objectives.
3.5.5. Electronic Warfare:
3.5.5.1. Area 161--Degraded/Denied GPS:

3.5.5.1.1. Q. Properly adapted to degradation/loss of GPS. Mission
accomplishment not affected.
3.5.5.1.2. Q-. Slow to adapt to or recognize degradation/loss of GPS systems.
Mission accomplishment not affected.
3.5.5.1.3. U. Unable to adapt to degradation/loss of GPS systems. Mission
accomplishment affected.
3.5.5.2. Area 162--Degraded/Denied Communications:
3.5.5.2.1. Q. Properly adapted to degradation/loss of Comm. Mission
3.5.5.2.2. Q-. Slow to adapt to or recognize degradation/loss of Comm systems.
3.5.5.2.3. U. Unable to adapt to degradation/loss of Comm systems. Mission
3.5.5.3. Area 163--Degraded/Denied Datalink:
3.5.5.3.1. Q. Properly adapted to degradation/loss of Datalink. Mission
3.5.5.3.2. Q-. Slow to adapt to or recognize degradation/loss of Datalink systems.
3.5.5.3.3. U. Unable to adapt to degradation/loss of Datalink systems. Mission
3.6. EPE Criteria.
3.6.1. General:
3.6.1.1. Reference expanded criteria in graded areas above for the following criteria:
3.6.1.1.1. Area 29--Aircraft General Knowledge.
3.6.1.1.2. Area 37--Cockpit/Crew Resource Management.
3.6.1.1.3. Area 82—Aerospace Control Alert (ACA) Tasking (Air Defense Units).
3.6.1.2. Area 301--Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (General):
3.6.1.2.1. Q. Recognized and analyzed malfunction in a timely manner. Displayed
correct, immediate response to emergency situations. Effectively used checklist.
3.6.1.2.2. Q-. Slow to recognize and/or analyze malfunction. Response to certain
required steps in emergency procedures was slow/confused. Used the checklist when
appropriate, but slow to locate required data and implement guidance.
3.6.1.2.3. U. Unable to analyze problems or take corrective action. Did not use
checklist and/or lacked acceptable familiarity with its arrangement or contents.
3.6.1.3. Area 302—Checklist Usage
3.6.1.3.1. Q. Effectively used checklist. Effectively coordinated with other flight

members or crew members (if applicable) without misunderstanding.
3.6.1.3.2. Q-. Slow to use proper checklist. Coordinated with other flight members
or crew members (if applicable) with minor exceptions.
3.6.1.3.3. U. Failed to follow checklist procedures or used incorrect checklist.
Breakdown in coordination with other flight members (or crewmembers, if
applicable) precluded mission accomplishment or jeopardized safety.
3.6.1.4. Area 305--Weapons System Operation:
3.6.1.4.1. Q. Displayed thorough knowledge of aircraft weapons systems
capabilities, limitations and backups/workarounds in event of malfunctions.
3.6.1.4.2. Q-. Displayed deficiencies in depth of knowledge or comprehension of
aircraft weapons systems capabilities, limitations and backups/workarounds in event
of malfunctions which would not preclude successful mission accomplishment.
3.6.1.4.3. U. Displayed insufficient knowledge or comprehension of aircraft
weapons systems capabilities, limitations and backups/workarounds in event of
malfunctions which could preclude successful mission accomplishment.
3.6.1.5. Area 306--Weapons Employment and Switchology:
3.6.1.5.1. Q. Displayed thorough knowledge of aircraft weapons systems effects,
tactics and switchology, when employing weapons in degraded modes of operation.
3.6.1.5.2. Q-. Displayed deficiencies in depth of knowledge or comprehension of
aircraft weapons systems effects, tactics and switchology, when employing weapons
in degraded modes of operation, which would not preclude successful mission
accomplishment.
3.6.1.5.3. U. Displayed insufficient knowledge or comprehension of aircraft
weapons systems effects, tactics and switchology, when employing weapons in
degraded modes of operation, which could preclude successful mission
accomplishment.
3.6.2. Pre-Takeoff. The following items are graded using the same criteria as Area 301.
3.6.2.1. Area 321--Hydraulic Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Pre-
Takeoff).
3.6.2.2. Area 331--Electrical Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Pre-
Takeoff).
3.6.2.3. Area 341--Fuel Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Pre-Takeoff).
3.6.2.4. Area 351--Environment Control System (ECS)/Oxygen Emergency
Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Pre-Takeoff).
3.6.2.5. Area 361--Engine/Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emergency Procedures/Aircraft
Malfunctions (Pre-Takeoff).
3.6.2.6. Area 371--Avionics Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Pre-Takeoff).
3.6.2.7. Area 381--Weapons Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Pre-

Takeoff).
3.6.2.8. Area 391--Flight Control System (FLCS) Emergency Procedures/Aircraft
Malfunctions (Pre-Takeoff).
3.6.2.9. Area 401—Brakes/Landing Gear Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions
(Pre-Takeoff).
3.6.2.10. Area 411--Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Pre-Takeoff).
3.6.3. Takeoff. The following items are graded using the same criteria as Area 301.
3.6.3.1. Area 421--Hydraulic Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Takeoff).
3.6.3.2. Area 431--Electrical Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Takeoff).
3.6.3.3. Area 441--Fuel Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Takeoff).
Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Takeoff).
3.6.3.5. Area 461--Engine/APU Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Takeoff).
3.6.3.6. Area 463--Abort.
3.6.3.7. Area 471--Avionics Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Takeoff).
3.6.3.8. Area 481--Weapons Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Takeoff).
Malfunctions (Takeoff).
3.6.3.10. Area 501—Brakes/Landing Gear/ Emergency Procedures/Aircraft
Malfunctions (Takeoff).
3.6.3.11. Area 511--Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Takeoff).
3.6.4. In-Flight.
3.6.4.1. Reference expanded criteria in graded areas above for the following criteria :
3.6.4.1.1. Area 94--Threat Reactions.
3.6.4.1.2. Area 99--Signature Management.
3.6.4.2. The following items are graded using the same criteria as Area 301.
3.6.4.2.1. Area 521--Hydraulic Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (In-
Flight).
3.6.4.2.2. Area 531--Electrical Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (In-
Flight).
3.6.4.2.3. Area 541--Fuel Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (In-Flight).
3.6.4.2.4. Area 551--Environment Control System (ECS)/Oxygen Emergency
Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (In-Flight).
3.6.4.2.5. Area 561--Engine/APU Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (In-

Flight).
3.6.4.2.6. Area 571--Avionics Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (In-
Flight).
3.6.4.2.7. Area 581--Weapons Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (In-
Flight).
3.6.4.2.8. Area 591--Flight Control System (FLCS) Emergency Procedures/Aircraft
Malfunctions (In-Flight).
3.6.4.2.9. Area 601—Brakes/Landing Gear/Emergency Procedures/Aircraft
Malfunctions (In-Flight).
3.6.4.2.10. Area 611--Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (In-Flight).
3.6.4.3. Area 614--Unusual Attitude Recoveries.
3.6.4.3.1. Q. Smooth, positive recovery to level flight with correct recovery
procedures.
3.6.4.3.2. Q-. Slow to analyze attitude, or erratic in recovery to level flight. Correct
recovery procedures used.
3.6.4.3.3. U. Unable to determine attitude. Improper recovery procedures were used.
3.6.4.4. Area 615--AFMAN 11-217V1 Procedures/Heads-Up Display (HUD)-Out
Approach/Use of Standby Instruments.
3.6.4.4.1. Q. Performed approach in accordance with directives, published
procedures and techniques outlined in the TO and AFMAN 11-217V1. Maintained
proper/briefed AOA. Maintained desired glide path with only minor deviations.
3.6.4.4.2. Q-. Performed approach with minor deviations to directives, published
procedures and techniques outlined in the TO and AFMAN 11-217V1. Slow to
correct to proper/briefed AOA. Did not always maintain desired glide path control.
3.6.4.4.3. U. Performed procedures with major deviations to directives, published
procedures and techniques outlined in the TO and AFMAN 11-217V1. Failed to
attain and/or maintain proper/briefed AOA. Displayed erratic glide slope control.
3.6.4.5. Area 616--Alternate/Divert Airfields.
3.6.4.5.1. Q. Made proper divert decision and correctly performed initial divert
execution actions.
3.6.4.5.2. Q-. Slow to make divert decision and/or slow to correctly perform initial
divert execution actions.
3.6.4.5.3. U. Failed to make proper divert decision and/or correctly perform initial
divert execution actions.
3.6.5. Landing. The following items are graded using the same criteria as Area 301.
3.6.5.1. Area 631--Hydraulic Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Landing).
3.6.5.2. Area 641--Electrical Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Landing).
3.6.5.3. Area 651--Fuel Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Landing).

Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Landing).
3.6.5.5. Area 671--Engine/APU Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Landing).
3.6.5.6. Area 681--Avionics Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Landing).
3.6.5.7. Area 691--Weapons Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Landing).
Malfunctions (Landing).
3.6.5.9. Area 711—Brakes/Landing Gear Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions
(Landing).
3.6.5.10. Area 721--Emergency Procedures/Aircraft Malfunctions (Landing).
BRIAN S. ROBINSON, Maj Gen, USAF

Assistant DCS, Operations
Attachment 1
GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
References
AFI 11-200, Aircrew Training, Standardizations, and General Operations Structure, 19 January
2012
AFI 11-202, Volume 2, Aircrew Standardization/Evaluation Program, 13 Sep 2010
AFI 11-290, Cockpit/Crew Resource Management Program, 15 Oct 2012
AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management, 1 Dec 15
AFMAN 11-217 Volume 1, Instrument Flight Procedures, 22 Oct 2010
AFMAN 33-363, Management of Records, 01 Mar 2008
AFPD 11-2, Aircrew Operations, 19 Jan 2012
AFPD 11-4, Aviation Service, 1 Sep 2004
AFTTP 3-1.1, General Planning and Employment Considerations,5 May 2008
AFTTP 3-3.F-22A Tactical Employment F-22A, updated periodically
AF RDS on the AF Portal at the AFRMS link
TO 1F-22A-1 Flight Manual—F-22A, updated periodically
Forms Adopted
AF Form 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification
AFTO Form 781, ARMS Aircrew/Mission Flight Data Document
AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication
AF Form 4031, CRM Skills Training/ Evaluation Form
Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAMD—All Aspect Missile Defense
ACA—Aerospace Control Alert
ACC—Air Combat Command
AF—Air Force
AFRC—Air Force Reserve Command
AFTTP—Air Force Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
AIM—Air Intercept Missile
ANG—Air National Guard
AOA—Angle of Attack
ARMS—Aviation Resource Management System
ASR—Airport Surveillance Radar

ATC—Air Traffic Control
AWACS—Airborne Warning and Control System
BFM—Basic Fighter Maneuver
BIT—Built-in Test
BMC—Basic Mission Capable
C2—Command and Control
CAP—Combat Air Patrol
CF—Composite Force
CNI—Communication, Navigation, and IFF
CRM—Cockpit Resource Management
DOC—Designed Operational Capability
DRU—Direct Reporting Unit
EA—Electronic Attack
EP—Electronic Protection
EPE—Emergency Procedures Evaluation
EW—Electronic Warfare
EXCM—Expendable Countermeasures
FE—Flight Examiner
FLIP—Flight Information Publications
FOA—Field Operating Agency
FTU—Formal Training Unit
GCI—Ground Control Intercept
GPS—Global Positioning System
HUD—Heads Up Display
IAW—In Accordance With
IFF—Identification, Friend or Foe
ILS—Instrument Landing System
INS—Inertial Navigation System
INSTM—Instrument
IP—Instructor Pilot
IR—Infrared
MAJCOM—Major Command
MAP—Missed Approach Point
MDA—Minimum Descent Altitude
MSN—Mission
MTC—Mission Training Center
NM—Nautical Mile
OGV—Operations Group Standardization/Evaluation
PA—Privacy Act
PAR—Precision Approach Radar
PGM—Precision-Guided Munition
QUAL—Qualification
RDS—Records Disposition Schedule
ROE—Rules of Engagement
SEAD—Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
TACAN—Tactical Air Navigation
TGT—Target
TOT—Time on Target
TTT—Time to Target
USAF—United States Air Force
VDP—Visual Descent Point
VFR—Visual Flight Rules
VUL—Vulnerability Period
WIC—Weapons Instructor Course
WTT—Weapons and Tactics Trainer
WVR—Within Visual Range
Terms
Joker (Fuel)—A pre-briefed fuel state needed to terminate an event and proceed with the
remainder of the mission.
Bingo (Fuel)—A pre-briefed fuel state that allows the aircraft to return to the base of intended
landing or alternate, if required, using preplanned recovery parameters and arriving with normal
recovery fuel as listed below.

Afman11 2f 22av2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afman11 2f 22av2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afman11 2f 22av2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BY ORDER OF THE AIR FORCE MANUAL 11-2F-22A,

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE VOLUME 2

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

OPR: ACC/A3TV Certified by: AF/A3T

supplements to this publication to their parent MAJCOM/DRU/FOA OPR for pre-publication

Chapter 1— ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

1.1. Flight Examiners (FEs). ......................................................................................... 4

1.2. Examinees. ............................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2— Evaluation Requirements 5

2.1. General. ................................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Instrument/Qualification (INSTM/QUAL) Evaluations. ....................................... 6

2.3. Mission (MSN) Evaluations. ................................................................................. 7

2.4. Formal Course Evaluations. ................................................................................... 8

2.5. Instructor Evaluations. ........................................................................................... 8

Table 2.1. Aircrew Evaluation Grading Areas. ........................................................................ 8

2.7. Emergency Procedures Evaluations (EPEs). .......................................................... 13

Table 2.2. EPE Grading Areas. ................................................................................................ 14

Chapter 3— EVALUATION CRITERIA 19

3.1. General Grading Standards. .................................................................................... 19

Table 3.1. General Aircraft Control Criteria. .......................................................................... 19

3.2. Documentation of Weapons Employment Results. ............................................... 20

Table 3.2. Weapons Employment Scores. ............................................................................... 20

3.3. General Aircrew Evaluation Criteria. ..................................................................... 20

3.4. Aircrew Evaluation Criteria—Instruments. ............................................................ 34

3.5. Aircrew Evaluation Criteria—Tactical Employment. ............................................ 37

3.6. EPE Criteria. ........................................................................................................... 47

Attachment 1— GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 52

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1. Flight Examiners (FEs). FEs:

2.2. Instrument/Qualification (INSTM/QUAL) Evaluations.

Table 2.1. Aircrew Evaluation Grading Areas.

AREA NOTE AREA TITLE I/Q MSN

AIRCREW EVALUATION CRITERIA - GENERAL

2 6 BRIEFING (if applicable) R R

14 1 AIRWORK / AHC / BFM R

15 2, 6 UNUSUAL ATTITUDE RECOVERIES R

16 6 WEAPONS SYSTEM/BIT CHECKS R

21 3 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC PATTERNS R

27 6 FLIGHT LEADERSHIP (if applicable) R R

30 Critical, AIRMANSHIP/ SITUATIONAL AWARENESS R R

32 Critical, FLIGHT DISCIPLINE R R

33 6 INSTRUCTOR PERFORMANCE (if applicable) R R

37 6 COCKPIT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT R R

62 6 INSTRUMENT PENETRATION/ENROUTE DESCENT R

65 4, 6 PRECISION APPROACH (PAR) R

66 4, 6 PRECISION APPROACH (ILS) R

67 6 MISSED APPROACH/CLIMB OUT R

82 6 AEROSPACE CONTROL ALERT (ACA) TASKING (Air

84 6 COMPOSITE FORCE INTERFACE

100 5, 6 WEAPONS MANAGEMENT R

111 5, 6 SENSOR SEARCH/SORTING R

112 5, 6 TACTICAL INTERCEPT R

113 8 AIR COMBAT MANEUVERING

115 5, 6 AIR-TO-AIR WEAPONS EMPLOYMENT R

116 6 AIR-TO-AIR SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

117 6 COMMAND AND CONTROL INTEGRATION

131 5, 6 TARGET/THREAT ACQUISITION/VALIDATION R

132 5, 6 AIR-TO-SURFACE WEAPONS EMPLOYMENT R

133 6 RANGE/AIRSPACE PROCEDURES