Debrief objectives

The objective of the debrief is to determine if the desired mission objectives were achieved, identify lessons learned, and define aspects of training needing improvement. The end result should be all participants gaining solid direction after the debrief on how to do it better next time. An effective debrief includes three main areas: preparation, reconstruction, and analysis.

Preparation.

This step will make the difference between an effective and efficient debrief and a 6-hour mess. Flight leads should have a specific mission-debriefing guide aligned with the mission-briefing guide this will ensure a logical structure and flow. All participants should know (from the briefing) what will be required from the flight lead during the debrief, and sufficient time between arriving in the debrief and starting the actual debrief should be allowed to gather that information (normally 20 to 30 minutes).

Reconstruction.

The “what happened” during the mission occupies most of the debriefing. Correct preparation by all participants will greatly streamline this phase. At the beginning of the debrief establish guidelines, so all participants know when to interrupt, provide information, and make corrections. During reconstruction, assign roles to each participant to focus attention and keep them
involved. Typical assignments are as follows:

Objectives/execution monitor (Number One).
Training rules monitor (Number Two).
Communications monitor (Number Three).
Weapons validation monitor (Number Four).

NOTE: Flight leads must be aware of all participants' debriefing limitations. These may range from tight schedules; or personal commitments. Tailor the reconstruction so that essential errors are identified while considering these limitations. Sometimes debriefs will be required to be slipped to the next day.

Here are ten reconstruction tips to consider:

Annotate bullseye on the board with 5 NM tics down fight axis.
Double-check the initial picture (have a correct start point).
Do not draw inner group pictures until it is important to know it.
Show spike status with color codes and direction.
Keep arrows synched (equal numbers for all players/groups) and in scale.
Mark all shots, include from and to whom, type, and outcome.
Show countermeasure (CM) use when expended.
Tag all groups with altitude and annotate changes.
Put notes on board for discussion items during analysis (probably the most important).

Analysis.

This phase brings out the actual “what to do better or different” focus from the flight.
It is essential to derive accurate lessons learned; not simply the execution errors that occur in every sortie.
Primary consideration should be toward gaining insight into how the pilot has performed versus the mission
objectives. Get the small items out of the way first (i.e., debrief the motherhood). Discuss significant
departures from the briefed flow or established procedures without belaboring the items. Review the
mission objectives and provide a general impression of mission success.

Techniques for structuring a debrief.

There are two main techniques for structuring a debrief. For part task training missions, the debrief can be flowed in a chronological manner while pulling out execution errors and looking for trends. Another debriefing technique that can be used for both part task training missions and missionized rides is to use debrief focus points (DFP), contributing factors (CF),
Instructional fixes (IF), root causes (RC) and learning points (LP).

Debrief Focus Point (DFP)

The DFP is the major point (or points) that you, the mission lead, or instructor want to address, based on the mission results. It is usually phrased in the form of a question and points the learning in the direction of where the mission failed to meet objectives. A mission may have numerous DFPs, it may have sub-DFPs which help to answer the main, overarching DFP, or there may be no DFP whatsoever. The intent of the DFP is to focus the debrief where execution fell apart in an effort to find errors that can be avoided in the future. The DFP should basically address the mission objectives which were not properly met. Here are some examples of commonly used DFPs:

Why did number 3 die?
Why was the Desired Weapons Effect (DWE) not achieved on the primary target?
Why did we have a breakdown in game plan execution?
Why was 4 untargeted until 10 miles?

Contributing Factors (CFs)

CFs are listed beneath the DFP and are those items which will help in analyzing that DFP. A CF is an event or an occurrence that potentially contributed to the DFP itself. It may be something that was a perception error (someone did not recognize a given cue [i.e., a piece of data]), an execution error (that same person may have seen the right cue but could not execute the correct maneuver or flow for whatever reason), or a flaw in the plan. CFs help to guide the flow of the debrief by focusing attention on the right people at the appropriate times in order to figure out where the DFP started to develop. There are no limits to how many CFs there are on a given mission, although it should also be obvious who clearly had no part to play in a given DFP.

Instructional Fixes (IF)

Once all the DFPs and their associated CFs have been identified, the next items that must be addressed are the instructional fixes. An instructional fix is the execution that should have happened, the “how-to” explanation that instructor pilots (IP) is responsible for providing that help ensure better performance the next time around. IFs should be written on the board next to each of the CFs so that in the end, the board lists a story of what went wrong and what should have been done
to avoid those errors in the future.

Root Cause (RC).

Once the DFPs have been listed, CFs have been addressed and IFs provided, the mission lead should complete the analysis by identifying the root cause. This is essentially where the wheels started to come off during the mission. Another way of looking at this is that if the root cause had not happened, the chances for mission success would have been better.

Learning Points (LP)

There will obviously be missions where there is no DFP (mission success was achieved, there were no friendly losses) but where an execution error occurred that merits increased emphasis in the debrief. In situations where no DFP is warranted but the debrief still requires specific focus for learning, learning points may be used for instruction. LPs may exist in cases where the mission went well (no DFP), but in the process a basic mistake was made, which, on another mission could have led to less than optimum results. An LP may also be a separate point on a mission that did not go so well. For example, in addition to losing the strikers along with one of the members of the formation (a factor to the mission), one of the blue air missed his or her targeting responsibility and the target area was not sanitized properly (not a factor to the mission). While this miss may not have adversely impacted the already poor mission results, it is the type of incorrect execution which could lead to mission failure on another ride. LPs can be listed in the same manner as DFPs, or may be phrased observations, or listed as specific execution errors. In any case they are set aside from the DFPs on the board. LPs are answered the same as DFPs, and as such, must have an instructional fix listed on the board as well. The only difference with the LP is the amount of weight that it carries in the way the
mission results are summarized at the end of the debrief.

Final Summary.

Once all the information has been collected and analyzed, the flight lead should recap the significant findings from the sortie. Start with the analysis of the objectives, recap the root causes of the DFPs, reiterate any trends and finish with the lessons learned (LL). LLs are revisions to fundamental aspects of the plan, based on the DFPs and IFs that came out on the mission. LLs are usually written in a several sentence format that allows one to understand the situation that took place, the fault that occurred, and the solution to that fault when reviewed at a later date.