How to get a promotion?

[SuperCAP]

I'm new to CAP (about 4 months or so).  I've completed lvl1 and I'm working on lvl2.  I'm just wondering how I go about the process of promoting my rank above Senior Member?  Somebody mentioned that if you have your pilots license then that can help you get promoted as well.  I'm a CFI/CFII and ATP pilot with about 5,000 hrs.  Who do I contact to start working on a promotion?  Thanks!

[cm42]

Your local professional development officer should be able to assist. You should also consult the regulation (CAPR 35-5).

[AlphaSigOU]

Since you're new to CAP. you get a free pass here before others scream "RTFM!!!"

Completion of Level I and six months time in grade and at least age 21 makes you eligible for duty performance promotion to 2d Lt.

For a mission skills-related promotion, read CAP Regulation 35-5. Be aware that you are expected to contribute those skills to CAP and to continue your professional development. Your squadron's professional development officer should help you get squared away in preparing the paperwork to be submitted for approval through channels. Promotion to an advanced grade is not automatic.

[Critical AOA]

Having your CFI/CFII or ATP after achieving Level 1 qualifies you to be promoted to Captain with command approval.  If you plan to contribute your CFI skills, this should be easily approved. 

[SunDog]

Cool!

You are a mirror image of a new guy we have - it took some paper chasing, but he was Capt in a couple (2? 3?) months, I think. Someone, somewhere, wanted proof of having done 100 hours of dual as a CFI. No idea if that was legit, local push back, or whatever, as it didn't turn out to be an issue for him.

If you want to instruct, get in CLOSE touch with your Wing Stan/Eval. What is published nationally is always "interperted" locally.

Stay patient, keep your name in front of Stan/Eval, and let the wheels turn. It may take a while, bit once over the hump, the "overhead" slims down.

[EMT-83]

The way it's supposed to work, you Form 5 then get promoted. Become a CAP CFI, get promoted again.

[Eclipse]

The way it's supposed to work, you Form 5 then get promoted. Become a CAP CFI, get promoted again.

+1 - Do something CAP that shows your time commitment, etc., then look to be promoted.

[a2capt]

Someone, somewhere, wanted proof of having done 100 hours of dual as a CFI. No idea if that was legit, local push back, or whatever, as it didn't turn out to be an issue for him.

It's either required, in writing, in a regulation or approved supplement, or it's hoops and hurdles.

But you should know if it is, or not. But all the shenanigans you describe on the flight release process makes me believe the latter.

[SunDog]

Someone, somewhere, wanted proof of having done 100 hours of dual as a CFI. No idea if that was legit, local push back, or whatever, as it didn't turn out to be an issue for him.

It's either required, in writing, in a regulation or approved supplement, or it's hoops and hurdles.

But you should know if it is, or not. But all the shenanigans you describe on the flight release process makes me believe the latter.

Oh, no, my bad - I plead ignorance - it might be legit, I just don't know, either way. I'm not a CAP IP, and it wasn't my issue to tackle. Just heard thr conversation, then later heard it was resolved.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

The way it's supposed to work, you Form 5 then get promoted. Become a CAP CFI, get promoted again.

+1 - Do something CAP that shows your time commitment, etc., then look to be promoted.

+2 Local requirements for Command approval may vary, for our Squadron when you pass your Form 5 and have a CFI I will promote to 1st Lt, become a CAP IP, and I'll recommend you for promotion to Capt.

[SunDog]

Our guy isn't a CAP IP,  but is a Capt.  Not up on the workings - what i heard over the years was 2Lt for private pilot, 1Lt for an instrument rating, Capt for a CFI (or ATP, obviously).

That's what I've seen happen over the last decade or so in my Wing. Nothing about having to be a CAP IP, but I guess it can vary Wing to Wing.

I have noticed pretty much "auto-advanced" grade for other specialities (lawyer, chaplain, etc.) in my Wing, so if it's done for attorney's, CPAs, etc, it would definitley follow it should happen for Pilots with advanced quals.

[Shuman 14]

You get paid more when you get promoted... right? 

[a2capt]

Double your salary!

[SarDragon]

Double your salary!

I thought it was ten times - an order of magnitude. 

[JeffDG]

Double your salary!

I thought it was ten times - an order of magnitude. 

Yep, another zero on the paycheque.

[EMT-83]

Our guy isn't a CAP IP,  but is a Capt.  Not up on the workings - what i heard over the years was 2Lt for private pilot, 1Lt for an instrument rating, Capt for a CFI (or ATP, obviously).

That's what I've seen happen over the last decade or so in my Wing. Nothing about having to be a CAP IP, but I guess it can vary Wing to Wing.

I have noticed pretty much "auto-advanced" grade for other specialities (lawyer, chaplain, etc.) in my Wing, so if it's done for attorney's, CPAs, etc, it would definitley follow it should happen for Pilots with advanced quals.

Not so automatic. There are 3 requirements for a Mission Related Skill promotion:  A) Possess the skill; B) Contribute the skill to CAP; C) Be performing at the level of the grade being promoted to.

People are quick to jump on the first one, and just as quick to ignore the second two. Unfortunately, we have too many instant Captains who don't have a clue about how CAP works.

[Private Investigator]

Our guy isn't a CAP IP,  but is a Capt.  Not up on the workings - what i heard over the years was 2Lt for private pilot, 1Lt for an instrument rating, Capt for a CFI (or ATP, obviously).

That's what I've seen happen over the last decade or so in my Wing. Nothing about having to be a CAP IP, but I guess it can vary Wing to Wing.

I have noticed pretty much "auto-advanced" grade for other specialities (lawyer, chaplain, etc.) in my Wing, so if it's done for attorney's, CPAs, etc, it would definitley follow it should happen for Pilots with advanced quals.

Not so automatic. There are 3 requirements for a Mission Related Skill promotion:  A) Possess the skill; B) Contribute the skill to CAP; C) Be performing at the level of the grade being promoted to.

People are quick to jump on the first one, and just as quick to ignore the second two. Unfortunately, we have too many instant Captains who don't have a clue about how CAP works.

Exactly.  :clap:

[SunDog]

We'll get him in a seminary school ASAP. We already have a lawyer. . .

[Critical AOA]

I'd much rather see a CFI type receive an advanced promotion than a chaplain or lawyer.  At least a CFI has mission skills that are useful at the squadron level.

[Eclipse]

I'd much rather see a CFI type receive an advanced promotion than a chaplain or lawyer.  At least a CFI has mission skills that are useful at the squadron level.

I'm of two minds on "mission skills" promotions - I understand the concept, but until you can provide a "mission skill" you shouldn't
be requesting a promotion.

It takes the average member, especially pilots, 6 months to a year to be of any real value to CAP.

[Critical AOA]

True, having a CFI does not automatically give you Mission Pilot status or even a Form 5 but the potential is there for them to be major contributors and do it far more quickly than the freshly minted private pilots.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

True, having a CFI does not automatically give you Mission Pilot status or even a Form 5 but the potential is there for them to be major contributors and do it far more quickly than the freshly minted private pilots.

Potential is the key.  My thought is that until they prove that they will A. Get a Form 5. and B. Contribute as a IP or CP, they should not be promoted.

[Critical AOA]

True, having a CFI does not automatically give you Mission Pilot status or even a Form 5 but the potential is there for them to be major contributors and do it far more quickly than the freshly minted private pilots.

Potential is the key.  My thought is that until they prove that they will A. Get a Form 5. and B. Contribute as a IP or CP, they should not be promoted.

That is fair as long as no one slow plays their getting checked out or denying them a chance to serve in such a capacity for non legit reasons.  I would imagine a CFII / ATP could get through the various steps to qualifying pretty quickly. 

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

True, having a CFI does not automatically give you Mission Pilot status or even a Form 5 but the potential is there for them to be major contributors and do it far more quickly than the freshly minted private pilots.

Potential is the key.  My thought is that until they prove that they will A. Get a Form 5. and B. Contribute as a IP or CP, they should not be promoted.

That is fair as long as no one slow plays their getting checked out or denying them a chance to serve in such a capacity for non legit reasons.  I would imagine a CFII / ATP could get through the various steps to qualifying pretty quickly.

We all need to be clear about this, the Commander must certify that the member is contributing his or her special skills to the mission of CAP.  If you become an IP or CP then and only then are you contributing as a CFI and can be certified by your commander and forwarded to Group and/or Wing for promotion to Capt.  Just holding a CFI is NOT grounds for promotion.  Is this followed nationwide? Sadly no!

CAPR 35-5, Section D Mission Related Skills:

4-2. Eligibility Requirements.
a. Be at least 21 years of age.
b. Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent).
c. Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program. Upon completion of Level I training, members are encouraged to enter an appropriate functional specialty track, but Level II training is not mandatory for promotion under this section. (It should be noted, however, that members promoted under these provisions will not be eligible for promotion above the grade of captain until they have achieved the appropriate skill level.)
d. The member must also be certified by the unit commander as contributing his or her special skills to the mission of CAP and performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.
e. Be recommended by immediate superior and unit commander.
f. After initial appointment, members may advance to the grades authorized for higher mission related skills as higher ratings are obtained without reference to time-in-grade upon recommendation by the unit commander.

In a personal note, we have two fantastic CFI's that have completed their Form 5's and are working towards becoming IP/CP's.  They are both 1st Lt's.

[RogueLeader]

I'd much rather see a CFI type receive an advanced promotion than a chaplain or lawyer.  At least a CFI has mission skills that are useful at the squadron level.

I'll agree with you on the lawyer aspect.  There is really no real full time job for them at the squadron level.  I 100% disagree with you on Chaplains.  I'll forgo that in the Real Military, Chaplains promote to Captain fairly quickly, as compared to other regular officers.

I have found that properly trained Chaplains have an enormous benefit in a local unit.  They have been a Godsend (pun not intended) in more than once in my life, to where (sparing extremely private details) that they were there for me when I had no real person to turn to; that they had the training to help me deal with the issues that I needed immediate help.  They also have training in helping guide our cadets into being better adults.

Are there normal people that can do the same as chaplains, sure.  Can you find someone better than some Chaplains?  I'm sure you can.  However, on the large scale, I have found that Chaplains are better suited, and better trained, to helping do the jobs that they are expected to hold.

I would contend that the Chaplains biggest role is at the Squadron level, or at larger scale events, and not so much at the administration side (they are, just not so much.)

Just because non-belief exists, that does NOT mean that there is no value to what Chaplains bring.  I certainly think that it is worth the advanced promotion, provided as always, that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

[Eclipse]

Unfortunately my experience with the Chaplain corps has not been as consistently positive.

I've had to deal with the text book pontificaters and evangelists, clergy that really had no idea what their role in CAP was supposed to be.
Honestly, they simply should not have been chaplains.

Thankfully, I had the good fortune to work with one Chaplain who was the very definition of what a CAP Chaplain should be - strong
in his personal faith, but inclusive and a servant of all.   We worked together for several years, but sadly he moved to another Wing,
where he is still serving.

[RogueLeader]

Of all 5  Chaplains that I have had dealt with in CAP, all 5 have done exactly what they should be doing.  I am extremely sorry as to everyone that has dealt with those "Chaplains" that do NOT know the proper role of how they are expected to conduct themselves.

[SunDog]

No one faint if I agree with Eclipse a wee bit. Unless things have changed in the rules, you can take a Form 5 as soon as CAP takes you on - Level 1, etc., not required. My memory fades, but pretty sure I was an almost instant 2Lt, based on private pilot. Quite a while back, and maybe rules have changed? But I do remember a dust-up not too long ago, in my Wing; a check pilot didn't think he should do a Form 5 for a new guy, sans Level 1, and new guy MAY already have been 2Lt. I think it ended with the new guy getting the Form 5,  per Wing. amaybe we just needed pilots, and Wing made it happen?

Anyway, getting something in memory re: incident command and CAP in general might be a reasonable pre-req for 2Lt. Though I guess pursuing it all concurrently is O.K., too.

[SunDog]

I'll add that a CFI wouldn't have to be a CAP IP or CP to contribute based on his special skills. A lot of CFIs teach ground school, have much to say about aviation safety, tips and techniques to benefit other pilots, things like that. Hit the ground running, so to speak. Maybe throw him at safety officer track, and tell him you'll promote him if spares you  your 123rd briefing on hyperthermia?

We had a CFI/CFII, ATP, etc. Took a long time to get him CAP IP, I think because someone had recently pranged a 182 while under instruction with a CAP IP. That poor soul was, of course, immedialey thrown under the bus, and it made Wing skittish about handing out IP and CP. They got so skittish, we didn't have a CP available for Form 91s for a couple of months.

Unfortunatly, we lost our CFI/CFII ATP for reasons that will annoy folks if I repeat them here.

[Eclipse]

Level 1 is not required to take a Form 5 checkride by regulation, however wings are allowed to have
more strict policies.  Also, since members are restricted from USAF-style uniforms until Level I is complete,
the flight would need to be completed in a corporate uniform.

A new member cannot be promoted to any CAP grade until their Level I is complete.

[SarDragon]

Unless things have changed very recently, you can't do ANYTHING in CAP as a senior member until you complete Level I.

From CAPR 50-17:

3-1. Participation. CAP requires senior members to complete Level I training prior to receiving any assigned duty position in the unit, directly supervising cadets on their own, being allowed to wear the Air Force-style CAP uniform, becoming eligible for promotion, or enrolling in AU A4/6 courses.

YMMV.

[SunDog]

That would limit them to CAP Pilot, then.  No TMP, probably. . .

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I'll add that a CFI wouldn't have to be a CAP IP or CP to contribute based on his special skills. A lot of CFIs teach ground school, have much to say about aviation safety, tips and techniques to benefit other pilots, things like that. Hit the ground running, so to speak. Maybe throw him at safety officer track, and tell him you'll promote him if spares you  your 123rd briefing on hyperthermia?

We had a CFI/CFII, ATP, etc. Took a long time to get him CAP IP, I think because someone had recently pranged a 182 while under instruction with a CAP IP. That poor soul was, of course, immedialey thrown under the bus, and it made Wing skittish about handing out IP and CP. They got so skittish, we didn't have a CP available for Form 91s for a couple of months.

Unfortunatly, we lost our CFI/CFII ATP for reasons that will annoy folks if I repeat them here.

I'll bet it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference if the member was a 1st Lt or a Capt.  I would think that 99% of CFI's don't care what rank they are.

A CFI in CAP that is not an IP/CP would not teach ground school.  They can talk about Aviation Safety and give tips and tricks as a 1st Lt, they don't need to be Capt's.

[Eclipse]

Unless things have changed very recently, you can't do ANYTHING in CAP as a senior member until you complete Level I.

From CAPR 50-17:

3-1. Participation. CAP requires senior members to complete Level I training prior to receiving any assigned duty position in the unit, directly supervising cadets on their own, being allowed to wear the Air Force-style CAP uniform, becoming eligible for promotion, or enrolling in AU A4/6 courses.

YMMV.

I would have agreed as well, and as a Commander would enforce that, but the KB is asserting differently.

[JeffDG]

Unless things have changed very recently, you can't do ANYTHING in CAP as a senior member until you complete Level I.

From CAPR 50-17:

3-1. Participation. CAP requires senior members to complete Level I training prior to receiving any assigned duty position in the unit, directly supervising cadets on their own, being allowed to wear the Air Force-style CAP uniform, becoming eligible for promotion, or enrolling in AU A4/6 courses.

YMMV.

That list is specific.

A Form 5, provided you do it in either a member-owned aircraft sans uniform, or in a corporate uniform (AF-Style Uni being one of the prohibitions) are not in the list as prohibited activities for a member who has not completed Level 1.

It doesn't require an assigned duty position
It doesn't require supervision of cadets, either on their own or in concert with another member
It doesn't require the wear of an AF style uniform
It doesn't require the member to be eligible for promotion
It's not an AU A4/6 course.

The language used indicates that that which is not prohibited is permitted.

[JeffDG]

That would limit them to CAP Pilot, then.  No TMP, probably. . .

TMP requires completion of GES, and GES requires completion of Level 1.

[Critical AOA]

It's not like Level 1 is difficult or takes more than a few hours to breeze through.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

It's not like Level 1 is difficult or takes more than a few hours to breeze through.

Exactly, especially since even more of it is online...  My thought is show me your level of interest.

[Eclipse]

Exactly, especially since even more of it is online...

The latest rev of Level I moves a lot of it back off line and into mandated conversations, and includes several quizzes.

Details were included in the draft update to 52-10.

I agree, though, it's not difficult, and realistically, should anyone be flying our planes that hasn't even gotten that baseline understanding?

[Critical AOA]

Agreed. Level 1 should be an absolute must.   I hate some of the road blocks that are frequently thrown in our way but I am a firm believer in speed bumps. 

[Storm Chaser]

I'd much rather see a CFI type receive an advanced promotion than a chaplain or lawyer.  At least a CFI has mission skills that are useful at the squadron level.

I'm of two minds on "mission skills" promotions - I understand the concept, but until you can provide a "mission skill" you shouldn't
be requesting a promotion.

It takes the average member, especially pilots, 6 months to a year to be of any real value to CAP.

I agree. It seems to me that we're using advanced grades as a recruiting incentive. Personally, I don't think anyone should be promoted to an advanced grade unless they "can provide a mission skill" AND demonstrate that they're ready and willing to assume additional responsibilities commensurable with the grade they're requesting.

[JeffDG]

I'd much rather see a CFI type receive an advanced promotion than a chaplain or lawyer.  At least a CFI has mission skills that are useful at the squadron level.

I'm of two minds on "mission skills" promotions - I understand the concept, but until you can provide a "mission skill" you shouldn't
be requesting a promotion.

It takes the average member, especially pilots, 6 months to a year to be of any real value to CAP.

I agree. It seems to me that we're using advanced grades as a recruiting incentive. Personally, I don't think anyone should be promoted to an advanced grade unless they "can provide a mission skill" AND demonstrate that they're ready and willing to assume additional responsibilities commensurable with the grade they're requesting.

One of the reasons that I think we need to discard "time-in-grade" and go to a "level of responsibility" for grade.  Keep the rest of the PD program as a requirement, so if you are a field-grade officer, you have an idea of what CAP is, but make the rank ALSO represent a current, or past, level of responsibility.

So:
L1 lets you rise to 1st Lt
L2 lets you rise to Capt
L3 lets you rise to Maj
L4 lets you rise to Lt Col

Squadron Asst DP gives you 2d Lt
Squadron Prim DP/Group Asst DP gives you 1st Lt
Squadron CC/Group Primary/Wing Asst gives you Capt
Group CC/Wing Primary gives you Maj
Wing "Director" gives you Lt Col

Take those two lists, pick the lower of the two and that's the grade to which you are promoted.  Maintain that for 1 year and it becomes permanent.  Gets rid of the whole commander making up requirements because the person is not "performing at a level meriting promotion" subjective standard, and defines the level the person is expected to perform at.

As an example:
New person is made an instant Wing Staffer.  L1 + Wing Staff = 1st Lt
L5 Person serves for 10 years as the Asst Admin Officer at a squadron:  2d Lt due to level of responsibility
L3 officer has 3 years in, and is appointed Wing DC = Maj

[SunDog]

I'll add that a CFI wouldn't have to be a CAP IP or CP to contribute based on his special skills. A lot of CFIs teach ground school, have much to say about aviation safety, tips and techniques to benefit other pilots, things like that. Hit the ground running, so to speak. Maybe throw him at safety officer track, and tell him you'll promote him if spares you  your 123rd briefing on hyperthermia?

We had a CFI/CFII, ATP, etc. Took a long time to get him CAP IP, I think because someone had recently pranged a 182 while under instruction with a CAP IP. That poor soul was, of course, immedialey thrown under the bus, and it made Wing skittish about handing out IP and CP. They got so skittish, we didn't have a CP available for Form 91s for a couple of months.

Unfortunatly, we lost our CFI/CFII ATP for reasons that will annoy folks if I repeat them here.

I'll bet it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference if the member was a 1st Lt or a Capt.  I would think that 99% of CFI's don't care what rank they are.

A CFI in CAP that is not an IP/CP would not teach ground school.  They can talk about Aviation Safety and give tips and tricks as a 1st Lt, they don't need to be Capt's.

Correct, he didn't bolt IRT rank - he didn't care much about that. It was the very lengthy goat rope to be appointed an IP, and the limitations/road-blocks inherent to instructing in CAP.  He was really into instructing, and his experience in CAP compared poorly with military flying club instructing. He was O.K. with the more stringent military club vs FBO rules; but CAP was a whole 'nother level of hassle.

He got to MP very quickly, and then waited and waited on the wheels to turn for IP.  Given that experience, he wasn't feeling good about hanging around to eventually become a CP, which also appealed to him. Very concientious guy, by the book, willing to do things they way mangaement wanted then done, even when  it was not too smart a process.

So he did the right thing for him, and walked away. Man, we were hurting for CPs for a while -  I needed a ride, and proposed going to the next Wing over for one. That went over real well. Thought about moving to the other Wing, then got frustrated and just stood down from CAP for 18 months or so. Not just the check-ride thing, that was just one more annoyance. Figured I check back after a year or two, see if CAP had its act together any better.

Jury is still out on that one - some things are  a bit better, some are as gacked as before, some have slid back a bit. I have a narrower focus now - SAR/DR flying. The rest is noise, of some passing, but not intense, interest.

That may be the way to approach CAP now - drink from the glass that interests you, leave the rest alone. Jump through the hoops necessary to pariticpate in your arena; for the hoops that aren't generally observed, or are more honored in the breach than the observance, press on without them, if everyone else is.

If promotion decisions vary all over the place, whims and personal agendas overriding, what the heck, the airplane flys just as well if you're wearing rail-road tracks or a butter bar.   

[Eclipse]

Correct, he didn't bolt IRT rank - he didn't care much about that. It was the very lengthy goat rope to be appointed an IP, and the limitations/road-blocks inherent to instructing in CAP.  He was really into instructing, and his experience in CAP compared poorly with military flying club instructing. He was O.K. with the more stringent military club vs FBO rules; but CAP was a whole 'nother level of hassle.

He got to MP very quickly, and then waited and waited on the wheels to turn for IP.  Given that experience, he wasn't feeling good about hanging around to eventually become a CP, which also appealed to him. Very concientious guy, by the book, willing to do things they way mangaement wanted then done, even when  it was not too smart a process.

So he did the right thing for him, and walked away. Man, we were hurting for CPs for a while -  I needed a ride, and proposed going to the next Wing over for one. That went over real well. Thought about moving to the other Wing, then got frustrated and just stood down from CAP for 18 months or so. Not just the check-ride thing, that was just one more annoyance. Figured I check back after a year or two, see if CAP had its act together any better.

What was wrong with "just" being a mission pilot for a while?  Honestly, we get people who walk in the door and expect their non-CAP experience will automatically
translate and they can run the whole show in 6 months, and when they don't get their way, they leave.

We need good, experience mission pilots a >lot< more then we need check pilots.

[SunDog]

I think the MP arena wasn't a big area of interest for him - there just aren't that many "real" missions, and for someone with a full time job and family (and he was/is a pretty senior Fed employee), you're often not available when one comes up.

And most that do come up only surface after the "inner circle" has had first dibs. He and I were flying together on a SAREX, the one I mentioned in which the Air Branch had no clue on the lat/long of the practice beacon? They couldn't tell us on the debrief, if we hit it right, or not? He didn't gripe, but he wasn't impressed, either.  A few similar events, and the other stuff, and we lost him.

Most MP flying is practice, practice, practice. I like it, but his focus was instruction, at which he is very good - he got me through my instrument rating some years back, so his patience and teaching ability must be superior.  We actually tried to do the ratiing in a CAP airplane, but the roadblocks were too high, and we diverted to the military flying club where we are members.

So, nothing wrong with being a MP for a while, but only if it's what you want to do. We have other IPs in our Wing who don't do MP. Used to, don;t anymore. I think our CP situation may be O.K. now, or I was just lucky on timing over the last year or so.

[Eclipse]

I think the MP arena wasn't a big area of interest for him - there just aren't that many "real" missions, and for someone with a full time job and family (and he was/is a pretty senior Fed employee), you're often not available when one comes up.

Then what is he "instructing"?   We don't provide flight instruction to seniors, the IPs and CPs are supposed to be focused on
CAP procedure related to the flights, not the flying itself, which is something the FAA handles for us.

And most that do come up only surface after the "inner circle" has had first dibs. He and I were flying together on a SAREX, the one I mentioned in which the Air Branch had no clue on the lat/long of the practice beacon? They couldn't tell us on the debrief, if we hit it right, or not? He didn't gripe, but he wasn't impressed, either.  A few similar events, and the other stuff, and we lost him.

The AOBD isn't supposed to know where it is - he's training, too.

Most MP flying is practice, practice, practice.

Yep.  I have yet to meet >anyone< in CAP who doesn't need more.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

We really need to set expectations for pilots wanting to become CAP Pilots, MP's and IP/CP's.

Being a CAP pilot is not like flying in a Flying Club.  There are much more stringent rules, regulations, paperwork and uniform requirements to fly our planes.

Flying as an MP requires even more paperwork, learning the skills required for demanding flying at 1000 AGL, learning to fly utilizing Crew Resource Management, and the counter-intuitive (to civilian pilots) learning that the MO commands the flight. 

To the majority of Private pilots these are all skills that need to be learned and they take time to master.  Once an understanding of the CAP system, the flight regime, and CRM should be CFI be encouraged to become an IP or Check Pilot.  They don't necessarily need to be MP but they do need a through understanding of the above.

And most that do come up only surface after the "inner circle" has had first dibs. He and I were flying together on a SAREX, the one I mentioned in which the Air Branch had no clue on the lat/long of the practice beacon? They couldn't tell us on the debrief, if we hit it right, or not? He didn't gripe, but he wasn't impressed, either.  A few similar events, and the other stuff, and we lost him.

I hear a lot about the inner circle and the OBC but in my experience (YMMV) those are just members that have volunteered their time and been available to fly when the missions come up.  I've flown 84 hours for CAP this year, mostly funded because I've been available and willing to fly.  It's also because I've been in CAP for almost five years and have honed my skills as an MP and and yes spent a lot of time on base staff.  Much of my funded flying was available because of time devoted as Base Staff supporting other pilots.  I don't do base staff and FRO for the flying but because it supports our missions and our pilots.

YMMV, but in any organization the more you give the more rewarding and fulfilling it is.  This is very true of CAP. 

[Eclipse]

I hear a lot about the inner circle and the OBC but in my experience (YMMV) those are just members that have volunteered their time and been available to fly when the missions come up.  I've flown 84 hours for CAP this year, mostly funded because I've been available and willing to fly.  It's also because I've been in CAP for almost five years and have honed my skills as an MP and and yes spent a lot of time on base staff.  Much of my funded flying was available because of time devoted as Base Staff supporting other pilots.  I don't do base staff and FRO for the flying but because it supports our missions and our pilots.

I'd have to pretty much agree.

Answer the phone and make yourself available without a lot of drama and the opportunities are there (make sure you actually understand the system, too).

But seriously, everyone should be allowed to participate, but who are you going to call when the SHTF?  Members who never show up for anything but
the bare minimum, or members who are always around and have a proven track record?

[SunDog]

I think the MP arena wasn't a big area of interest for him - there just aren't that many "real" missions, and for someone with a full time job and family (and he was/is a pretty senior Fed employee), you're often not available when one comes up.

Then what is he "instructing"?   We don't provide flight instruction to seniors, the IPs and CPs are supposed to be focused on
CAP procedure related to the flights, not the flying itself, which is something the FAA handles for us.

And most that do come up only surface after the "inner circle" has had first dibs. He and I were flying together on a SAREX, the one I mentioned in which the Air Branch had no clue on the lat/long of the practice beacon? They couldn't tell us on the debrief, if we hit it right, or not? He didn't gripe, but he wasn't impressed, either.  A few similar events, and the other stuff, and we lost him.

The AOBD isn't supposed to know where it is - he's training, too.

Most MP flying is practice, practice, practice.

Yep.  I have yet to meet >anyone< in CAP who doesn't need more.

CFII instrument instructor - done in CAP for seniors, and also I beleive pimary flight instruction for cadets at solo school, right?

Aircraft, missions, and GOBS clustered around one location. . . not exclusive, but first dibs. Call ol' Jake, reward him for that last batch of widget reports. Or for waxing the cat, whatever. Not sure parsing out the missions based on Staff work is a good way to distribute training. Or, maybe it is - get a smaller group, a cadre of known quantities to call on, might make sense. Eventually, we can just move all the airplanes to one location. Joking aside, it isn't that bad, just a reality, human nature, to have some of that.

I fly MP and MO - we work out the details and planning with each other, whichever seat we're in. When in the left seat, I adhere to the "The Pilot in Comand is solely responsible for, and the final authority as to, the operation of the aircraft".

Only been an issue once or twice. MO wanted to fly it as planned, I decided we had to make a change. We agreed to disagree, and since I was the PIC and the pilot on the flight release, we did it my way. I imagine it's very, very seldom a problem, conflict as to the command of the flight.  Most times the mission is well defined, and both parties are aligned with the goal. If something unexpected comes up, we can put our heads together. I brief that one vote wins - anybody says "knock it off",  we knock it off - sick, tired, scared, whatever. Otherwise, when I'm PIC, the  "how"  we do the mission is my call. I'm the one to be held responsible; with that comes the authority.

A good MO makes my day - On an ELT I can aviate, navigate, and communicate. He can work the Becker or the LTronics, give me steering commands, and deal with the CAP FM noise. If the MO is up to speed, he can have the panel mount GPS, too.  But I know one airplane that has the Becker on the pilot's side - the CC of the unit doesn't want the MO working it. If I was in his right seat, I'd say take me home, Dude - your head is in here, when it's supposed to be outside. This is a high traffic area - you aviate, I'll look at the DF.

We don't train non-pilot MO's well. I think that's why we end up with two MPs in the plane so often.

[SunDog]

Gotta disagree on the beacon - we burned a lot of gas and member's time - and not just to train Air Branch; someone at the ICP  should have known the beacon location, to give the debrief some value to the aircrew.

Good to know you gotthe DF right. Or not, and that your DF skill or technique needs work. zotherwise it could have been a table top. . .

[Eclipse]

Did you find it?  Because if not, it's entirely possible that the mission was at the stage of evolution where no
one but the white cell knows the location.

Post mission you should be able to get that kind of info from the AAR, but during, the location of the targets
is generally held very close to the vest for obvious reasons.

That assumes it's an "all-hands-learn" situation.  If the day is centered around just aircrew training, then
sometimes the Air Branch will have the actual locations, since the learning isn't centered on them, it's centered
on the crews.

[SunDog]

Did you find it?  Because if not, it's entirely possible that the mission was at the stage of evolution where no
one but the white cell knows the location.

Post mission you should be able to get that kind of info from the AAR, but during, the location of the targets
is generally held very close to the vest for obvious reasons.

That assumes it's an "all-hands-learn" situation.  If the day is centered around just aircrew training, then
sometimes the Air Branch will have the actual locations, since the learning isn't centered on them, it's centered
on the crews.

Beats me. I think I did; I marked a position. No way to know before, during, or after.  If someone recorded the lat/long, it never made it into a brief or document the crews had access to. This was not an isolated event.

[Private Investigator]

Being a CAP pilot is not like flying in a Flying Club.  There are much more stringent rules, regulations, paperwork and uniform requirements to fly our planes.

But with 535 Corporate planes, some Squadrons are GOBN flying clubs.  YMMV   

[SunDog]

We have a CAP squadron that is actually a flying club. You have to join CAP to join tbe club. They have several nice non-CAP airplanes, plus a CAP C182.

After a year in CAP,  you can drop out of CAP and stay in the club. Clearly, once that happens, you can't fly the CAP 182 anymore, of course.

They do a lot of cadet flying, and have mission crews, and it seems to work. Some years back they had one of their own go missing, and coudn't participate in the search - no mission crews qualified - but they turned that around. They don't fly the most CAP  hours, but they get it done. I think their meetings are mixed CAP and flying club affairs, though that may have changed in recent years.

[a2capt]

Great, there's a corporate aircraft that needs to be relocated.

[Private Investigator]

Most 'flying club' squadrons do lots of Cadet 'O' rides on the weekends. They have mission crews that they usually have to recycle every three years since their specialities expire from a lack of use. Then they restart the ES training frenzy and do three SAREXs during the summer and the following year get "Squadron of the Year". Then they will continue the cycle.   

[SunDog]

I admit I thought it was an odd set-up back in the day; defintely seemed out-of-place to me that a club would list a CAP airplane as a club aircraft. Way back when, I sort of wrote them off as none too serious. But they did turn it around, with some new blood, I think.

In this case, I'm pretty sure these guys have been full-players & participants, with decent numbers of mission crews, non-stop, for quite a few years now. Again, not top of the heap in hours or number of mission aircrew, but not slackers, either. They pull their weight.

There is a large cadet squadron nearby them, so they carry that load - more power to them, because that's not a universally loved mission. Some of us do our fair share, to pull our weight, take up some of the  slack. But I'm glad they are willing to do the heavy lift.

[Storm Chaser]

I have nothing against flying clubs, but they have NO place in CAP. We have a mission to accomplish and treating a CAP unit as a flying club can have a negative impact on that mission.

If members want to form a flying club outside of CAP, that's just fine. But members should join CAP to serve their community, state and nation through one or more of our congressionally mandated missions. Anything else is just an unnecessary distraction.

[SunDog]

Not sure I disagree. . . I would have thought it an unusual case, but it sounds like you've heard of it before?It's not unusual?  I could see how an argument could be made for it as a positive, getting pilots in the door, and maybe sticking with CAP after the year.  An out of the box plus for recruiting.

Seems likley NHQ knows it goes on, and the Wing certainly does - no one is hiding it, so it must pass the smell test with management. If it doesn't bother senior management. . .if they put the 200 hours on, maybe that's good enough? I think my Wing would lose a couple solid MPs and other aircrew - the next closest CAP plane is a long haul away.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Only been an issue once or twice. MO wanted to fly it as planned, I decided we had to make a change. We agreed to disagree, and since I was the PIC and the pilot on the flight release, we did it my way. I imagine it's very, very seldom a problem, conflict as to the command of the flight.  Most times the mission is well defined, and both parties are aligned with the goal. If something unexpected comes up, we can put our heads together. I brief that one vote wins - anybody says "knock it off",  we knock it off - sick, tired, scared, whatever. Otherwise, when I'm PIC, the  "how"  we do the mission is my call. I'm the one to be held responsible; with that comes the authority.

SunDog, you are the PIC and solely responsible for the safety of the aircraft.  In CAP you are NOT responsible for how the mission is prosecuted unless and perhaps the MO is in training.  You are not held responsible for "how" the mission is prosecuted just how the mission was conducted safely.  The MO is responsible for the prosecution of the mission.  You as are all of the rest of us MP's just the buss driver.

Are you really an MP in CAP?

[SunDog]

Uhhh..yeah. Are you really a pilot? I'm also a MO. Before we start grumping, maybe we should be sure we aren't talking past each other?

I'm all for the MO taking the lead in mission planning; no sweat. When I'm MP I have enough stuff to handle. MP or MO, I expect we'll agree before we go. Or we don't go with me aboard. In flight, things change, as happens - in my experience,  whichever seat I'm in, we tallk it over, agree on a course of action.

In the left seat, as I was in this case, with a VOR and IAP  in our grid, it looked like the Battle of Britain at the planned altitude. I decided we'd go lower. As PIC, my call. My MO  disagreed, no drama, but he was adamant we stay in the fur ball. I offered to knock it off, if he preferred that, and we'd go back and get him another MP. He was a little worried MB wouldn't like the change, and wanted to call and ask.

I was cool with that, not that it helped, as MB wasn't interested. .

Here's my point - we plan the mission together. Whether I'm MP or MO, we agee on the plan before we go, or we (or at least I!)  don't go. As MP, once airborne, I'll listen attentively to any chsnges tbe MO gets from MB, or ideas on our own initiative. See something? Cool, give me a turn or steering command! Sun glare too much, change the direction, sure thing. . .re-run that last leg, or take break, no problem. The key is we agree. Whn I'm MO, I expect that level of colaboration, that the MP will turn, or go back, or whatever - that's what we're there for, both of us.

But, when I'm PIC, the final call is mine - unless the MO  wants to knock it off, and even then, the where, and when, we land is on me. I won't be a jerk and land out for no reason, or go into slow flight to delay getting to a bio break. Really, this isn't an issue, at least not often, and never to a big degree, for me, anyway.

I'll hear what the MO says, and if it makes sense to me, we'll do it. And if not, and we can't agree, on an akternative, we can call it a day and he can make his case to management.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Sundog, when you explain yourself you make sense but it's your matter of fact counter-CAP culture short thoughtless statements that get you into trouble.

Thank you for explaining and making sense for everything except for the "final call is mine".  That's BS, the final call for safety is yours, the mission execution, if done safely is the MO's.

Remember, we MP's are the bus drivers that safely get the important eyes on the target.  We are not searching in the Grid, we are keeping our crew safe.  That is our job.

[SunDog]

Just safety? Really? I've changed plans as MP for operational reasons lot's of times. And suggested such changes as MO. The diffrence being, as MO it was a suggestion. As MP it was a decision.

"We'll land at XYZ now, get fuel and a bio break, and bring the airplane back to MB nearly full, save the turnaround time on the very busy fuel truck".  As MP, quoted - if the MO. objected, I'd listen to his objections, but 90% certain we're landing at XYZ, unless he was adamant. But my call, per FAR and common sense. Doctrine aside, the airplane goes where the MP points it, as a practical matter.

Or,

"Let's land at XYZ, save the long wait for fuel at MB" quoted me, as MO. Suggestion, as really, that's all it can be for practical purposes. Probably a good one, and it'll probably go that way - teamwork.

Real world, the MP can pretty much support any decision,, based on "safety".  I didn't trust the fuel gauges. I was tired and needed a break.  The patten at MB was jammed and the tower was bolloxing up the call signs again, so I hung back. . .and upper management will probably back him up.

Semantics, maybe, but I'm not keeping anyone "safe" - I ain't blessed with supernatural powers. I'll fly as safely as I can, but lightplanes are, well, light. . .it's not an inherently safe activity. Not as safe as bus driving, say. Sometimes I chise to ride the right seat, knowing I'm trusting PIC. If I'm in the left seat, I'll fly it as I determine it should be flown.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

SunDog, sometimes it's helpful to read back your postings to get a sense how others might perceive you, in this forum, around your Squadron, at a SAREX, during your sortie planning.  Would it surprise you to know SunDog, that in years of flying with CAP I have never come close to having to say knock it off, that I have never had a conflict with an MO either on the ground or in the air, that we never had to call base to determine which crewmember had the correct answer.  I did have crew call knock it off twice for mechanical reasons, but that is another story.

CAP has a some Crew and Cockpit Resource Management continuing training here: http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/aircraft_ops__staneval/crew-and-cockpit-resource-management/

In the CRM-in-a-box course they talk about the Behavior Continuum and the three levels of Assertiveness: Passive, Assertiveness, and Over Aggressiveness.

Based upon your statements below, it appears that you fit into the assertiveness chart at the over-aggressive level?  Is that level of assertiveness beneficial to your crew comfort level?  Crewmembers must feel comfortable enough to question a decision that could cause the loss of a crew.  Over aggressiveness is a barrier to crew being comfortable enough to say "Knock It Off".

I highly suggest you review this course in light of your comments below.

Otherwise, when I'm PIC, the  "how"  we do the mission is my call.

We agreed to disagree, and since I was the PIC and the pilot on the flight release, we did it my way.

When in the left seat, I adhere to the "The Pilot in Comand is solely responsible for, and the final authority as to, the operation of the aircraft".

I expect we'll agree before we go. Or we don't go with me aboard.

I decided we'd go lower. As PIC, my call. My MO  disagreed, no drama, but he was adamant we stay in the fur ball. I offered to knock it off, if he preferred that, and we'd go back and get him another MP. He was a little worried MB wouldn't like the change, and wanted to call and ask.

Whether I'm MP or MO, we agee on the plan before we go, or we (or at least I!)  don't go.

But, when I'm PIC, the final call is mine - unless the MO  wants to knock it off, and even then, the where, and when, we land is on me.

I'll hear what the MO says, and if it makes sense to me, we'll do it. And if not, and we can't agree, on an akternative, we can call it a day and he can make his case to management.

The diffrence being, as MO it was a suggestion. As MP it was a decision.

If I'm in the left seat, I'll fly it as I determine it should be flown.

[SunDog]

Or, your evaluation is way off, having cherry picked some assertive statements, while overlooking the references to teamwork, mutual planning, consensus, and listening and considering other crew members input?

I've knocked it off for airsickness, and for a MS-T being shook up by turbulence. When I had to knock it off for mechanical reasons, I didn't need the 'crew" to make the call, and you probably didn't either. If the plane got sick, I bet you made the call on the course if action. You might have listened to the others, but you were the arbiter.

Previos post, my MO wanted to clear the altitude change with MB, and if that made him feel more confortable, that was OK with me. I wasn't looking for a referee, or permission; just giving him the room to explore what he felt he needed to explore. No fussing, yelling, or pouting Just two grownups working it out. He felt MB should know I made that change - perhaps he was hoping for direction to the contrary from MB I don't know, as they didn't care. He git a "copy" I think, with no further comment, which I think is what you would have expected, too. If they had come back with "No, stay  up there", you and I would both be shocked. Not sure now, but I think my next call would have been RTB.

In over a decade, my only other isuue was a proposed change by a new MO, who wanted to change an expanding square spacing from 1/2 mile to 1/4, on the way to the starting point.

I explained the diffrence between a square and a spiral, and how the MS would be spending the first few minutes looking at sky from the left window.  The MO was "assertive" in this case. Someone has to be in charge, though, and so we did 1/2 mile. Just a minor snit, as far as I know.

I could have weaseled out, played the "safety" card, and said I didn't want to fly a continous steep turn without a chance to lift the wing and peek for traffic. But just gave him the real reasons.

Indecision, or lack of assertiveness, is dangerous. I'm not a bully, tyrant, or deaf to the crew. I listen and consider, always. But at some point, someone has to make the final call.

Example; if MB calls and says divert to another location, I'm hearing that from the MO, assuming he's qualified. If he is qualified, I'm not listening to the FM, anyway.  I'll get the nose pointed in the approximate direction, and ask him what they want us to do. Then I think we'll work out a plan together. That's it,  99.99% of the time. But we gotta agree, don't we? And if not, someone has to make a decision.

[Eclipse]

^ The problem is your seeming inability to end a sentence without reminding yourself you're in charge.

It's not just this thread, just about every place you've posted it appears to be important to you that everyone
understands you're in charge, you know better, or you have no time for anything you personally deem optional.

Those of us who have had to deal with, and clean up after, members who "know better", can read right through that.

[Alaric]

Or, your evaluation is way off, having cherry picked some assertive statements, while overlooking the references to teamwork, mutual planning, consensus, and listening and considering other crew members input?

I've knocked it off for airsickness, and for a MS-T being shook up by turbulence. When I had to knock it off for mechanical reasons, I didn't need the 'crew" to make the call, and you probably didn't either. If the plane got sick, I bet you made the call on the course if action. You might have listened to the others, but you were the arbiter.

Previos post, my MO wanted to clear the altitude change with MB, and if that made him feel more confortable, that was OK with me. I wasn't looking for a referee, or permission; just giving him the room to explore what he felt he needed to explore. No fussing, yelling, or pouting Just two grownups working it out. He felt MB should know I made that change - perhaps he was hoping for direction to the contrary from MB I don't know, as they didn't care. He git a "copy" I think, with no further comment, which I think is what you would have expected, too. If they had come back with "No, stay  up there", you and I would both be shocked. Not sure now, but I think my next call would have been RTB.

In over a decade, my only other isuue was a proposed change by a new MO, who wanted to change an expanding square spacing from 1/2 mile to 1/4, on the way to the starting point.

I explained the diffrence between a square and a spiral, and how the MS would be spending the first few minutes looking at sky from the left window.  The MO was "assertive" in this case. Someone has to be in charge, though, and so we did 1/2 mile. Just a minor snit, as far as I know.

I could have weaseled out, played the "safety" card, and said I didn't want to fly a continous steep turn without a chance to lift the wing and peek for traffic. But just gave him the real reasons.

Indecision, or lack of assertiveness, is dangerous. I'm not a bully, tyrant, or deaf to the crew. I listen and consider, always. But at some point, someone has to make the final call.

Example; if MB calls and says divert to another location, I'm hearing that from the MO, assuming he's qualified. If he is qualified, I'm not listening to the FM, anyway.  I'll get the nose pointed in the approximate direction, and ask him what they want us to do. Then I think we'll work out a plan together. That's it,  99.99% of the time. But we gotta agree, don't we? And if not, someone has to make a decision.

Goodness knows I've flown with pilots  of varying degrees of experience from many wings on both training and actual missions.  I'm certainly glad I've never had the misfortune of flying with a pilot with the attitude you've displayed on this board.   

[SunDog]

You wouldn't want to plan the mission? Work together, agree on the plan, handle the MB comms? Give me steering commands, make suggestions and have them be considered seriously?  Work up a new plan on the fly, when we get diverted? Work the panel mount GPS, get into the chart, reccoomend an altitude for the new search area? Fly with me, and I won't even LOOK at the Becker, it's all yours, unless you ask me to do something with it. . . I'll gladly go with the MO as far the rules allow - you'll be busy, and I'll be grateful. As the book says, you get all the above, and my respect.

How about having an MP who is willing to terminate without pause or question if you're airsick, tired, or had enough of the turbulence? Or, as I do, brief that one vote wins on mission actions? If you, or the MS, don't like what we're doing, we stop doing it, regardless if I think it's safe or appropriate. I ain't dragging you into ANYTHING you aren't comfortable with.

But. Would you get annoyed if I decided, as PIC, to land out, because the the oil pressure was dropping and the oil temp was rising? Would you really want to have a meeting and a vote on that? MO and MS vote, 2 -1, we press on to MB?  Silly example, I know, but I use it to illustrate only.

Please, look back; the other guy and I went down a OT rat hole IRT to who commands a flight - and my point is we, MP & MO, are making the calls together, as a team. On the very, very rare/odd occasion that can be possible in human interaction, an honest disagreement may occur, and two people of good will may agree to disagree. I decided we'd fly lower, and the MO wasn't on-board with it, but he didn't think it was worth calling it a day over, either. If he did, I'd respect it and head for the barn. But it was, in fact, my perogative. CAP, FAA, universal morality, whatever authority you want to cite, I'm avoiding the fur ball.

He characterized me as control freak (though I'd suggest a mirror for his use), but misses or forgets the narrowness of the topic - at some point, someone MAY have to arbitrate, on rare occasion. His description of the MP as a "bus driver" was silly - and no qualified MO is going to "issue commands" IRT the mission. He won't have to - both of us are working together. And no MP is driving along oblivious to the conduct of the mission. Or shouldn't be. Maybe a chaffeuur drives like that, or a bus driver, but you and I better be involved cross-task - I'm telling you what I'm thinking, and you're telling me what's going through your head, too.

[SunDog]

^ The problem is your seeming inability to end a sentence without reminding yourself you're in charge.

It's not just this thread, just about every place you've posted it appears to be important to you that everyone
understands you're in charge, you know better, or you have no time for anything you personally deem optional.

Those of us who have had to deal with, and clean up after, members who "know better", can read right through that.

"Who is in charge" was the narrow focus of the discussion, command preogative; so common sense would indicate "who's in charge" would be the in the text, wouldn't it? If we were talking about bird strikes, "birds" might get mentioned, right?

I think you're letting your righteous indignation with my other posts influence you here. But, I could be wrong. About this and anything else. You ever think that, yourself?

I can gripe, complain, think "I know" better, and still do things by the book. I can think a procedure is badly designed, poorly implemented, wasteful, and stupid. And still follow it. I can vent here, no harm done, except to delicate sensibilities. You aren't cleaning up after me, at least not so far - for the better part of four decades, the airplane has ALWAYS been re-usable after my last flight, and everyone in it went home with all their fingers and toes.

Don't confuse my critcism of some aspects of CAP with sloth and blithe disregard. My opinion, based on my experience, is that some of what (and how) we do things is gacked. But I go along as a contributing team member, as well or better than the general CAP population.

If I do bend something, someday, it won't be becasue "I thought I knew better" - it'll be an honest, human error, deeply regretted and personally painful. I like airplanes. . .

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

You wouldn't want to plan the mission? Work together, agree on the plan, handle the MB comms? Give me steering commands, make suggestions and have them be considered seriously?  Work up a new plan on the fly, when we get diverted? Work the panel mount GPS, get into the chart, reccoomend an altitude for the new search area? Fly with me, and I won't even LOOK at the Becker, it's all yours, unless you ask me to do something with it. . . I'll gladly go with the MO as far the rules allow - you'll be busy, and I'll be grateful. As the book says, you get all the above, and my respect.

How about having an MP who is willing to terminate without pause or question if you're airsick, tired, or had enough of the turbulence? Or, as I do, brief that one vote wins on mission actions? If you, or the MS, don't like what we're doing, we stop doing it, regardless if I think it's safe or appropriate. I ain't dragging you into ANYTHING you aren't comfortable with.

But. Would you get annoyed if I decided, as PIC, to land out, because the the oil pressure was dropping and the oil temp was rising? Would you really want to have a meeting and a vote on that? MO and MS vote, 2 -1, we press on to MB?  Silly example, I know, but I use it to illustrate only.

Please, look back; the other guy and I went down a OT rat hole IRT to who commands a flight - and my point is we, MP & MO, are making the calls together, as a team. On the very, very rare/odd occasion that can be possible in human interaction, an honest disagreement may occur, and two people of good will may agree to disagree. I decided we'd fly lower, and the MO wasn't on-board with it, but he didn't think it was worth calling it a day over, either. If he did, I'd respect it and head for the barn. But it was, in fact, my perogative. CAP, FAA, universal morality, whatever authority you want to cite, I'm avoiding the fur ball.

He characterized me as control freak (though I'd suggest a mirror for his use), but misses or forgets the narrowness of the topic - at some point, someone MAY have to arbitrate, on rare occasion. His description of the MP as a "bus driver" was silly - and no qualified MO is going to "issue commands" IRT the mission. He won't have to - both of us are working together. And no MP is driving along oblivious to the conduct of the mission. Or shouldn't be. Maybe a chaffeuur drives like that, or a bus driver, but you and I better be involved cross-task - I'm telling you what I'm thinking, and you're telling me what's going through your head, too.

Thank you for clarifying, everything you've said here makes sense and is reasonable.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

^ The problem is your seeming inability to end a sentence without reminding yourself you're in charge.

It's not just this thread, just about every place you've posted it appears to be important to you that everyone
understands you're in charge, you know better, or you have no time for anything you personally deem optional.

Those of us who have had to deal with, and clean up after, members who "know better", can read right through that.

Don't confuse my critcism of some aspects of CAP with sloth and blithe disregard. My opinion, based on my experience, is that some of what (and how) we do things is gacked. But I go along as a contributing team member, as well or better than the general CAP population.

Constructive Criticism is healthy and so is being part of the solution.  Let's work towards making the system better from within, by being the most professional aircrew, ground team member, base staff volunteer in our unit, group or wing.