Does anyone have any experience with the Air Crew Emergency Training program? I know there is a section in the LMS for trainers, but have any wings actually implemented the practical training?
The only program resembling this that I'm aware of is NESA's emergency aircrew training. It seemed like fun, but I only had time to earn my scanner wings.
Maybe someone else can provide insight?
Quote from: BFreemanMA on June 28, 2016, 03:29:34 PM
The only program resembling this that I'm aware of is NESA's emergency aircrew training. It seemed like fun, but I only had time to earn my scanner wings.
Maybe someone else can provide insight?
NESA's "emergency aircrew training" is survival training, which focuses on what to do once you've already hit the ground. The point of ACET is to prevent you from hitting the ground in the first place due to a medical emergency with the pilot.
I want to say there was rumbling about it in IL a while ago but I haven't heard anything about it in a long time.
The LMS course itself is only available to INstrctuor Pilots, not the general membership. The course is supposed to teach the
instrcutors how to provide the classroom and practical training.
"Only available to Instructor Pilots. The ACET course is intended to teach Instructor Pilots the proper method to train non-pilot Mission Observers how to manipulate the controls of an aircraft if the pilot is suddenly incapacitated. This course provides non-pilot Mission Observers a thorough introduction to the concepts and instruments needed to aviate, navigate, and communicate, to help participants better understand the perceptions they acquire in the course of a normal flight, and use them to build the solid foundation of knowledge, confidence, and basic skills needed to safely and competently handle an emergency situation. To teach this course, instructors must first complete the Train-the-Trainer material on the CAP Learning Management System. Students (non-pilot Mission Observers) will be instructed in a classroom setting by approved instructors and Instructors will perform all take offs and landings."(Side note, SET hasn't been TTT for 10+ years, yet this class from 2012 still uses that term).Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 28, 2016, 04:07:17 PM
I want to say there was rumbling about it in IL a while ago but I haven't heard anything about it in a long time.
Considering that in other circumstances senior members cannot receive initial instruction in CAP aircraft, it was
exactly the lead balloon it sounds like in regards to the approvals of both instructors and potential students.
Credit should go to the Operations directorate for the effort, but in a conservative (i.e. gun shy) culture like CAP, expecting
downstream staff to embrace something like was somewhat "optimistic".
Quote from: Eclipse on June 28, 2016, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 28, 2016, 04:07:17 PM
I want to say there was rumbling about it in IL a while ago but I haven't heard anything about it in a long time.
Considering that in other circumstances senior members cannot receive initial instruction in CAP aircraft, it was
exactly the lead balloon it sounds like in regards to the approvals of both instructors and potential students.
Credit should go to the Operations directorate for the effort, but in a conservative (i.e. gun shy) culture like CAP, expecting
downstream staff to embrace something like was somewhat "optimistic".
Waste people's time with BBQ safety, no problem; but when someone wants to teach something that could save the lives of an aircrew, everyone gets their panties twisted. Sounds about right for CAP.
We did this in NJ Wing back in the 1999-2001 or so time frame. Pre 9/11. After that, it dropped off the scope. From what I recall, we had about 15-20 of our MOs trained. I always thought it was a good idea. If your Civil War veteran pilot stops functioning, it is always a good idea to have somebody on board that can fly and land the airplane.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 28, 2016, 04:44:05 PM
Waste people's time with BBQ safety, no problem; but when someone wants to teach something that could save the lives of an aircrew, everyone gets their panties twisted. Sounds about right for CAP.
Hard to disagree, with the asterisk of knowing a number of people who have somehow achieved MO, would want this training and have no business
with their hands on a control stick, even in this type of situation.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 28, 2016, 05:25:59 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 28, 2016, 04:44:05 PM
Waste people's time with BBQ safety, no problem; but when someone wants to teach something that could save the lives of an aircrew, everyone gets their panties twisted. Sounds about right for CAP.
Hard to disagree, with the asterisk of knowing a number of people who have somehow achieved MO, would want this training and have no business
with their hands on a control stick, even in this type of situation.
So they should just auger in? THat's not nice. My humble OPINION (and non pilot) I think something like this should be mandatory for MOs. Why should 3 (in a perfect world where we have 3 on an aircrew) people die because no one knew how to land the plane? Not to mention the loss of the aircraft. The fact that if an MO has the skillset to put the aircraft on the ground where the entire aircrew can survive (including the MP if medical attention is quickly administered) can't be ignored.
Again that's my opinion.
Quote from: stillamarine on June 28, 2016, 06:26:57 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 28, 2016, 05:25:59 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 28, 2016, 04:44:05 PM
Waste people's time with BBQ safety, no problem; but when someone wants to teach something that could save the lives of an aircrew, everyone gets their panties twisted. Sounds about right for CAP.
Hard to disagree, with the asterisk of knowing a number of people who have somehow achieved MO, would want this training and have no business
with their hands on a control stick, even in this type of situation.
So they should just auger in? THat's not nice. My humble OPINION (and non pilot) I think something like this should be mandatory for MOs. Why should 3 (in a perfect world where we have 3 on an aircrew) people die because no one knew how to land the plane? Not to mention the loss of the aircraft. The fact that if an MO has the skillset to put the aircraft on the ground where the entire aircrew can survive (including the MP if medical attention is quickly administered) can't be ignored.
Again that's my opinion.
And it's a good one. If you want to be an MO, take a pinch hitter course. If you have MOs that you don't want in the front seat, they really should find another crew position to occupy.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 28, 2016, 04:37:17 PM
(Side note, SET hasn't been TTT for 10+ years, yet this class from 2012 still uses that term).
Is it possible, nay likely, they are NOT referring to the old TTT course, but rather a new, specific set of materials to enable this particular course to be taught properly?
I've taken a number of TTT course a and they were all specific to a particular course or series of courses, like ICS 100-400, Hazardous Materials Technician, etc.
Non-pilot CAP MOs landing an aircraft safely (or otherwise) after the PIC is incapacitated is statistically zero.
Allowing non-pilot MOs to operate the flight controls raises the risk of mishap to non-zero.
Ergo the reticence of commanders and staff to encourage and / or approve these classes.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 28, 2016, 07:10:25 PM
Non-pilot CAP MOs landing an aircraft safely (or otherwise) after the PIC is incapacitated is statistically zero.
Allowing non-pilot MOs to operate the flight controls raises the risk of mishap to non-zero.
Ergo the reticence of commanders and staff to encourage and / or approve these classes.
1. There is a 0% chance of a safe landing following pilot incapacitation without further training of other aircrew (save for the random aircrew member who has had a couple of hours or other experience - I'd like to think that I could land a Cessna somewhat safely based on a little left seat time I got a long time ago, but I wouldn't be the first in line to try it out). And you might be surprised. If flight academies can take cadets from 0 to solo in a week or less safely, I'd like to believe that we can safely teach people to land safely in an emergency situation. Granted, it won't be a perfect landing, but it's a lot better than hitting the ground in an uncontrolled fashion.
2. Flight operations
never have zero risk.
Ever. Especially the type of flying we do. What we do is inherently riskier than other types of flying. I fail to see how the training we're talking about, performed with a CFI, is any riskier than any of the flight training or orientation flights we already do.
^ I'm not the one disavowing or disallowing it - these are the responses you get when it's brought up,
and the reasoning why it's not done.
When needed, flight helmets, parachutes, fire retardant clothing, and 5-point harnesses are all great to have.
However GA ops don't require them because the actuarial tables don't justify the extra expense.
For the record, ACET is control familiarization that does not go too far beyond what MOs already know, other then
some light maneuvers. The MO never actually lands the aircraft.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 28, 2016, 07:10:25 PM
Non-pilot CAP MOs landing an aircraft safely (or otherwise) after the PIC is incapacitated is statistically zero.
Allowing non-pilot MOs to operate the flight controls raises the risk of mishap to non-zero.
Ergo the reticence of commanders and staff to encourage and / or approve these classes.
Your logic is broken. Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen. This is one of those things that may happen. We have the ability to train up to mitigate the eventuality.
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 07:28:11 PM
Your logic is broken.
It's not
my logic. How many has your wing done? Is it being done at NESA?
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 07:28:11 PM
Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen. This is one of those things that may happen.
We have the ability to train up to mitigate the eventuality.
Agreed. CAP has the ability to do many things. And only so many hours and dollars in a month.
I am not arguing for or against, but the statistics do not matter at all to someone sitting on seats 2 or 3 when that someone on seat 1 is incapacitated. At that time I am pretty sure those in seats 2 or 3 will wish the airplane is equipped with parachutes that will land the airplane, or personal parachutes...
Or when there is an in-flight fire, the same...
Those present will not care what statistics say about the need of an extinguisher on board...
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on June 28, 2016, 07:32:41 PM
Those present will not care what statistics say about the need of an extinguisher on board...
Agreed - that's not how financial risk assessments are made.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 28, 2016, 07:31:17 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 07:28:11 PM
Your logic is broken.
It's not my logic. How many has your wing done? Is it being done at NESA?
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 07:28:11 PM
Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen. This is one of those things that may happen.
We have the ability to train up to mitigate the eventuality.
Agreed. CAP has the ability to do many things. And only so many hours and dollars in a month.
Scroll up. Answered already. Is it something that NEEDS to be done at NESA or is it something that can and maybe should be completed during locally funded training missions? I understand the budgetary and time constraints, but that's an excuse. Find things that add value to the program and drop the nonsense. Plan and execute an open training mission so people aren't being shoehorned into a rushed weekend or slammed by weather. Like Ramos said, when it happens, the 2 or 3 people in the plane will be glad that there was some training provided.
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 08:38:03 PMI understand the budgetary and time constraints, but that's an excuse. Find things that add value to the program and drop the nonsense.
Add value? It's difficult enough to get people initially qualed and then proficient, let alone adding things that aren't required. As to "budgetary", there isn't any, and
I don't think you could do these as A12s, assuming they'd get aproved.
Yes, if it's "important" NESA should be doing it - as both the national model, and because they have the planes, people and money to do it fairly easily,
not to mention a much higher ops tempo during the two weeks then some wings have all year. NESA is much more statistically likely to have an issue then
any particular wing.
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 08:38:03 PM
Plan and execute an open training mission so people aren't being shoehorned into a rushed weekend or slammed by weather. Like Ramos said, when it happens, the 2 or 3 people in the plane will be glad that there was some training provided.
Define "open"? "Do whatever you want?"
This requires an aircraft, CFI (who is also a CAP instructor), money for old dinosaurs, and the time. The 1st two are the main challenge, the 3rd is non-trivial.
The aircraft is especially an issue since I'm from a wing that sends them away for the whole summer to support encampments as well as several non-wing activities (you're welcome, BTW).
I can't get O-rides and quals done in the volume I need, let alone something like this (which would, in turn, take that time from others that need it).
I can think of 10 other better ways to spend that AVGAS and time then training for something which is statistically much less likely then DR or SAR work.
I'm not saying members who can make it happen shouldn't, the plane fact (see what I did there), that no one is (on any notably scale), should indicate
how important this is viewed by NHQ and the ops directorate as a whole.
Repeating "it might" and "it could", as well as "you'll be happy" doesn't change the ROI.
How many MOs don't get some stick time anyway?
Quote from: EMT-83 on June 28, 2016, 10:03:11 PM
How many MOs don't get some stick time anyway?
It's supposed to be zero.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 29, 2016, 12:27:53 AM
Quote from: EMT-83 on June 28, 2016, 10:03:11 PM
How many MOs don't get some stick time anyway?
It's supposed to be zero.
Where do the regs say that?
^ Where do they say anything about the MO being a co-pilot, safety pilot, or student pilot?
Why would an MO be getting stick time, they have a very specific job that does not involve driving.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2016, 08:48:29 PM
^ Where do they say anything about the MO being a co-pilot, safety pilot, or student pilot?
Why would an MO be getting stick time, they have a very specific job that does not involve driving.
Maybe on a SAR/DR mission in grid or enroute to/from grid, but droning along to relo? What's the problem there? If the regs don't prohibit it, it can be done safely, there's no compromise to mission objectives, what's the rationale for diminishing our overall crew readiness?? Ya lost me with your rationale for rejecting the idea.
Getting back to the original discussion... there are several instances in the NTSB db where pilots have become incapacitated. Even under the best of circumstances it's an emergency. If the MO can control the aircraft that's a BIG asset. While the pilot is healthy the PIC is still PIC regardless of who's pinkys are touching the yoke. FWIW, a few years ago I had a right seater experience a heart attack while in flight. It could very easily have been the left seater on that flight (How many times have we heard "NOT ME" from our fellows when it comes to SPDI (Sudden Pilot Death or Incapacitation). It's interesting how many people deny or minimize health issues - until they keel over or get ear blocks. Of course, CAP has no overweight, out of shape, elderly pilots flying CAP missions. And CAP pilots NEVER, EVER fly just a teeny bit ill. Nah. Could never happen :) :) We're all hale, hearty, trim, fit, organic, and low fat triathlon champs. My wife's cousin was an athletic guy, never was ill, was the picture of health until he dropped dead at 45. I bet most of us knew (note past tense) at least a couple guys who 'felt fine' right up to the face plant, or who (best case here!) flew a teensy bit ill and learned a lesson about "IMSAFE" the hard way. The MO really needs some stick time, "just in case".
Quote from: Live2Learn on July 01, 2016, 09:04:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2016, 08:48:29 PM
^ Where do they say anything about the MO being a co-pilot, safety pilot, or student pilot?
Why would an MO be getting stick time, they have a very specific job that does not involve driving.
Maybe on a SAR/DR mission in grid or enroute to/from grid, but droning along to relo? What's the problem there? If the regs don't prohibit it, it can be done safely, there's no compromise to mission objectives, what's the rationale for diminishing our overall crew readiness?? Ya lost me with your rationale for rejecting the idea.
The MO isn't a pilot, the PIC isn't a CFI, and flight training senior members isn't allowed, and certainly not during a number assigned mission.
What else do you need?
(No reason to go to the "what if when they ares" on the above, the safety pilot / co-pilot nonsense during missions when the right seat is supposed to
be the MO has caused more issues during missions and training then I care to delineate, ranging from inability / unwillingness to use the CAP radios to using the
Becker to listen to local radio stations, to no one actually doing mission work because everyone is touching God's face).
Quote from: Live2Learn on July 01, 2016, 09:04:18 PM
Getting back to the original discussion... there are several instances in the NTSB db where pilots have become incapacitated. Even under the best of circumstances it's an emergency. If the MO can control the aircraft that's a BIG asset. While the pilot is healthy the PIC is still PIC regardless of who's pinkys are touching the yoke. FWIW, a few years ago I had a right seater experience a heart attack while in flight. It could very easily have been the left seater on that flight (How many times have we heard "NOT ME" from our fellows when it comes to SPDI (Sudden Pilot Death or Incapacitation). It's interesting how many people deny or minimize health issues - until they keel over or get ear blocks. Of course, CAP has no overweight, out of shape, elderly pilots flying CAP missions. And CAP pilots NEVER, EVER fly just a teeny bit ill. Nah. Could never happen :) :) We're all hale, hearty, trim, fit, organic, and low fat triathlon champs. My wife's cousin was an athletic guy, never was ill, was the picture of health until he dropped dead at 45. I bet most of us knew (note past tense) at least a couple guys who 'felt fine' right up to the face plant, or who (best case here!) flew a teensy bit ill and learned a lesson about "IMSAFE" the hard way. The MO really needs some stick time, "just in case".
You're making a valid theoretical argument that does not bear out in the statistics, unless you're aware of a significant demonstrable number of situations in which this has occurred
in a CAP context.
In fact, from a statistical point of view, it is far more likely that the PIC will leave the tow bar attached, fly too close to other aircraft or cause a runway incursion,
not to mention have an engine failure, fail to properly check tire pressure, or have a bird strike, yet those are causing crashes either, and members aren't wearing
helmets or required to have Nomex.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2016, 09:24:44 PM
You're making a valid theoretical argument that does not bear out in the statistics, unless you're aware of a significant demonstrable number of situations in which this has occurred
in a CAP context.
In fact, from a statistical point of view, it is far more likely that the PIC will leave the tow bar attached, fly too close to other aircraft or cause a runway incursion,
not to mention have an engine failure, fail to properly check tire pressure, or have a bird strike, yet those are causing crashes either, and members aren't wearing
helmets or required to have Nomex.
No argument about the likelihood of tow bar prop strikes and hangar rash. However, I've yet to hear of ANYONE being killed by hangar rash. I suppose the risk of death or injury might be higher from a tow bar prop strike, though again, I've never read of an FSI from a flying tow bar. They just cost a relatively small amount of money per incident, and are very easy to track. From a "statistical point of view" we don't need medicals, should do BFR's rather than annual CAPF 5s, and maybe don't really need biannual CAPF 91's. Lots of money could be saved with little risk by doing annuals rather than 100 hours. Just looking at the number of accidents caused by mechanic error makes me very tentative about the first 10-20 hours after every visit to the shop. But CAP accepts these costs and goes well beyond what is 'statistically necessary' since (in some cases) it shaves a few points off our accident rate. All of those low statistical probability risks have an FSI (FATAL/SERIOUS INJURY) component which seems to get a lot of attention. I think the stuff that reduces FSI accidents are a good thing. Too bad they're all expensive. Safety (i.e. accident prevention) may not be "cost effective" if we look only at the piddling stuff. However, the NTSB doesn't appear to be swayed, nor is the USAF with its insistence on training, PPE, maintenance, annual check rides, and etc.. Still, CAP is way out there in terms of flight ops risk. Every Federal agency aviation department I know of prohibits SE piston FW IFR, Night, and overwater ops beyond gliding distance of land.
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 28, 2016, 07:31:17 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 07:28:11 PM
Your logic is broken.
It's not my logic. How many has your wing done? Is it being done at NESA?
Quote from: THRAWN on June 28, 2016, 07:28:11 PM
Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen. This is one of those things that may happen.
We have the ability to train up to mitigate the eventuality.
Agreed. CAP has the ability to do many things. And only so many hours and dollars in a month.
Scroll up. Answered already. Is it something that NEEDS to be done at NESA or is it something that can and maybe should be completed during locally funded training missions? I understand the budgetary and time constraints, but that's an excuse. Find things that add value to the program and drop the nonsense. Plan and execute an open training mission so people aren't being shoehorned into a rushed weekend or slammed by weather. Like Ramos said, when it happens, the 2 or 3 people in the plane will be glad that there was some training provided.
It can be done locally. However, IIRC, it CANNOT be done on funded missions.
I seem to recall the AF being asked about this and them saying "No, you cannot use your appropriated funds for this." I believe they even disallowed using "B" missions for it.
It was in the minutes of one of the NB or NEC meetings where it was first proposed.
Quote from: JeffDG on July 02, 2016, 12:02:36 AM
I seem to recall the AF being asked about this and them saying "No, you cannot use your appropriated funds for this." I believe they even disallowed using "B" missions for it.
Now that you mention it, that's what I recall as well.