Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 26, 2017, 10:35:43 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

 91 
 on: September 22, 2017, 08:12:41 PM 
Started by SAREXinNY - Last post by SAREXinNY
Has anyone ever done a recruiting radio advertisement? If so, may I borrow/steal parts of it, or all of it? I don't see a point in re-inventing the wheel if someone has already done the work. Even if your ad is squadron specific, I'd still love a copy so I can see what other people have done.  Thank you!

 92 
 on: September 22, 2017, 04:58:18 PM 
Started by Mordecai - Last post by Eclipse
It's the self-sustaining part of the reg that is somewhat subjective and probably in the eyes of an auditor.

I read that as being one justification for providing CAP with free, or cheaper space, but not the only, nor necessarily
tied to having an aircraft there.

More of a
Q:"Why aren't you getting $$$ from Hangar 4?"
A:"CAP"
Or when Hangar 1-3 complain their rent is too high and CAP pays nothing

There are also a lot of other reasons that a given airport can provide space, up to and including "because we felt like it".

My unit meets on a municipal airport, and our meeting space, which would normally be rented, is provided
based on a city airport authority policy about youth and aviation groups.

This is a good problem to have, but thorny when you're in it.  One thing that might loo attractive but
usually fails is splitting the group in to senior and cadet meetings - that tends to create two separate units,
stresses the staff resources, and can wreck unit cohesion.  I tried to for a while and the results were
not worth the hassle.

 93 
 on: September 22, 2017, 04:44:58 PM 
Started by NIN - Last post by NIN
http://sercap.us/resources-2/etools/etools-staff/hurricane-maria-response.aspx

The folks in SER are currently conducting wrap up ops on one hurricane, and starting ops on a 2nd (after helping out in a neighboring region less than a month ago).

Great to see so much "here's what we're doing" type stuff and updates/product. 

The folks in PR are going to be in rough shape for awhile.

 94 
 on: September 22, 2017, 04:33:24 PM 
Started by Mordecai - Last post by Matthew Congrove
From the order: "A sponsor may also charge reduced rental rates to Civil Air Patrol units operating aircraft at the airport." It would not be compliant with the order if they're not operating a plane from there.

Reading a bit further...

17.19. Exception for Military Aeronautical Units. The FAA acknowledges that many airports
provide facilities to military units with aeronautical missions at nominal lease rates. The FAA
does not consider this practice inconsistent with the requirement for a self-sustaining airport rate
structure. Military units with aeronautical missions may include the Air National Guard,
aviation units of the Army National Guard, the U.S. Air Force Reserve, U.S. Coast Guard, Civil
Air Patrol (CAP) and Naval Reserve air units operating aircraft at the airport. The search and
rescue (SAR) and disaster relief roles played by Coast Guard, the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, and
the Civil Air Patrol are also recognized as a prime aeronautical role. These units generally
provide services that directly benefit airport operators and safety.

So they see the intrinsic value CAP brings to aviation, regardless of whether we have a plane at the airport or not. We can shut off ELTs, give safety seminars to pilots (e.g. "how to get found"), etc. Not having a plane shouldn't matter when it comes to getting a nominal lease rate.

 95 
 on: September 22, 2017, 03:41:42 PM 
Started by NIN - Last post by RiverAux
As one of the historically (but now, not so much) frequent posters I suppose that I'm apt to get a little defensive when people complain about folks like me who have (or used to) comment so much.

We can't help it if the vast majority of CAPTalk users don't post very often.  Its like CAP itself -- 20% of the people do 80% of the work. 

And if you haven't noticed, us frequent users are the ones that start most of the threads.

Don't want half the posts coming from the same people?  Post something yourself and reduce the percentage that comes from us. 

 96 
 on: September 22, 2017, 03:17:10 PM 
Started by Angus - Last post by Angus
Ok so with Service Coats being harder to come by because of production problems none of the bases near by have my size.  I just gave away mine cause it was too small, I was trying to get away with wearing a 42 when I'm a 44.  So I'm looking for a 44R Men's Coat. 

 97 
 on: September 22, 2017, 03:13:55 PM 
Started by Angus - Last post by Angus
I do have it.  PM your mailing address and I'll put it out in the mail to you.   

BTW have you had the chance to meet Bos yet? 

 98 
 on: September 22, 2017, 02:13:19 PM 
Started by 68w20 - Last post by Spam
You take nonmember recruits into the field, regularly? I have known members to bring their dependent "pre-cadets" with them, under their personal supervision, but... recruits off the street with no parental supervision? Are any of these overnight FTXs?

V/r
Spam


 99 
 on: September 22, 2017, 02:08:27 PM 
Started by NIN - Last post by Spam
It's not a "very dead and tired subject" if you're new to CAP, or new to the subject, or new to CAP Talk.

Then spend the time reading what has been discussed, not first-posting with the same question or proposition that
is already indicated 15 times in the same 20-page thread.

Perhaps threads could be closed once a question is answered like many of the tech forums - that negates the
derailing while still providing a KB for new members.

Interesting points.

My supposition is that newer users are following the path of least resistance. Its harder to go to a pretty sterile one liner search window and then wade through pages of debates and off topics and uniform deviations and counter-insults, looking for the answer, vice just asking. Can't blame them for that, especially younger users with short attention spans.

"Perhaps" the search window icon could be more prominent, and the linked search window could include some text to help new users with the taxonomy of their searches. At present, its just an open one liner.

Short attention spans/impatience/unwillingness to look things up vs. grouchy old folks who've seen it "all" and jump on them, leading to poor forum retention... story of our CAP lives, in a nutshell.

V/r
Spam



 100 
 on: September 22, 2017, 01:58:23 PM 
Started by mdickinson - Last post by Spam
When I saw the memo in my inbox, I applauded.


Slight tangent - this isn't an IP issue, but it is flight crew ES related: recently I backed up our Wing DO in refusing to approve an aircrew SET designation (note: designation, not qualification), and we had what COULD have been an uncomfortable discussion, but which I believe illustrated the point.


Individual had met the min standards (i.e. including only the minimum 2 exercises) for an initial qual two years ago, and had flown I think only 1 SAREX since then, and was now applying for SET designation in that specialty. The DO stated (and I agreed) that we wanted to see trainers and evaluators (and by extension check pilots and IPs) that were working from both a significant aggregate level of expertise in each area, plus a degree of recent experience/currency. He stated (and I agreed) that a minimum effort, recent qual plus one sortie a year (we checked WMIRS thoroughly before deciding) didn't meet the bar for either standard.


The individual and his commander initially seemed a bit put out - understandably, since their position was that they were working to "grow the business" and needed a SET evaluator to sign people off. However, since we explained that the goal was SET quality control, and safety, the issues seemed clearer, and we reinforced the need for good cooperative crew training at Group level with those quality SET evaluators. We assured them both that, when the individual started resuming flying regularly and had built up experience, we'd reevaluate. Subjective? To a degree, but I think we all agreed that an average of once a year and a very recent initial qual, is unacceptably low. I was really pleased at how the discussion ended - and will look forward to eventually seeing that member designated, with his positive attitude. This cultural change - in my Wing and in many - is a tough row to hoe, starting with the man in the mirror.


The analogy I used in discussions was that in the AD community, IPs/check pilots are a quality assurance monitored item, but patch wearing Weapons School graduates are the keepers of the weapons and tactics flame - and they are the ones who need to be ensuring adherence to standards in instruction, not the "local smart guy" relying on gouge (no, I'm not a weps school grad, but I did teach at TPS, similar principle).  DoD is careful about who gets designated as evaluators - and so should we to make sure that we bookend the operational side with safety AND mission effectiveness quality control.


So... pivoting from IP/CPs, through mission/SET designations, what about SET designation for ground and staff specialties (since SkyHornet brings it up)? Some Wings have put in place check examiners/check SET designations for  GBD/GTL/CULs, etc. I can see the wisdom in that, as well. None of us are perfect but... "Excellence in All We Do"?

I really feel that the missing element in all this (if we'd agree that we need to stay tight on appointment standards) is evaluation of the Stan/Eval people, themselves, to include customer evaluations from their customers - those under evaluation, and, their operational customers (ABDs, ICs, etc... "hey who signed THAT guy off"). To cite a great graphic novel: "Who watches the Watchmen"?


V/r
Spam



Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.35 seconds with 15 queries.