California Form 91 Check Pilots

[oak2007]

Only in California, a Form 91 check pilot is required to be a CFI. California is able to do this by instituting a series of OI's, 38 to be exact to get around the National Standards.  What do you think? 

[Al Sayre]

In general, I wouldn't see it as a problem provided that there are enough Mission Check Pilots available to allow members flexibility in obtaining their CAPF 91 checkrides. 

[ßτε]

Only in California, a Form 91 check pilot is required to be a CFI. California is able to do this by instituting a series of OI's, 38 to be exact to get around the National Standards.  What do you think?

It is not in an OI, but instead the approved Califonia Wing Supplement to CAPR 60-1.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Seems like a good idea to me.  Locally we have a least three Mission Pilot check pilots.

[a2capt]

..and it's not a "series of", but rather if it were OI 38,  1-37 would generally have nothing to do with them. These are simply titled in order of release. Like a proposition on a ballot.

http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/orders.htm

#38 isn't the item you are picking on. Perhaps your ire is directed towards the other side because you're being affected by this addendum to 60-1?

[jeders]

Only in California, a Form 91 check pilot is required to be a CFI. California is able to do this by instituting a series of OI's, 38 to be exact to get around the National Standards.  What do you think?

I think we need to stop feeding trolls.

[Short Field]

It is not in an OI, but instead the approved Califonia Wing Supplement to CAPR 60-1.

Don't wing supplements expire when the regulation they are supplementing is superseded?  The CA Supplement to CAPR 60-1 is dated 21 Feb 2010 and the current CAPR 60-1 is dated 24 Mar 2011.

[Short Field]

Only in California, a Form 91 check pilot is required to be a CFI. California is able to do this by instituting a series of OI's, 38 to be exact to get around the National Standards.  What do you think?

Nevada Wing requires this as well.

[ßτε]

It is not in an OI, but instead the approved Califonia Wing Supplement to CAPR 60-1.

Don't wing supplements expire when the regulation they are supplementing is superseded?  The CA Supplement to CAPR 60-1 is dated 21 Feb 2010 and the current CAPR 60-1 is dated 24 Mar 2011.

When the parent publication of a supplement or OI is revised/reissued, commanders must ensure the supplement or OI is revised and re-approved, if required, or rescinded with 6 months of the new parent publication's issue.

emphasis added

So it expires in September. See here for a list of current approved supplements/OIs.

[JC004]

lol.  38 OIs?  That'd be like the most inefficient thing I've ever seen in CAP.  INEFFICIENT EVEN FOR CAP!   :clap:

[SarDragon]

Read 'em. You'll see why there are so many.

[Flying Pig]

Only in California, a Form 91 check pilot is required to be a CFI. California is able to do this by instituting a series of OI's, 38 to be exact to get around the National Standards.  What do you think?

I think we need to stop feeding trolls.

I can assure you hes not a troll.  Hopefully the mandate of F91 checkpilots needing to be CFIs will be a thing of the past here very shortly.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I'm curious why are you hopeful?  I'm also curious what event will make this wing supplement (CAPR 60-1 CA WING SUPPLEMENT) a thing of the past?

Just trolling 

[a2capt]

Because unless it's renewed ... it will be a thing of the past.
As to why he's hopeful ..  ;-)

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I ask from ignorance :angel:, so help me along here, but I thought a Supplement to CAPR 60-1 does not expire.

[davidsinn]

I ask from ignorance :angel: , so help me along here, but I thought a Supplement to CAPR 60-1 does not expire.

Your answer is here:

It is not in an OI, but instead the approved Califonia Wing Supplement to CAPR 60-1.

Don't wing supplements expire when the regulation they are supplementing is superseded?  The CA Supplement to CAPR 60-1 is dated 21 Feb 2010 and the current CAPR 60-1 is dated 24 Mar 2011.

When the parent publication of a supplement or OI is revised/reissued, commanders must ensure the supplement or OI is revised and re-approved, if required, or rescinded with 6 months of the new parent publication's issue.

emphasis added

So it expires in September. See here for a list of current approved supplements/OIs.

[Eclipse]

I believe they are invalidated upon appointment of a new wing CC as well.

[ßτε]

I believe they are invalidated upon appointment of a new wing CC as well.

I am not finding that in CAPR 5-4. If you can find a source, that would be great.

[PHall]

I believe they are invalidated upon appointment of a new wing CC as well.

Policy Letters or in CAWG's case, OI do expire when the Wing Commander changes, unless the new Commander recertifies them.
And that is what normally happens.

[dbaran]

The idea is that someone going for a F91 might do something stupid, and a CFI has more experience recovering from stupid pilot tricks.

We do have a bunch of OIs, but there is something in process already to combine them to produce a single approved supplement.

If it were easier to get rid of the fools, we wouldn't need to spell out the obvious in an OI.

[a2capt]

Someone will just invent a better fool. It's a never ending game of chase and be chased.

[SarDragon]

And there you have it!

[a2capt]

The pilot was conducting a predator (coyote) control flight over private rangeland near Fort Peck. During the flight, at a reported altitude of approximately 40 feet above ground level (AGL), the passenger inadvertently discharged a semiautomatic 12-gauge shotgun. The pilot, who was seated in the forward seat, reported that the gun fired 3-4 times, striking the right wing, fuel tank and aileron assembly. He reported that the damage resulted in a loss of aileron and elevator control. The airplane entered a descending turn to the right and subsequently impacted terrain in a nose-low attitude. The pilot reported the aircraft was on fire upon touchdown and continued to burn after the impact.

40 ft AGL. .. sneeze and an airplane can move 20 ft. Enter a turn while sneezing, and if that movement is downward, that wing dip could be another 10 feet ...

A shotgun in a low wing aircraft, presumably out the door. The door opens over .. what?
Yeah. Just one example .. 

We need regulations because of silly stuff like this.

[PHall]

The pilot was conducting a predator (coyote) control flight over private rangeland near Fort Peck. During the flight, at a reported altitude of approximately 40 feet above ground level (AGL), the passenger inadvertently discharged a semiautomatic 12-gauge shotgun. The pilot, who was seated in the forward seat, reported that the gun fired 3-4 times, striking the right wing, fuel tank and aileron assembly. He reported that the damage resulted in a loss of aileron and elevator control. The airplane entered a descending turn to the right and subsequently impacted terrain in a nose-low attitude. The pilot reported the aircraft was on fire upon touchdown and continued to burn after the impact.

40 ft AGL. .. sneeze and an airplane can move 20 ft. Enter a turn while sneezing, and if that movement is downward, that wing dip could be another 10 feet ...

A shotgun in a low wing aircraft, presumably out the door. The door opens over .. what?
Yeah. Just one example .. 

We need regulations because of silly stuff like this.

Read it again, they were on a predator control flight, i.e. hunting coyotes from the air. That's why they had the shotgun in the aircraft.
Now the right seaters total lack of muzzle control...

[a2capt]

I know.  It was more about the muzzle controller, and my perception of a poor choice of aircraft for this mission.  But the comment about operating in such a tight window of movement area.

They have at least hired the Tamil Tigers... 

[jeders]

Kind of reminds me of a story my grandpa told from back in the 50's. Only he just shot one hole in the wing of a piper cub in winter in Nebraska doing coyote hunting.

[pblank]

I normally don't 'hang around' in these forums but a fellow member suggested that I check out this thread.

There is a lot more to the CAWG 60-1 supplement than just the requirement that newly minted MCP's must be CFI's.  A new version of the CAWG supplement has been approved by the PLR and Region and is now awaiting final publication by National.  It will remove the restricted area language (thank goodness from my perspective), clarify the multiple CAPF 5 failure issues and add qualification requirements for Turbo aircraft as well as G500 aircraft. 

BTW, at the present time, CAWG has 162 Mission Pilots - 25 Mission Check Pilots and 13 Mission Check Pilot Examiners. 

Phil

[starshippe]

. . the supplement does not say that a mission check pilot has to be a cfi.

bill

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

. . the supplement does not say that a mission check pilot has to be a cfi.

bill

CAPR 60-1 CA WING SUPPLEMENT 1, 21 FEB 2010

3-7 j. (Added)  The following additional requirements must be met:
• Mission Check Pilots and Mission Check Pilot Examiners must hold a current CFI certificate
prior to designation and must maintain the currency of that certificate

[starshippe]

. . oops. i read that as form 5 check pilots and mission check pilot examiners.

bill