Air Crew Emergency Training (ACET)

[disamuel]

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?

[BFreemanMA]

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?

[Spaceman3750]

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.

[Eclipse]

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).

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".

[Spaceman3750]

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.

[THRAWN]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[stillamarine]

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.

[THRAWN]

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.

[arajca]

(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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Spaceman3750]

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.

[Eclipse]

^ 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.

[THRAWN]

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.

[Eclipse]

Your logic is broken.

It's not my logic. How many has your wing done?  Is it being done at NESA?

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.

[Luis R. Ramos]

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...

[Eclipse]

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.

[THRAWN]

Your logic is broken.

It's not my logic. How many has your wing done? Is it being done at NESA?

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.

[Eclipse]

I 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.

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.

[EMT-83]

How many MOs don't get some stick time anyway?