Do Airplanes belong to Squadrons

[flyguy06]

Do aircraft belong to Squadrons? I keep hearing Squadrons talk about "their" aircraft. Well, my unit doesnt meet  on an airport, so does that mean we are not allowed access to an aircraft?

[jeders]

Do aircraft belong to Squadrons? I keep hearing Squadrons talk about "their" aircraft. Well, my unit doesnt meet  on an airport, so does that mean we are not allowed access to an aircraft?

Airplanes belong/are owned by the corporation. They are assigned to squadrons/groups/wings. When a squadron talks about "their" airplane, they're talking about the airplane assigned to them. And you don't have to meet on an airport to have an airplane assigned. You do, however, have to have both the need for an airplane and the members capable of flying it in order for one to be assigned. But even without an airplane assigned to your unit, you can still arrange to fly an aircraft assigned to another unit.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Aircraft belong to the Corporation.  They are assigned to Wings and Wing Commanders assign them to the Squadrons.   Although the Squadron is charged with maintaining the aircraft, any qualified CAP pilot from any squadron can use any of the Wing aircraft with the permission of the Squadron Aircraft Manager where such aircraft is based.  

[jb512]

We're pretty fond of "our" airplane and want to keep it at our squadron because of the obvious appeal for recruiting and access for missions, but through CAPERS any flight crew around can fly it whenever it's available.

[jimmydeanno]

You do, however, have to have both the need for an airplane and the members capable of flying it in order for one to be assigned.

One of my old squadrons had an aircraft assigned even though we didn't have any pilots.  This was done because we were the only local squadron with an airfield in the area.  It was just assigned to the unit because it made geographical sense.  The pilots from the other squadrons would come down and use it if needed (only about 25 minute drive).

[jeders]

You do, however, have to have both the need for an airplane and the members capable of flying it in order for one to be assigned.

One of my old squadrons had an aircraft assigned even though we didn't have any pilots.  This was done because we were the only local squadron with an airfield in the area.  It was just assigned to the unit because it made geographical sense.  The pilots from the other squadrons would come down and use it if needed (only about 25 minute drive).

I guess different wings do things a little differently. Here in Texas if you aren't putting hours on the plane then you don't get to keep it.

[SJFedor]

TN assigns all aircraft to the Groups, and the Groups can decide where, within their Groups, to move the planes, and to ensure that they're being utilized. If we decide to park it somewhere, it never gets used, and we don't remedy it, then Wing will move the aircraft to another Group, where it will get used. The maintenance officers/OIC's for each aircraft are assigned by the Group, and are usually in the vicinity of where the aircraft is based at, but sometimes, depending, it'll be a little farther away. The Mx Officers can work with the local unit that has it parked on their line to make sure monthly reporting, etc is getting done.

Our 2 in the group are usually parked at JWN (West Nashville/John C Tune Airport) and MBT (Murfreesboro Muni). However, we rotate them around, sometimes to be at MQY (Smyrna), and sometimes other places. When the 172 gets back from Mx, it's actually going back to 0M3 (Baker Field/Hohenwald), where we've had it the past month or so for Cadet flight training.

As the Ops officer for the group, I get a lot of lattitude in choosing where they go. I consider usage, as well as mission feasibility into wherever the planes get parked. I'm not going to send one of our aircraft down to BFE (not an ICAO airport identifier  ) where there's 1 pilot who *might* fly it, and no MPs, aircrews, or at least a TMP that can get it somewhere for an MP to get it in the air for a mission. However, I do consider the other needs as well. For example, the main reason we have that 172 out at 0M3, although they only have 1 pilot, is for cadet flight training, since that 1 pilot is also a CFI/CFII. I'm a firm believer in cadets being given the opporunity to learn to fly, since that's how I started, and was only able to do so from the generosity and forward thinking of those who controlled the planes in PA. Our other plane is in a place where it can respond to missions rapidly, with a few MPs within 30-40 min driving time, as well as a lot of aircrew members. So, that way, both the cadets, seniors, and the overall mission all can win.

[flyguy06]

TN assigns all aircraft to the Groups, and the Groups can decide where, within their Groups, to move the planes, and to ensure that they're being utilized. If we decide to park it somewhere, it never gets used, and we don't remedy it, then Wing will move the aircraft to another Group, where it will get used. The maintenance officers/OIC's for each aircraft are assigned by the Group, and are usually in the vicinity of where the aircraft is based at, but sometimes, depending, it'll be a little farther away. The Mx Officers can work with the local unit that has it parked on their line to make sure monthly reporting, etc is getting done.

Our 2 in the group are usually parked at JWN (West Nashville/John C Tune Airport) and MBT (Murfreesboro Muni). However, we rotate them around, sometimes to be at MQY (Smyrna), and sometimes other places. When the 172 gets back from Mx, it's actually going back to 0M3 (Baker Field/Hohenwald), where we've had it the past month or so for Cadet flight training.

As the Ops officer for the group, I get a lot of lattitude in choosing where they go. I consider usage, as well as mission feasibility into wherever the planes get parked. I'm not going to send one of our aircraft down to BFE (not an ICAO airport identifier  ) where there's 1 pilot who *might* fly it, and no MPs, aircrews, or at least a TMP that can get it somewhere for an MP to get it in the air for a mission. However, I do consider the other needs as well. For example, the main reason we have that 172 out at 0M3, although they only have 1 pilot, is for cadet flight training, since that 1 pilot is also a CFI/CFII. I'm a firm believer in cadets being given the opporunity to learn to fly, since that's how I started, and was only able to do so from the generosity and forward thinking of those who controlled the planes in PA. Our other plane is in a place where it can respond to missions rapidly, with a few MPs within 30-40 min driving time, as well as a lot of aircrew members. So, that way, both the cadets, seniors, and the overall mission all can win.

I commend you sir on thinking of the cadets. I really do understand and appreciate that.

[SJFedor]

As scary as it is , they're the future, and they deserve to have that opportunity if they're motivated enough to pursue it. I'm sure if I started a poll (and subsequently took the beating by the admin team) you'd find that there's at least a small percentage of our seniors that got their start in the air in CAP, be it just o-flights, or if they were lucky enough to be able to do training.

I only wish we could get more CFIs willing to donate their time to train more cadets. By all means, make it something that a cadet has to get their mitchell for, to put some time into the org, but that would be an amazing incentive.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Our squadron also feels the cadets deserve to get as much flight training as we can give them.  Right now and for the next 10 weeks we are doing a Ground School to prepare them to take the FAA Written test.

This is our first year attempting this, but so far they have shown great interest.
We have cadets from four different squadrons attending as well as several Senior Members.  If this is successful we will do it again next year.

Its too bad we don't have any 172's in our Wing, cause I have a couple of members that are CFI's that would be willing to train cadets. 

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in order to give them actual flight training they would first have to have soloed at a Wing or National flight academy.   However, it is my understanding in reading 60-1 that we are allowed to train them after they have their solo wings from such academy.   We have several cadets that attended the Flight Academy in Nebraska and have soloed, it would sure be nice to be able to help them progress.

[flyguy06]

Its too bad we don't have any 172's in our Wing, cause I have a couple of members that are CFI's that would be willing to train cadets. 


Tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in order to give them actual flight training they would first have to have soloed at a Wing or National flight academy.   However, it is my understanding in reading 60-1 that we are allowed to train them after they have their solo wings from such academy.   We have several cadets that attended the Flight Academy in Nebraska and have soloed, it would sure be nice to be able to help them progress.

You dont have 172's in your WIng? I have never heard of that before. I thought every Wing had 172's


I have never heard a rule that said a cadet has to have completed a solo encampment or have soloed before we can give them flight instruction. I know a few cadets that started taking flight lessons from CAP from the jump

[flyguy06]

I only wish we could get more CFIs willing to donate their time to train more cadets. By all means, make it something that a cadet has to get their mitchell for, to put some time into the org, but that would be an amazing incentive.

Well, I would love to fly more CAP cadets, but its like jumping through hoops just to get authorization (see my post on why I hate e-services)

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

I have never heard a rule that said a cadet has to have completed a solo encampment or have soloed before we can give them flight instruction. I know a few cadets that started taking flight lessons from CAP from the jump

This is what 60-1 says, maybe I am misinterpreting it.   

"3-2. Pilot Qualifications.
a. CAP Cadet Pre-Solo Pilot. The following basic requirements must be met to be qualified as a CAP cadet pre-solo pilot. This qualification may only be earned at an organized wing or higher-level flight encampment/academy.
(1) Be an active CAP member at least 16 years of age (for balloon or glider be age 14 or older).
(2) Have received the required instruction from a CAP certificated flight instructor/-glider (CFI/CFIG), at a wing level or higher flight encampment/academy and have a written record documenting instruction of all items of FAR 61.87, in the appropriate aircraft.
(3) Complete a pre-solo qualification flight as described in paragraph 1-6."

Its my interpretation that this would be what would be needed to give lessons to a cadet in a CAP Airplane.   Am I wrong? or is this just refering to the "Pre-Solo Award"?

[jeders]

I have never heard a rule that said a cadet has to have completed a solo encampment or have soloed before we can give them flight instruction. I know a few cadets that started taking flight lessons from CAP from the jump

This is what 60-1 says, maybe I am misinterpreting it.   

"3-2. Pilot Qualifications.
a. CAP Cadet Pre-Solo Pilot. The following basic requirements must be met to be qualified as a CAP cadet pre-solo pilot. This qualification may only be earned at an organized wing or higher-level flight encampment/academy.
(1) Be an active CAP member at least 16 years of age (for balloon or glider be age 14 or older).
(2) Have received the required instruction from a CAP certificated flight instructor/-glider (CFI/CFIG), at a wing level or higher flight encampment/academy and have a written record documenting instruction of all items of FAR 61.87, in the appropriate aircraft.
(3) Complete a pre-solo qualification flight as described in paragraph 1-6."

Its my interpretation that this would be what would be needed to give lessons to a cadet in a CAP Airplane.   Am I wrong? or is this just refering to the "Pre-Solo Award"?

You're wrong, that's just for awarding pre-solo wings. Nothing in there about that being required to do flight lessons in a CAP aircraft.

[SJFedor]

Yeah, that's just about the Pre-Solo award, not what is required. There's another thread around here somewhere about what a joke the pre-solo award is, so I dare not elaborate further.

I'm guessing you're CAWG, right? You don't need a 172 to do cadet training anymore. They've authorized cadet training in high performance aircraft.

CAP Solo Pilot. The following basic requirements must be met to be qualified as a CAP solo pilot in CAP aircraft:

(1) Be an active CAP member at least 16 years of age (for balloon or glider be age 14 or older).
(2) Possess a valid FAA student pilot certificate.
(3) Possess a valid, current medical certificate (not required for gliders or balloons).
(4) Have received the required instruction from an FAA authorized flight instructor (CFI/CFIG), have a written record documenting instruction, for the appropriate aircraft, in accordance with FAR 61.87, and possess a current solo endorsement IAW FARs from a CAP instructor pilot.

And...

(4) For a CAP cadet to fly high performance, fixed gear, aircraft in CAP, the cadet must meet the following requirements:

(a) Meet all FAA requirements for student flight instruction in a high performance aircraft.
(b) Cadet student pilots who have not received flight training in a high performance aircraft in a CAP structured training program must complete the transition training specified in paragraph 3-3a(3) and also meet all the requirements in paragraph 3-2b (CAP Solo Pilot).

So by all means, go ahead and do it. The only problem is that, once they've gotten their certificate, they won't be able to get a F5 in the aircraft until they've gotten at least 100 hours total time.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Thanks for the clarification.  As a lawyer I sometimes tend to err on the side of caution when interpreting regulations.   However, I did think I may have been confusing the "Award" with a "Requirement", so thank you for clearing that up.

[jeders]

Thanks for the clarification.  As a lawyer I sometimes tend to err on the side of caution when interpreting regulations.   However, I did think I may have been confusing the "Award" with a "Requirement", so thank you for clearing that up.

No problem. That's why we're all here, to help each other out.

[flyguy06]

Yeah, I dont get those "pre-solo" wings. Isaw a cadet with them the other week. Too me, its jus tsaying "well, sorry you didnt solo, but lets give you something to make you feel good" To me, it cheapens the cadets who work hard to actually solo. Ifeel the same way about the Ira Eaker award. Its a consolation prize.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

I just re-read 60-1 and I have to tell you I still have some concerns.   However, so as we do not hijack this thread, I will start a new one and get into it.

[SJFedor]

Please do. We're all glad to help explain things as best as we can, without ticking the admin team off 

[BlackKnight]

Yeah, I dont get those "pre-solo" wings. Isaw a cadet with them the other week. Too me, its jus tsaying "well, sorry you didnt solo, but lets give you something to make you feel good" To me, it cheapens the cadets who work hard to actually solo. Ifeel the same way about the Ira Eaker award. Its a consolation prize.

It's very unusual for a cadet attending a flight academy to be permitted to solo their first year of attendance.  The NFA CFIs have to apply to NHQ for a wavier to permit NFA 1st year cadets to solo.  Usually they have to show the cadet has significant prior flight training experience for the wavier to be granted.  So it's not necessarily about how hard a cadet works during the NFA. A cadet could be Eddie Rickenbacker reincarnated skill-wise and if he doesn't have enough flight hours for everyone to feel comfortable he still wouldn't be allowed to solo until next year. 

As usual in CAP, follow the money and the liability insurance. 

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

We have sent 2 cadets each year for the past two years and they have all soloed.

[SarDragon]

You dont have 172's in your WIng? I have never heard of that before. I thought every Wing had 172's.

CAWG has no 172s. They have twenty 182s, and six 206s. A 172 is essentially useless for ES in California.

[flyguy06]

You dont have 172's in your WIng? I have never heard of that before. I thought every Wing had 172's.

CAWG has no 172s. They have twenty 182s, and six 206s. A 172 is essentially useless for ES in California.

Ok, but as I always say EVERYONE ISNT IN CAP FOR ES.

I joined CAP to work with cadets and introduce them to flying. So, If I were in CAWG I could not accomplish this. That sucks. So, canthey do flight training for cadets?

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

You dont have 172's in your WIng? I have never heard of that before. I thought every Wing had 172's.

CAWG has no 172s. They have twenty 182s, and six 206s. A 172 is essentially useless for ES in California.

Ok, but as I always say EVERYONE ISNT IN CAP FOR ES.

I joined CAP to work with cadets and introduce them to flying. So, If I were in CAWG I could not accomplish this. That sucks. So, canthey do flight training for cadets?

Technically yes.  The Cadet would have to meet all of the requirements in 60-1 for being PIC in a 182, including the Transition Course before they could solo in it.  But a lot of CFI's do not want to try to train cadets in a 182.   They worry that it is too fast and that it could get ahead of a trainee, not to mention the problem of bent firewalls if not landed properly.

It would be ideal if the Wing could get even one 172 to tour different Squadrons for flight training of cadets, and one for Northern California and one for Southern California would be even better.   While I love to do ES work, you are right CAP flying is not all about ES, Cadet training and Aerospace Education count too.

[flyguy06]

Yeah, I dont get those "pre-solo" wings. Isaw a cadet with them the other week. Too me, its jus tsaying "well, sorry you didnt solo, but lets give you something to make you feel good" To me, it cheapens the cadets who work hard to actually solo. Ifeel the same way about the Ira Eaker award. Its a consolation prize.

It's very unusual for a cadet attending a flight academy to be permitted to solo their first year of attendance.  The NFA CFIs have to apply to NHQ for a wavier to permit NFA 1st year cadets to solo.  Usually they have to show the cadet has significant prior flight training experience for the wavier to be granted.  So it's not necessarily about how hard a cadet works during the NFA. A cadet could be Eddie Rickenbacker reincarnated skill-wise and if he doesn't have enough flight hours for everyone to feel comfortable he still wouldn't be allowed to solo until next year. 

As usual in CAP, follow the money and the liability insurance. 

Really? I wasnt aware of that. That is unusual. Iwork with another aviation orgnization called Organization ofBlack Airline Pilots (OBAP) Delta and OBAP sponsor a two week camp for youths ages 16-18 similar to the NFA. They contract out to a flight school and go to class Mon-Fri for two weeks. Ground school in the morning and fly in the afternoon depending on the weather. Its not promoted as a solo camp, but usually all ten kids will solo in 15 hours within the two weeks.

[arajca]

You dont have 172's in your WIng? I have never heard of that before. I thought every Wing had 172's

Colorado doesn't have 172's. They're mostly useless for carrying the required equipment over half of the state. CO has borrowed 172's from Kansas for a flight activity in West Kansas eastern Colorado, where the ground is more horizontal than vertical and Cumulo-granite is less of an issue..