Scanner as an Interim position

[SarDragon]

[Emily Litella impression]

Never mind.

[/Emily Litella impression]

[Eclipse]

I understand that the new G1000 airplanes are really two CAP people airplanes: assuming that a lot of CAP aircrew are in the 225+ category.

You assume incorrectly.

[heliodoc]

Oh please tell US G1000 drivers (current or not so) Eclipse!!

The airplane can still be flown with 3 heavy GOB's in the cockpit...

You are just not going to land with  a full bag of fuel until one / you burn off at least 1.5 hours worth of fuel

The airplane can approach some dogginess with tubbies on board and the extra battery aft is helping the weight issue either.

Can be flown with tubbies .......just do your W&B !!!

[JB_407]

Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.

Not sure how that's relevant.

With required gear and crew of 3 plus full bags its over gross!

[Eclipse]

Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.

Not sure how that's relevant.

With required gear and crew of 3 plus full bags its over gross!

Don't bring the bags.

Fill with less fuel.

"Required gear?"  Choose another airplane.

Every wing can make their own rules to make their own lives more difficult.  If you're flying over water and have to have some goofy raft, so be it.
If you have to wear Nomex, so be it.  If you need an expresso machine so be...(wait, that's be cool).

None of the 1% excuses about fuel load, weight, etc., are any justification for the nonsense our scanners endure from many MP's who think they own the airplanes and the flying program.

Sounds like a NAV III. Only fill to the tabs and you fix your over gross.

Yep.

Those that work and play well with others seem to be able to make these things work, while those no one wants to play with always seem to have some reason why they are the only people who can fly.

[davidsinn]

Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.

Not sure how that's relevant.

With required gear and crew of 3 plus full bags its over gross!

Sounds like a NAV III. Only fill to the tabs and you fix your over gross.

[JB_407]

Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.

Not sure how that's relevant.

Don't bring the bags.

If you had read my post with understanding you would realize the reference to full bags was pilot speak for full load of fuel. So not bringing them isn't a choice.

Fill with less fuel.

Yes this is certainly an option for some missions. However it could mean less time over target. It could require a RTB to refill which in my AO could easily mean 2 hours of transit time. Is it worth those two hours just to fill another seat?

"Required gear?" 

Yes required gear, require by state statute. As PICI should ignore those standards? Maybe you will fly into the Alaska arctic without your survival gear just to fill a 3 seat. I'm won't.

Choose another airplane.

I don't select the aircraft and some squadrons don't have multiple aircraft to choose from. When the mission calls for a ski equipped plane this is the one we have most of the time.

The point you seem to have missed is that at times it makes sense to fly with two. Certainly not for every mission maybe not even for most missions but for some yes.

With required gear and crew of 3 plus full bags its over gross!

Don't bring the bags.

Fill with less fuel.

"Required gear?"  Choose another airplane.

Every wing can make their own rules to make their own lives more difficult.  If you're flying over water and have to have some goofy raft, so be it.
If you have to wear Nomex, so be it.  If you need an expresso machine so be...(wait, that's be cool).

None of the 1% excuses about fuel load, weight, etc., are any justification for the nonsense our scanners endure from many MP's who think they own the airplanes and the flying program.

Sounds like a NAV III. Only fill to the tabs and you fix your over gross.

Yep.

Those that work and play well with others seem to be able to make these things work, while those no one wants to play with always seem to have some reason why they are the only people who can fly.

[JB_407]

Scanners,

Seems that many feel scanners don't get a fair shake. Is this true for MO's as well? And if it isn't what is keeping the scanners from becoming qualified MO's?. Are squadrons not providing opportunities?

[Al Sayre]

Our Wing ran an MO school for the MS's last year,  had about 4-6 attend.   I think quite a few of the non-pilot MS's may be a bit intimidated by the ground school type materials... JMHO

[JB_407]

You could well be correct.

[arajca]

Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.

At the risk of angering the zipper suited sky gods, almost anyone can fly a Cessena well enough to land it in an emergency. Is this desireable, no, but it is reality. If something happens to the pilot - it is an emergency and most rules go out the window. Will the plane be damaged? possibly, but folks will survive.

[davidsinn]

Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.

If they're that worried they should not be flying.

[lordmonar]

Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.

Cool thing about that is our MP don't get to choose who rides right seat!

The big sticker here in NVWG is we got a few pilots who won't let the MO's do their job.

They get to shut up and look out the window.  Don't touch the radios, don't read the checklists, don't follow along with the chart, and lord forbid you try to tell them that they are in the wrong grid or not following the road far enough north!

Having said that....for the most part our MP's are great...they give you stick time, explain what is going on and work with you as a team.   It is the few bad apples that spoil it for the rest.

[Eclipse]

Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.

Cool thing about that is our MP don't get to choose who rides right seat!

The big sticker here in NVWG is we got a few pilots who won't let the MO's do their job.

They get to shut up and look out the window.  Don't touch the radios, don't read the checklists, don't follow along with the chart, and lord forbid you try to tell them that they are in the wrong grid or not following the road far enough north!

How does that happen more than once?

[a2capt]

If they are that worried .. yeah, they ought not be flying. .. I show everyone in my aircraft how to tune the radio, how to talk on it, and what to say in an emergency. 

I'm confident that should the need arise, ATC services will help out the best they can.

[lordmonar]

Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.

Cool thing about that is our MP don't get to choose who rides right seat!

The big sticker here in NVWG is we got a few pilots who won't let the MO's do their job.

They get to shut up and look out the window.  Don't touch the radios, don't read the checklists, don't follow along with the chart, and lord forbid you try to tell them that they are in the wrong grid or not following the road far enough north!

How does that happen more than once?

What?  When other pilots can't get pilots fired for not flying their grids or flying at 200 feet AGL (on camera!).  When pilots are kicked out of national level training programs because they can't shut up.....why do you think they are going to do anything because a pilot does not trust his MOs?

It's a pilots world...always has been...I [censored] about it....but I live with it.

[Short Field]

The BOG and National Headquarters can cry about safety all they want and mandate safety classes forever but nothing is going to change our safety culture until following 60-1and 60-3 becomes mandatory and not optional.   

According to the NTSB database, there were seven CAP airplane crashes between 2000 and 2010 that resulted in fifteen fatalities.  Only one of the airplanes was flown by a private pilot (577 hrs).  The rest were flown by PICs with 1,000 plus hours and Commercial or ATP licenses.  Flying too low either enroute or while conducting a search was the most common cause of the crashes.   

[heliodoc]

^^

Yep...."Mandating"  "safety classes" will NOT change a thing in CAP....especially when GOB's can not follow the rules themselves.

There is no meat in 60-1, 60-3 and really no "MEAT" in many CAP training programs...

The online craziness in CAP has put the entire organization out of touch with the face to face instruction that the REAL world of flying.

Why do you suppose the FAA FAAST teams preach that to the up-n-coming flight instructors?

CAP really could take a hint in its own ranks of "professional instructors."  Safety and education are instilled on a one to one basis and on a group basis. 

Maybe its time for CAP to reinstate the Pilot Continuation Training program instead of solely relying on online classes for "safety training."

Sure online gets the"education" out to the masses.....but its been argued in my Sqdn that CAP HAS to do MORE in the face to face mode and plenty of instructors that "claim" they are instructors start teaching or step aside.

Safety Courses?  Until CAP has at least 2 week in residence safety course similar to OSHA or RM and actually has some meat behind it......it really does not mean much more than online classes with no REAL certification.  Is CAP "safety education" certified or recognized by  real safety organizations or insurance companies like AOPA, AVEMCO, OSHA??

If the argument becomes  "my vaca time"....If one can sit there butt in an RSC, NB, Drill Comp, etc and take vaca for those activities.......
Then they can sit through a one week or 2 week safety course.

I will do my part os SO for my Sqdn and Wing...but I'd bet the majority of CAP SO's did not come from an ACTUAL safety program and it is easier to teach safety when someone ACTUALLY has had a COURSE LOAD and work in silent authority than have "safety program" that is based on knee jerk reactions and should have been part of CAP's culture ALL along during the same period after WW2 when others including the USAF had a budding safety program....that is when CAP should have been taking the hint on safety....

Safety program in CAP has been reactionary at best.   I understand with all the incidents and accidents that CAP has had, they had to start somewhere.  They are just 50+ years late in getting the "safety program" organized!!

[Short Field]

Safety program in CAP has been reactionary at best.   I understand with all the incidents and accidents that CAP has had, they had to start somewhere. 

At least the on-line safety program goes beyond READING the Sentinel to the squadron. On the nights the Sentinel was unavailable, they would READ NTSB accident reports - but never the ones that included the probable cause of the accident.  The only safety advice outside of "flying is dangerous" was to avoid "get homeitis".  I still fail to see exactly what "get homeitis" had to do with the crash of a IFR flight by a current and experienced IFR pilot in marginal VFR conditions.

[Robborsari]

I am a big believer in a full aircrew.  The new T models do make it harder.  Our R model has 1230 useful load.  The new Ts have 1034.  Filled to the tabs the R can take 845 vs the Ts 649.

Add in the 30 lbs for survival kit and trunk junk you are left with R: 815 vs T: 609.  A 172 at the tabs has 555lbs left.   Once a mission starts I like to keep the T models at 50 gals.  733 is usually enough for 3 people but even then it can be close.  If I am sending a sortie out over hilly terrain in wind for a low level search I would much rather the plane not be at gross.

Another issue is keeping the planes at 50 gal.  We have had people fill them all the way several times.  Once we were running at 40 gal for crew and equipment and they filled it to 88.  We were more the 200lbs over gross.  We had to sit around while they sucked it back out after a long argument.   Its hard to leave someone out or their gear when they are returning home after a mission.    On the nashville flooding we had to fly 2 outside folks (CAPF9 and 1af approved so hold your spam   who were 255 and 325lbs.  R model to the rescue. The T model with fuel at 64 would have been 130lbs overgross.  The R was 65 under.

None of which changes the role of the scanner as a critical member of the aircrew but also the first one to be dropped due to weight or other issues.  All of our MP are also MS/MO and most of the non-pilot MS we have are also MO.  That give us more flexability but the reality is if you are only qualified MS then there is a greater likelyhood of your being unable to participate.