Scanner as an Interim position

[tsrup]

So maybe there is some logic to senior members striving to maintain af hight and weight standards...


Someone had to say it.

[cap235629]

we have a T model with a 6 pack.   

[tdepp]

So maybe there is some logic to senior members striving to maintain af hight and weight standards...


Someone had to say it.

Rupster:
As a widebody myself, I'm not wild about your point but I understand your point and think you might even be right.  But then that probably should be made a requirement or an SQTR that aircrew must meet the height and weight requirements. 

And as you know first hand, assembling qualified aircrews for long-term missions is already a tough job in a small wing like ours (SDWG).  Throw out the fatties like me and we have an even smaller, albeit lighter pool to choose from.

Believe me, I've thought about this issue when the MP asks me how much I weigh and we start doing the calculations and I see that we also need to take the airborne repeater and other gear aloft.  If I'm too fat to fly, then I shouldn't be allowed to if it is going to endanger our aircrews or the public. 

So, my skinny colleague, when does the Rupster's Fat Camp for tdepp begin?    Maybe we could turn it into a reality series: CAP Fat Camp: Too Fat To Fly.

[Eclipse]

As a widebody myself, I'm not wild about your point but I understand your point and think you might even be right.  But then that probably should be made a requirement or an SQTR that aircrew must meet the height and weight requirements. 

H & W has nothing to do with capability or even most training tasks.  It is only relevant to the pilot and perhaps the AOBD in regards to prep for a respective sortie, etc. You start placing artificial barriers to voulnteerism, barriers which have no real practical reason for existing, and you are setting
yourself up for losing pilots, not "aircrew", pilots, who as it is already (in many cases) are difficult to get to do anything but the minimums.

Until CAP, inc. comes up with some sort of recruiting or incentive program to stuff our units so full of members that we can simply cast off pilots and other aircrew for being too heavy, we have to continue as we have, which is assembling the best crews possible day-of.

There are plenty of members in my AOR who are fully within the tables for wearing the USAF combos but cause W&B issues because they are tall.
Put 2-3 of these guys in the same plane and you have an issue.  What's the fix?  Little fellers fly with the big fellers and we all move on.

[tsrup]

Epp, knowing you personally I know the tone of your article is very lighthearted, and as always I appreciate your jest.

Very valid points.  Our wing had a small pool of resources and cutting out those who do not meet AF height and weight standards would cripple our ability to carry out the missions put to us.

And maybe it's easy for me to say this because I am young and within standards, but maybe we as aviators need to consider the ramifications of our weight and the impact it has on our mission effectiveness.  I'm not saying we create new standards or SQTRs, but rather as professionals try and hone our skills and our bodies to become more effective at what we do.

We can cry and complain about discrimination all we want, but when it comes to Cessnas, weight and balance is god.  If we can't carry enough fuel or carry the equipment we need to carry out our mission, it is no longer a membership issue, but an operational one.

Again I mean no offense to those who serve diligently in the Civil Air Patrol and I apologize in advance for it, but we need to start thinking of ourselves as professionals and how we as individuals impact our mission capabilities, even if it is the sacrifice of an hour of fuel.  We owe it to ourselves as professionals to do everything we can to make ourselves more mission effective.

[Short Field]

It is not about height anyway - it is just about weight.  Six Ft Five inches and 259 pounds is within the CAP H&W standard.  You can even weigh more and meet the AF standard.  The aircraft W&B really doesn't care how neat you look in the uniform or which standard you are meeting.  If you are within the W&B, you fly, otherwise you don't.

[Robborsari]

we have a T model with a 6 pack.

Those are about half way between the Glass and the older ones.  Kinda strange that the glass ones are heavier.  You would think all those metal and glass instruments would be heaver than the panels but I think the boxes and the backup battery make up the difference. 

[bosshawk]

Why are the glass heavier?  An explanation given me says that the seats are heavier, due to being made to more robust standards(more metal in them), the interiors are made of mostly leather(heavier than cloth) and airframes beefed up.  Don't know that these are the real reasons for the increased weight, but it makes a certain amount of sense.  Since I don't fly the glass, I simply rely on rumor(sort of like a lot of CT members).  If you really want a valid answer, ask a CFI who is glass qualified.  Oh, I almost forgot that I have been told(those three dangerous words) that the Lycoming engine on the glass is heavier than the Continental ones on the round dial planes.

That ought to stir up some more questions and comments from CT folks who are non-pilots.

[a2capt]

Compare POH equipment lists .. the avionics are more involved than six cans of gyro.

It's practically an airliner with just two PAX seats.