New 60-1

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Again I state as the Pilot in Command I am IN COMMAND.  The care and feeding of the aircraft and the well being of my passengers is MY RESPONSIBILITY.  I don't care how many videos someone has watched that does not qualify them for anything around the airplane.  I will direct what I want done, who I want to do it, and how I want it done. 

Too many times a video such as this will hold attention for maybe 45 seconds followed by mentally making vacation plans while the rest plays out just so someone can mark a x on a sheet of paper.  The next time the video plays there is a popcorn tossing contest seeing who can "hit" the newest person on the screen first.  The next time the announcement that the video has to be seen is notice of a much needed nap.  Overall just a senseless piece of fluff someone created as a feel good to waste other peoples time.

[SunDog]

Cliff, Phall, EMT-

Having cadets watch that video does not relieve you of the responsibility requiring supervision and instruction doing it properly.

But in education, the more times a topic is covered the better it sticks.

If it does not break anything, why complain whether those taking the O Flight are required to take that video? Or do you have plenty on your hands for complaining about something minor like that?



Flyer

Entered in evidence - why we are slowly fading away. . .

It's not the minor time it takes, it's the annoyance of knowing this (and other SAS) is pointless. Not a deal breaker by itself, just One. More. Item. On. The. Stack. . . Will the last non-OCD member please leave quietly, leaving in peace those remaining, to create and haggle overe administrivia.

[Luis R. Ramos]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

[Eclipse]

Again I state as the Pilot in Command I am IN COMMAND.  The care and feeding of the aircraft and the well being of my passengers is MY RESPONSIBILITY.  I don't care how many videos someone has watched that does not qualify them for anything around the airplane.  I will direct what I want done, who I want to do it, and how I want it done. 

Yes, you are.

Except that many CAP pilots don't view the airplanes with the same pride of ownership and personal responsibility,
and worse, few are ever held responsible when they bang up a $350,000 lifesaving asset.

And when you allow people to work with an air of "you're lucky I showed up at all", it's hard to fix the attitudes.

There's a lot of grumbling and moaning about "uniforms" and "administration", and blah, blah, blah, as if it was
"all somehow tangential and irrelevant to !!FLYING!!"

It's not, and the attention to detail, not to mention the attitude correction these things are supposed to engender
are basically ignored and scoffed at by far too many pilots, to the detriment of all.

When I put on a CAP uniform for anything, I change my attitude and go into "work mode" - same professional
demeanor, same responsibility and personal ownership of problems I cause, or have been given authority to accomplish, etc.,
that I would have if I were getting paid.

However we have FAR TOO MANY pilots and other members who think they "know better", blow through or skip checklists,
proper release briefings, and generally treat CAP flying like it was their recreation day.

We didn't get to the point where asking about the tow bar being attached is on the FRO because there was white
space on the web page, it was because it was becoming a chronic problem nationwide.  We had a couple in my wing
that I'm personally aware of.  Prop strikes, tail strikes, hard landings, and the ever present hangar rash.

Stuff happens, and with the largest privately owned GA fleet, CAP is statistically inclined to have its share of
unavoidable mishaps.  The problem is that most of the ones I've seen were avoidable, and the pilots
ignored procedures, operated with 1/2 attention, or made decisions in favor of expediency vs. safety or common
sense.

And then at the end of the day, in all but the most extreme / expensive cases, the pilots are not in any way
disciplined, and carry on to their next issue, and in some cases, it doesn't take very long.

[SunDog]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

Re-read; I said it wasn't a stand-alone big deal; just a poiintless waste of time, and as someone else noted, an occassional blocker for the mission.  As a PIC I question your judgement and capacity for analysis, if you can make a leap of logic from critcizing a SAS task to the presumption that I can't follow a checklist. You need to understand the diffrence between criticizing a requirment and following a requirement. A mature mind can do both. I did the training, as one of the many SAS tasks required of me to play. I exercise free will to conclude it was a waste of time, and even more so for a cadet.

CAP runs on member's time; wasting it is irresponsible, and generating knee-jerk and ineffective requirements in response to incidents is lame.  By itself, it is minor. But they all add up, and add to the frustration and annoyance factor that makes us less mission capable, and drives members away.

If CAP goes a full year without dinging a plane, we're failures, having erred on the side of excessive caution. Responsible, serious, well trained people can still ding sheet metal - take the lesson learned to heart (and not via a goofy video) and charge it as a cost of doing business.

Every accident is preventable - the cost of doing so is just too high. If NHQ  can't quantify a reduction in incidents resulting from this and other SAS  " training", then they're either lazy, cynical, or just doing CYA for the lawyers.

[Eclipse]

If CAP goes a full year without dinging a plane, we're failures, having erred on the side of excessive caution. Responsible, serious, well trained people can still ding sheet metal - take the lesson learned to heart (and not via a goofy video) and charge it as a cost of doing business.

Every accident is preventable - the cost of doing so is just too high. If NHQ  can't quantify a reduction in incidents resulting from this and other SAS  " training", then they're either lazy, cynical, or just doing CYA for the lawyers.

Wow. 

[Cliff_Chambliss]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.

Flyer

And how quick we challenge each others abilities and skills.  There is a very real difference in meaningful and wasteful.   To question my ability when we have never met nor flown together well let me just say that if you are so quick to form such an opinion then I really don't care for your opinion.  For the record however, anyone who has ever shared a cockpit with me either as a student or crewmember finds out very fast that no quarter is given for skipping checklists or blowing thru procedures or taking shortcuts.  Attention to detail is what seperates the drivers from the aviators.

Eclipse stated:  Except that many CAP pilots don't view the airplanes with the same pride of ownership and personal responsibility,
and worse, few are ever held responsible when they bang up a $350,000 lifesaving asset.

I have often said to my students they should never fly a plane they do not own.  Treat every airplane as if it is your most prized possession.  Own the airplane, take care of it, and if something breaks (and it will), then take charge in getting it reported and fixed.  Be in command and never abdicate your responsibility, duty, and authority as Pilot in Command. 

[SunDog]

Again I state as the Pilot in Command I am IN COMMAND.  The care and feeding of the aircraft and the well being of my passengers is MY RESPONSIBILITY.  I don't care how many videos someone has watched that does not qualify them for anything around the airplane.  I will direct what I want done, who I want to do it, and how I want it done. 

Yes, you are.

Except that many ny CAP pilots don't view the airplanes with the same pride of ownership and personal responsibility,
and worse, few are ever held responsible when they bang up a $350,000 lifesaving asset.

And when you allow people to work with an air of "you're lucky I showed up at all", it's hard to fix the attitudes.

There's a lot of grumbling and moaning about "uniforms" and "administration", and blah, blah, blah, as if it was
"all somehow tangential and irrelevant to !!FLYING!!"

It's not, and the attention to detail, not to mention the attitude correction these things are supposed to engender
are basically ignored and scoffed at by far too many pilots, to the detriment of all.

When I put on a CAP uniform for anything, I change my attitude and go into "work mode" - same professional
demeanor, same responsibility and personal ownership of problems I cause, or have been given authority to accomplish, etc.,
that I would have if I were getting paid.

However we have FAR TOO MANY pilots and other members who think they "know better", blow through or skip checklists,
proper release briefings, and generally treat CAP flying like it was their recreation day.

We didn't get to the point where asking about the tow bar being attached is on the FRO because there was white
space on the web page, it was because it was becoming a chronic problem nationwide.  We had a couple in my wing
that I'm personally aware of.  Prop strikes, tail strikes, hard landings, and the ever present hangar rash.

Stuff happens, and with the largest privately owned GA fleet, CAP is statistically inclined to have its share of
unavoidable mishaps.  The problem is that most of the ones I've seen were avoidable, and the pilots
ignored procedures, operated with 1/2 attention, or made decisions in favor of expediency vs. safety or common
sense.

And then at the end of the day, in all but the most extreme / expensive cases, the pilots are not in any way
disciplined, and carry on to their next issue, and in some cases, it doesn't take very long.

I do not think this word means what you think it means. . .

[arajca]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

Re-read; I said it wasn't a stand-alone big deal; just a poiintless waste of time, and as someone else noted, an occassional blocker for the mission.  As a PIC I question your judgement and capacity for analysis, if you can make a leap of logic from critcizing a SAS task to the presumption that I can't follow a checklist. You need to understand the diffrence between criticizing a requirment and following a requirement. A mature mind can do both. I did the training, as one of the many SAS tasks required of me to play. I exercise free will to conclude it was a waste of time, and even more so for a cadet.

CAP runs on member's time; wasting it is irresponsible, and generating knee-jerk and ineffective requirements in response to incidents is lame.  By itself, it is minor. But they all add up, and add to the frustration and annoyance factor that makes us less mission capable, and drives members away.

If CAP goes a full year without dinging a plane, we're failures, having erred on the side of excessive caution. Responsible, serious, well trained people can still ding sheet metal - take the lesson learned to heart (and not via a goofy video) and charge it as a cost of doing business.

Every accident is preventable - the cost of doing so is just too high. If NHQ  can't quantify a reduction in incidents resulting from this and other SAS  " training", then they're either lazy, cynical, or just doing CYA for the lawyers.

The problem isn't accidents per se, it's accidents caused by negligent behavior on pilots' and crews' parts. Bending a wing because the pilot/crew didn't open the hangar door completely is 100% avoidable at no cost. Ditto with pushing a plane into ANYTHING. That's what the video is addressing. I think CAP realizes accidents will happen. There are somethings that we just can't control, but accidents that happen due to things we can control need to be eliminated such as opening hangar doors completely and making sure the area is clear.

The flying tow bar incident that lead to the grounding of a wing wasn't based soley on that incident. That incident was merely the last in a long series on bad judgement calls by pilots and crews. Also, the bad judgement reportedly exercised by the pilot was to overfly a residential area AFTER it was confirmed the tow bar was attached.

As has been mentioned before, many of these safety programs are a result of incidents CAP has had. If we weren't having avoidable collisions while moving aircraft on the ground, we wouldn't have the GH video.

[Eclipse]

Again I state as the Pilot in Command I am IN COMMAND.  The care and feeding of the aircraft and the well being of my passengers is MY RESPONSIBILITY.  I don't care how many videos someone has watched that does not qualify them for anything around the airplane.  I will direct what I want done, who I want to do it, and how I want it done. 

Yes, you are.

Except that many ny CAP pilots don't view the airplanes with the same pride of ownership and personal responsibility,
and worse, few are ever held responsible when they bang up a $350,000 lifesaving asset.

And when you allow people to work with an air of "you're lucky I showed up at all", it's hard to fix the attitudes.

There's a lot of grumbling and moaning about "uniforms" and "administration", and blah, blah, blah, as if it was
"all somehow tangential and irrelevant to !!FLYING!!"

It's not, and the attention to detail, not to mention the attitude correction these things are supposed to engender
are basically ignored and scoffed at by far too many pilots, to the detriment of all.

When I put on a CAP uniform for anything, I change my attitude and go into "work mode" - same professional
demeanor, same responsibility and personal ownership of problems I cause, or have been given authority to accomplish, etc.,
that I would have if I were getting paid.

However we have FAR TOO MANY pilots and other members who think they "know better", blow through or skip checklists,
proper release briefings, and generally treat CAP flying like it was their recreation day.

We didn't get to the point where asking about the tow bar being attached is on the FRO because there was white
space on the web page, it was because it was becoming a chronic problem nationwide.  We had a couple in my wing
that I'm personally aware of.  Prop strikes, tail strikes, hard landings, and the ever present hangar rash.

Stuff happens, and with the largest privately owned GA fleet, CAP is statistically inclined to have its share of
unavoidable mishaps.  The problem is that most of the ones I've seen were avoidable, and the pilots
ignored procedures, operated with 1/2 attention, or made decisions in favor of expediency vs. safety or common
sense.

And then at the end of the day, in all but the most extreme / expensive cases, the pilots are not in any way
disciplined, and carry on to their next issue, and in some cases, it doesn't take very long.

I do not think this word means what you think it means. . .

It means exactly what it says.

"A quantifier that can be used with count nouns - often preceded by "as" or "too" or "so" or "that"; amounting to a large but indefinite number; "many temptations"; "a good many"; "many directions"; more than a few, more than several."

[SunDog]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

Re-read; I said it wasn't a stand-alone big deal; just a poiintless waste of time, and as someone else noted, an occassional blocker for the mission.  As a PIC I question your judgement and capacity for analysis, if you can make a leap of logic from critcizing a SAS task to the presumption that I can't follow a checklist. You need to understand the diffrence between criticizing a requirment and following a requirement. A mature mind can do both. I did the training, as one of the many SAS tasks required of me to play. I exercise free will to conclude it was a waste of time, and even more so for a cadet.

CAP runs on member's time; wasting it is irresponsible, and generating knee-jerk and ineffective requirements in response to incidents is lame.  By itself, it is minor. But they all add up, and add to the frustration and annoyance factor that makes us less mission capable, and drives members away.

If CAP goes a full year without dinging a plane, we're failures, having erred on the side of excessive caution. Responsible, serious, well trained people can still ding sheet metal - take the lesson learned to heart (and not via a goofy video) and charge it as a cost of doing business.

Every accident is preventable - the cost of doing so is just too high. If NHQ  can't quantify a reduction in incidents resulting from this and other SAS  " training", then they're either lazy, cynical, or just doing CYA for the lawyers.

The problem isn't accidents per se, it's accidents caused by negligent behavior on pilots' and crews' parts. Bending a wing because the pilot/crew didn't open the hangar door completely is 100% avoidable at no cost. Ditto with pushing a plane into ANYTHING. That's what the video is addressing. I think CAP realizes accidents will happen. There are somethings that we just can't control, but accidents that happen due to things we can control need to be eliminated such as opening hangar doors completely and making sure the area is clear.

The flying tow bar incident that lead to the grounding of a wing wasn't based soley on that incident. That incident was merely the last in a long series on bad judgement calls by pilots and crews. Also, the bad judgement reportedly exercised by the pilot was to overfly a residential area AFTER it was confirmed the tow bar was attached.

As has been mentioned before, many of these safety programs are a result of incidents CAP has had. If we weren't having avoidable collisions while moving aircraft on the ground, we wouldn't have the GH video.

Here's what I propose to you, without the stats to support it; CAP pilots have fewer incidents, accidents, and bent aluminum per flight hour than the rest of GA.  I don't know this to be true. I don't think NHQ  has any idea, either, and that should start your eyes rolling. . .

If watching that SAS prevented one handling incident per year, then the training is a waste of time. If it prevented 50 incidents, then it's likely worth the trouble. The organization doesn't appear to have tbe first clue about the effectiveness - somebody bent something, so let's throw another requirement at it and move on.

Every failure to open a hangar door completly is preventable; to say that every failure to do so is negligence is ludicrous. Some cases, sure. . .but many times a sober, responsible, careful person may believe he opened it all the way. May even look at it and still mis-perceive. It's how humans are built.

Hard landing? Cost us a 182 for a while, and the CAP instructor was thrown under the negligence bus. Mistake on his part? Sure, he let the pilot under instruction get a bit too far in the hole. Negligence? No, it wasn't. 

This implication that many of our pilots are loose cannon yahoos is silly. We do got jerks in cockpits. And in vans, GTs, NHQ, legal, and CP.  In my experience, the ratio of good folks to jerks is better in the cockpit. I'm not seeing cavalier behaviour by pilots in my wing, and we're probsbly middle of the pack.  But CAP airplanes move, don't weigh a lot relative to their surface area, react to the wind, aren't particularly robust, and operate often in confined spaces, air and land.

So let's say 30,000 members take the training, 30 minutes each, sit-down to stand-up time. . .15,000 hours invested; Value the time to the organization at $30 per hour? $450,000.00?  Did that save one wing tip, or 50?  Don't waste our time if you don't know. . .

Key here is, it doesn't cost NHQ much, does it? - It comes out of membership's hide.

[Eclipse]

Every failure to open a hangar door completly is preventable; to say that every failure to do so is negligence is ludicrous. Some cases, sure. . .but many times a sober, responsible, careful person may believe he opened it all the way. May even look at it and still mis-perceive. It's how humans are built.

So someone who can't even tell if the door is all the way open should be trusted with flying a plane?

How about "take your time, get a wing-walker, and don't assume?"

I know !!FLYING!!

Considering some of your posts, and the attitude you have about non-optional things you believe are trivial and
therefore can be ignored or fudged, perhaps the the bell is tolling in your vicinity.

You've said you're not renewing, so at least the burden of all these "details" that get between you and !!FLYING!!
will no longer be yours to bear.  You will be free to fly whatever you like, whenever you like, and
just hop in and light the afterburners, door open or not.

We don't need anyone in CAP who thinks a single mishap is in any way "acceptable", or who chooses
to do actuarial math on the costs of wrecking an occasional  plane vs. always paying attention.

[SunDog]

As I've observed before, you are a very selective reader, perhaps intentionally? I don't ignore the rules, and don't ignore the requirements. I didn't claim the previlage to do so.

I said some of them are stupid. Or, more gently put, badly conceived and unsupported by objective measures.

Try to read more carefully, if indeed it's just honest oversight and not setting up a straw man.  You're a better observer than I if you've never been fooled by a shadow, or a trick of perception, and never been alone at midnight on a ramp with deep shadows and bright lights.  Perhaps you could learn to fly, and take my spot. 

No bells tolling; knock on wood, haven't bent anything or hurt snyone yet. Almost 40 years of blind luck, zi guess.

[SunDog]

PS

Drop me a line the year CAP goes mishap free and still serves a worthwhile purpose.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I have a free weekend now as the winds were gusting over 30 knots and we had to cancel our operational mission.

[a2capt]

I have a free weekend now as the winds were gusting over 30 knots and we had to cancel our operational mission.

Karma .. after canceling out on SLS/CLC .. the more attractive flying .. gets cancelled. 

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Must be confusing me with someone else, SLS/CLC was so 2009...

[a2capt]

No, not you, specifically. The events that were on the calendar today.

[a2capt]

..and now..

All,
A few weeks ago, a new CAPR 60-1 was released that required cadets participating in o-rides to complete the aircraft ground handling training  every two years.  Earlier today, a new CAPR 60-1 was released that called into question whether cadets were still required to complete this training.  The current regulation states that "all CAP members who perform duties in the vicinity of CAP aircraft" are required to take the training.  Although cadets are not specifically mentioned in the regulation, it my direction that all CAWG cadets participating in o-rides are still required to take this training and their compliance will be verified immediately prior to flight.  All members, including cadets, must be aware of proper ground handling procedures in order for the wing to operate at the highest level of safety possible.

Regards,

Jon Stokes, Colonel, CAP
Commander, California WingCivil Air Patrol

This thing has been bugging me from one direction .. the way it was worded, and with this edict, that would mean that any passenger needs to watch said video too. Yes, even the politician and teacher getting an orientation flight.

[Eclipse]

..and now..

All,
A few weeks ago, a new CAPR 60-1 was released that required cadets participating in o-rides to complete the aircraft ground handling training  every two years.  Earlier today, a new CAPR 60-1 was released that called into question whether cadets were still required to complete this training.  The current regulation states that "all CAP members who perform duties in the vicinity of CAP aircraft" are required to take the training.  Although cadets are not specifically mentioned in the regulation, it my direction that all CAWG cadets participating in o-rides are still required to take this training and their compliance will be verified immediately prior to flight.  All members, including cadets, must be aware of proper ground handling procedures in order for the wing to operate at the highest level of safety possible.

Regards,

Jon Stokes, Colonel, CAP
Commander, California WingCivil Air Patrol

This thing has been bugging me from one direction .. the way it was worded, and with this edict, that would mean that any passenger needs to watch said video too. Yes, even the politician and teacher getting an orientation flight.

Where are you getting that?

The edict says "members", and the reg says this (Updated 3 May):

Biennially (every second year) the Aircraft Ground Handling Video will be reviewed and
its associated test will be accomplished by all CAP members who perform duties in the vicinity of
CAP aircraft to include, but are not limited to, the following CAP duties: Unit commanders, aircrew
members (CAP Pilots, Mission Scanners, Sensor Operators, etc), mission staff supervising or
actively engaged in aircraft operations (Incident Commanders, Operations Section Chiefs, Air
Operations Branch Directors, Flight Line Supervisors and Marshallers, Mission Safety Officers, etc).
Only CAP personnel that have current Aircraft Ground Handling Training may be authorized to
move or supervise moving aircraft when necessary. Aircraft Ground Handling Training may be taken
any time during a given year and is located on the National Aircraft Ops & Stan/Eval webpage at
http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/aircraft_ops__staneval/.