Jeez, Malcolm....anybody ever tell you that you shouldn't kick a hornet nest?
It seems someone got caught signing off pilots who can't pilot well. ...I said in a post a couple of weeks ago that there's a common trend o the "Good old boys club" in some pilot groups---and that's both in and out of CAP. But that form of behavior is an inherent problem in an organization that needs to take both professionalism and safety extremely seriously. I can't say what resulted in this memo in particular. I'm sure someone here knows; whether they choose to divulge or not in another thing. But I've seen the GOBC get out of hand to where I've seen several incidents from the same group in a relatively short period of time in both CAP and personal aircraft flown by the same individuals. Is it coincidence? Or is it cockiness. It's not really for me to say. But I have my personal opinions, and my trust is thwarted at times with that group. The point of having a check examiner different from an instructor is to reduce bias in reviewing proficiency, competency, and confidence in a pilot seeking sign-off. But when the examiner is close friends with the instructor, and the three have sat around the pilot table together and cackle for the duration of a three-hour meeting, it's not inappropriate to question whether or not that proficiency check is fairly judged, or judged to quality. Is it malicious? No, I wouldn't say that. Perhaps ignorance or negligence. Over-camaraderie, if that's a way of saying it.
I'm not sure adding more layers and insulting those we rely on is the best approach.
Anecdotally, and related to the issue above, I see/hear a huge variance in the way pilots are evaluated, almost to the point of harassment during Form 5's. I'm talking about CFI's that are having to complete 5 hour check rides and then being raked over the coals. There are check pilots in our organization that very much let their role go to their head (aka God syndrome) and there is no real check an balance to the system. They are every bit as much of the problem, especially when we consider that typically there are only a handful that control the funnel through which everyone must pass. As opposed to evaluating and understanding a correct solution may have multiple approaches/styles, they attempt to impose only their approach with no possible deviation. That's not OK.
"So this is basically letting folks know that things are going to change and that kind of stuff isn't going to cut it anymore. That if something ain't right, its not cool to just say to your buddy 'Hey, yeah, man, Capt ABC was all over the place on final, glad I don't have to fly with him again this weekend..' and expect that SomeoneElse will somehow notice that Capt ABC probably shouldn't be flying a CAP plane with cadets in it anymore. That the good old boy "I'll sign you off if you sign me off" dance isn't going to cut it anymore. It even says in the memo 'Don’t pass a pilot on a check ride when the pilot does not meet our standards'. We need to be sure that when we're flying CAP iron, we're doing it to the standards. The Air Force is watching this closely.""ohhhhh"
Quote from: NIN on September 21, 2017, 12:39:34 PM"So this is basically letting folks know that things are going to change and that kind of stuff isn't going to cut it anymore. That if something ain't right, its not cool to just say to your buddy 'Hey, yeah, man, Capt ABC was all over the place on final, glad I don't have to fly with him again this weekend..' and expect that SomeoneElse will somehow notice that Capt ABC probably shouldn't be flying a CAP plane with cadets in it anymore. That the good old boy "I'll sign you off if you sign me off" dance isn't going to cut it anymore. It even says in the memo 'Don’t pass a pilot on a check ride when the pilot does not meet our standards'. We need to be sure that when we're flying CAP iron, we're doing it to the standards. The Air Force is watching this closely.""ohhhhh"To be fair to Capt ABC, everyone has bad days, even pilots. Having one rough landing should not be the sole indicator of a poor pilot. As much as they like to have us believe otherwise, pilots don't execute perfect takeoffs, maneuvers, and landings every time. While that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have a conversation about whether or not that pilot should maybe take the rest of the day off, "he had a bad landing, so let's pull his F5" is not really fair.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on September 24, 2017, 04:43:46 PMQuote from: NIN on September 21, 2017, 12:39:34 PM"So this is basically letting folks know that things are going to change and that kind of stuff isn't going to cut it anymore. That if something ain't right, its not cool to just say to your buddy 'Hey, yeah, man, Capt ABC was all over the place on final, glad I don't have to fly with him again this weekend..' and expect that SomeoneElse will somehow notice that Capt ABC probably shouldn't be flying a CAP plane with cadets in it anymore. That the good old boy "I'll sign you off if you sign me off" dance isn't going to cut it anymore. It even says in the memo 'Don’t pass a pilot on a check ride when the pilot does not meet our standards'. We need to be sure that when we're flying CAP iron, we're doing it to the standards. The Air Force is watching this closely.""ohhhhh"To be fair to Capt ABC, everyone has bad days, even pilots. Having one rough landing should not be the sole indicator of a poor pilot. As much as they like to have us believe otherwise, pilots don't execute perfect takeoffs, maneuvers, and landings every time. While that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have a conversation about whether or not that pilot should maybe take the rest of the day off, "he had a bad landing, so let's pull his F5" is not really fair.Usually it's not just "one rough landing", it's demonstrated sub-par performance for the entire checkride that earns you a fail.One rough landing would usually just subject you to a critique from the checkpilot if everything else was all right.And checkpilots usually don't fail anybody for "fun" either. There is 10 times the paperwork and a few phone calls to be made when they fail someone.Most people don't make work for themselves for "fun".
So, is this JUST a checkride thing? Or is it more? Pilots are on good behaviot during a checkride. That's a given! What kind of decisions do we REALLY make when we're not being monitored? How do we fly and do we exercise good judgment? The exchange above raises the question of whether this letter of direction is intended to address only a few stick n' rudder issues, or much more?
The complacency of success is probably CAP's biggest weakness, because on the whole CAP is a very safe, low-risk organisation, by both design and practice, as long as everyone pays attention and follows the letter of the regs and policies.
If you're going to compare staying home as the baseline then everything is "risky" including respiration and gravitational attraction.
You can use a baseline of typical hobbyist GA flying and a Saturday hike on the local trail, the statement still stands.I'm not saying that what we do is OMG high risk, but calling it low risk is a recipe for complacency (and rejects the reality that stuff happens even when we do everything right, which is important when the wing king gets his opportunity to weigh in on the mishap report).
I agree the CAP flying we do is NOT "low risk". Apparently, that carries over into even training, check rides, and glider ops.
Quote from: Live2Learn on September 25, 2017, 09:02:47 PMI agree the CAP flying we do is NOT "low risk". Apparently, that carries over into even training, check rides, and glider ops.So what risk level is it?Is CAP's incident rate higher then the norm for the general pilot population? You can't compare orgs, because no one else has as many planes or sorties in GA, so statistics are incomparable at that level.
I would say most CAP activities are low-risk. But most of the actual "field missions" (including training) are fairly high-risk, if you want to use those descriptions.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on September 26, 2017, 09:25:32 AMI would say most CAP activities are low-risk. But most of the actual "field missions" (including training) are fairly high-risk, if you want to use those descriptions. I don't consider our typical aerial photo missions or ELT searches high risk at all.Now if CAP starts a crop dusting mission .... or maybe tree top level power line patrols.
Quote from: etodd on September 26, 2017, 12:17:49 PMQuote from: TheSkyHornet on September 26, 2017, 09:25:32 AMI would say most CAP activities are low-risk. But most of the actual "field missions" (including training) are fairly high-risk, if you want to use those descriptions. I don't consider our typical aerial photo missions or ELT searches high risk at all.Now if CAP starts a crop dusting mission .... or maybe tree top level power line patrols. I would agree with this. If the crew does their jobs, then there is not really a high risk. The issues arise when everybody wants to ignore their training and CRM and step out of their lane.
... FWIW, with the exception of a suicide and the glider tow mishap that resulted in three non-CAP fatalities that I gleaned from the past decade of NTSB accident reports (above), ...
Quote from: Live2Learn on September 26, 2017, 01:42:26 PM... FWIW, with the exception of a suicide and the glider tow mishap that resulted in three non-CAP fatalities that I gleaned from the past decade of NTSB accident reports (above), ...If you are citing the NTSB reports, you might in the interest of accuracy want to revisit your phrasing on that glider mishap, where the final NTSB report listed four Causes for the mishap (all attributed to the mishap pilot) and two Factors (one of which was CAP, the other the airport). Reference: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20140222X51922&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA. Court decisions aside, that's the official record.V/rSpam