Mission Pilot Designation -- IFR Rated Priority Funded Training?

[RADIOMAN015]

I've never seen any statistics but it would seem to me that when we have "funded" training for Mission Pilots the priority should be to keep those pilots trained that are also Instrument Flight Rules qualified.

I realize there's some long term member Mission Pilots that are only VFR qualified, but it seems to me that as funding becomes tight wings are going to have to prioritize who will get what training.

One is severely limited by just having mission pilots that are VFR qualified only.  However they can be used effectively for cadet orientation flights, since cadets get more out of flying in fair weather rather than in the clouds!
RM   

[PHall]

I've never seen any statistics but it would seem to me that when we have "funded" training for Mission Pilots the priority should be to keep those pilots trained that are also Instrument Flight Rules qualified.

I realize there's some long term member Mission Pilots that are only VFR qualified, but it seems to me that as funding becomes tight wings are going to have to prioritize who will get what training.

One is severely limited by just having mission pilots that are VFR qualified only.  However they can be used effectively for cadet orientation flights, since cadets get more out of flying in fair weather rather than in the clouds!
RM

Kinda hard to do visual grid search when you can't see the ground!

We do very little electronic search in IFR conditions. Mostly because there is no demand for it.

[Short Field]

I can't think of a single IFR mission we have flown in the last four years. 

[isuhawkeye]

I have been on several missions where CAP aircraft have flown IMC to position for a search.

[RADIOMAN015]

I can't think of a single IFR mission we have flown in the last four years.

Well seems to me on your way or returning for a particular mission the aircraft could encounter IFR conditions (which would require diverting around weather or RTB).  I don't see why we want to limit ourselves with the least qualified mission pilots.  Of course than it would be self fulfilling limitation, IF there's no IFR qualified mission pilots available.   Comments I've heard in the past is "it isn't fun" to fly in IFR conditions.   I'm even heard about an exercise that was  cancelled (which was a weather relocation exercise) due to bad weather (IFR conditions)      

Oh yea, BTW, when is the last time any CAP wing has actually had a practice mission during IFR conditions to find an ELT with appropriate coordination with ground teams.  Shouldn't we be training in all possible scenarios? (and there have been actual missions in the past where CAP has flown in IFR conditions only and has isolated an ELT signal)
RM 

[Nolan Teel]

We have several missions here in Texas that requires our pilots to fly Night IMC...  So Id say there is a huge need for IFR Qualified and PROFICIENT Pilots in CAP.

[RiverAux]

I've seen no evidence that anyone's training budgets have been cut back so much that this sort of limitation would make any sense.

[Eclipse]

ORM limits the amount of IFR we can fly at all.

Common sense and ORM limit the training we fly in IFR.

Only a small percentage of real-world missions can be flown in IFR, since we're still mostly a visual search organization, and a secondary / tertiary responder so anything beyond an ELT in a storm with a high POD and a lot of people on board waits for morning.

Far less of our pilots are IFR rated than VFR (which is fine, based on the first three above).

Otherwise, good plan.

[Short Field]

The OP asked if we should provide IFR rated MPs with priority funding for training at the expense of non-IFR rated MPs.  Based on the operational missions I have seen in the last four years - I can't see a reason for it.  Then you toss in the fact that funding is based on total number of MPs and MOs - the non-IFR rated MPs would be subsidizing additional training for IFR rated pilots at the expense of their training.  Considering that I have had to leave airplanes sitting on the ground on missions due to no MPs and have had no missions that needed a IFR rated MP in the last four years - it is a bit hard to justifiy this proposal. 

If you are serious about the need for more IFR rated MPs, then I could support a proposal to assist non-IFR rated MPs in upgrading to IFR rated pilots. 

[MooneyMeyer]

I agree with the premiss here.  Instrument rated pilots are, in general, better pilots than non-IFR flyers. I see no problem with prioritizing funding to go to the IFR MPs first. 

[arajca]

As a non-pilot, I see a problem with this idea.

If you keep bumping VFR pilots in favor of IFR pilots, you're going to run out of pilots. Not every pilot in CAP has the time or money to become IFR pilots.

[cap235629]

As a non-pilot, I see a problem with this idea.

If you keep bumping VFR pilots in favor of IFR pilots, you're going to run out of pilots. Not every pilot in CAP has the time or money to become IFR pilots.

+1, how about spending that money getting VFR to IFR if the need for IFR is so great?

I think the OP has it backward

[DG]

A VERY good idea.

I think you would find that those who say they have only seen VFR missions are not Instrument rated. 

And I can't count all the missions that were not flown because the pilot was either not Instument rated or he was not current, and was uncomfortable flying in Marginal VFR.

And it would provide an incentive to VFR only pilots to get Instrument rated.

The pilot who is Instrument qualified and current is safer.  So the idea is a very good one to promote Safety.

[Short Field]

I think you would find that those who say they have only seen VFR missions are not Instrument rated. 

Facts are facts, it doesn't matter what your rating is.   As a IC trying to man missions, I look at all MPs.  If we had ever had a requirment for a IFR flight, I would have pulled from the IFR rated MPs. 

[Short Field]

The pilot who is Instrument qualified and current is safer.  So the idea is a very good one to promote Safety.

And we would be even safer if we only used CFIIs?  The last three major dings I am aware in our Wing all involved CFIs and/or ATPs. 

[blackrain]

A VERY good idea.

I think you would find that those who say they have only seen VFR missions are not Instrument rated. 

And I can't count all the missions that were not flown because the pilot was either not Instument rated or he was not current, and was uncomfortable flying in Marginal VFR.

And it would provide an incentive to VFR only pilots to get Instrument rated.

The pilot who is Instrument qualified and current is safer.  So the idea is a very good one to promote Safety.

I'm with you a 100%

As I mentioned recently, getting my instrument rating is a priority for many reasons, with safety right at the top.

We've actually had to shorten a Sarex because we didn't have enough IFR rated pilot to get the aircraft home with weather that was predicted to move in. Not really bad weather but would take us under VFR minimums.

I've always hoped the CAP would fund instrument ratings and maybe continuing IFR proficiency flights. I won't hold my breath.

You never know what future missions we may be tasked with which could benefit from more IFR pilots

[PHall]

A VERY good idea.

I think you would find that those who say they have only seen VFR missions are not Instrument rated. 

And I can't count all the missions that were not flown because the pilot was either not Instument rated or he was not current, and was uncomfortable flying in Marginal VFR.

And it would provide an incentive to VFR only pilots to get Instrument rated.

The pilot who is Instrument qualified and current is safer.  So the idea is a very good one to promote Safety.

I'm with you a 100%

As I mentioned recently, getting my instrument rating is a priority for many reasons, with safety right at the top.

We've actually had to shorten a Sarex because we didn't have enough IFR rated pilot to get the aircraft home with weather that was predicted to move in. Not really bad weather but would take us under VFR minimums.

I've always hoped the CAP would fund instrument ratings and maybe continuing IFR proficiency flights. I won't hold my breath.

You never know what future missions we may be tasked with which could benefit from more IFR pilots

And there's your "Catch 22", we don't fund IFR ratings because we don't have a real need for them.
Now, if we had a "mission" where IFR flight was a fairly common occurance, then IFR training would be a much higher priority.
We're talking about getting the most bang for our training bucks here folks.

[Short Field]

+1  :clap:  We need more MPs who know how to and will fly good mission profiles.  These same missions train our MSs and MOs.  Not much use for a MS on a IFR training mission - and the non-pilot MOs are out of luck as well since the right seat needs a safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood.

[airdale]

it would seem to me that when we have "funded" training for Mission Pilots the priority should be to keep those pilots trained that are also Instrument Flight Rules qualified.

This is really a special case of a more general question:  "Should CAP invest more or less equally in all pilot assets or should it emphasize investment in its more valuable assets?"

An instrument rating is an indicator of a more valuable asset, as is a Commercial or an ATP.  Someone flying over 100 hours per year is probably a more valuable asset than someone who is flying 20.  Total flight hours is also an indicator, though not all hours are the same.  (I am thinking about "dual-given" being not the same as flying freight in hard IFR and ice.)  The subjective judgment of check pilots, should CAP ever recognize the value of judgment, would also be an indicator as would be MP experience and demonstrated skills.

So -- invest in the winners or invest in all, hoping that additional low-value assets will become high value assets as a result?  Personally, I think the answer is obvious though not very egalitarian.

BTW, a flight doesn't have to involve hard IFR for an instrument rating to be valuable.  I can pop through a 1500 AGL scattered or broken deck VFR and fly on top without worrying about things closing up on the other end, where a VFR pilot is stuck scud-running and dodging radio towers.  Which is safer?  I can also file on a nice day and forget worrying about MOAs, airspace, etc. and have ATC tasked with separation (not that I don't look out the window!).  Again, safer.

[Eclipse]

So -- invest in the winners or invest in all, hoping that additional low-value assets will become high value assets as a result?  Personally, I think the answer is obvious though not very egalitarian.

The reality is that most wings don't have the hard-numbers of pilots, period, to start making a subjective call as to who is more "valuable".

Further, its this mentality which has led some wings to have a pilot's club where only a small number of pilots can ever get near an aircraft - you start deciding which pilots are most valuable and then by the nature of that decision, those pilots will get more hours and support than the new guys, making it very difficult to ever jump on the ride.

The fact remains that our primary flight missions are during daytime VFR conditions, followed by night VFR, with the need for IFR coming a far third in most areas, and then usually for aircraft movement in advance of VFR missions when things clear up.  Many wings are barely capable of performing even those
types of missions.

Like everything else in CAP, before we can start fine-tuning who gets priority training, we need to be far exceeding on the basic mission.