Mission Pilot Designation -- IFR Rated Priority Funded Training?

[MooneyMeyer]

It just seems to me that it's pretty clear that we ought to prioritize funds to go to the most qualified personnel first. In most cases there will be plenty of money for all. We have to value pilots as critical assets in CAP. With the best pilots we have getting first dibs on further training. The priority should be as follows:

ATP Pilots
CFI-I Pilots
CFI-A Pilots
*Commercial Multi & Single Pilots (just for the extra knowledge and skill needed to obtain multi rating)
*Commercial Single Pilots
Instrument Rated Pilots (* = assuming commercial pilots have earned their instrument rating)
Private Pilots pursuing IFR rating
Private Pilots

(sub-prioritize each by flight hours flown over the past year)

Non-pilots who have joined in the conversation here need to realize that there is a substantial difference in experience, skill and knowledge required to obtain the next higher certificate.

I for one, believe it is entirely relevant to the conversation here, as to whether or not you are a pilot. Non-pilots lack the frame of reference that pilots have here. Thats not to say your opinion is irrelevant in any way. It is interesting to hear what non-pilots think here. I would just suggest you identify yourself as a non-pilot if you have a suggestion on this subject.

I think we can all agree that no matter what the activity (Actual missions, O-rides, SAR-ex, etc..), we want the best pilots we have available occupying the left seats as pilot-in-command. 

[arajca]

So the low mission-hour IFR pilot is more valuable than the high mission-hour VFR pilot?

[Flying Pig]

I think it would become a management nightmare that would result in people standing around arguing over who has the most hours, and the highest ratings.  So if I have the same ratings as someone else, do I get to train more because I have more hours?  What if a guy has more hours than me, but I am actually employed as a pilot and he is just a weekend warrior?  Do I go to the back of the line BECAUSE I have an employer who already pays for my training?

I think its fine.  In my experience, not enough people show up to training as it is.  If you rely on CAP to stay current, maybe you should take a back seat to those who dont.  Would that work out?

[MooneyMeyer]

So the low mission-hour IFR pilot is more valuable than the high mission-hour VFR pilot?

Put the high mission-hour VFR pilot in the right seat as observer and the more qualified IFR pilot in the left seat as PIC.

Problem solved, the guy with experience flying CAP missions is still in the plane and the better pilot is PIC.

We need to keep emotions out of it and just stay logical. Yes the high mission hour VFR only pilot may have his feelings hurt, but we want the best, most qualified pilot in there as PIC. Plain and simple.

[Short Field]

So we don't want non-pilot observers either.  IFR pilots get the left seat, VFR pilots get the right seat, and the non-pilots sit in the rear.  Problem solved...

[davidsinn]

So the low mission-hour IFR pilot is more valuable than the high mission-hour VFR pilot?

Put the high mission-hour VFR pilot in the right seat as observer and the more qualified IFR pilot in the left seat as PIC.

Problem solved, the guy with experience flying CAP missions is still in the plane and the better pilot is PIC.

We need to keep emotions out of it and just stay logical. Yes the high mission hour VFR only pilot may have his feelings hurt, but we want the best, most qualified pilot in there as PIC. Plain and simple.

And you just bumped the non pilot observer so you can have two pilots where only one is needed. Does it really help our mission capability to have better ratings for our pilots? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend training money on the guy actually carrying out the mission instead of the guy that just drives the bus? The guy putting eyeballs on the ground is the whole point isn't it?

[MooneyMeyer]

I think it would become a management nightmare that would result in people standing around arguing over who has the most hours, and the highest ratings.  So if I have the same ratings as someone else, do I get to train more because I have more hours?  What if a guy has more hours than me, but I am actually employed as a pilot and he is just a weekend warrior?  Do I go to the back of the line BECAUSE I have an employer who already pays for my training?

I think its fine.  In my experience, not enough people show up to training as it is.  If you rely on CAP to stay current, maybe you should take a back seat to those who dont.  Would that work out?

Your right, it would become difficult when there are several pilots with the same certificates with an IFR rating available. At that point, if its unclear who has flown the most hours over the previous year, just make it a judgement call by the commander.

Yes. You would get first priority in training over someone equally qualified if you have flown more hours over the past 1 year period than them. In all likelihood as an employed pilot, you would have more hours over that one year pilot than the weekend warrior.

The line of priority should be just as I've described. When not enough people show up for training there should be plenty of training dollars to go around to everyone. This only becomes an issue when you have too many pilots and not enough $$$ / planes.

It is entirely irrelevant whether you rely on CAP to stay current for the purpose of this topic. We're talking about funding priority here. The best pilots should come first. You can always use a CAP airplane to stay current on your own (substantially discounted) dime. 

[Short Field]

So put CAP money with the pilots with the most experience and training so they get more experience and training.  Ignore the pilots with less experience and training so they get further behind the "elite" pilots.

Great team building plan you have there. 

[MooneyMeyer]

Oh wow guys. For safety reasons I would much rather have a pilot in the right seat than a non-pilot any day. In my opinion pilots make for much better observers anyways. By the fact they are pilots they pretty much already possess much of the skills required anyways.

Jeesh, I'm just saying put the best, most qualified (in terms of mission safety first) personnel in the airplane. Anyone can look out the window, pilots are especially good because the FAA requires us to have good eyesight.

To call pilots "bus drivers" is like calling a surgeon an auto mechanic.

[MooneyMeyer]

So put CAP money with the pilots with the most experience and training so they get more experience and training.  Ignore the pilots with less experience and training so they get further behind the "elite" pilots.

Great team building plan you have there.

They're not going to fall behind. Like many have mentioned here, we usually don't get enough pilots at a training exercise. All that I've suggested is just for the rare event that we have too many pilots and not enough planes / $$$.

This is about completing the mission in the safest manner possible. You can do plenty of team building exercises on the ground.

[davidsinn]

You want the best pilot in the left seat. I see where you're coming from and I agree with you up to that point. You're forgetting that the whole point of the mission is to put an observer over the grid. Why not put your best observers in the right seat? By best I mean the guys that only do MO and not MP first and MO only when they can't fly left seat.

[Flying Pig]

From a Law Enforcement SAR standpoint, we have a pilot and observer crew.  In our case, the observer usually is not a pilot, nor is preference given to observers who may be pilots. However, its a requirement that all pilots must have been experienced observers first.

Quality vs. quantity, I agree, but we still need the quantity. We are not below the standard on 1 pilot, 1 observer crews. Outside of the military, pretty much every SAR organization is 1 and 1....and 1 in back in our case.

[SilverEagle2]

If you want safer crews, then you need to spend the money inversely on the chain that Lt. Meyer has suggested.

More experience can and will lead to greater proficiency. Giving preference to high time pilots accomplishes nothing for increasing the CAP mission capable pilot ranks.

[Short Field]

High time and advanced ratings does not equal "safest".  If a CAP pilot is not safe, he should not be flying - period.

From the Sentinel:
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat

[heliodoc]

Agreed with Short Field
Notice the most accidents/incidents were with "Check pilots, IP's and MSN Check pilots at the
helm of some of these missions.

So giving monetary priority training SHOULD be in the PROFICIENCY of the CAP Check gods.

Where I have been there has been entirely TOO much time spent on the paralysis of the accident / incident paralysis that a number of CAP line pilots just do not want to fly until the CAP "corporate culture" starts being more down to earth rather than some feared corporate flying organization.

So I do not agree with Mr Meyers assertion that CFI I and A's get the priority money until they can PROVE that they can prevent these problems before addressing the other CAP line pilots.

Some CAP CFI's just do not have enough time instructing and some or most of the "regular" CAP pilots are being penalized for those Pro pilots.

SOOO  there is one "pilots" feeling on the subject....The CAP CFI is apparently not God this year!!!

[MooneyMeyer]

Okay, well it's obvious most of you disagree with the way I've suggested we prioritize funding for MPs. But, what's a better alternative? Can anyone suggest a priority structure that's better than our current (those with the most political connections in CAP get flights first) structure? Should we go by rank or seniority? Does anybody have a productive suggestion?

In general, those with advanced ratings and high time are without a doubt safer. The quote you used from the Sentinel does not put into context that a much higher percentage of the total flight hours is amassed combined by check pilots, instructors, and MCPs. Only 16 were PIC, perhaps if more of them had been PIC that number would be smaller. 

By the way, an Air Force pilot / rep at the national boards this year had dinged up (hangar rash) one of our planes a week earlier. Everyone makes mistakes.

[isuhawkeye]

Why not approach it from a training perspective. 

Funds should be prioritised to create a pool of IFR rated commerical pilots.  Lower level pilots get trainig, and CFI's/II's get profficency from conducting the trainig. 

Make that your foccus and your will have a larger pool of current profficient pilots who will operate at the higher level that you desire. 

[DG]

From a Law Enforcement SAR standpoint, we have a pilot and observer crew.  In our case, the observer usually is not a pilot, nor is preference given to observers who may be pilots. However, its a requirement that all pilots must have been experienced observers first.

Is this based on cost?  The non-pilot observer gets paid less?

So, does the pilot get paid more?  If the pilot is paid the same as the non-pilot observer, would they use a second pilot, who also is qualified as an observer?

Should we pay our pilots more?

If not, if they are paid the same, should we always use the second mission pilot, who also is qualified as an observer?

[isuhawkeye]

Those of you who are looking at the two pilot model should check out the Coast Guard Auxiliary format.

http://www.cgaux.org/response/AirOps/

They break pilots down into three catagories

Aircraft Commander
     Have more than 1000 flight hours as PIC.
          • Possess a current instrument rating.
          • Have been checked out in SAR procedures by an Auxiliary IP/FE.

Aircraft commanders may fly any operational mission and conduct aircraft facility

inspections, when authorized.

First Pilot

     Have more than 500 flight hours as PIC.
          • Have been checked out in SAR procedures by an Auxiliary .

First pilots may fly any operational mission

Co-Pilot

Co-pilots are pilots with more than 200 flight hours as PIC. Co-pilots may only fly within gliding distance from the shore and on specific types of missions.

[Flying Pig]

From a Law Enforcement SAR standpoint, we have a pilot and observer crew.  In our case, the observer usually is not a pilot, nor is preference given to observers who may be pilots. However, its a requirement that all pilots must have been experienced observers first.

Is this based on cost?  The non-pilot observer gets paid less?

So, does the pilot get paid more?  If the pilot is paid the same as the non-pilot observer, would they use a second pilot, who also is qualified as an observer?

Should we pay our pilots more?

If not, if they are paid the same, should we always use the second mission pilot, who also is qualified as an observer?

The unit is only slotted for a certain number of pilots.  Not everyone in the unit is a pilot.  And just because you have a Commercial Pilots license does not mean that you are a unit pilot.  We have two observers who have their helo ratings, but in order to move up to being a pilot, there needs to be an opening. Thats the reason.  And in order to be selected as a unit pilot, you need to have been a successful Observer, and it usually goes by seniority. 

My intention in bringing up that LE scenario was because the argument for prioritizing training dollars was safety.  We are very safe and dont fly two pilot crews.

On a side note, thats why our pilots are not civilians. Because a civilian cant be an Observer since the observer actually handles calls and occassionaly points their gun at people.  And to be a pilot, you need to have been an observer first.