Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 17, 2018, 11:58:28 AM
Home Help Login Register

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 on: Yesterday at 11:16:12 PM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by Eclipse
If you're in a cadet or composite squadron, Cadet Programs. In a senior squadron, Ops or ES.

+1 Senior-level before being considered for the job.

 on: Yesterday at 11:15:02 PM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by arajca
If you're in a cadet or composite squadron, Cadet Programs. In a senior squadron, Ops or ES.

 on: Yesterday at 10:47:43 PM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by NIN
Honestly a good commander surrounds him or herself with the people in those specialties.

I got to thinking about this today WRT wing commanders: your job isn't necessarily to be a specialist, but to mentor the subordinate commanders and let the staff be the specialists.

I don't need to be a logisitican to be a good commander, but I better find and train a good LG.

 on: Yesterday at 10:44:48 PM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by CAP9907
Id add Administration to the list, perhaps also Financial Management

 on: Yesterday at 10:27:58 PM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by Holding Pattern

 on: Yesterday at 10:21:00 PM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by Hawk200
Friend and I discussed this, but thought I'd ask here: What do people in general think would be the best specialty track for a commander to have under their belt? And, why? We also considered different types of units, and from the perspective of only having a single specialty as well as having two or three.

There's no bet on this or anything, we're both just curious as to what other people think.

EDIT: We were talking about what tracks before becoming a commander, not the track one would have as a commander. Just for clarification.

 on: Yesterday at 08:06:23 PM 
Started by OldGuy - Last post by NIN
I have a friend who is a 737 captain for a US major.  A month or so back, her and her FO arrived to find their equipment was an 8 Max. Neither had flown an 8 Max, but apparently it was allowed,   so off they went.

I come from a similar background as phall, and knowing your systems can be the difference between making the right decision in the face of contrary info during an incident and winning the day,  or making a wrong decision with incomplete system knowledge and arriving at your own crash site.  SCE to AUX, anyone?

I thought it odd that a flight crew on a revenue flight would be flying a new major rev of a model without knowing the ins and outs of that rev beforehand.

(Unknown if they'd been familiarized with the aircraft previously in a ground procedures trainer or what....)

 on: Yesterday at 04:42:36 PM 
Started by OldGuy - Last post by sardak
The new 737 MAX has larger engines than previous 737s. Ever notice how the nacelles are flattened on the bottom of most 737s?  That's for ground clearance, but Boeing couldn't make the nacelles flatter to gain ground clearance for the new engines. This required structural mods to the landing gear and wings and shifting the position and angle of the engines, resulting in CG and angle of attack changes.

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) was added to help stability and reduce risks for stalling at higher angles of attack. The system is well documented on the manufacturer side of the issue.  However, Boeing didn't think this was enough of a change that it required new training for pilots transitioning to the new MAX series, and the FAA agreed. In essence, the system would be transparent to the flight crew.  I can't imagine there was any deliberate hiding of the system.  The thinking was that dealing with stabilizer/pitch problems, high angles of attack and onset of stall would still be handled as in the past, MCAS is just there to "help."

AoA reading mismatches on several flight of the same Lion Air aircraft resulted in aircraft behavior crews weren't expecting, perhaps brought on by the MCAS. In all but the last flight, the crews managed to regain control.  As a consequence, the E-AD was issued to clarify emergency flight procedures.  There has been nothing released publicly regarding hardware and/or software changes and there is still work needed to determine what role the MCAS actually played.  The accident investigation is in the early phases and the CVR has yet to be located, which hopefully will help explain the crew's actions. The accident has certainly made the "transparent" MCAS system visible.


 on: Yesterday at 04:27:30 PM 
Started by darkmatter - Last post by Eclipse
I am having trouble with my technician rating going through on eservices. What all has to be in eservices to go through?


Your PDO has to complete the submission online, and the Unit CC has to approve it.

That's about it.

 on: Yesterday at 04:14:19 PM 
Started by darkmatter - Last post by TheSkyHornet

But I would go to Wing Safety and/or Wing PDO to get their call on it.

I think I'll take that advice and talk to the wing safety

Just be careful about being that guy who doesn't like the answer you got from your boss, so you go to Wing HQ to prove him wrong.

So, under CAPR 62-1, you have to perform monthly safety education for at least 15 minutes. This needs to be logged in eServices (under SIRS).

If you go into SIRS and look at the last 6 sessions you taught, that should suffice. Those are literally the required monthly safety education contact requirements under the regulation.

I would go higher, too, to get clarification. But I would keep your Commander as part of that process for visibility and that you're on the same page with the intent of determining the clarity and applicability of the standard.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 16 queries.