Initial Flight Training for SMs

Started by Psicorp, May 04, 2007, 09:29:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Psicorp

Quote from: RiverAux on May 04, 2007, 08:03:35 PM
QuoteCAP allowed to fly and train cadets for free because of our congressionally mandated AE mission.
Nothing in any federal law restricts our AE mission to cadets so there is no rational basis for prohibiting initial flight training of senior members while allowing it for cadets.

Very valid point.  Education shouldn't be restricted access.

Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257

DNall

My contention would not be that adults need to have access to flight training for AE purposes, but rather to train from scratch to mission pilots in conjunction with a contractual committment. That seems to be a mission essential item, where FAA is just giving into the poor flight school market worried about losing more business to a cheaper govt subsidized alternative.

RiverAux

Makes sense.  Have the contract say that CAP will let you take your initial flight training in a  CAP plane (with you paying for gas) provided that you obtain enough hours to become a mission pilot in a reasonable period of time and that you agree to stay a current mission pilot for another reasonable period of time and that if you don't you will have to pay the difference in the cost of your initial flight training between the CAP costs and that of local FBOs (FBO flight training cost - cost of gas spent in CAP training = what you owe CAP). 

Tim Medeiros

Quote from: RiverAux on May 05, 2007, 01:43:47 AM
Makes sense.  Have the contract say that CAP will let you take your initial flight training in a  CAP plane (with you paying for gas) provided that you obtain enough hours to become a mission pilot in a reasonable period of time and that you agree to stay a current mission pilot for another reasonable period of time and that if you don't you will have to pay the difference in the cost of your initial flight training between the CAP costs and that of local FBOs (FBO flight training cost - cost of gas spent in CAP training = what you owe CAP). 
Dont forget the cost of the CAP aircraft as well, not just fuel
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Chair, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811

DNall

Flight training:
1) do the CFIs get paid? Cause they aren't going to fly adults for free. They only fly a handful of cadets for free each year, which honestly works to inspire many times more to pay their own way.

2) What about the maint hours? Those aren't going to be funded just as  areward to adult membership. The issue for a flight school is they invest in planes & get the return by putting hours on them in a given timeframe. If you reduce the bulk hours they do then those assets aren't as valuable.

You pay the dry rate, plus fuel, plus CFI... then you're right in the same range as a commercial flight school, and what have you gained?

I'd be more in favor of a funded flight training program. Set a target number & distribution of mission pilots nationally, and then provide subsidized training to meet that. It would require an application & medical with some upfront apptitude test & maybe a flight evaluation. Then it would come with a service contract. The terms of that contract would have to be stiff enough in length & mandatory participation (some kind of point system maybe like the guard/res) that it desincentivizes people coming to CAP just for that & equals out in work what you'd be paying for normal civilian flight training. And if you can't keep up your end of the contract then you owe a boat load of money.

That's a nice idea, but pie in the sky cause FAA is never going to relent to the flight school lobby. What's more realistic is partnering with someone like USAA, AFA, NOPA, etc to offer extremely low interest financing options for flight training leading to MP.

floridacyclist

AOPA has always been nice to us, and encouraging more folks to become pilots would be in their best interests.
Gene Floyd, Capt CAP
Wearer of many hats, master of none (but senior-rated in two)
www.tallahasseecap.org
www.rideforfatherhood.org

flyguy06

Quote from: DNall on May 05, 2007, 05:49:48 AM
Flight training:
1) do the CFIs get paid? Cause they aren't going to fly adults for free. They only fly a handful of cadets for free each year, which honestly works to inspire many times more to pay their own way.

2) What about the maint hours? Those aren't going to be funded just as  areward to adult membership. The issue for a flight school is they invest in planes & get the return by putting hours on them in a given timeframe. If you reduce the bulk hours they do then those assets aren't as valuable.

You pay the dry rate, plus fuel, plus CFI... then you're right in the same range as a commercial flight school, and what have you gained?

I'd be more in favor of a funded flight training program. Set a target number & distribution of mission pilots nationally, and then provide subsidized training to meet that. It would require an application & medical with some upfront apptitude test & maybe a flight evaluation. Then it would come with a service contract. The terms of that contract would have to be stiff enough in length & mandatory participation (some kind of point system maybe like the guard/res) that it desincentivizes people coming to CAP just for that & equals out in work what you'd be paying for normal civilian flight training. And if you can't keep up your end of the contract then you owe a boat load of money.

That's a nice idea, but pie in the sky cause FAA is never going to relent to the flight school lobby. What's more realistic is partnering with someone like USAA, AFA, NOPA, etc to offer extremely low interest financing options for flight training leading to MP.

If you start paying CFI's for flight training, then CAP ceases to be a non profit organization. I am agauinst Adults taking flying lessons to get their PPL in CAP. Many wil use it as a way to get to the airlines and not give back to CAP. We give flights to casets as a way to motivate them to pursue aviation as a career. This is made mainly through orientation flights. I have never taken a pol but I qwould guess that the percentage of cadets who actually get a private pilots licesnse solely through CAP is very low. CAP is a not a flight training school. Keep in mind everyone that fliwes in CAP is not interested in being a mission pilot. Some just want to fly o rides and some useit to stay proficient.

DNall

What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

I think it's fine if we picked people that prove they're qualified & earn a competititve slot to train from scratch to mission pilot, if they then have a contractual obligation for a number of years that includes regular participation as a MP & active involvement as a staff officer - pretty much a point system. You see what I'm saying here? If you just wanted a pilot's license, it'd be a lot quicker & easier to pay for it, but if you go thru this program you're gong to bust your butt & pay for it in long hard service that's going to absolutely suck if you don't really want to be in CAP & just see the flying as a way of serving.

Capt Rivera

Quote from: DNall on May 05, 2007, 05:49:48 AM
Flight training:
1) do the CFIs get paid? Cause they aren't going to fly adults for free. They only fly a handful of cadets for free each year, which honestly works to inspire many times more to pay their own way.

Why speak like your an authority on a subject if your not an authority on it. Your statement doesn't even hold the backing of your personal experience. Just what you feel. Are you a CFI who wouldn't teach unless getting paid? Thanks for your "pure love of aviation."

As of now NO CFI can instruct for pay in a CAP plane. They probably should even pay the Pro-rata share of fuel, Oil and airport fees. [Don't quote me on the last statement to the FARs, I didn't research it specifically, so I could be wrong.

I have met no less then 10 CFI's who were willing to instruct any and everyone who met CAP Regs and FAR's. Their passion to teach or share their knowledge with other members of this great organization even causes them to do ground school lessons, not just cockpit experience.

Before you say something like, "they just want to build hours." Some want to be Airline pilots, or military aviators, some ARE. Both for whatever their personal reasons choose to do this. Whether it helps them in their personal/professional lives or not, they would still be performing a mission for America.

When you make blanket discouraging statements they reflect on not just you and your squadron, but on every member, every squadron, the CAP as a whole and the US Air Force. If you want to belittle yourself or the members in your squadron be specific, don't publicly or privately speak in that way for anyone else, concerning everyone else.

Oh yeah... The issue is not inspiration to fly or learn to fly, but rather that some or most who would love to can't afford to. Moreover then not affording to, they can barely afford to be in CAP as they take unpaid vacations from work to conduct SARs, go to Cadet activities etc. If you feel there is a lack of motivation as opposed to a lack of money, I want to see you offer a scholarship to pay for one officers flight experience leading to a private. After you get done researching how much that would cost you on average, take a guess at how many applications you would get. If you decide to do this give me a heads up, you will get my application first.



//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

Capt Rivera

Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.


How many? As a tax payer and actual member of the military I demand to know! You must have stats somewhere to make such a direct statement against the reserves. I really hope no USAF-CAP etc read these posts. You wonder why some people don't take our CAPabilities seriously.

In all honestly if I was a General who has never known anything about CAP and read things with so much disrespect from its most active members, I would NOT be inclined to give CAP anything more then what I was forced to do.

Statements like that make me ashamed.
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

ddelaney103

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.


How many? As a tax payer and actual member of the military I demand to know! You must have stats somewhere to make such a direct statement against the reserves. I really hope no USAF-CAP etc read these posts. You wonder why some people don't take our CAPabilities seriously.

In all honestly if I was a General who has never known anything about CAP and read things with so much disrespect from its most active members, I would NOT be inclined to give CAP anything more then what I was forced to do.

Statements like that make me ashamed.

Read in a very narrow way, his statement is correct.  An RC pilot would go to the various schools, get his seasoning training, then shift to reserve duty (for aviators, this works out to a few days a month - staying current means more than a weekend).  He would then be able to get an airline job a few yeas before his AC counterpart comes off his/her full time commitment.  This is not a bad deal for the gov't, as they are getting extra flying time for their pilot on someone else's nickel.

However, the RC aviator still has a commitment to serve: he can't just bail on the AF without getting hammered.  Frankly, the people I know who were getting two years of 60 days in, 60 days out probably don't feel as if they were cheating Uncle Sugar.

In the end there is an agreement: we'll train you and you owe us X amount of time.  Since the gov't sets the rules (and controls the loopholes) it's hard to feel that they are being taken advantage of.  You have to balance the cost for the soldier - too little and the gov't gets cheated, too much and you end up with an Army of One (two if you're lucky).

DNall

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:29:51 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 05, 2007, 05:49:48 AM
Flight training:
1) do the CFIs get paid? Cause they aren't going to fly adults for free. They only fly a handful of cadets for free each year, which honestly works to inspire many times more to pay their own way.
I have met no less then 10 CFI's who were willing to instruct any and everyone who met CAP Regs and FAR's. Their passion to teach or share their knowledge with other members of this great organization even causes them to do ground school lessons, not just cockpit experience.
There's a half dozen plus active CFIs on here that've stated it repeatedly, including some of those from flight encampments. I don't think you'll find many CFIs willing to take food off their family's table so fellow CAP members can have a free ride.

QuoteBefore you say something like, "they just want to build hours." Some want to be Airline pilots, or military aviators, some ARE. Both for whatever their personal reasons choose to do this. Whether it helps them in their personal/professional lives or not, they would still be performing a mission for America.
Well first of all, that was not me that said that, it was a fellow Army officer & combat vet, but attention to detail is overrated I guess, I do however concur with him.

Everyone is fine with mil/airline pilots flying for CAP, the issue is joe blow off the street that wants to make a hundred grand a year & doesn't give hoot about CAP, but is perfectly willing to put on a show & dissapear right after he's got what he wanted. That's a legitimate concern that would have to be addressed in offering flight training. The military recognizes & addresses this concern with a significant service obligation. We could do soemthing similiar to get our money's worth via a service contract with financial penalties.

The rest of your statement is way off base & kind of rambling, so I'm not going to address it if you don't mind.

DNall

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

How many? As a tax payer and actual member of the military I demand to know! You must have stats somewhere to make such a direct statement against the reserves.
Stats for how many reserve aviators have comercial flying jobs prior to serving 8 years after flight training? No I don't have any statistics on that, but I'll refer you to my local CAP-RAP reservist who is an IP in the AF  & Southwest Airlines pilot for a long time now & still hasn't completed his initial service obligation.

You want some more examples, come on down here. My unit is in Iraq right now, but when they get back in a few months I'll be happy to introduce you around. Most of them work for airlines or other comerical flying. The two that just got the DFC both do. Most of them had such jobs before completing their initial service obligation.

I got no problem with any of that. It is indeed a good deal for the govt, and a very good deal for the aviator. I would not howerver allow people to take that training at our expense & then dissappear with no further obligation. I'm willing to release them from our contract to enter the military, but otherwise, I think quid pro quo is very appropriate.

Other then that, I'd respectfully request that you tone down some of your statements, perhaps consider the edit button after you've re-read the statements you're all iffed about.

Capt Rivera

Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 03:03:46 AM
Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:29:51 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 05, 2007, 05:49:48 AM
Flight training:
1) do the CFIs get paid? Cause they aren't going to fly adults for free. They only fly a handful of cadets for free each year, which honestly works to inspire many times more to pay their own way.
I have met no less then 10 CFI's who were willing to instruct any and everyone who met CAP Regs and FAR's. Their passion to teach or share their knowledge with other members of this great organization even causes them to do ground school lessons, not just cockpit experience.
There's a half dozen plus active CFIs on here that've stated it repeatedly, including some of those from flight encampments. I don't think you'll find many CFIs willing to take food off their family's table so fellow CAP members can have a free ride.

QuoteBefore you say something like, "they just want to build hours." Some want to be Airline pilots, or military aviators, some ARE. Both for whatever their personal reasons choose to do this. Whether it helps them in their personal/professional lives or not, they would still be performing a mission for America.
Well first of all, that was not me that said that, it was a fellow Army officer & combat vet, but attention to detail is overrated I guess, I do however concur with him.

Everyone is fine with mil/airline pilots flying for CAP, the issue is joe blow off the street that wants to make a hundred grand a year & doesn't give hoot about CAP, but is perfectly willing to put on a show & dissapear right after he's got what he wanted. That's a legitimate concern that would have to be addressed in offering flight training. The military recognizes & addresses this concern with a significant service obligation. We could do soemthing similiar to get our money's worth via a service contract with financial penalties.

The rest of your statement is way off base & kind of rambling, so I'm not going to address it if you don't mind.

I know my statement to be on base and direct. i addressed statements you made and commented further to what I would guess you'd reply. [the point on not everyone doing it to log flight hours.] I made that statement not in response to what anyone has said in the past but to what I figured you would respond with. You agreed so I believe that makes my statement correct. 
QuoteI do however concur with him.

I love when people will take offence to being corrected when wrong by trying to belittle someone. Did saying I lack attention to detail make you feel better or like more of a man? Seriously, if your going to make a statement like that, reread what you post. Spell check and grammar check is your friend, well in your case it might not be. I know I am far from the best on those two points but some of your mistakes are just to obvious, especially if your speaking to attention to detail.

You wont respond because I believe you have nothing constructive to say.

Yes the military has good incentives and service commitments. A military aviator does more then just come home from training and sign up with an airline. For one they have a minimal active service time on station immediately following training. Length is dependant on airframe. They drill as mission dictates and are prepared to leave friends and family to put themselves in harms way so that you can come online from the safety of your house and talk negatively about them. They don't get paid well for the type of flying they do and if they choose to stay in past their initial 10 year commitment, they still wont be getting paid equal to their airline counterparts. Reserve and guard bases are not closed 24/7 except for drill weekends. Members are on station everyday ready to defend your freedom. You generalize an entire entity based on your limited "experience". You obviously have no real clue at all.

By assuming that Joe Blow off the street will only want to take and run you limit the possibility that Joe might have good intentions. You forget that people can have an effect on a persons attitude. It just so happens people's minds change and Joe might find value in this organization and want to continue to give back to it.

I think one of the major short comings of CAP is that too many people lack true vision.

QuoteArthur Mendelson: You're focusing on the problem. If you focus on the problem, you can't see the solution. Never focus on the problem!

Arthur Mendelson: See what no one else sees. See what everyone chooses not to see... out of fear, conformity or laziness. See the whole world anew each day!


//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

Capt Rivera

Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 03:14:36 AM
Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

How many? As a tax payer and actual member of the military I demand to know! You must have stats somewhere to make such a direct statement against the reserves.
Stats for how many reserve aviators have comercial flying jobs prior to serving 8 years after flight training? No I don't have any statistics on that, but I'll refer you to my local CAP-RAP reservist who is an IP in the AF  & Southwest Airlines pilot for a long time now & still hasn't completed his initial service obligation.

You want some more examples, come on down here. My unit is in Iraq right now, but when they get back in a few months I'll be happy to introduce you around. Most of them work for airlines or other comerical flying. The two that just got the DFC both do. Most of them had such jobs before completing their initial service obligation.

I got no problem with any of that. It is indeed a good deal for the govt, and a very good deal for the aviator. I would not howerver allow people to take that training at our expense & then dissappear with no further obligation. I'm willing to release them from our contract to enter the military, but otherwise, I think quid pro quo is very appropriate.

Other then that, I'd respectfully request that you tone down some of your statements, perhaps consider the edit button after you've re-read the statements you're all iffed about.

Your changing your statement. You started off saying they don't do what they committed to do. They take and leave. Now you saying that they gain something and concurrently while performing their duties they manage to do something else to further their life. I congratulate anyone who can balance those great responsibilities. If it helps this is what you said:

QuoteWhat about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

Do you see the difference in what your saying now and what you said then? I bet you do... It's all in the details.  :P
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

DNall

Your sentences are jumping around somewhat & I'm having a hard time understanding what you're arguing about. I'd really like to understand though...

If you believe CFIs will volunteer to train a few hundred adults a year to fly for free, when that's taking off their plate, when those adults are or should be gainfully employed, and when there is no obligation incured in exchange for this free service... well, then please search out the many threads on the subject from the many CFIs on this forum, and do feel free to put that case to your 10 or so CFI friends to ask them if they'd really carry thru on it under those circumstances.

Are you really saying CAP should offer free flight training to anyone off the street that wants it... that our CFIs will volunteer to do that in mass production cause they just have a joy of teaching people to fly... that those students won't be using CAP to get flight training but cause they really want to stay on & serve us... and none of them would be getting flight training cause they think they can use it to move them part way to commercial aviation. Does that remotely make sense to you?

I know how the reserve component works & aviation units within it, I'm in such a unit. I know very well that we're open 365 days a year, even when it's a skeleton crew. I know when pilots come back from flight training that they still have to check out as combat ready with the chief IP. That is not a 40hr a week pursuit, it depends on the IP & operations for the budget & scheduling. It'll take several months, but between then they'll be back home trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage & they'll be real interested in paid flying jobs as soon as they can get one, which will be inside 6 or 8 or 10 years. And again, good for them, I got no problem with that. I'm sure some of them came in as pilots to get that training & they'll be gome after the initial obligation. Our retention past that point is horrible. I'd like ot think people aren't coming in just for the training, but frankly I don't care, the length of the initial obligation is timed to make it worth it to us, so anything past that is bonus to the service. That's a reasonable contract, and I think any reasonable person would tell you if we're going to offer free or extremely discounted adult flight training in CAP then it should come with a simliar contractual obligation to stick around & use those skills for CAP till we've gotten a sufficiant return out of you & then you're free to stay or go as you please.

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 04:34:42 AM
Your changing your statement.
No, you're inferring information not present.

QuoteWhat about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.
See where I said case A) serves obligation & THEN leaves for airlines; case B) gets trained & gets paid by airlines before they've served out their obligation.

I'm sure I could have been more clear, I appologize for that, but the guy behind you had no trouble figuring it out. You chose to infer an alternative that was illogical & then attack on the basis of that assumption.

Capt Rivera

Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 04:51:46 AM
Your sentences are jumping around somewhat & I'm having a hard time understanding what you're arguing about. I'd really like to understand though...

If you believe CFIs will volunteer to train a few hundred adults a year to fly for free, when that's taking off their plate, when those adults are or should be gainfully employed, and when there is no obligation incured in exchange for this free service... well, then please search out the many threads on the subject from the many CFIs on this forum, and do feel free to put that case to your 10 or so CFI friends to ask them if they'd really carry thru on it under those circumstances.

Are you really saying CAP should offer free flight training to anyone off the street that wants it... that our CFIs will volunteer to do that in mass production cause they just have a joy of teaching people to fly... that those students won't be using CAP to get flight training but cause they really want to stay on & serve us... and none of them would be getting flight training cause they think they can use it to move them part way to commercial aviation. Does that remotely make sense to you?

I know how the reserve component works & aviation units within it, I'm in such a unit. I know very well that we're open 365 days a year, even when it's a skeleton crew. I know when pilots come back from flight training that they still have to check out as combat ready with the chief IP. That is not a 40hr a week pursuit, it depends on the IP & operations for the budget & scheduling. It'll take several months, but between then they'll be back home trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage & they'll be real interested in paid flying jobs as soon as they can get one, which will be inside 6 or 8 or 10 years. And again, good for them, I got no problem with that. I'm sure some of them came in as pilots to get that training & they'll be gome after the initial obligation. Our retention past that point is horrible. I'd like ot think people aren't coming in just for the training, but frankly I don't care, the length of the initial obligation is timed to make it worth it to us, so anything past that is bonus to the service. That's a reasonable contract, and I think any reasonable person would tell you if we're going to offer free or extremely discounted adult flight training in CAP then it should come with a simliar contractual obligation to stick around & use those skills for CAP till we've gotten a sufficiant return out of you & then you're free to stay or go as you please.

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 04:34:42 AM
Your changing your statement.
No, you're inferring information not present.

QuoteWhat about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.
See where I said case A) serves obligation & THEN leaves for airlines; case B) gets trained & gets paid by airlines before they've served out their obligation.

I'm sure I could have been more clear, I appologize for that, but the guy behind you had no trouble figuring it out. You chose to infer an alternative that was illogical & then attack on the basis of that assumption.

your words are,-= go straight to the airlines without putting in their time...=- anyone else see the issue with that statement? WITHOUT PUTTING IN THEIR TIME!?! did i make it up? ASSUMPTION? Grow up! You bash an entire group of individuals openly and can't even have an intelligent debate about what you stated. This is almost too easy. Don't worry about me, concentrate on what YOU said and how to fix it. I'm just the guy tired of listening to crap like this.

As you try to take your foot out of your mouth, try harder not to speak for me. Don't worry about what I believe but if you ask ill tell you. I believe the CFI should have the option to teach whomever they please and currently they don't have that option. Your focusing on the many possible problems instead of the possible benefit of saying, if you have a CFI and want to teach someone in furtherance of a private you can if you choose and if the SQ. Commander aproves. it is different from saying that they have to. No pilot would give up their day job if they couldn't afford to and it wouldn't be expected. But I know for sure there are pilots who would teach private and beyond in a CAP plane if they could. What is being asked is the ability to do it, not to force it onto a volunteer force.

My argument with you and anyone else who makes statements that discredit the Air force is that how can you expect them to take our volunteer non deployable force seriously if we cant even give them the respect they deserve at all times.

If you feel so confident in your position in the military and stand behind everything you've said on this board. Print it off and show it to the commander of whatever element you happen to be in and ask him to pass it up to the commander of the flying squadron and base commander. Get back to us then and let us know how your military carrier is doing.
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

arajca

#17
Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 05:49:55 AM
QuoteWhat about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

your words are,-= go straight to the airlines without putting in their time...=- anyone else see the issue with that statement? WITHOUT PUTTING IN THEIR TIME!?! did i make it up? ASSUMPTION? Grow up! You bash an entire group of individuals openly and can't even have an intelligent debate about what you stated. This is almost too easy. Don't worry about me, concentrate on what YOU said and how to fix it. I'm just the guy tired of listening to crap like this.
Scenario:
Jow Blow joins AF Res and gets trained as a C-17 pilot. In doing so, he incurs a service committment of, say, 10 years. Those ten years are his obligation. While not doing drill or two week annual training, Joe Blow signs on with ABC Airlines. ABC hires him because of his military training. Now, he has not completed his obligation (ten years, remember), but he has benefitted from his military training. So, Jow Blow has come into the reserves and straight into commercial fliying without putting in his time.

DNall is not talking about AD pilots leaving the service early to fly for United or someone else. The point being made is that some pilots join the reserves to gain the training and experience to sign on with an airline. The key word here is RESERVES. Skipping that word changes the entire point of the statement.

JC004


DNall

No one insulted the Air Force, reserve or otherwise. I stated that military aviators go out & get airline jobs, and reservists can do that before they've served their obligation out. That's fact, not insult!!!

I made that statement to demonstrate that it IS okay for people to get personal gain out of govt provided flight training, it's even okay if they come in with that motive, BUT we need a service contract to obligate them to a period of service to the org so we get a sufficient return out of our investment. Do you understand?

Whatever else you're talking about I don't know... you want CFI's to be able to teach who they want, FAA to lift the restiction? Okay great, so does everyone else. That was stipulated from the start. This is a discussion of under what circumstances is that a sound decision that we can sell to FAA & get funded by what options.

Other then that, step back & get some perspective.... Mod's please don't lock this. The earlier conversation is good. We're all professionals here. I 'm sure we can carry on from here in an upstanding manner.

BillB

Let me give one example that may or may not be off target of this thread. One CAP member used CAP aircraft to earn his instrument, commercial and CFI ratings. This is totally within regulations. He saved a potful of money by not having to rent a plane from the FBO. When the aircraft was transferred to another Squadron, he transferred to the new Squadron to be able to fly the CAP plane.
I spoke to him last week and asked about teaching cadets to fly. He said he'd been asked by his Squadron Commander to do that, but has refused since he now instructs for a local flight school. Being a CFI is not his primary source of income since he has a degree in a medical field.
So the arguement can be made that since he earned the ratings on the cheap building time and training through the use of CAP aircraft, doesn't he owe something to CAP in the form of teaching or flying for CAP? You decide.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

Pylon

I split this discussion from May NEC Live Web Stream & Play-by-Play, as it's becoming it's own discussion.  Discuss agenda item #15 here, and the rest of the NEC meeting there.

...oh, and tone down the bickering.  It's a worthwhile issue to discuss, but let's leave the attitudes at the door.  Thanks.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

MIKE

Might want to move it to Aviation & Flying Activities also.
Mike Johnston

Capt Rivera

Your missing the point. I saw the word reserves. They have the right and obligation to further their aviation experiences as well as provide for their families. So is he instead attacking the way the guard and reserve work? There only so many full time positions on a base. If they are all taken, you fly only when needed and drill a minimum of one weekend a month. This does not put food on the table nor does it pay flight costs for student loans which most reserve pilots have do to the training they go through to make themselves more competitive. By doing this they are doing EXACTLY what they should. His statement said:

without putting in their time.... he should have said they earn jobs using their experience and motivation while still completing their initial commitment of time in service. Again, that is exactly what they should be doing! the two statements are different!


Quote from: arajca on May 07, 2007, 06:23:24 AM
Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 05:49:55 AM
QuoteWhat about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

your words are,-= go straight to the airlines without putting in their time...=- anyone else see the issue with that statement? WITHOUT PUTTING IN THEIR TIME!?! did i make it up? ASSUMPTION? Grow up! You bash an entire group of individuals openly and can't even have an intelligent debate about what you stated. This is almost too easy. Don't worry about me, concentrate on what YOU said and how to fix it. I'm just the guy tired of listening to crap like this.
Scenario:
Jow Blow joins AF Res and gets trained as a C-17 pilot. In doing so, he incurs a service committment of, say, 10 years. Those ten years are his obligation. While not doing drill or two week annual training, Joe Blow signs on with ABC Airlines. ABC hires him because of his military training. Now, he has not completed his obligation (ten years, remember), but he has benefitted from his military training. So, Jow Blow has come into the reserves and straight into commercial fliying without putting in his time.

DNall is not talking about AD pilots leaving the service early to fly for United or someone else. The point being made is that some pilots join the reserves to gain the training and experience to sign on with an airline. The key word here is RESERVES. Skipping that word changes the entire point of the statement.
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

Pylon

*Ahem*  Gentlemen... can you move back to the relavent topic of the discussion?   The horse is dead and thoroughly beaten...
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

Capt Rivera

Quote from: Pylon on May 07, 2007, 12:42:59 PM
I split this discussion from May NEC Live Web Stream & Play-by-Play, as it's becoming it's own discussion.  Discuss agenda item #15 here, and the rest of the NEC meeting there.

...oh, and tone down the bickering.  It's a worthwhile issue to discuss, but let's leave the attitudes at the door.  Thanks.

Pylon would you not say DNALL is looked to as a sort of leader or at least knowledgeable or respect deserving member of these discussion boards? I know thats how I've look at his name, your name and others. That does NOT change what he actually said, even if he meant something different. He could have always recanted.

Anyway: Attitude reflects leadership.
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

flyguy06

Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

I think it's fine if we picked people that prove they're qualified & earn a competititve slot to train from scratch to mission pilot, if they then have a contractual obligation for a number of years that includes regular participation as a MP & active involvement as a staff officer - pretty much a point system. You see what I'm saying here? If you just wanted a pilot's license, it'd be a lot quicker & easier to pay for it, but if you go thru this program you're gong to bust your butt & pay for it in long hard service that's going to absolutely suck if you don't really want to be in CAP & just see the flying as a way of serving.

But if you make someone sign a contract, then you are no longer a volunteer organization.  They are contractually obligated to perform and not volunteering which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be a MP. Everyone that flies in CAP isnt in it to be a MP. You cant make someone be a mission pilot because then thats not volunteering.

flyguy06

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:29:51 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 05, 2007, 05:49:48 AM
Flight training:
1) do the CFIs get paid? Cause they aren't going to fly adults for free. They only fly a handful of cadets for free each year, which honestly works to inspire many times more to pay their own way.


I have met no less then 10 CFI's who were willing to instruct any and everyone who met CAP Regs and FAR's. Their passion to teach or share their knowledge with other members of this great organization even causes them to do ground school lessons, not just cockpit experience.



Those are probably older people who have thousands of flight hours who flight instruct for fun. Ther eare those of us young CFI's and CFI wanna bees who want to flightinstruct for a living and feel like after the trainin that hgoes into becomming a CFI, we deserve to be compensateed for our training and knowledge just like a doctor, lawyer or professional engineer. Sure its ok to take up the occasional student and take him around the pattern once or twice. But a full Private pilot program? i couldnt see doing that for an adult thats capabale of paying. Sure, I love aviation which is why I want to go into the filed but flight instruction is a profession like any other profession and CFI's deserve to be compensated for their knowledge. Its nothing personal,its business. You wouldnt ask a doctor to give you a full blown physical for free unless he was a relative or knew you real well.

The reason Flight Instructors get paid so little now is because people dont view them as professionals. They view flight instructing as a stepping stone to the airlines or an activity that people to intheir spare time and that makes the profession look really bad which is why CFI's get paid so little. CFI's need to stop tasking this and charge what they are worth.

ddelaney103

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

I think it's fine if we picked people that prove they're qualified & earn a competititve slot to train from scratch to mission pilot, if they then have a contractual obligation for a number of years that includes regular participation as a MP & active involvement as a staff officer - pretty much a point system. You see what I'm saying here? If you just wanted a pilot's license, it'd be a lot quicker & easier to pay for it, but if you go thru this program you're gong to bust your butt & pay for it in long hard service that's going to absolutely suck if you don't really want to be in CAP & just see the flying as a way of serving.

But if you make someone sign a contract, then you are no longer a volunteer organization.  They are contractually obligated to perform and not volunteering which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be a MP. Everyone that flies in CAP isnt in it to be a MP. You cant make someone be a mission pilot because then thats not volunteering.

It would be easier to reverse it - set some hoops to jump through before someone can use aircraft for PPT.  Make them have 3 years in, complete lv 2 and have their MO or MS ticket.

CFI's are a tougher matter.  While we know CAP CFI's will teach for free (they already do Power Flight Academy and SM's upgrading to Instrument) I don't think we'll ever have enough for it to be a "I have a friend who's a CFI" based system.

ddelaney103

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:26:26 PM
The reason Flight Instructors get paid so little now is because people dont view them as professionals. They view flight instructing as a stepping stone to the airlines or an activity that people to intheir spare time and that makes the profession look really bad which is why CFI's get paid so little. CFI's need to stop tasking this and charge what they are worth.

There's this guy named Adam Smith: he wrote a book you might want to read.

There are a pile of CFI's and not that many people who want to learn how to fly.  That means the price goes down.  Also, there is the total cost.  Most people aren't willing to pay a lot to learn to fly, or at least much more than the roughly $60/hour wet an aircraft costs to rent.  There's a point where your average student pilot is just going to walk based on cost.

Nowadays, it's getting really tough for your average aviation enthusiast to learn to fly out of your own pocket.

ZigZag911

Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 07, 2007, 05:43:13 PM
There are a pile of CFI's and not that many people who want to learn how to fly.  That means the price goes down. 

This would seem to present a situation in which CAP could negotiate discounted rates for senior members seeking PPT.

This would drum up some otherwise unlikely business for the FBOs & CFIs, and thus should keep them & FAA happy.

I agree with previous posters who felt that there should be eligibility
criteria (minimum 2 years membership, active MO/MS, active participant in home unit) for anyone to take advantage of this benefit.

DNall

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
But if you make someone sign a contract, then you are no longer a volunteer organization.  They are contractually obligated to perform and not volunteering which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be a MP. Everyone that flies in CAP isnt in it to be a MP. You cant make someone be a mission pilot because then thats not volunteering.
Well it's still not for pay. They are signing a contract stating they agree to serve an additional X quality years after completing rating Y, and that a quality year will be determined by this simple TBD point system that indicates level of active contribution beyond flight activities... AND if they fail to meet these conditions than there is a financial penalty, like the full price of what their rating would have cost from a commercial flight school.

I understand everyone isn't aimed at or wanting to be mission pilots. We're talking about people applying for a flight training program that takes them from nothing to MP fopr the purpose of creating mission pilots that remain active on our terms. I also recommended low or no insterest subsidized loans from USAA/AOPA/AFA for select members to get outside training toward their own ends - like not being a MP.

I'm in favor of hoops on the front end to get into such a program. If it's full flight training from ground to private, to inst, to couple hundred hours & Fm91... and that's free or at least at cost (read subsidized) then I think obligation ont eh backside to recoupe our costs is reasonable.

The position of the FAA from what I can tell is that we have no need of training pilots internally. Our members are free to train at local flight schools, and/or we can recruit already qualified pilots at the rating levels we need (that being the original intent). I would counter-argue that the military is not able to get by with such a system, that the type of aviation we do is so diametrically different than general or commercial aviation, and the public safety requirement of consistent well trained & committed crews requires we obligate & train internally.... I don't know, just thinking out loud.


DNall

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:58:50 PM
Your missing the point......
You misunderstood what I said, and then chose to overreact & draw attention toward this thing you believed brought discredit on a service I love, rather than asking in a PM that I clarify for communicaitons purposes. That wasn't maybe the best choice.

I'm in the reserve component, not attacking it or anything else. I've tried to clarify what I initially said, to point out the context in which it was said, and appologized for not being clear enough for you to understand - apparently only you, but no matter. If you have any further traffic on the matter, please prosecute that via PM.

Back to your regularly scheduled topic....

Pylon

Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 07:11:09 PM
Back to your regularly scheduled topic....

Yes, please.  Create another thread or take it to PMs if you need to discuss this further.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

ddelaney103

It would be problematic to set up a contract for training PP's as the enforcement would be icky.

We'd have to force them to pay back whatever money CAP ponied up for their training.  The image of former members being forced into bankruptcy by CAP lawyers and dept collection staff on the evening news would have your average PAO waking up in a cold sweat.

I wouldn't worry, however - barring some chronic shortage of MP's neither CAP nor USAF is going to waste the money that creating our own MP's from scratch would entail.

DNall

You just run it over to collections & be done with it.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 07, 2007, 07:34:57 PM
I wouldn't worry, however - barring some chronic shortage of MP's neither CAP nor USAF is going to waste the money that creating our own MP's from scratch would entail.
Unfortunate though it is, that's correct. Which is why in practical reality I'd have to advocate for the low/no-interest subsidized loans... USAA would do govt backed loans for this kind of purpose. It's basically like half of an officer commissioning signature loan, but w/ the govt co-signing. That'd work, but I'd still put hoops at the front & requirements at the back.

Overall I'm just a little concerned that someone (govt/CAP/corp partner) is going to aid people in getting rated & then they aren't going to be there when we need them to use that skill for us.

The bogger issue is not the initial dual time, but once they solo, there is NO WAY in hell CAP is going to take the risk mgmt hit to let them keep flying solo to private & beyond to TMP. That's why the TMP & MP requirements are set where they are.

LTC_Gadget

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
>which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization.

Waitaminute! I thought we were going with "Unpaid Professional" or "Quiet Professional."  <running for cover!!>  >:D

Incidentally, who's gonna tell the folks in HQ/PA to change the title of the magazine as well..

Back to your regularly scheduled discourse...

V/R,
John Boyd, LtCol, CAP
Mitchell and Earhart unnumbered, yada, yada
The older I get, the more I learn.  The more I learn, the more I find left yet to learn.

LTC_Gadget

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:26:26 PM
The reason Flight Instructors get paid so little now is because people dont view them as professionals. They view flight instructing as a stepping stone to the airlines or an activity that people to intheir spare time and that makes the profession look really bad which is why CFI's get paid so little. CFI's need to stop tasking this and charge what they are worth.

There's even a disparity in treatment in the industry between line officers and flight instructors.  I have a friend that is a CFII with thousands of hours, and has worked also for a major airline for several years.  He's type-rated in biggest birds.  If he'd taken a line job for at least two years, he'd have been pulling down pilot salary, and if/when he moved to flight instruction, the salary would have followed him.  But because his SO didn't want him to be away from home that much, he went into flight instruction directly, and as a result, makes less than half the salary that the other guys in the office make, doing exactly the same thing. because they're ex-line officers (pilots/1st officers).  Their message is that if you aren't a pilot, you aren't jack...

V/R,
John Boyd, LtCol, CAP
Mitchell and Earhart unnumbered, yada, yada
The older I get, the more I learn.  The more I learn, the more I find left yet to learn.

Capt Rivera

#38
Quote

I have met no less then 10 CFI's who were willing to instruct any and everyone who met CAP Regs and FAR's. Their passion to teach or share their knowledge with other members of this great organization even causes them to do ground school lessons, not just cockpit experience.


Quote
Those are probably older people who have thousands of flight hours who flight instruct for fun. Ther eare those of us young CFI's and CFI wanna bees who want to flightinstruct for a living and feel like after the trainin that hgoes into becomming a CFI, we deserve to be compensateed for our training and knowledge just like a doctor, lawyer or professional engineer. Sure its ok to take up the occasional student and take him around the pattern once or twice. But a full Private pilot program? i couldnt see doing that for an adult thats capabale of paying. Sure, I love aviation which is why I want to go into the filed but flight instruction is a profession like any other profession and CFI's deserve to be compensated for their knowledge. Its nothing personal,its business. You wouldnt ask a doctor to give you a full blown physical for free unless he was a relative or knew you real well.

The reason Flight Instructors get paid so little now is because people dont view them as professionals. They view flight instructing as a stepping stone to the airlines or an activity that people to intheir spare time and that makes the profession look really bad which is why CFI's get paid so little. CFI's need to stop tasking this and charge what they are worth.

Actually most are young and new to the profession. I'm not saying they have to teach. I support them having a choice. The ability to do it if they choose. I believe the nature of the proposal is to open the ability for a CFI to volunteer to teach for free if he or she chooses to in a CAP plane
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

Psicorp

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

I think it's fine if we picked people that prove they're qualified & earn a competitive slot to train from scratch to mission pilot, if they then have a contractual obligation for a number of years that includes regular participation as a MP & active involvement as a staff officer - pretty much a point system. You see what I'm saying here? If you just wanted a pilot's license, it'd be a lot quicker & easier to pay for it, but if you go Through this program you're gong to bust your butt & pay for it in long hard service that's going to absolutely suck if you don't really want to be in CAP & just see the flying as a way of serving.

But if you make someone sign a contract, then you are no longer a volunteer organization.  They are contractually obligated to perform and not volunteering which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be a MP. Everyone that flies in CAP isn't in it to be a MP. You cant make someone be a mission pilot because then thats not volunteering.

Such contracts are not unheard of, nor do they end the "volunteer" status.   A volunteer fire department I was once a member of offered EMT certification to all those members who were interested once every couple of years.  In order to enroll (the department paid 100% of the cost), members had to sign a contract stating that they would continue to be active members for three years as Firefighter/EMTs.  If they failed to, then they repaid the cost to the department.   It's only fair to the department, who's laying out the capital and investing in it's members.

The same could be done in CAP; the organization invests in a member who's interested in learning to fly and/or gaining ratings. CAP should get something in return for the "free-bee" or discount in the form of service utilizing the knowledge/experience and ratings gained.   This could be spelled out in the contract (i.e. LT Smith wishes to become a Mission Pilot and agrees to serve for three years in that capacity once rating is achieved.  Or, LT Smith wishes to increase his/her rating in order to become a Orientation Pilot and agrees to serve for three years in that capacity once rating is achieved).  Otherwise, CAP should be repaid the market rate.   This is only fair to the organization and to every other member who's dues/taxes fund the aircraft and maintenance, hanger, etc.

At no point are you no longer a volunteer.  You're free to quit at any time; but if you do quit prior to the agreed upon service term, then you owe the organization proportionally.
Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257

DNall

^That's exactly what I'm talking about, and that's only reasonable, in fact absolutely prudent to protect our interests from abuse.

ddelaney103

Yes, but how would we determine if the person was "serving?"

With the exception of keeping their rating current, what would be the determining factors of serving as a MP?  Since there is no penalty for a MP to decline a mission, if you pay your dues and keep your rating, you're golden.

Also, do we sic the dogs on them if they lose their PP license for medical?

DNall

#42
That's where I said point system.... see also how the guard/reserve works for retirement/promotions/etc.

What I'd envision is maintaining a degree of mission readiness, which would include an availability level averaged over the year, and a training level - proficiency & participation in either real or SaREx missions to a stated level.

I wasn't necessarily saying the service obligation to follow was solely based on MP status. Active particiaption for three years in any mission capacity & regular attendance at a local unit in a command/staff/support role seems adequate.

I think the most realistic program in fact would be... hoops (incl medical) /application; ground & train to solo; then loan to finance solo hours outside of CAP to PPL. Then you got t three year obligation. Upgrading from there to inst, would be an additional obligation, same deal with comm & CFI. Now, the length & nature of those obligations may vary depending on the needs of CAP & may tak into account the geographic location of the applicant, etc.

Dragoon

Any kind of contract or point system involves considerable overhead.

Who's gonna keep track of the "points?"  What volunteer will take on the job of certifying the accuracy the points?  How will we insure the records are kept in a manner allowing them to stand up in court?

Remember, we're having problems just keeping track of our squadron money to an auditor's satisfaction!

You just aren't going to have people jumping up and down to be the "Wing Pilot Training Contract Moniter"

Plus, remember that CAP's return on the investment for flight training comes years later - the guy can't train for MP until he's got 175 hours PIC.  That's a fair chunk of change that needs to be spent to get those hours.



I think a better approach is to allow private pilot training for experienced, valuable members.

Instead of taking a guy off the street, teaching him to fly, and then having some system to make sure he pays us back...

...how about taking the guy who's already jumped through a bunch of CAP hoops?  Like he's been a member for 3 years, has his Certificate of Proficiency, has earned his observer wings and has letters of recommendation from his squadron, group and wing commanders?  And, oh yeah, he's found a CAP CFI willing to teach him.

Odds are, that guy is already hooked on CAP, and isn't going to take the pilot's license and run.


In other words, instead of an incentive to join, we use it as an incentive to PERFORM.

Capt Rivera

Quote from: Dragoon on May 08, 2007, 03:46:32 PM
Any kind of contract or point system involves considerable overhead.

Who's gonna keep track of the "points?"  What volunteer will take on the job of certifying the accuracy the points?  How will we insure the records are kept in a manner allowing them to stand up in court?

Remember, we're having problems just keeping track of our squadron money to an auditor's satisfaction!

You just aren't going to have people jumping up and down to be the "Wing Pilot Training Contract Moniter"

Plus, remember that CAP's return on the investment for flight training comes years later - the guy can't train for MP until he's got 175 hours PIC.  That's a fair chunk of change that needs to be spent to get those hours.



I think a better approach is to allow private pilot training for experienced, valuable members.

Instead of taking a guy off the street, teaching him to fly, and then having some system to make sure he pays us back...

...how about taking the guy who's already jumped through a bunch of CAP hoops?  Like he's been a member for 3 years, has his Certificate of Proficiency, has earned his observer wings and has letters of recommendation from his squadron, group and wing commanders?  And, oh yeah, he's found a CAP CFI willing to teach him.

Odds are, that guy is already hooked on CAP, and isn't going to take the pilot's license and run.


In other words, instead of an incentive to join, we use it as an incentive to PERFORM.

I second that
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

DNall

Quote from: Dragoon on May 08, 2007, 03:46:32 PM
Any kind of contract or point system involves considerable overhead.

Who's gonna keep track of the "points?"  What volunteer will take on the job of certifying the accuracy the points?  How will we insure the records are kept in a manner allowing them to stand up in court?

Remember, we're having problems just keeping track of our squadron money to an auditor's satisfaction!

You just aren't going to have people jumping up and down to be the "Wing Pilot Training Contract Moniter"

Plus, remember that CAP's return on the investment for flight training comes years later - the guy can't train for MP until he's got 175 hours PIC.  That's a fair chunk of change that needs to be spent to get those hours.
It's not that complisacted. Mtg counts for X, SaREx, counts for Y, prof hours count for Z, etc. Input to eServices like anything else. Gets verified just like everything else on an SQTR, which is not at all, but cinfirmed by your Sq CC each year, so if they lie then it's conspiracy to commit fraud & jail time. It's really quite easy, besides excuses about things being hard never solved anything.


Regarding the training time till return... You can train straight thru to that level in a rather short period of time, but I understand in a volunteer CAP situation it may not be quick. That's why we talked about street to PPL gets you three years, PPL to Inst gets you 2, etc... Clearly they can't do any flying for us as a PPL, but they can serve a contract service obligation by being active in CAP.

QuoteI think a better approach is to allow private pilot training for experienced, valuable members.

Instead of taking a guy off the street, teaching him to fly, and then having some system to make sure he pays us back...

...how about taking the guy who's already jumped through a bunch of CAP hoops?  Like he's been a member for 3 years, has his Certificate of Proficiency, has earned his observer wings and has letters of recommendation from his squadron, group and wing commanders?  And, oh yeah, he's found a CAP CFI willing to teach him.

Odds are, that guy is already hooked on CAP, and isn't going to take the pilot's license and run.

In other words, instead of an incentive to join, we use it as an incentive to PERFORM.
That's what we said. Take that guy, & obligate him to further CAP service so he doesn't get fed up & walk after we've dropped  afew grand on him, or he doesn't put in his time for a few years earning teh chance to get flight training, and then bail after his goal is accomplished.

ZigZag911

Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 08, 2007, 12:18:21 AM
Yes, but how would we determine if the person was "serving?"

With the exception of keeping their rating current, what would be the determining factors of serving as a MP?  Since there is no penalty for a MP to decline a mission, if you pay your dues and keep your rating, you're golden.

Also, do we sic the dogs on them if they lose their PP license for medical?

1) 50% meeting attendance over the course of two year period.

2) Completion of Level II prior to applying for training program

3) There would need to be some sort of written legal agreement regarding performance required to 'repay' training; failure to fulfill it should result in pro-rated re-payment of training costs (e.g., if you're supposed to fly 60 hours for CAP in the 3 years following, and only fly 30 hrs, you owe 50% of training costs)

4) We should require a Class II medical to hedge against medical certificate loss; some alternate plan would need to be designed for those who can not (rather than will not) meet their obligation.

arajca

Modify 1) to:
1) 50% meeting attendance over the course of the two years immediately prior to applying for flight training.

Ensures the applicant will have been in CAP for at least two years and has a good feel for the organization. Also, they would be less likely to bolt after completing training.

DNall

I think 50% is on the way light side, more like min 75% to apply & it's competitive after that.

I also still think the geographic distribution of pilots should be a factor. Not top make this seem less than fair, but we need fewer pilots in the big city where we can easily recruit lots more in a pinch versus way out in the sticks at tim-buck-two Comp Sq that's a two hour flight from anywhere.

I hadn't put a lot of flying down as a requirement for after the rating is earned, and that's on purpose for a couple reasons. First is I don't want them to get rated & then go into flying club mode where tey get in their hours, but they are in no other way part of CAP. The second is the lost the medical, or just not able to fly, whatever the case, they can contribute as an active CAP member & that's all that's asked of them. Not at all looking for super contribution, just stay active or pay up.

I also wouldn't do that pro-rating stuff. That gives you less & less leverage as time goes on, at some point it's just not an incentive anymore. Plus then you have to figure out the math on such a thing. I'd go with going market rate for training recieved (not the actual cost of the discounted version provided by us), and full price all the way till the obligation is fulfilled. Now if for some reason they get busy with work one year & can't do as much as they should then that jsut adds a year on the end versus killing them. That's where I like the points system for giving flexibility.


ddelaney103

Frankly, I don't care how many meetings they go to.  The real question is, "are they operational?"

If we're training a mission pilot, I want to know their availability for MP stuff.  Since we don't stand watch or strip alert, how do we ensure they are avail when we need them?

SAR-EMT1

Work out a schedule ususally with a MP and observer/scanner along with a UDF team and 1 or 2 man Base Crew availible for a period of a week or two. Rotate crews through the schedule, to be ready for duty within 2 hours at any given time when "on alert" with that rotation.
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

Dragoon

Quote from: DNall on May 08, 2007, 09:43:34 PMIt's not that complisacted. Mtg counts for X, SaREx, counts for Y, prof hours count for Z, etc. Input to eServices like anything else. Gets verified just like everything else on an SQTR, which is not at all, but cinfirmed by your Sq CC each year, so if they lie then it's conspiracy to commit fraud & jail time. It's really quite easy, besides excuses about things being hard never solved anything.

The concept is easy.  The execution is extremely difficult.

Right now, we don't track SAREX participation in eServices.  We collect sign-in sheets and put 'em in a folder at Wing never to be seen again.  So who's gonna type all the data into eServices?  How do we reconcile the guy who showed up, signed in and left from the guy who stays all weekend and does multiple sorties?

Squadron Commanders aren't present at many of the things you want to give credit for, and therefore cannot legally certify someone's attendance.  That would require a witness, probably the project officer.   The recordkeeping gets massive real fast.

How do we ensure that squadrons keep proper attendance AND type it all in?  What about the guy who argues later that he was there, but didn't get credit, or the member with a grudge who complains that the member WASN'T there, in spite of the record?  You'll need something that will stand up in court if you wanna talk breach of contract.

Without valid electronic signatures, eServices data isn't valid in the courtroom.  There's no way anyone's going to jail over a bad data record.  That's why legal-related CAP actions still require pen and ink signature.

And as for how "easy" it is, I'll make you a deal. When we can get 90% of our squadrons to enter their once a month mileage data on their single van before the due date, then we can talk about how "easy" it is to keep good records in CAP.

Don't wish away the details.  That just results in major failures later.  You'll learn that in OBC.





Quote from: DNall on May 08, 2007, 09:43:34 PM

That's what we said. Take that guy, & obligate him to further CAP service so he doesn't get fed up & walk after we've dropped  afew grand on him, or he doesn't put in his time for a few years earning teh chance to get flight training, and then bail after his goal is accomplished.


That may be what you said, but it's not what I said.

Pls reread the post.  What I said, in a nutshell, was

1.  It ain't worth trying to obligate people to future CAP service.  The overhead in enforcing the obligations is WAY beyond our capabilities.

2.  Instead, make the guy "pay" before he does flight training.  Make him serve for a bunch of years and do good stuff for CAP.  Then reward him by letting him taking private instruction in our plans at his own expense.  And it's his job to find the flight instructor willing to do it for free.

All this requires is a reg change.  No new funds, no new overhead.  This something we can do today.

Odds are this guy won't quit, as he's got a lot invested in the organization (we lose most of our new members early on)

And if he does quit after flight instruction, so what?  He already paid us with his sweat and effort before he started training. And we're not out any money.

Tim Medeiros

#52
Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:29:51 AMOh yeah... The issue is not inspiration to fly or learn to fly, but rather that some or most who would love to can't afford to. Moreover then not affording to, they can barely afford to be in CAP as they take unpaid vacations from work to conduct SARs, go to Cadet activities etc. If you feel there is a lack of motivation as opposed to a lack of money, I want to see you offer a scholarship to pay for one officers flight experience leading to a private. After you get done researching how much that would cost you on average, take a guess at how many applications you would get. If you decide to do this give me a heads up, you will get my application first.
You'll have my application as well.  I started training as a cadet exactly 1 year ago, was unable to finish due to circumstances beyond my control, if anyone is interested feel free to contact me via PM.  Being a college student I cannot afford to bare the costs of aircraft, fuel (about $5/gal now) and instructor.  Once I get my PP I plan on giving back what was once given to me as a cadet, by being a cadet orientation pilot, and working on getting MP as well.

going with what Dragoon said above this post, related to me, nearly 8 years in (though turned SM in Jan), level 2 earned in march (only 2 items away from LV4 infact), working on getting MS, currently in a wing level position as well as helping my old group and original squadron in various positions, CFI found (same guy that did my last bit of training).

I would really perfer NOT to have to take out another loan, I've got enough with college as is.  I'm going to be paying them off until I'm 50 at this rate (21 right now).
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Chair, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811

jimmydeanno

Quote from: timmed1577 on May 09, 2007, 04:46:05 PM
Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:29:51 AMOh yeah... The issue is not inspiration to fly or learn to fly, but rather that some or most who would love to can't afford to. Moreover then not affording to, they can barely afford to be in CAP as they take unpaid vacations from work to conduct SARs, go to Cadet activities etc. If you feel there is a lack of motivation as opposed to a lack of money, I want to see you offer a scholarship to pay for one officers flight experience leading to a private. After you get done researching how much that would cost you on average, take a guess at how many applications you would get. If you decide to do this give me a heads up, you will get my application first.
You'll have my application as well.  I started training as a cadet exactly 1 year ago, was unable to finish due to circumstances beyond my control.  Being a college student I cannot afford to bare the costs of aircraft, fuel (about $5/gal now) and instructor.  Once I get my PP I plan on giving back what was once given to me as a cadet, by being a cadet orientation pilot, and working on getting MP as well.

Doesn't TSA (Not TSA) offer PP Flight Scholarships from solo every year?  If I recall correctly, they are valued at around 7.5K...but they're for cadets...

http://www.tankerbob.com/tsa.htm
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Tim Medeiros

I would have loved to have received that, however I got my solo completed after the due date.  If I were to submit it for the 2007 deadline I would have become an SM by the time of being awarded the scholarship
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Chair, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811

SAR-EMT1

I would also submit an application, as Ive already decided to be a part of CAP for life.  So would 99% of all non-pilot SMs that I have ever met.
Its not a question of dedication, but of finance.
Personally, Im in the same boat as Timmed- College Loans...  same reason Im not in hurry to buy a Mess Dress  ;D
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

ddelaney103

It seems to me there are two things we could do without a huge outlay of funds or creating an unwieldy participation/debt collection system.

- Use dragoon's idea of giving permission to use CAP a/c after you've earned the right and leave it to the member to find a CAP CFI willing to train them.

- Get Cessna to give a CAP discount at their flight centers.  Considering how many Skyhawks we buy, you'd figure we'd get something out of it.

Everything else has fallen into the "late night dorm room conversation" - where you talk about cool ideas without all that messy blowback and complicating factors.  Most recent uniform changes fall into that category.  :)

flyguy06

Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 10, 2007, 01:24:54 PM
It seems to me there are two things we could do without a huge outlay of funds or creating an unwieldy participation/debt collection system.

- Use dragoon's idea of giving permission to use CAP a/c after you've earned the right and leave it to the member to find a CAP CFI willing to train them.

- Get Cessna to give a CAP discount at their flight centers.  Considering how many Skyhawks we buy, you'd figure we'd get something out of it.

Everything else has fallen into the "late night dorm room conversation" - where you talk about cool ideas without all that messy blowback and complicating factors.  Most recent uniform changes fall into that category.  :)

The Cessna Corporation doesnt control prices. When you see those cessna Pilot center signs, they are just franchises. the people that own the actually flight school control the pricing.

flyguy06

Why cant a Private Pilot fly for CAP? My Squadron Commander is a Private Pilot. he is giving O rides next weekend.

jimmydeanno

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 10, 2007, 02:44:25 PM
Why cant a Private Pilot fly for CAP? My Squadron Commander is a Private Pilot. he is giving O rides next weekend.

A private pilot can fly for CAP so long as they meet the requirements to fly at whatever CAP rating they are looking to do.  Most CAP O Flight Pilots around here hold a Private Pilot Certificate with whatever ratings needed to fly O Flights and that's it.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

DNall

Points sys/mgmt
We record credit for all kinds of things in eServices. I think it should be substantially more. That should include participation in SaRExs, missions, prof hours, mtg attendance... and perhaps performance reviews to cover things like meeting annual staff goals & other contributions.

All that is quite easy to input via some checkboxes on eServices. From that you could track individual points; unit/area readiness levels; performance standards, etc.. and from that you can better determine things like where to allocate resources, identify problems so you can step in before it's too late, and just all around have an accurate picture of what's going on. Such a system can't be the sole tool in managing the org, but it can be a powerful information source to give us information we've never had access to before so we can work smarter. I believe such a system should be put into place, and frankly the technology & work involved is not anything more than what we have running on eServices now. Think about all the crap you can do on AKO, it's not even remotely that hard.

Can I gurantee you the absolute accuracy of any of this? No, not really. Not any more than I can promise you that a skill input on an SQTR was actually done. There's some honor system involved, and there's an IG to back it up. That's what IGs are for is maintaining standards, not investigating stuff that would otherwise go to CID/OSI/LE. Yes units are irresponsible right now & report inaccurate information or not at all, because that's what the system encourages them to do & there's no one to hold them accountable or penalty for not doing so, and they've had no training to do it right or culture to back it up. All things that need to be changed about CAP, but in creating a new thing, you make it for how it should be & drive the rest of the process to that standard.

Reward vs obligation:
As to making the guy "pay" with service in order to earn the flight training as a reward. That gets the service out of them in exchange for the service rendered, but that wasn't te point. If that's all I'd wanted than I'd just have asked for the govt to allocate financial bonus money at the end of fvie years satisfactory service or whatever. Then that person could use it for flight training or whatever they please. That's not the point at all. The point is to have them continue in CAP AFTER qualified as an operational pilot. I don't care what they've done before, I care what they will do for me later. I don't want to play the odds that this guy will or will not quit after he'd got his reward, and I don't want to color everyone's service as just beinbg here to earn XYZ in the future.

risk mgmt
As far as allowing members to operate CAP aircraft before meeting the TMP point, w/ or w/o CFI. That has everythign to do with the fact that low time pilots tend to break our planes & themselves, hence the hour requirement to be a TMP. The govt is not comfortable with that risk, nor are CAP leadership. So, that's just not going to happen. In fact if anything, I'd expect the tracking of prof hours to go up in order to remain current. Almost 90% of our crashes are from low time pilots or older pilots that aren't flying at least a few hours a month & staying prof.

FAA restictions
And with gas prices like they are & major decline in the number of private pilots, flight schools are getting killed, and there's no way on earth FAA is lifting the restriction. If & when they do, it won't be for a reward to service, but MAY be for a military-like obligation to further service. The FAA has an incentive to see CAP members continue to serve, and to see more pilots in CAP.

Dragoon

Bottom line - this is very problematic and likely not executable with current resources.

Quote from: DNall on May 10, 2007, 07:23:01 PM
Points sys/mgmt
We record credit for all kinds of things in eServices. I think it should be substantially more. That should include participation in SaRExs, missions, prof hours, mtg attendance... and perhaps performance reviews to cover things like meeting annual staff goals & other contributions.

If you've watched the pace of development of eServices, you'll notice it changes rather slowly.  Unless you got bucks to add programmers, it will continue to change slowly.  It could be many years before they get around to this sort of thing.

Also, there's the added administrative burden.  So far, eServices has automated things we did anyway.  This would be requiring folks to spend time keeping track of things that they don't track today.  This adds administrative burden at a time when there's a big push to DECREASE the administrative burden on the unit.

You mentioned AKO (Army Knowledge Online) as an example of what we could do.  Their budget runs well into the 10s of millions.  And....there really is very little eService-like functionality on AKO. (Meaning stuff where a commander can go in and update status on his people).  That's all done in other programs (like eMILPO and SIDPERS Guard and ARCAS) all of which have budgets in excess of $10 Million.  We don't have the money to duplicate that kind of stuff any time soon.  (Though I wish we could)

Quote from: DNall on May 10, 2007, 07:23:01 PM

Can I gurantee you the absolute accuracy of any of this? No, not really. Not any more than I can promise you that a skill input on an SQTR was actually done. There's some honor system involved, and there's an IG to back it up. That's what IGs are for is maintaining standards, not investigating stuff that would otherwise go to CID/OSI/LE.

One of the critical conditions of a contract is LEGALLY proving that a party is or is not in compliance.  eService doesn't fill that bill.  If someone stiffs CAP for flight training, eServices will not put them in jail or get them to pay it back. 

Again, that requires paper and signatures.  And responsible people dedicated to handling the admin overhead.




Quote from: DNall on May 10, 2007, 07:23:01 PM
Yes units are irresponsible right now & report inaccurate information or not at all, because that's what the system encourages them to do & there's no one to hold them accountable or penalty for not doing so, and they've had no training to do it right or culture to back it up. All things that need to be changed about CAP, but in creating a new thing, you make it for how it should be & drive the rest of the process to that standard.

I'd agree, but that's been the way things have been for a long time.  Yes, way down the road we may fix this.  Perhaps not.   And until we can fix this for existing stuff (like vehicle mileage reporting) we can expect any new admin function to fail.  And indeed, it may fail even worse (or cause something else to fail), as it adds to the overall administrative burden.  And if folks can't get it all done today.....how the heck can we magically expect them to do more?


Quote from: DNall on May 10, 2007, 07:23:01 PM
Reward vs obligation:
As to making the guy "pay" with service in order to earn the flight training as a reward. That gets the service out of them in exchange for the service rendered, but that wasn't te point. If that's all I'd wanted than I'd just have asked for the govt to allocate financial bonus money at the end of fvie years satisfactory service or whatever. Then that person could use it for flight training or whatever they please. That's not the point at all. The point is to have them continue in CAP AFTER qualified as an operational pilot. I don't care what they've done before, I care what they will do for me later. I don't want to play the odds that this guy will or will not quit after he'd got his reward, and I don't want to color everyone's service as just beinbg here to earn XYZ in the future.

If your goal is to produce mission pilots (and you figure out the contract thing), there's no reason to have them to anything in CAP until they get 175 hours. 

If, by your own admission, you don't CARE if they do ground stuff or staff stuff, then why require it? Why not just have them sign a contract promising to get 175 hours at their own expense within X years and then fly for us?.

Remember, though, I don't think the contract thing is feasible. 


It's nice to think "wouldn't it be cool if....", but the nuts and bolts of execution are much more difficult.  We've seen lots of ill defined programs come and go in CAP, killed by lack of follow through.  Good ideas, but beyond the capabilities of the organization to execute.

A lot of grandiose programs require dollars and people to run them.  You can't wish away the tough stuff.









arajca

Quote from: Dragoon on May 11, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
It's nice to think "wouldn't it be cool if....", but the nuts and bolts of execution are much more difficult.  We've seen lots of ill defined programs come and go in CAP, killed by lack of follow through.  Good ideas, but beyond the capabilities of the organization to execute.

A lot of grandiose programs require dollars and people to run them.  You can't wish away the tough stuff.

Which is MAJOR benefit of forums like this one. Someone has an idea, puts it up here where the interested, knowledgable, and A-retentive folks can troubleshoot, examine, bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate it before it goes to National where someone will implement it without thought to the consequences or impacts to the membership. Here, we can provide input to the orginator to, hopefully, encouarge them to include a sufficient amount of detail and implementation planning in their submission. Or persuade them not to submit it because of the impact on the membership at large.

ddelaney103

Quote from: arajca on May 11, 2007, 07:15:46 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on May 11, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
It's nice to think "wouldn't it be cool if....", but the nuts and bolts of execution are much more difficult.  We've seen lots of ill defined programs come and go in CAP, killed by lack of follow through.  Good ideas, but beyond the capabilities of the organization to execute.

A lot of grandiose programs require dollars and people to run them.  You can't wish away the tough stuff.

Which is MAJOR benefit of forums like this one. Someone has an idea, puts it up here where the interested, knowledgable, and A-retentive folks can troubleshoot, examine, bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate it before it goes to National where someone will implement it without thought to the consequences or impacts to the membership. Here, we can provide input to the orginator to, hopefully, encouarge them to include a sufficient amount of detail and implementation planning in their submission. Or persuade them not to submit it because of the impact on the membership at large.

Out of curiosity, you are in the US Civil Air Patrol, aren't you?

Because 9 times out of 10 around here people get some idea and then defend it against all comers.

Meanwhile, at echelons above reality, the NEC/NB/oligarchs have these "wouldn't it be cool if" discussions that end in bad craziness.  Alternately, random Cadets wander up to the CAP/CC and make off the wall suggestions (Blue Berets, hooah!) which then get approved but neither delineated in policy nor commanders intent given.

This has the end result of leaving people more confused than before.  For example, what can HMRS grads wear and can their commander stop them?

Rare are the times that a forum and the "powers that be" link up.

DNall

Quote from: Dragoon on May 11, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
Unless you got bucks to add programmers, it will continue to change slowly. 
You think so? We have a staff of full time programmers at HQ, not one guy, a staff, check the directory.

What I'm talking about is VERY easy in fact. A couple check box submit forms accessible by ICs/CCs that dump to a master database. Auto-reports tracking & suspense. Much easier than half the stuff up there now.

QuoteAlso, there's the added administrative burden.  
I don't know, maybe a tiny bit. All you're doing is inputting a sign-in sheet, which I think we can do a better job of automating as well. What you get back is critical tracking data that we're unwilling to look at now cause it doesn't present a very pretty picture. However, I believe the org would be managed very differently if we faced up to the manning & use of resources issues that dominate the org.

QuoteYou mentioned AKO (Army Knowledge Online) as an example of what we could do.  Their budget runs well into the 10s of millions.  And....there really is very little eService-like functionality on AKO. (Meaning stuff where a commander can go in and update status on his people).  That's all done in other programs (like eMILPO and SIDPERS Guard and ARCAS) all of which have budgets in excess of $10 Million.  We don't have the money to duplicate that kind of stuff any time soon.  (Though I wish we could)
I mentioned AKO as an example of what's possible. Obviously we don't need that level of functionality, but we can make eServices more user friendly like that, add social networking, have access to all kinds of personnel information... We can make something of a hybrid that would best serve our needs, and while doing so we can put on teh email system too.

Quote from: DNall on May 10, 2007, 07:23:01 PM
Can I gurantee you the absolute accuracy of any of this? No, not really. Not any more than I can promise you that a skill input on an SQTR was actually done. There's some honor system involved, and there's an IG to back it up. That's what IGs are for is maintaining standards, not investigating stuff that would otherwise go to CID/OSI/LE.

One of the critical conditions of a contract is LEGALLY proving that a party is or is not in compliance.  eService doesn't fill that bill.  If someone stiffs CAP for flight training, eServices will not put them in jail or get them to pay it back. 

Again, that requires paper and signatures.  And responsible people dedicated to handling the admin overhead.[/quote]
That's not exactly accurate. You do need a legal sig on the contract, yes (and that could be electronic), BUT you do not need sigs on routine tracking. If your commander logs into his eServices account & inputs an item, and that transaction is stamped with his log-in & IP, then that's much more than required by law. All you really need is what we have now in the commander's menu. Ultimately though, an individual would be responsible for keeping track of their own participation, and retaining those records for appeal if necessary. Again, this is what IGs are supposed to do.

Quote from: DNall on May 10, 2007, 07:23:01 PM
Yes units are irresponsible right now & report inaccurate information or not at all, because that's what the system encourages them to do & there's no one to hold them accountable or penalty for not doing so, and they've had no training to do it right or culture to back it up. All things that need to be changed about CAP, but in creating a new thing, you make it for how it should be & drive the rest of the process to that standard.

I'd agree, but that's been the way things have been for a long time.  Yes, way down the road we may fix this.  Perhaps not.   And until we can fix this for existing stuff (like vehicle mileage reporting) we can expect any new admin function to fail.  And indeed, it may fail even worse (or cause something else to fail), as it adds to the overall administrative burden.  And if folks can't get it all done today.....how the heck can we magically expect them to do more?[/quote]
Nothing gets fixed by accepting the way things are & tailoring to that situation while citing practicality. You have to take bold action in the face of problems & force a shifting paradigm. The key that is not in place now is accountablility & consequneces.

It'd be quite easy to fix your silly milage reporting if you tell units they have till X date to be current & Xth of the month to report & if they hadn't then the plane or vehicle will be picked up w/o notice & not returned for at least a year, and CCs will be reviewed for removal on deriliction. Actually back that up, set some examples, and you won't have any further problems. What you're talking about is a leadership failure, not an administrative one. You want accurate reporting? Misuse of resources funded by federal allocation should be referred to the US Attorney. Misuse of corporate resources will result in fraud charges or neglegince suits. Scare the crap out of people & hold them to it.


Quote from: DNall on May 10, 2007, 07:23:01 PM
Reward vs obligation:

If your goal is to produce mission pilots (and you figure out the contract thing), there's no reason to have them to anything in CAP until they get 175 hours. 

If, by your own admission, you don't CARE if they do ground stuff or staff stuff, then why require it? Why not just have them sign a contract promising to get 175 hours at their own expense within X years and then fly for us?.[/quote]
Did I say that? My mistake, I DO care if they do other things. I do NOT want someone who's primary, much less only, job in CAP is to fly. I want a standard hard working staff officer who happens to also fly on the side. I want them current & avail to serve as a MP on missions, but otherwise I don't care about their flying & "active member" would have little to do with their flying duties. Especially since I want that standardized "active member" tracking system in place universally for all members regarldess of contract status.

QuoteIt's nice to think "wouldn't it be cool if....", but the nuts and bolts of execution are much more difficult.  We've seen lots of ill defined programs come and go in CAP, killed by lack of follow through.  Good ideas, but beyond the capabilities of the organization to execute.

A lot of grandiose programs require dollars and people to run them.  You can't wish away the tough stuff.
Very true. I don't believe I'm wishing away anything. I belive this organization is HORRIBLLY managed at every level & wastes millions of administrative dollars that could be put to more efficient use. We do have the resources at NHQ to do dramatic things elctronically & otherwise. Our biggest problem I think is, well two things: first is we don't have a legit picture of what's going on (that's the tracking system & resultant resource/personnel mgmt changes I'm talking about); and second, we have a dramatic lack of leadership. That's also at every level. There a re a few exceptional people in CAP, as ther eare anywhere, but we do a terrible job of training leaders/managers from within. We expect people to come to us with outside training & experience, just like we do with pilots, and that's not cutting it. Leadership is more than a techincal skill you can run down to the local FBO & write a check for. Most of the problems we have are ultimately leadership failures from unmotivated masses. You'd never see that in a military organization, and that's not cause they do or don't get paid or cause they are better or worse than us, it's just a lack of solid leadership & we need to fix that bad.

Dragoon

Quote from: DNall on May 11, 2007, 08:03:31 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on May 11, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
Unless you got bucks to add programmers, it will continue to change slowly. 
You think so? We have a staff of full time programmers at HQ, not one guy, a staff, check the directory.

Who said anything about one programmer?

The points is (and read carefully hear) - eServices is changing VERY slowly.  There are a LOT of pressing things in the queue that aren't done yet.  Therefore, it's a safe assumption that if you add new work, you either add more folks (read that as $$$$) or wait a long time to get what you want.  It's not as simple as "we'll just change eServices".

It will require dollars, time or a reshuffling of requirements.



Quote from: DNall on May 11, 2007, 08:03:31 PM

QuoteAlso, there's the added administrative burden.  
I don't know, maybe a tiny bit. All you're doing is inputting a sign-in sheet, which I think we can do a better job of automating as well. What you get back is critical tracking data that we're unwilling to look at now cause it doesn't present a very pretty picture. However, I believe the org would be managed very differently if we faced up to the manning & use of resources issues that dominate the org.


1.  Someone will have to keep a legible sign-in sheet for every event (currently not required).  This means someone has to watch over the sheet, ensure that everyone signs legible, and that no one signs their absent buddy in to help him out, and then deliver the sheet to the right guy.  If you've ever run sign-in at a mission, you'll see the burden.  Especially if you want to use the sign in later for possile legal action!

2. Someone will have to take that sheet, log in to e-Services and manually create an event and input each and every CAP ID into the system.  That's when they'll discover that one or two of the CAP IDs are non-existent, and they'll have to contact the people and get the right IDs. Depending on the size of the event, this could take more than an hour.

Personally, I don't think any of this is unreasonable. But we can't get everyone to go on e-Services for 5 minutes a month to update van mileage!  So until we get THAT level of admin straight, adding more is just a recipe for disaster.




Quote from: DNall on May 11, 2007, 08:03:31 PM
That's not exactly accurate. You do need a legal sig on the contract, yes (and that could be electronic), BUT you do not need sigs on routine tracking. If your commander logs into his eServices account & inputs an item, and that transaction is stamped with his log-in & IP, then that's much more than required by law. All you really need is what we have now in the commander's menu. Ultimately though, an individual would be responsible for keeping track of their own participation, and retaining those records for appeal if necessary. Again, this is what IGs are supposed to do.


You mentioned eServices as a tracking mechanism ensuring people fufill their contract.  If we try to hold someone in breach of contract, it's not going to the IG - it's going to COURT.  And in court, a good lawyer could show (easily) that eServices doesn't count as a legal record of what someone did.  So....just because a guy isn't recorded in eServices as attending something is not legal proof that he wasn't there.

You're correct that you'd end up having the individual keeping pen and ink proof (with signatures) of him fufilling his contract.  That's the least burdensome way.  But we still have to deal with.....

Lawyers.  Expensive Lawyers.

IG's aren't going to solve a contract issue.  That's going to be solved by Lawyers.  Lawyers cost dollars.  In an earlier post you mentioned taking someone to court if they don't fufill the contract.  So who's gonna pay for the CAP Lawyer.  Do you think the existing corporate counsel could pick up this additional workload accross all Wings without additional dollars?

Yet another cost.


Quote from: DNall on May 11, 2007, 08:03:31 PMIt'd be quite easy to fix your silly milage reporting if you tell units they have till X date to be current & Xth of the month to report & if they hadn't then the plane or vehicle will be picked up w/o notice & not returned for at least a year, and CCs will be reviewed for removal on deriliction. Actually back that up, set some examples, and you won't have any further problems. What you're talking about is a leadership failure, not an administrative one. You want accurate reporting? Misuse of resources funded by federal allocation should be referred to the US Attorney. Misuse of corporate resources will result in fraud charges or neglegince suits. Scare the crap out of people & hold them to it.


Great.  Once you fix the "silly mileage" reporting, than and only then can you make any valid comment about easy it would be to add more admin burden.

It always sounds easy when you're not the one in charge.  And who knows, maybe when you're running things one day you'll clean all this up.

But the CAP of TODAY has these sort problems, and a large number of pretty smart folks have been unable to solve them.  I'm willing to accept that as evidence that it is not "easy" to solve them.

Funny how fast you go to some kind of legal action to solve all of CAP's ills. Once again you are neglecting to consider the cost to the organization of preparing for and taking legal action. 


Quote from: DNall on May 11, 2007, 08:03:31 PM
Did I say that? My mistake, I DO care if they do other things. I do NOT want someone who's primary, much less only, job in CAP is to fly. I want a standard hard working staff officer who happens to also fly on the side. I want them current & avail to serve as a MP on missions, but otherwise I don't care about their flying & "active member" would have little to do with their flying duties. Especially since I want that standardized "active member" tracking system in place universally for all members regarldess of contract status.

All the more reason to adopt the much simpler model of making guys be hard working staff folks first, and then earn the righ to learn to fly.

First, we get our "payment" up front.

Second, by the time they are allowed to learn to fly (at their own expense), we've got our hooks into them.  They are invested in the organization, and are less likely to bail on us.

Sure, we'll lose a few.  But they already paid us with years of staff and ground service.  But the ones we keep will be dedicated CAP officers first and pilots second - not just flying club members.

And you avoid all the overhead involved in enforcing a contract.

Quote from: DNall on May 11, 2007, 08:03:31 PM
QuoteIt's nice to think "wouldn't it be cool if....", but the nuts and bolts of execution are much more difficult.  We've seen lots of ill defined programs come and go in CAP, killed by lack of follow through.  Good ideas, but beyond the capabilities of the organization to execute.

A lot of grandiose programs require dollars and people to run them.  You can't wish away the tough stuff.
Very true. I don't believe I'm wishing away anything. I belive this organization is HORRIBLLY managed at every level & wastes millions of administrative dollars that could be put to more efficient use. We do have the resources at NHQ to do dramatic things elctronically & otherwise. Our biggest problem I think is, well two things: first is we don't have a legit picture of what's going on (that's the tracking system & resultant resource/personnel mgmt changes I'm talking about); and second, we have a dramatic lack of leadership. That's also at every level. There a re a few exceptional people in CAP, as ther eare anywhere, but we do a terrible job of training leaders/managers from within. We expect people to come to us with outside training & experience, just like we do with pilots, and that's not cutting it. Leadership is more than a techincal skill you can run down to the local FBO & write a check for. Most of the problems we have are ultimately leadership failures from unmotivated masses. You'd never see that in a military organization, and that's not cause they do or don't get paid or cause they are better or worse than us, it's just a lack of solid leadership & we need to fix that bad.

I don't think there's any argument that we don't do a great job of training leaders.  But we also don't do a good job of training followers.  There are lots of issue behind that, from the lack of resources to the lack of time to spend with each member, to a basic recruitment policy that makes us want to let anyone in in order to look big on paper.

But until we fix this kind of stuff we are not likely to be able to do more complicated things (like managing and enforcing contracts).  So, with the CAP we have today, there are limits.  And some things which sound good are simply not feasible.

Now, the big question is how to increase the efficiency of the organzation

1.  Within the existing dollars available.

2. While keeping the organization at an optimal size (meaning we don't shrink too small because folks either quit or are fired over higher standards).

If we can do that, then we can take on more complicated tasks and perhaps succeed at them.

DNall

Admin - pgmrs - $$
We have a whole team of full-time paid programmers. There is no excuse for eServices being the clunker POS that it is now, and effecting retention to the degree it is. That is wholly unacceptable & should be addressed. Not everything is addressed by throwing more money at it, some things benefit from the application of competence.

That said, the items I'm talking about are LITERALLY a check box submit form, that goes to CC approval & on to a database. It's easier than most of what's on eServices now.

Logistics/sign-in
You are required now to have a ledgible & controlled sign-in sheet that is legally binding. If that's not happening, then it is a very serious risk mgmt issue & needs to be addressed decisively by leadership. And WMIRS gets lots of info you may not be aware of.

I don't know why you'd be using pen/paper now unless you had to. It should already be electronic. I'd like to go forward with that to a) directly inputing data on eServices, and b) card readers that automate the whole process (I realize that costs a couple dollars, but not much, and it lifts a lot of admin burden, there's some other stuff about that in some ID threads around here. I think that's the direction we're heading.

Legality/tracking
When you get a car loan, you sign a physical contract, and then you make payments, which they login to a system and input. There's no required electronic signature, some safety features no doubt but they are not legally required. What you're talking about though is no different than the dozen or so restricted applications we have now. I fully think that it should stamp login/time/IP on record changes, but that's not required.

I've dealt with issues very simliar to this in another non-profit, and have sent cases to court that stood up just fine on unorganized scraps of paper as a tracking record. The court isn't interested in the technicalities of your system. They are interested in what a reasonable person would believe the truth to be based on records available. It doesn't take much to make it over that bar.

Admin - Something about milage again
Once again, people behave with incompetence or malfeasence because there are no consequences. Holding them accountable is a leadership issue & requires swift & decisive action. All too often in CAP people in mgmt positions tend to say "we're jsut volunteers & be people are doing the best they can with the time they can give." Yeah, okay well in that case I can just not worry about any regs & go do whatever I want then I guess. Obviously not! When people commit to a job/resource then they need to get it done or get out of the way. If your leadership is not forcing that accountability then perhaps your leader needs to think about getting out of the way, respectfully.

Service up front or After
You absolutely cannot offer flight training as a reward for service. That is 100% not going to be allowed by FAA. It's just paying for services in another way. When alternatively that person may work paid employment int hose hours to save up for commercially avail flight training. So absolutely not.

From a more practical view, I don't want people here that are just here to earn flight training & don't otherwise care. Once they reach their target then they have no more use for CAP. If they are going to stay on for additional ratings... well that's just paying members by other means.

What I want is more viable qualified pilots serving in all facets of the organization. The number of in the zone MPs we have is miniscule, and the distribution is horrendous. We can't move quality people around to make up for the bad ones, and we can't retire people or move them to backwater staff jobs when they can't do it anymore. We have to beat it by attrition.

SO I want to take people who have served a couple years & competitively earned a chance, who passed some tests & junk to make sure they'll be able to do this, and ten offer them a contract to come get free training, but in exchange for keeping that expertise in-house for a period of time after, and meassured by the same standards we'll be holding everyone in the org to.

Dragoon

#67
Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 05:38:01 PM
Admin - pgmrs - $$
We have a whole team of full-time paid programmers. There is no excuse for eServices being the clunker POS that it is now, and effecting retention to the degree it is. That is wholly unacceptable & should be addressed. Not everything is addressed by throwing more money at it, some things benefit from the application of competence.

Nice sentiment, but that's not reality talking.  With the team we have, doing the best job they can, you can see what we've got.  To say things like "this should be addressed" sound great, for a politician, but contain no details.

You are making assumptions that the existing team is incompetent
You are making assumptions that a better team could be hired and managed for the same outlay of dollars.  (labor comes cheap in Alabama, but you get what you pay for)

You got any facts to back that up?

And even if it turns out that we've hired a bunch of bozos while a bunch of unemployed high speed programmers sit just off base waiting to be hired, don'tcha think that until this gets fixed, basing a plan on expanded eServices is a bit....premature?


Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 05:38:01 PM
Logistics/sign-in
You are required now to have a ledgible & controlled sign-in sheet that is legally binding. If that's not happening, then it is a very serious risk mgmt issue & needs to be addressed decisively by leadership. And WMIRS gets lots of info you may not be aware of.
Show me the CAP reg that requires "legally binding sign-in sheets for all CAP activities"  (hint -it doesn't exist).

There is a ICS sign in form, only required for missions.  There is no rCAP equirement for it to be legally binding and controlled.
There is a Director's report for certain classes, which does require the director's signature.
There is a requirement to keep attendance for Safety Meetings.
There is a flight release that will list who's on a flight

That's about it for CAP and sign-in sheets.  Nothing required for the vast majority of CAP things like meetings squadron training etc.  All stuff you want to track in a legally binding manner.

Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 05:38:01 PM
I don't know why you'd be using pen/paper now unless you had to. It should already be electronic. I'd like to go forward with that to a) directly inputing data on eServices, and b) card readers that automate the whole process (I realize that costs a couple dollars, but not much, and it lifts a lot of admin burden, there's some other stuff about that in some ID threads around here. I think that's the direction we're heading.
[/quote/

At some point, this would be a good idea.  I'm not sure it in any way relates to managing a contract, though.

Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 05:38:01 PM
Legality/tracking
When you get a car loan, you sign a physical contract, and then you make payments, which they login to a system and input. There's no required electronic signature, some safety features no doubt but they are not legally required. What you're talking about though is no different than the dozen or so restricted applications we have now. I fully think that it should stamp login/time/IP on record changes, but that's not required.

That's because you PAID them. You've got the entire security of the American Banking Industry (millions of dollars of people and automation behind them).  They ain't doin' that in eServices.  They are QUITE a bit more sophisticated since they deal with financial transactions. 

Now if the car loan guys wanted to require you to do something else besides pay money, they'd need some other system to do it.  And my guess is that it would involve human verification and signatures, if they wanted it to stand up in court.


Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 05:38:01 PM
I've dealt with issues very simliar to this in another non-profit, and have sent cases to court that stood up just fine on unorganized scraps of paper as a tracking record. The court isn't interested in the technicalities of your system. They are interested in what a reasonable person would believe the truth to be based on records available. It doesn't take much to make it over that bar.

Are you saying that you are aware of a non-profit that signed a volunteer to a contract of future service and then sued him when he didn't comply?  Please provide the details.

And again, who exactly will pay for these CAP lawyers?  Where is that money coming from.

Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 05:38:01 PM
Admin - Something about milage again
Once again, people behave with incompetence or malfeasence because there are no consequences. Holding them accountable is a leadership issue & requires swift & decisive action. All too often in CAP people in mgmt positions tend to say "we're jsut volunteers & be people are doing the best they can with the time they can give." Yeah, okay well in that case I can just not worry about any regs & go do whatever I want then I guess. Obviously not! When people commit to a job/resource then they need to get it done or get out of the way. If your leadership is not forcing that accountability then perhaps your leader needs to think about getting out of the way, respectfully.

This is the CAP we have today.  Until we fix that, any attempt to do something even more complicated (like managing contracts) is doomed to failure.


Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 05:38:01 PM
Service up front or After
You absolutely cannot offer flight training as a reward for service. That is 100% not going to be allowed by FAA. It's just paying for services in another way. When alternatively that person may work paid employment int hose hours to save up for commercially avail flight training. So absolutely not.


You are asking someone to pay for flight training with non-flight service in your proposal.  It ain't no different.  If the FAA won't allow the payment up front, they ain't gonna allow it in the back.

Plus, if you actually read the proposal, no money exchanges hands.  The FAA doesn't get involved.  All we do is change the CAP rule to ALLOW flight training for certain members who have proved themselves worthy.  They still have to find a CFI and pay for it.  But we let them do it in our planes, just like we do for cadets.

In other words, a no cost, no hassle, no admin overhead solution.  The kind that might actually happen.


Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 05:38:01 PM

What I want is more viable qualified pilots serving in all facets of the organization. The number of in the zone MPs we have is miniscule, and the distribution is horrendous. We can't move quality people around to make up for the bad ones, and we can't retire people or move them to backwater staff jobs when they can't do it anymore. We have to beat it by attrition.

A noble goal, but as stated earlier, that new pilot still needs 175 hours PIC before becmoing an MP trainee.   Are you planning on paying for all those hours too?  At $65 an hour (wet) which is probably on the low side, we're talking at least $2600 (assuming only 40 hours to the license and the flight instruction for free), It's probably more like over $3200.


At that wet rate, the additional hours (I'm assuming he's got about 20 PIC hours when he gets his license) will cost about $10000

So....assuming we've got all these CFIs handy to teach for free, we can make a new pilot for $12000-$14000.

Plus the cost for the lawyers, the contract managers, etc.  Not insignificant costs.  My guess is that we're adding another $300K or so per year in paid support.  Plus convincing volunteers to handle the rest.

Now, how many pilots are you willing to make, and where are you going to get the money from?  Which programs will you cut to fund this?  And remember, you can't use procurement funds for this, so it's going to have to come out of the operations and maintenance budget.

On the other hand, it's much cheaper if we just provide the primary, and the pilot pays the rest- but that means years (3-5, I'd say) till the guy is of any value to us as a pilot.

And he can always just pay us back, void the contract and bail.  After all, we're still cheaper than the local FBO, so it's a great deal for him.

We aren't USAF. We're going to need more innovative solutions than throw money at it, make the volunteers do more admin work and use the courts for enforcement.

Perhaps a better approach to your goal is to focus on recruiting and retaining more experienced pilots and providing incentives to maintain an MP rating and participate.

ddelaney103

Geez O'Flip, I can't believe we're still talking about this.

DNall's plan will never happen and Dragoon's plan is only slightly more likely.  Even if Dragoon's plan was allowed, we'd be talking about a handful of pilots who would jump through the hoops and be able to find a CFI.

Frankly, anything that requires money is a non-starter.  This is because of CAP's status as a Contractor to the AF.

Now, that doesn't mean it would be illegal, it just means you would have to convince the AF that giving us piles of money is better for the AF.  However, that will be a tough sell because the AF doesn't require us to do any missions and so far there has not been a gap b/w what the AF wants and what they get.

If you look at the Statement of Work (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_011504073611.pdf - don't worry, we'll wait) you'll see that there is a bunch of things we can do for the AF if we and they want, but very few things we have to do.  Normally, a SOW would be full of all of the things a contractor has to provide the AF, # of people, hours worked or things produced.  The CAP USAF SOW list a pile of "nice to haves,"  with the "need to haves" boiled down to "don't screw up."

The gov't tends to treat a contractor like a "black box" - money goes in and the goods or services come out.  They don't worry about what goes on inside the box as long as it produces.  Right now, the AF puts money in the CAP box and ES, CP and DDR comes out.  To get them to put more money in the box, you would have to convince them the box won't work without it.

Again, a new idea for CAP has to be long on results and short on cost.  A multi-million dollar proposal which gives them results they don't need is just a non-starter.