CAP Talk

Item 7c on the Winter NB agenda would limit CAP pilots to a max of 79 years old.  O-ride pilots would max out at 69 years old.  This would be a pretty big change for CAP and would have the potential to reduce o-ride pilot availability somewhat. 

According to the NB draft agenda there are 270 cadet orientation pilots age 70+ (of 2,240 total nationwide – 12%) that would be affected by this policy.  There are 34 CAPF 5 pilots age 80+ (of 3,270 total nationwide – 1%) that would be affected by this policy.

Good idea?  Bad idea?

Not enough information to form an opinion. Are older pilots statistically more likely to be involved in flying accidents?

What is the problem that this proposal seeks to fix?

^ The Air Force seems to agree.  In fact the CAP-USAF side seems to be making some very interesting comments on this and many other subjects. 

Looks like the USAF agrees with it and the CAP Senior Advisors (who it probably affects) do not.

Ireally dont have an opinion. I see the USAF's point of view but then I see Youg eagle pilots flying kids well past 70 years old. So I just dont know. But if it passes, I only 30 years left to be an O ride pilot.

^ As a cadet the thrill of wondering if your O-Ride Pilot was going to have a heart attack and you having to take over the controlls was exhilirating. 

I got to say....that for the most part when you turn 80...it may be time to stop flying.

Yes....there are many pilots able to fly beyond 80.....but there are many more who are not....and CAP leaders often are not agressive enough to say "hey....you just can't do it anymore" when they need to.

It comes down to the check pilots and if they are doing their job.  It also comes down to commanders, ops officers, ICs, and other crewmembers.  We had several senior (and not so senior) pilots that were so unsafe people were avoiding flying with them but they kept getting passed.  Thankfully some of the worse finally decided to give it up on their own - because the leadership was not going to force them to stop flying.

Quote from: Spike on February 04, 2010, 01:53:36 AM
^ As a cadet the thrill of wondering if your O-Ride Pilot was going to have a heart attack and you having to take over the controlls was exhilirating.

LOL  LOL  LOL    So true, so true.  I think on of Moses' brothers flew one of my O-flights.

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on February 04, 2010, 04:01:51 AM

Quote from: Spike on February 04, 2010, 01:53:36 AM
^ As a cadet the thrill of wondering if your O-Ride Pilot was going to have a heart attack and you having to take over the controlls was exhilirating.

LOL  LOL  LOL    So true, so true.  I think on of Moses' brothers flew one of my O-flights.

Are his initials RP????? Still kicking!!!

Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2010, 03:45:47 AM
I got to say....that for the most part when you turn 80...it may be time to stop flying.

Yes....there are many pilots able to fly beyond 80.....but there are many more who are not....and CAP leaders often are not agressive enough to say "hey....you just can't do it anymore" when they need to.

The FAA does not see this as a need to be regulated.

Quote from: DG on February 04, 2010, 06:10:20 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2010, 03:45:47 AM
I got to say....that for the most part when you turn 80...it may be time to stop flying.

Yes....there are many pilots able to fly beyond 80.....but there are many more who are not....and CAP leaders often are not agressive enough to say "hey....you just can't do it anymore" when they need to.

The FAA does not see this as a need to be regulated.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.  Most states allow people to drive until they die at the wheel as well, but that doesn't mean
I want to have 80 year old bus or taxi drivers.

Just because the FAA, which would be bombarded by AOPA and the AARP if they capped pilot age, isn't concerned doesn't mean we shouldn't be.

As one of those closest to being affected by any such rule, let me make a few comments. 

I have no idea of flying past 80.  In fact, I will almost certainly not even be a CAP member by that age(I am currently 73).  Each year, I debate long and loud as to whether or not I will renew my membership and I come closer to letting it drop each year.  As two of my buddies have said, "lets sit in the bleachers with our bags of popcorn and cokes and watch the ship sink", at least for the next year.

While I am a certified O Ride pilot, I haven't done one in years.  I got stood up by so many cadets that I simply am not available.  Now, let the flaming begin from all of the Cadet Program folks.

BTW: I passed my Class 2 medical today.

Shouldn't the check pilot decide if the older guys should fly?  If they pass the same Form 5 and medical exam everyone else does, then let them fly cadets.  If they can't, they don't fly cadets. 

Let the Check Pilots do their job.  If someone over 80 can pass a CAPF 5 checkride, let them fly!  Why should we discriminate based upon someone's age??  If you don't trust the Checkpilots, that should be handled as a DOV issue, not by disciminating pilots.  CAP Pilots have ENOUGH hoops to jump through already!

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 06:20:21 AM

Quote from: DG on February 04, 2010, 06:10:20 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2010, 03:45:47 AM
I got to say....that for the most part when you turn 80...it may be time to stop flying.

Yes....there are many pilots able to fly beyond 80.....but there are many more who are not....and CAP leaders often are not agressive enough to say "hey....you just can't do it anymore" when they need to.

The FAA does not see this as a need to be regulated.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.  Most states allow people to drive until they die at the wheel as well, but that doesn't mean
I want to have 80 year old bus or taxi drivers.

Just because the FAA, which would be bombarded by AOPA and the AARP if they capped pilot age, isn't concerned doesn't mean we shouldn't be.

Are you a pilot Eclipse? I am not trying to sound arrogant or anything, but I wonder how many pilots are actually on CAPTalk. Its interesting all these non pilots have a lot to say about pilot qualifications and what age a pilot should stop flying. 

I plan on flying grids till I'm 90..... 8)   By then I'll probably have gotten it down.

Sounds like a tacit admission that check rides don't work.  Or just more CAP rulemaking fun.   :'(

Quote from: Spike on February 04, 2010, 01:34:15 AMThe Air Force seems to agree.  In fact the CAP-USAF side seems to be making some very interesting comments on this and many other subjects.

Well, what is the basis for their comments? No offense to you or the Air Force, but to say it's a good idea because the Air Force agrees with it is irrational as an argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). However if the Air Force is aware of some data that can put this issue in perspective, then the appropriate thing is to bare that out before rendering an opinion.

Let's be clear here. We're talking about pilots who, despite their old age, still meet FAA medical and competency requirements for pilot in command. The assumption therefore is that they are just as capable of safely piloting CAP aircraft as well as a younger pilot. We're not talking about drivers licenses where there are no medical or continued competency requirements.

If the problem truly is with our check ride process, then this doesn't solve the problem. If unsafe pilots are being passed, then that is where the attention should be focused.

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on February 04, 2010, 04:01:51 AM

Quote from: Spike on February 04, 2010, 01:53:36 AM
^ As a cadet the thrill of wondering if your O-Ride Pilot was going to have a heart attack and you having to take over the controlls was exhilirating.

LOL  LOL  LOL    So true, so true.  I think on of Moses' brothers flew one of my O-flights.

Mine was in his 50's IIRC - it was his opening line that set the tone:

"Cadet, have you ever flown in a plane like this before?"

"No, sir."

"Me either!  This should be fun!"

Quote from: WT on February 04, 2010, 12:45:40 PM
Let the Check Pilots do their job.  If someone over 80 can pass a CAPF 5 checkride, let them fly!  Why should we discriminate based upon someone's age??  If you don't trust the Checkpilots, that should be handled as a DOV issue, not by disciminating pilots.  CAP Pilots have ENOUGH hoops to jump through already!

As a check pilot and a good one at that, and one who pays attention, I can tell you that...

More often than not the 70+ and 80+ year old pilot (who has been flying all his life, not newly minted) is unquestionably a better VFR pilot and safer.

Than a new pilot (<500 hours).

Particularly a new pilot who thinks he is hot stuff.  But also the new pilot who is timid and unsure of herself.

It is a matter of experience.

And in the case of the older pilot,

It comes to the place where his ability is so established that...

It is in the spinal column.

If you fly with these senior pilots, you get to see that.

If you don't fly with them, then you sit around with not enough to do, and make regulations discriminating against some of our best pilots.

Yes, there may be a few who "lose it."  But that is what our annual check process is for.

I promise you, those older pilots who "lose it" get downed in the check process when their time comes.  In fact, older pilots are watched more closely, more so than younger pilots. 

And the percentage of those older pilots who "lose it" and should be downed each year is LESS THAN the younger pilots flying in CAP without the proper training and experience and who should be downed each year, who are flying with CAP because they are not paying for it, and they are too cheap to go out and get good instruction and frequency of experience if they have to pay for it.

Quote from: DG on February 04, 2010, 03:44:48 PM
And the percentage of those older pilots who "lose it" and should be downed each year is LESS THAN the younger pilots flying in CAP without the proper training and experience and who should be downed each year, who are flying with CAP because they are not paying for it, and they are too cheap to go out and get good instruction and frequency of experience if they have to pay for it.

Injecting unrelated issues won't help this.

The fact remains that older people have health and physical ability issues that sometimes negatively compensate for the increased experience and better judgement.  A Form 5 lasts a year. A lot can happen in a year when you are over 70, especially when you engage in a hobby that encourages you to avoid a diagnoses which would pooch your medical.

If I manage to crawl to 80 and anyone tells me that I can't ride my bike, I'll be just as mad as a pilot being told to sit in the backseat.  The aging of the population in general is also a factor in terms of the number of pilots this will affect in the next decade or two.

But we have to address this at the macro level, and accept that CAP flying is "different" from GA flying in that we are responsible for the
lives of others and / or a mission.

This decision needs to be made based on published risk data and real-world actuarial information. Perhaps a flight review every 6 months instead of annual - many states now have increased driver's tests for older drivers, which is a reasonable compromise.

I am not in favor of just cutting people off out of hand, but we can't just pretend its not a risk factor.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 04:32:59 PM

Quote from: DG on February 04, 2010, 03:44:48 PM
And the percentage of those older pilots who "lose it" and should be downed each year is LESS THAN the younger pilots flying in CAP without the proper training and experience and who should be downed each year, who are flying with CAP because they are not paying for it, and they are too cheap to go out and get good instruction and frequency of experience if they have to pay for it.

Injecting unrelated issues won't help this.

The fact remains that older people have health and physical ability issues that sometimes negatively compensate for the increased experience and better judgement.  A Form 5 lasts a year. A lot can happen in a year when you are over 70, especially when you engage in a hobby that encourages you to avoid a diagnoses which would pooch your medical.

If I manage to crawl to 80 and anyone tells me that I can't ride my bike, I'll be just as mad as a pilot being told to sit in the backseat.  The aging of the population in general is also a factor in terms of the number of pilots this will affect in the next decade or two.

But we have to address this at the macro level, and accept that CAP flying is "different" from GA flying in that we are responsible for the
lives of others and / or a mission.

This decision needs to be made based on published risk data and real-world actuarial information. Perhaps a flight review every 6 months instead of annual - many states now have increased driver's tests for older drivers, which is a reasonable compromise.

I am not in favor of just cutting people off out of hand, but we can't just pretend its not a risk factor.

Spoken like a true non-pilot.

QED

As a Squadron Commander and Mission Pilot, this is why CAP Check Pilots are so important. I think it goes beyond more than flying.  As a pilot gets up there in age, or ANY pilot for that matter.  I think the entire package needs to be evaluated whether you are 21 or 80.   How are they out of the cockpit as well as in.  I have known older CAP pilots who could fly, but out of the cockpit they couldn't remember anything, you had to yell just to carry on a conversation with them (although they somehow managed to get a medical??) You had to literally hold their hand just to get them to log into e-services for the 100th time even after you have written it down step by step for them.  Just to say "Well, we cant discriminate based on age" is denial.  Pilot safety is an area where political correctness needs to stay home.  Just because you have a valid form 5 doesnt mean you cant be touched for a year.  As a commander, if I think an issue has come up a week after you took your form 5, I will contact the Group Commander up through the Wing Commander and ground you until get you scheduled for and pass another form 5 or Form 91 based on the issues I have.  I've done it, so don't anyone go into some rant that I cant.  What if your a 21yr old Mission Pilot/CFII whom everyone in your unit knows you are a complete idiot outside of CAP with a consistent history of making very poor decisions and have very poor judgement and common sense, but may not be illegal or 2b'able, but you can fly pretty darn good.  Should the fact that your an idiot the other 6 days per week not play into flying for CAP?  Nobody has the "right" to fly for CAP.  In my line of work I can assure you even legal "off-duty" behavior could most definitely play a part in me getting booted from Air Support if I blatantly acted stupidly.
I don't think there needs to be a max age.  I just think we need to maintain the standards.  If your uneasy about a particular pilot, then like anything else, you need to articulate why and deal with it.  If you have a member you are concerned about and that member is going up for a Form 91 or Form 5, talk to your commander about your issues.  If you are the commander, or any other member for that matter who has articulable concerns, talk to the Check Pilot so he can be aware of things he might otherwise not notice.  I don't mean conspire against your pilot, but your check pilot needs to be made aware if the entire squadron offered up human sacrifices to the gods the night before to ensure the safety of the check pilot.
I fly with an LE pilot who is 68 yrs old.  Hes still a sworn Deputy and flys 5-6 hrs per day in all climates and from sea level up to 14,000 ft. in the Sierras.  He isnt going anywhere.  But, just because you can maintain your Pilot Certificate or shoot an ILS to the same airport you've been flying into for 40 years doesn't mean you need to be flying search grids at 11,000ft on Oxygen as a Mission Pilot or flying CD at 1000ft on a 120 degree day for 8 hrs.

Quote from: DG on February 04, 2010, 06:10:20 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2010, 03:45:47 AM
I got to say....that for the most part when you turn 80...it may be time to stop flying.

Yes....there are many pilots able to fly beyond 80.....but there are many more who are not....and CAP leaders often are not agressive enough to say "hey....you just can't do it anymore" when they need to.

The FAA does not see this as a need to be regulated.

No...but the USAF and the Airlines have similar rules.....and now CAP is looking into it.  Just because there is no law regulating something does not mean CAP can't regulate it.

Quote from: flyguy06 on February 04, 2010, 01:11:00 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 06:20:21 AM

Quote from: DG on February 04, 2010, 06:10:20 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2010, 03:45:47 AM
I got to say....that for the most part when you turn 80...it may be time to stop flying.

Yes....there are many pilots able to fly beyond 80.....but there are many more who are not....and CAP leaders often are not agressive enough to say "hey....you just can't do it anymore" when they need to.

The FAA does not see this as a need to be regulated.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.  Most states allow people to drive until they die at the wheel as well, but that doesn't mean
I want to have 80 year old bus or taxi drivers.

Just because the FAA, which would be bombarded by AOPA and the AARP if they capped pilot age, isn't concerned doesn't mean we shouldn't be.

Are you a pilot Eclipse? I am not trying to sound arrogant or anything, but I wonder how many pilots are actually on CAPTalk. Its interesting all these non pilots have a lot to say about pilot qualifications and what age a pilot should stop flying.

Well we do have say in it....we are the poor bastages sitting in the right seat or stuck in back...with some pilot who should have been grounded on his last check ride, by his commander and by his own sense of responsiblity.

I have been warned by many pilots in my area about who I should not fly with.  No one wants to be the bad guy.   The gate keepers are not doing their job.

By putting in hard lines we take that burnden off their shoulders.  I would entertain a waiver process that would allow those over the line to keep flying, but it would require a very good check out.

Quote from: DG on February 04, 2010, 04:56:14 PM

Quote from: eclipse
I am not in favor of just cutting people off out of hand, but we can't just pretend its not a risk factor.

Spoken like a true non-pilot.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:09:23 PM
Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

I would say that whether a seasoned Mission Observer, 5000hr Mission Check Pilot or 2 sortie Scanner, anyone who flies in CAP has the right to chime in on this topic.

Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on February 04, 2010, 05:11:14 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:09:23 PM
Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

Meh, I'm a little bored today trying to tie up SUI's, encampment finances, and related paperwork.  I thought a little "you just can't understand unless you've touched the face of angels" rhetoric might be fun.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:14:41 PM

Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on February 04, 2010, 05:11:14 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:09:23 PM
Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

Meh, I'm a little bored today trying to tie up SUI's, encampment finances, and related paperwork.  I thought a little "you just can't understand unless you've touched the face of angels" rhetoric might be fun.

Major you have a very twisted sense of fun ;)

Quote from: Flying Pig on February 04, 2010, 05:12:38 PM
I would say that as a seasoned Mission Observer, 5000hr Mission Check Pilot or 2 sortie Scanner, anyone who flies in CAP has the right to chime in on this topic.

That would be me.

You have to admit that the system is NOT catching all of those who should not be flying.  If adding guidelines that take age into consideration make us safer I'm all for it.  Like I said before.....I have no problem with a waiver system to allow those who can still safely fly beyond the cut off age.

Quote from: davidsinn on February 04, 2010, 05:17:44 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:14:41 PM

Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on February 04, 2010, 05:11:14 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:09:23 PM
Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

Meh, I'm a little bored today trying to tie up SUI's, encampment finances, and related paperwork.  I thought a little "you just can't understand unless you've touched the face of angels" rhetoric might be fun.

Major you have a very twisted sense of fun ;)

Sometimes you see a button you push it.  The issue of the age of our members in general has been ignored for far too long
to our detriment, especially in the area of ES and aviation operators, its about time it was put on the table for discussion.

Everyone has a stake in this, including Joe taxpayer who pays for the airplanes in the first place.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:25:41 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on February 04, 2010, 05:17:44 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:14:41 PM

Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on February 04, 2010, 05:11:14 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2010, 05:09:23 PM
Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

Meh, I'm a little bored today trying to tie up SUI's, encampment finances, and related paperwork.  I thought a little "you just can't understand unless you've touched the face of angels" rhetoric might be fun.

Major you have a very twisted sense of fun ;)

Sometimes you see a button you push it.  The issue of the age of our members in general has been ignored for far too long
to our detriment, especially in the area of ES and aviation operators, its about time it was put on the table for discussion.

Everyone has a stake in this, including Joe taxpayer who pays for the airplanes in the first place.

I agree. I would be very uncomfortable if I had a very old pilot show up to fly my cadets. I do not want to have to explain to a mother that her cadet died because the pilot augured in due to {insert medical issue}. I would feel uncomfortable riding in a car with a driver that old even though I have a very good chance of surviving a crash in a modern car.

To you that are arguing that the FAA doesn't have rules about it, so what?? Most GA pilots don't fly low and slow and maneuvering like our pilots do. Most GA pilots are not entrusted with other people's minor child.

You can not argue against the fact that as you age your reactions slow both mentally and physically. I'm only 25 and I can tell I can't do things as well as I could just 10 years ago.

The PC crap needs to go away and this issue needs to be addressed.

Quote from: davidsinn on February 04, 2010, 05:38:46 PM
I would feel uncomfortable riding in a car with a driver that old even though I have a very good chance of surviving a crash in a modern car.

You can not argue against the fact that as you age your reactions slow both mentally and physically. I'm only 25 and I can tell I can't do things as well as I could just 10 years ago.

The PC crap needs to go away and this issue needs to be addressed.

I'm just a few days short of being 20, and I have a bad left wrist, and vision that isn't bad according to the doc, but I get blurry vision after about 5ft...

Just 3 years ago I had perfect vision at MEPS, and no wrist problems.

I've also experienced some CAP Pilots who would ask me my name and if I'm new to the squadron - for all 5 years that I was active as a cadet. Those same people would then go up in a plane with two other people on a mission. Not saying ALL old folks need to go, but lets face it, so need to go earlier than others.

If your O-pilots are doing low and slow (aerobatics are strictly prohibited) or Mission Profiles with the cadets then they aren't performing the profiles properly.  The min altitude for performing/demonstrating the in-flight manuvers is 2500 ft AGL.  They should also be putting the cadets on the controls after they demonstrate the manuvers and letting them get the feel for it ...

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 04, 2010, 06:08:41 PM
If your O-pilots are doing low and slow (aerobatics are strictly prohibited) or Mission Profiles with the cadets then they aren't performing the profiles properly.  The min altitude for performing/demonstrating the in-flight manuvers is 2500 ft AGL.  They should also be putting the cadets on the controls after they demonstrate the manuvers and letting them get the feel for it ...

I understand that. I was speaking to both of our primary flying missions. I wasn't clear enough. Each sentence was a separate point.

Is this perhaps also an issue involving legal liability and insurance?

My uncle is in his late 80s, and is having trouble driving...a couple of minor mishaps, an accident just before Christmas...hit a parked car, street sign, major damage to his small compact vehicle...no injuries to him or anyone else, thank goodness..

Speaking to him about the growing risk he is presenting to himself and others met a brick wall.  I can understand this, it threatens a loss of independence...against that, one must weigh the potential harm that may incur.

Fortunately my state requires re-testing of drivers exhibiting control difficulties (regardless of age), including a medical exam. He passed the medical, but we're hoping -- almost expecting -- he won't pass the road test...family and friends will take him where he needs to go, with less hazard to him or others!

My point is this -- check rides, while useful (and, from what I, a non-pilot, have observed, quite thorough & stringent -- I can't say enough in praise of the DOVs & check pilots I know) only happen periodically...and a pilot experiencing difficulty with motor skills, memory, or other risk factors, may not be as noticeable as a motorist with similar problems.

Commanders, safety officers, ops officers, ICs, among others, all have an obligation to closely monitor pilot performance.

An age limit no doubt seems unfair to those whom it will affect, but I think it may have sound reasoning behind it -- for much the same reason we don't let twelve year olds drive: some could no doubt handle it, but most can not.

Quote from: N Harmon on February 04, 2010, 03:21:55 PM

Quote from: Spike on February 04, 2010, 01:34:15 AMThe Air Force seems to agree.  In fact the CAP-USAF side seems to be making some very interesting comments on this and many other subjects.

Well, what is the basis for their comments? No offense to you or the Air Force, but to say it's a good idea because the Air Force agrees with it is irrational as an argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). However if the Air Force is aware of some data that can put this issue in perspective, then the appropriate thing is to bare that out before rendering an opinion.

Let's be clear here. We're talking about pilots who, despite their old age, still meet FAA medical and competency requirements for pilot in command. The assumption therefore is that they are just as capable of safely piloting CAP aircraft as well as a younger pilot. We're not talking about drivers licenses where there are no medical or continued competency requirements.

If the problem truly is with our check ride process, then this doesn't solve the problem. If unsafe pilots are being passed, then that is where the attention should be focused.

Why does there have to be data? People are so statitics driven. thats the problem withth efederal givt. They wait until something happens then they make a rule. There is an old saying "The FAR's are written in blood" Lets be proactive and not wait til there is a major travesty to make a rule.

Quote from: Flying Pig on February 04, 2010, 05:01:23 PM
As a Squadron Commander and Mission Pilot, this is why CAP Check Pilots are so important. I think it goes beyond more than flying.  As a pilot gets up there in age, or ANY pilot for that matter.  I think the entire package needs to be evaluated whether you are 21 or 80.   How are they out of the cockpit as well as in.  I have known older CAP pilots who could fly, but out of the cockpit they couldn't remember anything, you had to yell just to carry on a conversation with them (although they somehow managed to get a medical??) You had to literally hold their hand just to get them to log into e-services for the 100th time even after you have written it down step by step for them.  Just to say "Well, we cant discriminate based on age" is denial.  Pilot safety is an area where political correctness needs to stay home.  Just because you have a valid form 5 doesnt mean you cant be touched for a year.  As a commander, if I think an issue has come up a week after you took your form 5, I will contact the Group Commander up through the Wing Commander and ground you until get you scheduled for and pass another form 5 or Form 91 based on the issues I have.  I've done it, so don't anyone go into some rant that I cant.  What if your a 21yr old Mission Pilot/CFII whom everyone in your unit knows you are a complete idiot outside of CAP with a consistent history of making very poor decisions and have very poor judgement and common sense, but may not be illegal or 2b'able, but you can fly pretty darn good.  Should the fact that your an idiot the other 6 days per week not play into flying for CAP?  Nobody has the "right" to fly for CAP.  In my line of work I can assure you even legal "off-duty" behavior could most definitely play a part in me getting booted from Air Support if I blatantly acted stupidly.
I don't think there needs to be a max age.  I just think we need to maintain the standards.  If your uneasy about a particular pilot, then like anything else, you need to articulate why and deal with it.  If you have a member you are concerned about and that member is going up for a Form 91 or Form 5, talk to your commander about your issues.  If you are the commander, or any other member for that matter who has articulable concerns, talk to the Check Pilot so he can be aware of things he might otherwise not notice.  I don't mean conspire against your pilot, but your check pilot needs to be made aware if the entire squadron offered up human sacrifices to the gods the night before to ensure the safety of the check pilot.
I fly with an LE pilot who is 68 yrs old.  Hes still a sworn Deputy and flys 5-6 hrs per day in all climates and from sea level up to 14,000 ft. in the Sierras.  He isnt going anywhere.  But, just because you can maintain your Pilot Certificate or shoot an ILS to the same airport you've been flying into for 40 years doesn't mean you need to be flying search grids at 11,000ft on Oxygen as a Mission Pilot or flying CD at 1000ft on a 120 degree day for 8 hrs.

heck, I'm 40 and I need help with eservices  ;D

But I agree with most of what you said.

Quote from: flyguy06 on February 04, 2010, 06:43:38 PMWhy does there have to be data?

Because emotion and knee jerk reaction are crummy things to base flight safety policy on?

Or perhaps because we owe it to the group of pilots who will no longer be welcome to fly for us that this decision be based on facts and not because some bureaucrats want to give the impression of taking safety seriously?

I can think of all sorts of reasons why there needs to be data. Why don't you tell me why our decisions should NOT be based on hard facts?

Quote from: flyguy06 on February 04, 2010, 06:43:38 PMPeople are so statitics driven. thats the problem withth efederal givt. They wait until something happens then they make a rule. There is an old saying "The FAR's are written in blood" Lets be proactive and not wait til there is a major travesty to make a rule.

So why don't we require instrument endorsements for all of our pilots? Or heck, commercial licenses!? Why don't we up the required hours for mission pilot to 750 hours PIC? Why don't we require basic flight training for mission observers? Or nomex for all aircrew? Why don't we require aircrew to wear helmets?

After all, "The FARs are written in blood", "Lets be proactive and not wait until there is a major travesty to make a rule."

The answer is because the costs of certain decisions has to balanced against its benefits. That type of rationality is the only way you achieve the greatest success rate in policy making. Shoot from the hip decision making is not only unprofessional, but most often counterproductive.

The background for this proposal is as follows:

Several incidents during CAP Flight Operations including CAP Cadet, ROTC and JROTC Orientation Rides have caused some concern to CAP-USAF and CAP.  The incidents have raised interest in reducing the risk associated with these flight operations.  The areas of concern include questions about training, check ride certification, commander responsibility/accountability and issues related to the retention of skill/ability by Orientation Ride pilots.

Devil is in the details, but naturally we should question what role age played in these incidents. According to the Senior Advisor for Operations, age wasn't a major role (emphasis mine):

I do not concur that we should change that standards that older pilots must meet when there is ample evidence that these pilot deficiencies are not based solely on pilot age, but instead are a result of a lack of standard compliance by check pilots in the administration of proficiency checks and allowing pilots whose skill levels and judgment have deteriorated to a level that does not meet the established standards regardless of pilot age.

Quote from: N Harmon on February 04, 2010, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on February 04, 2010, 06:43:38 PMWhy does there have to be data?

Because emotion and knee jerk reaction are crummy things to base flight safety policy on?

I agree with that statement however it's emotion that is keeping them flying when there are pretty good reasons they shouldn't be. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and ground an older pilot.

My family had this situation with my great grandmother at around 80. She wasn't fit to drive but nobody wanted to be the guy that pulled her keys. It finally took a head-on collision at a closure rate on the sunny side of 75 mph that nearly killed her and her sister in law in one car and a friend of mine and his friend in another car.

Quote
I do not concur that we should change that standards that older pilots must meet when there is ample evidence that these pilot deficiencies are not based solely on pilot age, but instead are a result of a lack of standard compliance by check pilots in the administration of proficiency checks and allowing pilots whose skill levels and judgment have deteriorated to a level that does not meet the established standards regardless of pilot age.

I read that as saying a check pilot should have grounded the pilots because they were too old. This proposal is removing the ambiguity and making it mandatory.

Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

Quote from: davidsinn on February 04, 2010, 08:24:09 PM
Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

But how do you know that? What kind of safety margin is actually gained? And how much of our flying is made up by that fraction of pilots?

I guess thats the difference between managers and leaders. Managers manage resources and ensure the resgs are followed to the tee. Leaders, however are proactive and see things ahead and make things happen in order to accomplish the mission. We have a lot of managers in CAP. We need more Leaders. Leaders need tobe proactive. see things before hand. Leaders lead by example. managers interpret rules and regs and established policies. leaders make rules and regs and established policies.

Quote from: N Harmon on February 04, 2010, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on February 04, 2010, 08:24:09 PM
Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

But how do you know that? What kind of safety margin is actually gained? And how much of our flying is made up by that fraction of pilots?

It would affect 12% of our O-ride pilots and 1% of our CAP pilots according to the OP.

So it MAY cause problems with O-rides but not very much.

You can be good manager while at the same time a terrible leader but you cant be a leader without knowing how to be an effective manager.  People like to try and separate the two but it doesnt work.

Quote from: davidsinn on February 04, 2010, 08:24:09 PM

Quote
I do not concur that we should change that standards that older pilots must meet when there is ample evidence that these pilot deficiencies are not based solely on pilot age, but instead are a result of a lack of standard compliance by check pilots in the administration of proficiency checks and allowing pilots whose skill levels and judgment have deteriorated to a level that does not meet the established standards regardless of pilot age.

I read that as saying a check pilot should have grounded the pilots because they were too old. This proposal is removing the ambiguity and making it mandatory.

I read it as the check pilot FAILED to properly conduct the check ride and evaluate the pilot's abilities.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2010, 09:28:44 PM

Quote from: N Harmon on February 04, 2010, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on February 04, 2010, 08:24:09 PM
Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

But how do you know that? What kind of safety margin is actually gained? And how much of our flying is made up by that fraction of pilots?

It would affect 12% of our O-ride pilots and 1% of our CAP pilots according to the OP.

So it MAY cause problems with O-rides but not very much.

Yes but what % of the O-flights are these 12% providing?  Generally our older members are the ones with the free time to do things like O-flights and weekday missions.

Quote from: Flying Pig on February 04, 2010, 09:29:51 PM
You can be good manager while at the same time a terrible leader but you cant be a leader without knowing how to be an effective manager.  People like to try and separate the two but it doesnt work.

Thats a very true statement. managers arent neccessarily leaders. But leaders are also managers. I say that because managers take the regs and thats the only thing they know.Leaders inspire. Managers interpret regs.

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 04, 2010, 09:42:23 PM
Yes but what % of the O-flights are these 12% providing?  Generally our older members are the ones with the free time to do things like O-flights and weekday missions.

I was going to ask that earlier, but we should not assume the answer is a high percentage.  Just because you are F5'ed 91'ed, and/or O-Ride approved doesn't mean you actually contribute to the program.  We all know guys like this who do their check rides and never actually fly for CAP.

This is where that "data" would be important.

Quote from: Flying Pig on February 04, 2010, 09:29:51 PM
You can be good manager while at the same time a terrible leader but you cant be a leader without knowing how to be an effective manager.  People like to try and separate the two but it doesnt work.

+1

Quote from: flyguy06 on February 04, 2010, 09:47:32 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on February 04, 2010, 09:29:51 PM
You can be good manager while at the same time a terrible leader but you cant be a leader without knowing how to be an effective manager.  People like to try and separate the two but it doesnt work.

Thats a very true statement. managers arent neccessarily leaders. But leaders are also managers. I say that because managers take the regs and thats the only thing they know.Leaders inspire. Managers interpret regs.

So a leader who is also a manager only takes the regs and thats the only thing they know????     In fact, poor managers tend to write more rules so they can fall back on them instead of having to be put on the spot and make a decision.  That is the current problem with a lot of the check pilots: they don't have a really strong rule to fall back on and have to rely on their own judgment as to if the pilot is really qualified to keep flying.  They are afraid to be made out as a bad guy and, in many cases, know they will be overruled by the leadership in the organization and the poor pilot will just end up getting another check pilot to pass him.

History is full of great leaders who led people in the wrong direction.

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 04, 2010, 09:42:23 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2010, 09:28:44 PM

Quote from: N Harmon on February 04, 2010, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on February 04, 2010, 08:24:09 PM
Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

But how do you know that? What kind of safety margin is actually gained? And how much of our flying is made up by that fraction of pilots?

It would affect 12% of our O-ride pilots and 1% of our CAP pilots according to the OP.

So it MAY cause problems with O-rides but not very much.

Yes but what % of the O-flights are these 12% providing?  Generally our older members are the ones with the free time to do things like O-flights and weekday missions.

I don't think it really matters.

Even if 100% of the O-rides were being flown my these 12% of the pilots we would just have to lead and manage our pilots better to get the O-ride mission done.

The question is.....should we be accepting the risk of older pilots flying these missions?  The USAF who funds them has concerns....we owe it to them and to our cadets to look into it. 

I did a little googling last night to see what there was out there in terms of studies of age-related accident risk in general aviation pilots.  Didn't find a lot.  There have been quite a few things related to commercial airline pilots.  I didn't do this, but I bet you can find a lot of good studies related to older people and car driving that might have some bearing on the matter. 

Sorry guys. i am guilty of what I have been complaining about. I didnt mean to turnthis thread into a Managers vs Leaders thread. I should have started a new one. i was just responding to the point about people wanting to base decisions on data as opposed to being proactive and trying to prevent a problem before it becomes data. If you see the potential for a problem such as pilots loosing skills as they get older ( I am not saying thisis the case) then dont wait until grandpa has an accident to do something about it so you can put it in your data. DO something about it now.


Anyway, lets get back on track. The National Board and making an age limit to fly in CAP

Decisions based on fact or decisions based on opinion.  There is a world of difference.  Sometimes you don't have all the facts you need and you have to go ahead and make a decision.  But you only do that when you don't have time to get all the facts or you are unable to get the facts you need.  This situation is not time critical and the information is out there. 

I would like to see a decent study on the accident/mishap rate in CAP correlated to PD level and time in CAP.  I heard that most of the accidents were caused by Level I people.  Were they really new people or multi-year members who only joined for the free flying.  How does the rate (percentage) compare to other PD levels.  How does age factor in.  It might be safer for cadets if we required O'ride pilot to have at least Level III and be at least 50 years old.   

Here is what the NTSB said about age in 2005 (the last published report)

QuoteAge
The average age of all active pilots in the U.S. increased steadily from 1996 through 2005 and by 2005 was 46³¹ years. In contrast, the average age of general aviation accident pilots was 50. Despite the difference in average age, no meaningful conclusions can be made regarding specific age-related accident risk because FAA flight-hour activity numbers are not available for each age group. Age differences could be the result of activity if opportunities for recreational flying were to increase with age.

While the NTSB say "no meaningful conclusion can be made" it admits that the FAA does not keep records on specific age groups.

According to an AP report in 2006 Here (http://archives.californiaaviation.org/pilot/msg00124.html)

QuoteAmong the findings:

Pilots age 60 and over accounted for 23.6 percent of all general aviation accidents even though they represented just 14.7 percent of all licensed pilots. Those in the 50-59 age group were responsible for 26.4 percent of accidents; they were 22.1 percent of all licensed pilots.

Pilots 50 and older were involved in 55.8 percent of all general aviation accidents that led to fatalities, although this group comprised just 36.8 percent of all licensed pilots.

Pilots in other age groups - those in their 40s, 30s, and 20s and teens -had proportionately fewer accidents over the five-year period and in each individual year.

How many hours do the age groups fly?  I'm betting the older groups fly more due to wealth and time.   Without hours flown by the age groups accident rates are meaningless.

QuoteAmong the findings:

Pilots age 60 and over accounted for 23.6 percent of all general aviation accidents even though they represented just 14.7 percent of all licensed pilots. Those in the 50-59 age group were responsible for 26.4 percent of accidents; they were 22.1 percent of all licensed pilots.

Pilots 50 and older were involved in 55.8 percent of all general aviation accidents that led to fatalities, although this group comprised just 36.8 percent of all licensed pilots.

Pilots in other age groups - those in their 40s, 30s, and 20s and teens -had proportionately fewer accidents over the five-year period and in each individual year.

[/quote]

CAP needs to remember that everytime they make up a new rule a little piece of CAP's heart dies. 
Ground the 80 year olds and some 70 year olds will walk.  Will the world stop- no not this time.  Maybe next time though.

Well that is a slippery slope to go onto.

If we ignore a problem because people will walk.....we may end up going down the tubes for ignoring the problem.

If the USAF has concerns about us policing our own ranks...and they feel we are ignoring them....they may just pull the funding.

The Air Force would only "pull" our funding if CAP violated its Cooperative Agreement and/or Statement of Work.  While that is unlikely, it is wise we all remember we work "with" the Air Force but, they are not our only "customer".  Besides, that is the reason we have a Board of Governors.  It's their responsibility to see the money keeps coming in... ;D

Angel Flight has recently set an age limit for its pilots.  Our most recent fatal aircraft crashes have occurred with our most "seasoned" pilots.  If someone over the age of 80 wants to fly as PIC, wonderful.  They will just need to find another source for aircraft.

Why not stop them at 65 yrs old and require first class medicals for O ride pilots?  For gosh sakes won't someone think of the children?  I'm half way to 80 so this won't affect me, it just seems like more solving problems that don't exist.   

^can anyone say "insurance risk"?   ::)

Quote from: FW on February 05, 2010, 01:44:02 AM
^can anyone say "insurance risk"?   ::)

What insurance? 

Quote from: Climbnsink on February 05, 2010, 01:37:12 AM
Why not stop them at 65 yrs old and require first class medicals for O ride pilots?  For gosh sakes won't someone think of the children?  I'm half way to 80 so this won't affect me, it just seems like more solving problems that don't exist.

What about the children?   We are talking about 12% of the O-ride pilots nation wide.

If you have typical squadron of 10 pilots.....that is one of them.....are you saying the mission will fail?

As for "solving a problem that don't exist"......Read the opening line of the proposal....there have been several incidents that is making the USAF nervous.  Someone thinks there is a problem.

It is still a check pilot failure.  There are plenty of cognitively challenged, ticker ready to explode 69 yr olds.  Once you start drawing lines in the sand it gets all sorts of ugly.  If a medical, Flight review, and CAP checkrides can't stop the whispering death of old age what makes people certain picking an arbitrary age limit will? 

Because then the check ride does not have to be the bad guy.....he can just say "sorry Joe....70 is too old to be an O-ride pilot".  Joe's not mad at his long time CAP buddy and we are all a little safer.

As I said before.....IIWIC....I would build a mechanism that would allow the old guys to get a waiver.....it would include jumping through a lot of hoops and proving to someone with iron clad accountability that Joe was in fact fit to fly.

I don't want to force out anyone....but we all know of someone who should not be flying but those in power do nothing.  Do we really need one of these guys to kill someone before national takes a stand.

Just telling the check pilots to do their jobs is not enough.....because some of them are not doing it now.  Relying on the FAA medical examiner is not enough...because we know there are plenty of FAA doctors who will sign off on anyone.

:-\

Keep in mind that any pilots impacted by such a rule could still fly as an Observer until they drop and I would hope that they would be great at it. 

I really don't see these as drastically different than the more or less arbitrary minimum age requirements we have in CAP for various positions.  We know that some kids probably have the ability to perform some of these jobs before they reach that minimum but realistic quality control absent a fixed minimum age would likely be as difficult to apply as what we're asking check pilots to do when making a call about whether a pilot is just too old to do the job even if they can meet the bare minimums required to perform the task at some given point in time. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 05, 2010, 03:34:54 AM
Keep in mind that any pilots impacted by such a rule could still fly as an Observer until they drop and I would hope that they would be great at it.   

However positive, that is probably one of the most politically incorrect statements I have ever heard... I almost felt bad about laughing.

Besides that, I'm just a dirty ground pounder, so I'll leave this to the pilots.

OK, so we allow the Checkpilot, rather than doing his job and telling a sub-par pilot that he won't be passing the CAPF 5, "Hey Joe, you're too old, I just can't pass you, it's the rules." 

So, what excuse do we give the Check pilot for someone who is 20 / 30 / 40 years old and is sub-par?  This is a ludicrous excuse!  Again, PLEASE, if we have Stan / Eval issue, let's fix the Stan / Eval issue, rather than trying to create excuses!

One of the major responsibilities of a Checkpilot is to not allow someone to pass who does not perform to the standard.  That would include dismissing ANY external pressures toward a positive outcome for any particular candidate.  If a Checkpilot can't accept this responsibility, they shouldn't be a Checkpilot.

Hey, here's a novel idea...  Rather than discriminating pilots based upon age, why don't we improve Checkpilot Standardization and work toward making it more standardized, like it's supposed to be??  More / better / improved training for Check Pilots would make for a better experience for everyone.

How about this - we set the cut-off at (fill in the blank).  After that age, the pilot will have to get a class (fill in the blank) flight physical and will have to go through an extremely thorough exam and check ride every (fill in the blank) months.

Those who are still sharp and are good aviators will be able to continue service.  Those who are slipping will still be able to serve as observers.  If the check rides are funded, no sweat.

WIWAD, I had to take a class III flight every two years after age 40.  At 41 I got busted off of dive duty because of blood pressure.  Yeah, it sucked and I lost about  $200 bucks a month, that's just the way it was.  I was able to stay on free fall status, but that was coming quickly.  I don't think the Army wanted my to be woozy at 35,000' at night on O₂ as a jump master with ten other guys counting on me to get them in the right county.

Getting old sucks.  The body wears out.  The "brain operating system" slows down.  I've been 28 years old twice.  I'm not nearly as quick as I was the first time.

Quote from: Gunner C on February 05, 2010, 06:06:09 PM
How about this - we set the cut-off at (fill in the blank).  After that age, the pilot will have to get a class (fill in the blank) fight physical and will have to go through an extremely thorough exam and check ride every (fill in the blank) months.

Those who are still sharp and are good aviators will be able to continue service.  Those who are slipping will still be able to serve as observers.  If the check rides are funded, no sweat.

+1
That was what I have been saying since my first post!

Lord

^you knew we would eventually get around to it.  It took 4 pages for everyone to get warmed up.  Im sure there was a uniform discussion embedded in there somewhere too so it wasnt a total loss. ;D

^Well there is the solution.  We'll have pilots older than 70 wear new distinctive uniforms- say blaze orange jumpsuits that have 'DANGER' written across the front and back.   Pilots over 80 will be assigned a cadet in a grim reaper costume to follow them around at all CAP activities.  Doesn't stop sudden death but at least everyone will know who not to fly with...

Quote from: Flying Pig on February 05, 2010, 06:19:19 PM
Lord

^you knew we would eventually get around to it.  It took 4 pages for everyone to get warmed up.  I'm sure there was a uniform discussion embedded in there somewhere too so it wasn't a total loss. ;D

Well now that you mention it.....any pilot over 70 should have to wear a silver scarf with all uniforms so we can quickly identify them!  >:D

Edit....Climbnsink beat me to it!  I like his idea better!  You can see the cadets all lining up to join the Grim Reaper Flight!

Any of this really a shock to anyone?

Yep 4 pages and yet the Form 5 is the most etalked about thing in the CAP community from ages 18 to 89.

Proving to me one thing....CAP has yet to prove that the Form 5 is BETTER than any BFR or flight review as it is called today.

Some of my most informative flights leading up to Form 5's were that from the soxty thru eighty year old community including the helo drivers a from the Hiller 12 and 23 days to the oldskis running and teaching the G1000

Call it what u want....but PAPA AF might be driving this one and some some of CAP le
gal types MIGHT just be informing themselves of the gray and aging CAP "pilot workforce" somewhat similar to what the other agencies have ben suffering.

Get ready for the loss of some great teaching and flying skill(s) CAP will be losing.  CAP has got itself to thank for the Form 5 process that really should be no more special than a Flight Review.  I know that is hard for the hardcore CAPers Stan Eval types thinking that they are wanna be USAF SUPT IP's that a ready on a moments notice to eliminate rather than educate...even with the "ticker syndrome" that everyone is so wary of here after the 4 pages of slumper fright >:D >:D >:D >:D :o :o ::) ::)

Quote from: Flying Pig on February 05, 2010, 06:19:19 PM
Lord

^you knew we would eventually get around to it.  It took 4 pages for everyone to get warmed up.  Im sure there was a uniform discussion embedded in there somewhere too so it wasnt a total loss. ;D

;D So true

Quote from: heliodoc on February 05, 2010, 10:30:51 PM
CAP has yet to prove that the Form 5 is BETTER than any BFR or flight review as it is called today.

Every other year my Fm 5 gets logged as a BFR as well.  I have not really found a difference between the two. 

Quote from: Short Field on February 06, 2010, 04:28:12 AM

Quote from: heliodoc on February 05, 2010, 10:30:51 PM
CAP has yet to prove that the Form 5 is BETTER than any BFR or flight review as it is called today.

Every other year my Fm 5 gets logged as a BFR as well.  I have not really found a difference between the two.

A BFR Is student driven. You are supposed to work on things you feel you are weak on. I gave a BFR and we shot approaches the whole time. A Form 5 is a set list of required maneuvers t be performed.

I can agree with that.  A Form 5 is a checkride.  Id be a little hesitant to tell my check pilot, "Hey, I need to work on ........."  Theyd say, "OK, you work on those and call me when your ready."

As it should be Short Field

Some of our Form 5 have draaaaaaged in for months at a time OR very little or no feed back from the "check pilot."

Some of these guys could explain there way to anything ad when a pilot is "having a bad day" there is no such thing a checklist to go over the things needing help.  Now I am not saying that the Form 5 should be a giveaway or anything of the sort.

But the adversarial ways some so called check pilots have on responding to either phone calls or issues leave me to believe that in my Wing we have check pilots who ought not have the responsibility of doing rides.  The Form 5, the WHOLE Form 5 process, with some of the folks in my Wing, make it really more than it is and the most of those folks do not even approach, as really understanding the Form 5 unless it becomes more than 10 / 100 mile drive a thon to go meet up with these so called CAP
professionals, who may call themselves professionals, wasting peoples time.

Now I do understand the issues of pilots not being ready for checkrides, but really a rusty pilot can be brought up to speed fairly quickly, and should no where approach 10 hours even of the pilot puts in 4 hours a month...now I am sure we can go round and round about that..

But I am for NOT wasting prople time ...as I was informed at an interview today as a Citizen Corps Coordinator for a major State operation
They are not interested as in organization to waste peoples time ...CAP ought to take the clue.

I can state this with authority as many others can. Waste my time doing a Form 5, which ought not be different than a BFR, is an embarassment to CAP as so called professional pilots.

AND I do know how CAP loves to brag about its professionalism...

I am having a hard time understanding what heliodoc is trying to say. Is he saying check pilots aren't giving enough instruction? Because check rides are not instructional flights. Check rides are tests where the prospective pilot demonstrates (1) an understanding of CAP procedures for flight operations, and (2) flying competency necessary to perform CAP flight operations like orientation flights and SAR mission training.

A pilot who fails a check ride should only need a copy of the form 5 to see what parts he/she failed. It is not incumbent on the check pilot to hand hold the prospective pilot and go through and explain how to do those things the pilot failed.

A form 5 is not a BFR.

Let me try to clear things up...

Sometimes the check pilot is the pilot (sometimes) flying with the prospective Form 5 candidate is that is instruction prior to the Form 5, so maybe the check pilot is confused in his or her capacity.

CAP orientation flight are just that. We are entrusted to fly cadets and seniors, both.  So the word competency rings true for both the CAP and civilian world when it comes to that part of flight instruction.  If I am not mistaken, CAP orientation flights ARE somewhat instructional, so tell me the difference of CAP orientation flights and the first few hours of flight instruction?  There is where I have the problem with CAP.... our standards are "tighter" some people claim.  I have done o rides and they are not that big of a deal for either the cadets ir me as a commercial pilot.  Being a skydive pilot,  I give some instruction on how an airplane flies to those who are interested, does that make me less competent than a CAP pilot??  One can find plenty of incompetence everywhere, including CAP.  Do not think for one minute that, CAP pilots, check or otherwise, are the ace of the flying bases!!

But then CAP orientation pilots are not all CFI's.  So is CAP saying, because they fly a 6 hour cadet syllabus, they are more proficient than CFI's?  I beg to argue that.

I get the idea that CAP check pilots are not to hand hold the prospecrtive pilot.  Then they ought not be training CAP pilots prior the Form 5.  Then in that case, it appears that a check pilot can not be bothered by the general CAP membership after the flight,  is that how I am to understand that?  Then with that reasoning, is a CAP check pilot then,  not a mentor pilot?

I also understand  the Form 5 is not a BFR, it is an eval...got it...then why is being credited by the Wings Program?  I know CAP and FAA went together on it, and for lack of better terms, it does amount to a BFR if it getting credited as such.

But I believe in mentorship in CAP flight operations..a commodity found in very few "younger" CAP pilots or check pilot who are in the capacity to instruct BEFORE the Form 5.  Those that do true mentoring in CAP are few and far between for an organization that seems encourage flying or flight operations.

Maybe when one becomes a CAP check pilot or a CAP pilot with ooooodles of hours, they think they are done mentoring whether or not Form 5 's are being conducted.  I also know that CAP check pilots are not flying to some CAP "standards of flight"...they are going by FAA PTS standards which are flown according to the certificate held.  With professional DPE's there is a little "slop" for lack of better terms,and if one can recover from the offending issue, before the DPE gets involved, then it is a safe ride

So in CAP, these Form 5's should not be viewed as adversarial, they are an eval that at the end of EVERY Form 5, a discussion ought to take place other than just handing the Form 5 pilot a Form 5 and saying , "Good Day!"

That sound like too much to do??

What???

As an O-Ride pilot, and non-CFI, I can say CAP O-flights ARE IN NO WAY INSTRUCTIONAL

Form 5 Check Pilots perform CAP's most basic check ride to the standard of the certificate held.  Its up to you the pilot to get the necessary instruction or mentoring BEFORE the Form 5.  The Form 5 is a go/no-go. 

Got it , Rob

But reading CAPP 52-7   demonstrate , show, let the cadet handle the aircraft

Like I said earlier, "somewhat instructional."

Plus all the CAPP 52-7 wording revolving around the word syllabus and syllabi...in the educators world (spell teacher or flight instructor) it still spells instruction when the words demonstrate and show appear


I'll stand down on my Form 5 commentary  NOT on the syllabus and CAPP 52-7...

Syllabus usually come under the heading "instruction."


Not arguing with you, Rob.  This one I have a background on...

Quote from: heliodoc on February 06, 2010, 05:12:08 PM
Let me try to clear things up...

Sometimes the check pilot is the pilot (sometimes) flying with the prospective Form 5 candidate is that is instruction prior to the Form 5, so maybe the check pilot is confused in his or her capacity.

CAP orientation flight are just that. We are entrusted to fly cadets and seniors, both.  So the word competency rings true for both the CAP and civilian world when it comes to that part of flight instruction.  If I am not mistaken, CAP orientation flights ARE somewhat instructional, so tell me the difference of CAP orientation flights and the first few hours of flight instruction?  There is where I have the problem with CAP.... our standards are "tighter" some people claim.  I have done o rides and they are not that big of a deal for either the cadets ir me as a commercial pilot.  Being a skydive pilot,  I give some instruction on how an airplane flies to those who are interested, does that make me less competent than a CAP pilot??  One can find plenty of incompetence everywhere, including CAP.  Do not think for one minute that, CAP pilots, check or otherwise, are the ace of the flying bases!!

But then CAP orientation pilots are not all CFI's.  So is CAP saying, because they fly a 6 hour cadet syllabus, they are more proficient than CFI's?  I beg to argue that.

I get the idea that CAP check pilots are not to hand hold the prospecrtive pilot.  Then they ought not be training CAP pilots prior the Form 5.  Then in that case, it appears that a check pilot can not be bothered by the general CAP membership after the flight,  is that how I am to understand that?  Then with that reasoning, is a CAP check pilot then,  not a mentor pilot?

I also understand  the Form 5 is not a BFR, it is an eval...got it...then why is being credited by the Wings Program?  I know CAP and FAA went together on it, and for lack of better terms, it does amount to a BFR if it getting credited as such.

But I believe in mentorship in CAP flight operations..a commodity found in very few "younger" CAP pilots or check pilot who are in the capacity to instruct BEFORE the Form 5.  Those that do true mentoring in CAP are few and far between for an organization that seems encourage flying or flight operations.

Maybe when one becomes a CAP check pilot or a CAP pilot with ooooodles of hours, they think they are done mentoring whether or not Form 5 's are being conducted.  I also know that CAP check pilots are not flying to some CAP "standards of flight"...they are going by FAA PTS standards which are flown according to the certificate held.  With professional DPE's there is a little "slop" for lack of better terms,and if one can recover from the offending issue, before the DPE gets involved, then it is a safe ride

So in CAP, these Form 5's should not be viewed as adversarial, they are an eval that at the end of EVERY Form 5, a discussion ought to take place other than just handing the Form 5 pilot a Form 5 and saying , "Good Day!"

That sound like too much to do??

???

I don't understand this at all.

O-Flights are 100% instructional.  That's what they exist for.  It doesn't matter if the cadet is at the controls or the pilot, the cadet is being "instructed" on the material in the syllabus.  See 52-7, 20. Cadets should "handle the controls" after the pilot demonstrates the procedure. The O-flight motto is, "Safe, fun, educational."  How is it educational if you don't instruct?  It may not be "flight instruction" like a normal lesson with a CFI, but it sure is close.

The cadets on my O-flights get a lot of time "handling the controls".

Quote from: CAPR 52-16 Cadet Program Management
4-2. ORIENTATION FLIGHTS. The Cadet Orientation Flight Program is designed to introduce youth to general aviation through hands-on orientation flights in single engine aircraft and gliders. The program is limited to current CAP cadets under 18 years of age. Cadets aged 18 and older may still participate in military orientation flights.

[...]

c. A successful orientation flight will include at least 80% of the syllabus objectives found in CAPP 52-7, Cadet Orientation Flight Syllabus. Every flight will conform to the syllabus and be consistent with safety. Orientation flights will not be credited toward any pilot ratings (solo, private pilot, etc.).

Orientation flights are educational, not instructional. They are not designed to teach cadets how to pilot an aircraft, but rather to contribute an understanding of how aircraft fly. There is some ambiguity there, but not much.

Heliodoc, it sounds like some of your check pilots aren't doing things right. That sucks. I think CAP has a difficult problem where they NEED to hold check pilots accountable, but then if they did that then perhaps a lot of people wouldn't want to be check pilots any more.

Quote from: Flying Pig on February 06, 2010, 08:29:41 PM
As an O-Ride pilot, and non-CFI, I can say CAP O-flights ARE IN NO WAY INSTRUCTIONAL

Form 5 Check Pilots perform CAP's most basic check ride to the standard of the certificate held.  Its up to you the pilot to get the necessary instruction or mentoring BEFORE the Form 5.  The Form 5 is a go/no-go.

This is true. I am an IP but not a Check Pilot. So, a lot of new CAP pilots wil fly with me and I think they are ready, I wil send them to the check pilot. usually It takes one or two flights.

On another note, Too many Check pilots think they are DPE's. A form 5 is NOT an FAA checkride for a certificate. most chekpilots arent trained like DPEs and should be acting like DPE's They should make sure the pilots is in accordance to their certificate.

Thanks  N Harmon

I would say its the 20% in power overiding 80% that need the help in their capacities as check pilots, I can not accuse all.  But there are definitely some issues in my Wing that need addressing and quite possibly some shakeup counseling.

That 's why I am reducing some of my CAP flying to allow those monkeys to keep on keeping on. But I will be there to remind them as a thorn. 

I'd rather fly with professionals that know their place in life in CAP and fly on the commercial market especially G1000...'cuz here in CAP  land MOST do not get the FITS program let along any thing else instructional or check pilotdom.  After 5 or 6 years of the G1000 being on the scene, some folks just do not get it!

So there is my chip...I will fly with someone else than CAP  when I can during this layoff.  I would spend good money with someone who really understands the process of instruction vs evaluation, although some know the difference in CAP.  This has been addressed in my Wing..but there are some GOB's in the system that NEED to stop 10 hour stretches of Form 5 and trying obscure information just to watch someone scramble for information.  What needs to happen is a real pilot continuation program leading to the Form 5  and not just sources on the NHQ websites that have "Form 5 prep" and more one to one which some of us candidiate CFI's are propsing to do in iur sqdn that has DRIVEN away as many as 5 CFI's already 'cuz they have witnessed and heard the goofiness of what goes on other than a ride to FAA PTS standards...which a Form 5 with 60-1 added in..There are problems with lack of standardization in CAP and even the sharper cadets can see this

As far as instruction per the CAPP 52-7..its instruction...just that no one is gaining loggable time except the O ride pilot

Educational vs instructional we can round and round.... when there's a syllabus involved stating demo and show it.  Its instructional as well as educational

A check ride is analogous to a driving test.

The motor vehicle department inspector is along for the ride to determine that the test taker can operate the car in a safe, legal manner and maintain control of the car while driving. That's all. MV examiners don't give driving lessons -- driving school instructors do.

A CAP CP is there solely to determine that the pilot taking the check ride can operate the aircraft, on the air and on the ground, in a safe, controlled manner -- meeting FARs, CAP regs, and so forth.

If the pilot needs refresher or proficiency training (before or after), ideally the IP should be someone other than the check pilot.

Quote from: Thrash on February 07, 2010, 03:23:03 AM
O-Flights are 100% instructional.  That's what they exist for.  It doesn't matter if the cadet is at the controls or the pilot, the cadet is being "instructed" on the material in the syllabus.  See 52-7, 20. Cadets should "handle the controls" after the pilot demonstrates the procedure. The O-flight motto is, "Safe, fun, educational."  How is it educational if you don't instruct?  It may not be "flight instruction" like a normal lesson with a CFI, but it sure is close.

The cadets on my O-flights get a lot of time "handling the controls".

Knowing what you do in your day job, you have probably forgotten more about flying than I will every know.  However, I think its the terms used.  If CAP O Flights were "instructional" you would need to be a CFI to do them.  They are for orientation.  OFlights cannot be used as time.  In aviation terms,  education, orientation have a much different meaning than "instruction".  I know its semantic.  When I do O-FLights, yes, I believe I do instruct the cadets.  But in a legal/FAA sense, I am not "instructing" anyone.  When I do OFlights, the cadet is on the controls with me from start up to shut down.  Once at altitude, they are usually the one flying with me poised at the ready to grab-a-hold. 

Well, since we are already wayyyyyy off the topic, guess I wil add too it.

The above statememnts is exactly why I advocate that O ride pilots that are aso CFI's should allow the cadets to sit in the left seat. According to the FAR, the PIC of an aircraft can be the PIC from any seat in the aircraft. As a CFI, I am actually more comfortable flying from the right seat since that is what I do on a daily basis. i dont fly fromthe left too often. In fact, CAP flying is only time I fly from the left seat.

The powers that be need to seriously re look that rule

I think it should be up to the CAP CFI.  To expect that a CAP CFI basically be forced to act as a CFI evertime they get in the plane is a little much.  I think the O-Ride program is actually pretty good as is.

Just because you fly in the right seat doesnt mean you are "acting" as a CFI. When I take my friends flying. I will fly in the right seat because again, that is the seat I am most comfortable flying from. I can fly from the left seat. but I am used to flying right seat so I fly from the right most of the time weather instructing or not.

Quote from: heliodoc on February 07, 2010, 02:34:31 PM

What needs to happen is a real pilot continuation program leading to the Form 5  and not just sources on the NHQ websites that have "Form 5 prep" and more one to one which some of us candidiate CFI's are propsing to do in iur sqdn

I so agree with this.  :clap: :clap:  The lack of a credible Form 5 prep program is hurting the intake and Form 5 success of many squadrons (Let's not even talk about the F91).  When I joined there was much mention about you need to prepare for the Form 5 but no resources where provided, CAWG went on restricted funds, and I had to provide a rental Cessna 182 for the Form 5.  If I was not so tenacious, and found the Form 5 online course (can't we do better than this) in a Google search, printed flash cards from the AOPA ASF, found the mysterious CAPF60-1, and flew my A** off to get ready, I would be still sitting on my A** doing GTM3 and wearing a BDU uniform (Have the UDF and working on the GTM3 and BDU's so don't flame me :angel:).  And then if it wasn't for NESA, forget about Mission Pilot.

So my mission (heh) is to help the other pilots in our unit and group through the Form 5, and onwards to the MP rating.

I've been there; it's a real safety and liability issue that CAP really has to address. It means a two pilot mission crew for obvious reasons with the observer in back doing scanner duties and hopefully one of pilots doesn't have a hearing problem. I've flown in some of those circumstances and it's really tough on the whole crew.

Also, I've also seen those situations where the older guys really drag their feet getting Form 5s done because they already know they're going to fail something.

Besides, airline pilots already have age requirements.

Comparing CAP with the airlines... That's not a good comparison!

The problem with this ageism question is that the population is greying out.  Restricting pilots on age alone is going to put a serious crimp in our pool of available pilots in the decades ahead.

However, in 20 years our SAR platform, could be radically different!! In that case, when I'm 80 I want the option to fly a CAP drone, through VR, from the comfort of my wheel chair :O

I still would like to see data that would support, and justify, such a draconian action!
I have yet to see any evidence that "old pilots" are causing a disproportional number of "incidents".
   

CAP and useful MEASURABLE data??

CAP and honorable statistics.......I  would question that, too.

Hopefully, CAP can see beyond age..... but more likely its the risk averse lawyers that CAP is picking up and MAAAYBE 1AF.... But CAP had better bone up the proof that the AF is behind any of this.   Otherwise, it is CAP manufactured bunk that comes out of  meeting such as NB /NEC that can not zero around real issues like credentialing, following the G1000 FITS program THE SAME way in EVERY Wing, etc etc etc.  If it doesn't revolve around CAP uni and bling issues, then it can not exist.  Is that right??

But CAP and real data????  CAP and published data???   That's like some of the "current documents" CAP needs to update.

Let's see it CAP!  Because the other operational volunteer organizations do not get on older Americans...do NOT lecture us on our $475K aircraft and old age!  Unless CAP can PROVE beyond reasonable doubt, then CAP is slowly losing more of its aviation credibility with its "scientific studies."  Can not prove it??  Then stop wasting valuable time trying to create new  pet agendas!

If it's not written by verfiable, scientific, measurable documentation, CAP ought not be making rash decisions.

CAP  ...making USCG Aux looking like a better alternative everyday!  But I am CAP enough and man enough to admit when I do not know something for fact, like my above reference to USCG Aux

So let us CAPers see the real documentation about older pilots!

Quote from: don736 on February 09, 2010, 06:58:12 PM
I still would like to see data that would support, and justify, such a draconian action!
I have yet to see any evidence that "old pilots" are causing a disproportional number of "incidents".

See Here (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf)

Quote from: FAA StudyThe results of this study are generally consistent with the conclusions reported by Golaszewski (1983, 1991, 1993) despite the use of different methods and samples. The results differ from the findings of the Hilton Systems, Incorporated. Kay et al. (1994) found that the accident rate decreased for younger pilots as they aged and then leveled off in the middle years. However, Kay et al. did not examine accident rates for Class 1 pilots
older than age 59. The trend analyses in this study detected a "U"-shaped relationship between accident rates and age when pilots age 60 to 63 were included in the sample.

Well, after glancing at a professional scientific document

Where is CAP picking up the age 70 and 80 stuff after the study stops with approx age 63-65 group..understandably airline / ATP and that type of flying...but where does that apply to CAP, huh?  I will still fly with CAP pilots who are 70 and 80 yrs old.  I may have to preface this way..

"Does CAP view the fight you and I are about to take as an unnecessary risk?  Do you and I need to do a 30 minute IMSAFE check with you?  Do you feel offended by the questions that I have asked you?"  I will incorporate this on every pre flight brief with every oldski in CAP just to have them understand that this is the slant of the beloved 68 going on 69 year old organization.  How'd that sound for all of those in CAP land?

I am up for flights with the CAP old timers any day of the week!  How do we know know when a 45 yr old O pilot is going to be a slumper in the the middle of a 20 degree bank demo ing something to a bunch of cadets??

So are CAP clairvoyants able to do research after age 65 to back up its claim? 

I still want to see REAL CAP data on age 70 and 80 folks.

Now that it a really nice argument.

"I see that the FAA has seen a trend....but we are CAP not the airlines!"

"I won't beleive it until CAP does their own study"

Okay.....let's do a study...I propose we take this year's flying budget to contract out a study.

I know this is kicking a lot of CAP members in the teeth.   And I think we need to proceed carefully.  BUT to just ignore the data, and to ignore our customer is a sure way to have our mission simply taken away.

CAP got the AFROTC O-ride funding because we can do it cheaper then contracting it out to local flying services.  If the USAF has a trust issue with us....they can certainly take their money and go else where.

How about producing some CAP-specific numbers?

Quote from: lordmonar on February 09, 2010, 07:46:56 PM

Quote from: don736 on February 09, 2010, 06:58:12 PM
I still would like to see data that would support, and justify, such a draconian action!
I have yet to see any evidence that "old pilots" are causing a disproportional number of "incidents".

See Here (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf)

Quote from: FAA StudyThe results of this study are generally consistent with the conclusions reported by Golaszewski (1983, 1991, 1993) despite the use of different methods and samples. The results differ from the findings of the Hilton Systems, Incorporated. Kay et al. (1994) found that the accident rate decreased for younger pilots as they aged and then leveled off in the middle years. However, Kay et al. did not examine accident rates for Class 1 pilots
older than age 59. The trend analyses in this study detected a "U"-shaped relationship between accident rates and age when pilots age 60 to 63 were included in the sample.

Then CAP HAD BETTER proceed carefully, because all of a sudden its an issue because it comes out some sort of yearly NB /NEC Board Meeting

If it has to be then SPEND some of that money and again when we refer to the customer USAF and future DHS, HLS, and other missions CAP wants so dearly, then it becomes incumbent on CAP doing it RIGHT the first time.

CAP has been using the we can do it cheaper mantra for along time now.....The AF COULD go elsewhere.....done everyday in government contracting...CAP ought to realize this by now.  Still where is the documentation from the AF on this very age issue? 

Sorry CAP, I for one have not ignored the age issue..  being a Forester, wildland firefighter, former USARNG helo mech, etc you think I missed this little fact of life?  Apparently CAP doesn't think so,  having  68 year old attitudes and not changing with the times.  Where  did CAP miss the boat on aging ATC types, airline types, military types,,etc?  MAYBE CAP has IGNORED these facts for at least the last 30 yrs, huh?

Sometime the paid folks are their BEFORE CAP.  So the argument is getting slimmer.  This is off track ...but how's that HR 1178 study going for us to get more missions?  Seems like its dead on the hill for the time being.

SOOO this will get the ante up....I diddn't ignore the FAA document.   But CAP  is doing a fire drill based on airline and ATP studies.

Hey I know .....  everyone in CAP who has a commercial or ATP does O rides....ohh wait a minute we already do that...

Aren't we flying CAP cadet o rides with folks with PVT certs?

It will be up to that customer.  If they vote with their feet based on the FAA data, well then, CAP ought to get ready to find other missions.

Maybe CAP's longevity all things flight are numbered...like things in this current economy. 

Some can criticize views here, such as mine....  CAP needs to be creative in it sales pitch....we just can not do everything we SEEM to advertise.

So how come the beloved CAP "Agency" hasn't done its own study and how come it continues to use FAA data  and PTS standards?  Can it not do things by itself.  I am a realist..... CAP is just NOT on every ones, every States, every agencies, and may not always be on the USAF's  page 1 on their ROLODEX.

CAP proceeding carefully....you bet!!

FYI: there has been a definitive study done on the effects of aging on pilot performance: I took part in it for a number of years(six, I think).  It was run at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto, Ca and sponsored by the American Association on Aging, the FAA and Stanford University.  As far as I know, it is ongoing.  To participate, one had to have at least a Private Pilots license, a current medical and be willing to spend the better part of a day once a year in testing.  They had an upper age cutoff: 70 and I believe that the minimum age was 45, but I could have missed that one.

Each session consisted of several sessions on a computer going through a bunch of timed tests on matching items and identifying items and some other stuff that I can't remember.  Then, you also spent two or three sessions in a Frasca simulator, flying headings, changing altitudes, changing squawk codes and radio frequencies by memory.

For some reason, my computer won't allow me very much verbage(probably not a bad idea).

The study has produced some reports and I have seen one or two.  They made lots of conclusions, but one in particular got my attention: there is evidence that aging pilots have a lessening of their cognitive skills as they age.  Since I am not a scientist, I am not sure what affect that has on pilot performance.  What do I know, I am just an airplane driver.  Point me in the right direction and I can take you there.

iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.   

Quote from: Climbnsink on February 10, 2010, 03:34:26 PM
iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.

I am very impressed with the thinking around here lately

(seriously)

Quoteiirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.

So your basically saying pilots who have been flying from when they were kids did better than pilots that more recently earned their wings?

I think I can understand why.

It isn't as simple as hours logged it has to do with skills learned at a young age are retained better.  From what I recall all of the old pilots had some deficiency, eyesight, cognitive speed, or some such, but the ones that had learned to fly a long time ago did better at  flying than their peers(with similar total hours) with identical age related facilities.  If you study some of the sleep/learning stuff it seems plausible but how do you codify it in regulations?  I'd suggest an annual checkride to determine fitness for flight, and not just for the old bastards lets make every CAP pilot have an annual checkride. ::) 

So your basically saying pilots who have been flying from when they were kids did better than pilots that more recently earned their wings?

I think I can understand why.
[/quote]

Quote from: Climbnsink on February 10, 2010, 04:56:23 PM
I'd suggest an annual checkride to determine fitness for flight, and not just for the old bastards lets make every CAP pilot have an annual checkride.

Maybe something like an annual Fm 5 checkride???

Quote from: Short Field on February 10, 2010, 07:57:28 PM

Quote from: Climbnsink on February 10, 2010, 04:56:23 PM
I'd suggest an annual checkride to determine fitness for flight, and not just for the old bastards lets make every CAP pilot have an annual checkride.

Maybe something like an annual Fm 5 checkride???

Nah that one doesn't work.  Maybe form a committee to come up with a Form 5.1 checkride. <sarcasm>

Great idea, CAPF 5.1 the rest of the story would be the committee of judges in the back seat with performance value cards like they have in the Olympics. Everyone would be looking for the perfect 10.

^^^
SAWEEEET!

CAP types aspiring to be paid contract DPE 's or real FAA examiners, huh?

Even those folks know there is not a puuuuuuurfect world like some CAP types would love to aspire to!

Quote from: Climbnsink on February 10, 2010, 03:34:26 PM
iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, you could try this CAP fatal accident on for size, which may actually have been the one that spurred this debate to begin with....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA08FA023&rpt=fa (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA08FA023&rpt=fa)

This occurred on November 08, 2007 - aircraft N881CP a CT182T G1000 from Nevada Wing. Controlled flight into terrain. 2 fatalities, ages 73 (pilot) and 71 (observer). Both pilots were ATP rated and had over 25,000 hours, one was the Wing Commander and the other was the D.O. for the Pacific region. My apologies and condolences to those on here that knew them.

Not getting off subject, but I believe however that this accident was a G1000 issue, not so much an age issue. Technically Advanced aircraft have a much higher fatal accident rate than "round dial" aircraft. There is a thread on here about the recent NTSB report issued on March 09 2010.  The thread is here:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10081.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10081.0) and was started by sardak.

This is why I think the Air Force is getting concerned, perhaps wrongly focusing on age and not the aircraft type.

This is silly.  There are already methods in place to ensure that the people climbing into and operating our aircraft are competent and proficient as well has physically fit.  There are the annual form 5 flights, biannual flight proficiency checks, flight physicals.  The problem is we are trying to apply a new regulation to solve a problem that should be solved by the checks and balances in place.  It is up to the Check pilot to see if the pilot is proficient enough, it is up to the Flight Instructor on the Biannual to give additional training and choose whether or not to extend the certificate, it is up to the Flight surgeon to check if the pilot is healthy enough for flight, and ultimately it is up to our FRO's to make those no-go decisions when we know in our gut that the flight wont be carried out safely.   We do not need more regulation (appears to be an AF mindset), but rather better enforcement of the regulations that we have. 

The safety officer and squadron commander have the authority to ground anyone they see unfit for flight operations and force another Form 5 whenever they sense the need.  It's time we used this authority, it just may save a squadron mate and a friend some day.

   

QuoteI hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, you could try this CAP fatal accident on for size, which may actually have been the one that spurred this debate to begin with....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA08FA023&rpt=fa

This occurred on November 08, 2007 - aircraft N881CP a CT182T G1000 from Nevada Wing. Controlled flight into terrain. 2 fatalities, ages 73 (pilot) and 71 (observer). Both pilots were ATP rated and had over 25,000 hours, one was the Wing Commander and the other was the D.O. for the Pacific region. My apologies and condolences to those on here that knew them.

Said incident has been discussed here and elsewhere before - unfortunate, but old news. Age may have been a contributing factor, but it was certainly not the first time. Pilot age had been discussed within CAP before this incident.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3491
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6331
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7573

The glass cockpit may also have been a contributing factor but that's a topic for the other thread.

Mike

Quote from: chomkoglrin069 on March 13, 2010, 10:04:20 PM

Quote from: Climbnsink on February 10, 2010, 03:34:26 PM
iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, you could try this CAP fatal accident on for size, which may actually have been the one that spurred this debate to begin with....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA08FA023&rpt=fa (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA08FA023&rpt=fa)

This occurred on November 08, 2007 - aircraft N881CP a CT182T G1000 from Nevada Wing. Controlled flight into terrain. 2 fatalities, ages 73 (pilot) and 71 (observer). Both pilots were ATP rated and had over 25,000 hours, one was the Wing Commander and the other was the D.O. for the Pacific region. My apologies and condolences to those on here that knew them.

Not getting off subject, but I believe however that this accident was a G1000 issue, not so much an age issue. Technically Advanced aircraft have a much higher fatal accident rate than "round dial" aircraft. There is a thread on here about the recent NTSB report issued on March 09 2010.  The thread is here:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10081.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10081.0) and was started by sardak.

This is why I think the Air Force is getting concerned, perhaps wrongly focusing on age and not the aircraft type.

We all are very familiar with this event.

Ed Lewis gave me my Form 5 in the GA-8 at Mojave.

The newly proposed age restriction regulation would not have prevented this flight.  It was not a cadet orientation flight.

And you are right, it really was a TAA and heads-down CFIT.

Does anyone know what the National Board, in their corporate wisdom, decided on this issue?  Perhaps they referred it to a committee, like they seem to do on any important subject.

Quote from: bosshawk on March 14, 2010, 03:06:59 AM
Does anyone know what the National Board, in their corporate wisdom, decided on this issue?  Perhaps they referred it to a committee, like they seem to do on any important subject.

The decided to make a poll on CAP talk.   >:D

Frankly I wouldn't even let an 80 year old drive me in a car, and to have them still flying especially cadets is asking for a problem.

Actually at our recent wing conference I talked with our Chief Standardization guy about this and his opinion is if the individual could pass the annual check ride and 2 year physical he would still let him/her fly cadets.   He emphasized to me that age wasn't the factor but the individual's actual capabilities.  So that even a 50 year old could be taken off flying status if he/she couldn't pass the evaluation.   He also mentioned that any age restriction (which I would assume is at 65 years old on) would greatly impact the flying program (which I would assume) in our wing.

I might add also in our wing, that generally during missions the entire flight crew our all pilots in the first place, so there probably isn't much risk in the mission side.

Again though, as a non pilot I don't see myself flying with an 80 year old, and even at 70 years old, it would be someone I knew and interacted with prior to getting into the plane.   We do need to recruit more younger pilots for the program overall.
RM   

They didn't refer it anywhere.  Someone realized this is AGE DISCRIMINATION!

I STILL fly with 70 and 80 year pilots in CAP

So what?

CAP gotta a corner on the aging pilot issue?  OH wait a minute, it does ,it does!  the Silver Hair Patrol

Some of those old folks were flying C123's, O1's, O2's, F102's and F106 BITD

Current CAP types who think flyin with 30-50 yr old pilots thinkin is the cat's meeeeeeooow are missin out.

Why does one in CAP wonder why its called the Silver Hair Patrol?  Experience CAPTalkers...not matter how anyone wants to argue "AGE."

ALL this CAP bunk about risk and old age....loookeee at some of those aircraft incidents and accidents ages 18-59 and later even

Unless CAP has some CLEAR statistics on how "unsafe" the AARP  ( 50 and above) crowd is............then CAP ought just leave the whole issue alone until it affects them on a daily basis.  CAP and age.......whatever.....   if CAP did not have age....well ....    it wouldn't be CAP

Quote from: WT on March 31, 2010, 03:03:52 PM
They didn't refer it anywhere.  Someone realized this is AGE DISCRIMINATION!

Someone should have told the airline industry then..
Hell while we're doing that maybe we should abolish the minimum age for a pilots license, or maybe even driver's licenses as well...

I am opposed to the idea of having an age cap, however, throwing around words like "discrimination" is like grabbing the pitchforks and rounding up the posse.

The fact of the matter is that old people get, well, old.  They lose a little bit of themselves along the way, and that's why they make Depends. 
I am in favor or more frequent flight physical exams, and when the day comes that my Flight Surgeon (whether it be when I'm 55 or 105) says that I am no longer fit to fly, then hell, I'll go home and sit in my diaper with a beer and watch tv.  But if I'm 70 and fit to fly and someone says because and arbitrary rule I cannot fly, then that dog isn't gonna hunt. 

So maybe I kind of argued against myself, but this isn't baseless discrimination, there is some logic behind it(the regulation).  It's just being executed poorly.

^^^^^
Like many of the other "current regs" in CAP

Executed poorly and sometimes without much thought

But some CAPtalkers will disagree

How many of those 1941 subchasing CApers were of the ages of 40 through 70 during that heyday?

Maybe if CAP found the ages BITD....it would not be much different than today...

Proving this "current" CAP "poll" is full of hot air...

Quote from: tsrup on April 13, 2010, 03:53:15 AM
The fact of the matter is that old people get, well, old.  They lose a little bit of themselves along the way, and that's why they make Depends. 
I am in favor or more frequent flight physical exams, and when the day comes that my Flight Surgeon (whether it be when I'm 55 or 105) says that I am no longer fit to fly, then hell, I'll go home and sit in my diaper with a beer and watch tv.  But if I'm 70 and fit to fly and someone says because and arbitrary rule I cannot fly, then that dog isn't gonna hunt. 

In 2006, the late Col Ed Lewis, then Pacific Region Director of Operations, told my Region Staff College class that when he hit 70 the following year, he was going to hang it up. He recognized that his reaction times and reflexes were not what they used to--or should--be, and that he would soon be a risk to himself and his crews.

Fast forward to Autumn 2007, after the colonel had turned 70, I witnessed him fly sorties as a mission pilot during the search for Steve Fossett.  A few months later, he and NVWG/CC Col Dion DeCamp (also over age 70) were dead, killed in a CAP plane crash southwest of Las Vegas, NV.

With no disrespect meant, these gentlemen--both highly experienced aviators with decades of military and airline experience--both knew their age was becoming a risk factor, they chose to ignore their consciences, and they (and their families, and CAP) are now paying the price.   

If it can happen to those two, it can happen to anyone.

Of course, the real answer is a Stan/Eval program with a real backbone, but I doubt we'll see that anytime soon.

^^^^^

Then ya better call the USAF to run the CAP Stan / Eval program

Until then, ya's gets whay ya's gets!!

Cuz for CAP, it gets no better than this!!

Jumping on in as a grey haired Instructor Pilot:  Some years back late 80's and since I started noticing a trend in younger pilots (Young as in experience not age) that I have found disturbing.  There are a awful lot of folks flying around that are fantastic systems managers but mediocre airmen.  Oh these guys can make a GPS (and up until recently a LORAN) sit up and sing, and dance, and beg for dinner but -  when I would turn off all the electronics and say where are we?  let the dumb looks reign.

That "Old Pilot" who doesn't even know how to turn on the GPS and navigates by moving his/her finger along the chart as the airplane moves over the ground has their brain, their eyes, their soul wired and in tune with their task. 

If anything, the old farts are going to be better VFR pilots because they have already used up most of their nine lives being young pilots.

My two cents - only in my 50's but gave up doing O rides this year- the paper chase and release process got to be too big a hassle, and I have dark suspicions about CAP National throwing a pilot under the bus if a Cadet gets nicked.

Sort of transitioned my flying from 70/30, CAP VS flying club, to 30/70, CAP VS flying club, over the last year.
Fly CAP if they're paying for it, otherwise I fly with a club.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 04, 2010, 12:59:42 AM
Item 7c on the Winter NB agenda would limit CAP pilots to a max of 79 years old.  O-ride pilots would max out at 69 years old.  This would be a pretty big change for CAP and would have the potential to reduce o-ride pilot availability somewhat. Good idea?  Bad idea?

Go by the results of the flight physical, not some arbitrary number.  Thats what the flight physical is FOR, isn't it?

That being said, I do understand the concern on O-rides, but not regular missions.  The person sitting in the right seat can probably bring the plane in pilot or not.

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on June 30, 2010, 10:02:17 PM
[The person sitting in the right seat can probably bring the plane in pilot or not.

Emphasis mine, and I assume there is an understood "safely," between "in" and "pilot."

If I am sitting in the back seat, I am not sure I would want to hang my hat on "probably," even if I were to agree with your assumption.

YMMV

v/r