Must demonstrate ELT Search for CAPF 91?

[WT]

I am a Mission Check Pilot.  One issue I seem to encounter quite frequently.  When giving a checkride, various issues can cause a practice beacon to be unavailable.  When this happens, my decision is to suspend the checkride and reschedule a continuation of the checkride for a time when a practice beacon is available.  I feel that an ELT search is one item that needs to be demonstrated on a checkride.  I have recently gotten into some heated discussions with other Mission Check Pilots who feel that an ELT search is somthing that can be "discussed" rather than "demostrated" on the CAPF 91 checkride.  Anyway, I am wondering what the thoughts of other Mission Check Pilots are on this situation, and what is your general practice?  Thanks in advance for your responses!

[bosshawk]

I rarely try to do an ELT search on a 91 check ride.  I clearly understand your concern about a pilot knowing how to do one, but logistics often get in the way.  Unless you can insure that a practice beacon is available and that someone will activate it for you, I would suggest that you either delay the ride or simply discuss the techniques with the applicant.  To me, a pilot knowing how to run the CAP FM radio and the GPS are just as important, if not more so, than knowing all the details of chasing an ELT.

[es_g0d]

While many of my peers will claim that a practice beacon to demonstrate electronic search is absolutely mandatory, I take the slightly-less-staunch approach of, "It Depends."

Is it an initial CAPF-91?  In that case, absolutely I require the budding MP to demonstrate electronic search procedures.  Operating the DF equipment is probably the single most different skill from FAA flying, and therefore critical.  I emphasize this area because for most mission pilots the most difficult thing is to make the transition from simple FAA flying to mission flying.  This sounds overly simplistic, but it really isn't.  Because ELT searches are the most common and "generic" of CAP missions, they are a core skill.  I'm sure we've all been on missions where the aircrew couldn't find the beacon due to lack of operator skill -- this is simply inexcusable.

We need to try harder to get practice beacons turned on for training.  They're not expensive, and honestly most units can afford them at about $156 (www.pointerinc.com).  Considering that an hour's rental of a Cessna 172 at many FBOs will rival that amount, I hope a practice beacon can become a bit more of a priority!  I think that if you can't plan ahead enough to get a practice beacon for your Form 91 then you probably haven't planned out the checkride well enough, either.  Generally it ought to only take a phone call or two, but not at the last minute.

That's not to say you can't be creative in trying to get the electronic search completed.  If you're using a Becker SAR-DF-517, you will find that many ASOS / AWOS units transmit within the allowable frequency range for the unit.  While its important to realize that an ASOS transmits at 1000++ times the power of an ELT, EPIRB, or PLB, it can still give a good evaluation of DF procedures using the unit.  Anecdotally, it seems that about 40% of the CAP fleet is now equipped with the Becker.  Using wing-null techniques is MORE IMPORTANT with a Becker, which for reasons I've brevity I'll not cover at this time.

Its important to evaluate electronic search because, quite often, the only qualified crewmember is the mission pilot.  This is certainly far from ideal.  The very first sortie following a Form 91, a mission pilot may be giving instruction on mission matters to an observer and/or scanner trainee.  There's not minimum to be a mission instructor!  While hopefully wiser minds will restrict a new mission pilot a bit, we all know this doesn't always happen.  A similar situation can develop when an observer (who OUGHT to be able to run the DF better than anyone!) is inadequately trained or non-proficient.  It falls to the mission pilot to continue (or discontinue, if appropriate) the mission.

So let's say in a second scenario a Mission Pilot is up for renewal.  If I'm personally familiar with the pilot-in-question's abilities, and I'm unable to reasonably obtain a practice beacon for the Form 91, then I will cover it verbally.  How's that for a short second half of "it depends"?

[SJFedor]

Me, personally, I always make sure there's one out. Luckily for me I know a few members that live around the Middle TN area that have their own practice beacons, so usually a phone call and a "can you throw the beacon on your porch for a few hours?" allows me to get the job done.

I've yet to not be able to have a beacon available, so I always evaluate it.

[PHall]

I am a Mission Check Pilot.  One issue I seem to encounter quite frequently.  When giving a checkride, various issues can cause a practice beacon to be unavailable.  When this happens, my decision is to suspend the checkride and reschedule a continuation of the checkride for a time when a practice beacon is available.  I feel that an ELT search is one item that needs to be demonstrated on a checkride.  I have recently gotten into some heated discussions with other Mission Check Pilots who feel that an ELT search is somthing that can be "discussed" rather than "demostrated" on the CAPF 91 checkride.  Anyway, I am wondering what the thoughts of other Mission Check Pilots are on this situation, and what is your general practice?  Thanks in advance for your responses!

What is required, per the reg, to pass the check ride? I don't care what your personal preferences are, what does the reg require?

Does the reg allow you discuss ELT search if a beacon is not available?

If the reg allows you to discuss ELT search if a beacon is not available then why should a check ride be postponed if YOU have not arranged for a beacon?

YOU are the one giving the checkride and YOU are the one who is controlling the conditions of that checkride.

[es_g0d]

By the time you reach Mission Check Pilot status, the leadership of Civil Air Patrol has placed trust in your judgement.  To my knowledge, its not expressly required to have a training beacon signal. 

If YOU have not arranged for a beacon for a MP candidate who SHOULD demonstrate proficiency in that skill, then I personally think you should postpone the ride.  You're right, YOU are controlling the conditions -- so make them how you see fit per your conscience.

In general, I require a practice beacon.  There's times when I won't.  Its my call, and I can answer the question "why" if raised -- it will pass the smell test.  The trust is placed in YOU, so can YOU faithfully answer those questions?  If the answer is yes, yea verily omni omni V-O-R go forth and maketh mission pilots.

[SJFedor]

I'd concur with Scott. I searched 60-1 and 60-3 to no avail, there's no guidance on what must be done. Just has to meet tasks per the aircrew and flightline task guide, and the F91.

The first inital 91's that I ever did as a mission check pilot were at NESA last summer. Prior to that I had only done renewal 91's with more experienced pilots. There's even a few people on this forum who got to sit through an inital checkride with me (you know who you are!) With initial rides, there's not much I mark off as verbal when it comes to the search types. I think the initials I did up at NESA averaged 1.4 to 1.6 hours each.

WT, you know how it rolls  I'd say it's by and far your own call. All else fails, most units (including ones I bet are rather close to you  ) have training beacons. Just pull one out and set it on a picnic bench in front of the FBO or something, and don't tell your candidate until you're in flight, and do an in-air retask for an ELT. Even if they know where it is, make them PROVE it to you with the equipment/maneuvers.

[DG]

It is an unforgiveable mistake not to use a practice beacon and require the actual demonstration of an ELT search on a Form 91 check ride.

I can't tell you how many sorties, in actual missions or SAREX's, come back with the comment that the DF didn't work.  When in fact the equipment was working fine.  One of the biggest reasons is the crew puts the Eltronics DF on "Alarm" rather than "Use."  Or the Becker is on "Training" or the wrong frequency.  By rough estimation, at least 50% of the sorties come back and the crew claims that the DF equipment did not work. 

It should be (required) best practice that the DF is checked out by the crew on the ground before the sortie launches.  I can't tell you how many pilots never do that.  I'd say 95%. 

Just as it was standard practice to check that SDIS was working on the ground before launching.  Back in the old days, when the satellites were working.

Even if the DF was not working, I ask "Did you have an audio signal?"  Then you should have found it.  Did you do a wing null?

Doing the wing null, I can't tell you how many pilots never use altitude or going off frequency to home in on the beacon.  "Nobody ever showed me that!"

There is no way you can "verbally" assess a pilot's skills flying low and slow at 1500 feet AGL in a steep bank.  All the while watching the spinning heading indicator and listening intently to a very low volume audio signal.

There is no way you can assess any of that verbally.

The mission observers and mission scanners who will be going with that mission pilot are counting on us to ssure that that mission pilot is safe in those difficult and dangerous flying regimens.

It scares me that mission pilots are being checked out who have not actually demonstrated the difficult and potentially dangerous wing null.

National wants us to focus on Safety.  Let's focus on assessing actual flying skills.  Not verbal assessments.

And besides, without an actual practice beacon, you are missing out on all the great fun in actually locating it, and then using ground DF methods in finding it on the ground.  Another instance of, "Nobody ever showed me that!"

I love to put the beacon on an airfield with 4 (2?) runways.  Then do a low pass and watch the DF swing.  Then repeat on the other runway, so to identify the quadrant on the field where the beacon resides.

You can do all that, or you can sign the guy off without doing it.  One step closer to "How did you get your rating, did your buddy sign you off?"  And the next guy will think that is perfectly OK.  And then the next guy.

[RiverAux]

I have no clue as to what is required on the form 91, but I looked at the SQTR Mission Pilots are required to "Operate the Aircraft DF" and "Perform ELT Seaches".

If you look at the actual task tests (O-2005 and O-2006), it is REQUIRED that you do these tasks with an operating practice beacon. 

So, whether or not it is required on the f91, it is required that Mission Pilots actually demonstrate how to find an ELT in the air before they can get the rating. 

[Eclipse]

DG and River make excellent points, this is not the search dogs tasking for GTM where the answer is "stay away from the dogs".

DF'ing in the aircraft is a mission critical skill that the 91 indicates is required as a demonstration, and should be required, regardless of convenience.

The current CAPF 91 can be found here:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/F091_449297B36A647.pdf

Items which can be accomplished verbally are clearly delineated at the beginning of the form, and none is of the same critical nature as being able to show you can DF.  We have MP's seemingly incapable of using the CAP radios or using the Becker (unless its for listening to regular broadcast radio stations enroute - don't get me started   ) , so assuming an MP is capable of doing DF properly is a bad idea.

It says demonstrate, so demonstrate.

[SJFedor]

[snip]
DF'ing in the aircraft is a mission critical skill that the 91 indicates is required as a demonstration, and should be required, regardless of convenience.
[snip]
It says demonstrate, so demonstrate.

Where?

Of all the F91's I've filled out, I've yet to find the word "demonstrate" anywhere on the form. The only concoction of that word would be "demonstrated" where I put my initials under the certification, but that's talking about proficiency as a MP, not that they demonstrated every maneuver.

So, whether or not it is required on the f91, it is required that Mission Pilots actually demonstrate how to find an ELT in the air before they can get the rating. 

Correct. At some point in their training, they met the requirements of O-2005 and O-2006 before they even showed up for the F91.

[Eclipse]

[snip]
DF'ing in the aircraft is a mission critical skill that the 91 indicates is required as a demonstration, and should be required, regardless of convenience.
[snip]
It says demonstrate, so demonstrate.

Where?

Of all the F91's I've filled out, I've yet to find the word "demonstrate" anywhere on the form. The only concoction of that word would be "demonstrated" where I put my initials under the certification, but that's talking about proficiency as a MP, not that they demonstrated every maneuver.

Those things that can be covered via an oral discussion are in the...wait for it..."oral discussion" area of the form.  If NHQ wanted you to just discuss DF'ing, that's where they would be.

So where do you draw the line between demonstrate and discuss?  Which, I will grant you is the problem, because its a subjective call for the examiner.  Some will require a full demonstration of everything covered, some will just talk through things.

And from the same coin, some MP's will rock the house, and others will blame the equipment when they can't figure out how it works.

For the most part, our pilots can fly - you can't get to MP qualification without being able to take off and land - the whole purpose of the 91 ride(s) is to insure you understand and can execute what we need you to do with the airplane beyond carbon-fueled holes in the sky.

[Short Field]

CAPR 60-1 breaks the Fm 91 evaluatin into four parts (1) Preflight,  (2) Oral Review, (3)In-Flight Portion, and (4) Post-Flight.   During the In-Flight Portion, "the mission check pilot shall observe and evaluate the applicant accomplish CAPF 91 mission flight maneuvers.    All flight maneuvers shall be conducted using utmost consideration for safety, sound judgment and use of appropriate mission procedures."

DFing is a flight maneuver.

[DG]

You people are making some very good points.

[SJFedor]

[snip]
DF'ing in the aircraft is a mission critical skill that the 91 indicates is required as a demonstration, and should be required, regardless of convenience.
[snip]
It says demonstrate, so demonstrate.

Where?

Of all the F91's I've filled out, I've yet to find the word "demonstrate" anywhere on the form. The only concoction of that word would be "demonstrated" where I put my initials under the certification, but that's talking about proficiency as a MP, not that they demonstrated every maneuver.

Those things that can be covered via an oral discussion are in the...wait for it..."oral discussion" area of the form.  If NHQ wanted you to just discuss DF'ing, that's where they would be.

So where do you draw the line between demonstrate and discuss?  Which, I will grant you is the problem, because its a subjective call for the examiner.  Some will require a full demonstration of everything covered, some will just talk through things.

And from the same coin, some MP's will rock the house, and others will blame the equipment when they can't figure out how it works.

For the most part, our pilots can fly - you can't get to MP qualification without being able to take off and land - the whole purpose of the 91 ride(s) is to insure you understand and can execute what we need you to do with the airplane beyond carbon-fueled holes in the sky.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing with your theology on this. You and I totally agree on what should be done. My only qualm is that some of your statements sound regulatory, when in fact, a lot of it is left to the discretion of the examiner. Should it be? Probably not.

There's other things on the form not under the oral discussion section that end up being verbals: Landing on unprepared surface, deteriorating weather, ditching. These should be obvious as to why.  The verbal option is there for use at the discretion of the examiner, but in the end, if the examiner signs off on that pilot as proficient, he's saying that, however he did the examination; verbal or demo'ed, that he's confident in the skill and proficiency of the pilot. Unfortunately, this is where the GOB network comes into play sometimes.

Short Field, of all the people in this conversation, can vouch for how thorough I am with these flight checks. 


So, let's add to the discussion here. Are there any wings out there who's Stan/Eval sections have given more guidance on administration of Form 91 checkrides? For example, in TN we don't allow composite Form 5/Form 91 checkrides simultaneously, and the latest ruling is that, for those qualified in G1000 aircraft, that every other check will be in the glass cockpit, with the alternating check being in steam gauge aircraft.

[AlaskanCFI]

I put out an ELT for every Form 91 and form 5. (yes I throw in form 91 stuff during the form 5 for Alaskan pilots)  Plus I put one out for our monthly SAREX.   10-30 minutes of practicing wing blanking, terrain masking  and / or Becker chasing certainly can't hurt.

If the ELT goes dead for one mission, I can document lots of ELT practice within a recent time period and just note that on the form.

Although I am running out of easy to reach hiding places.

[Short Field]

Short Field, of all the people in this conversation, can vouch for how thorough I am with these flight checks.

It was a learning experience!!!  My briefed flight plan was good for about 10 minutes, then I had to re-plan the next event multiple times as we progressed through the check ride.  Made it lots tougher than just planning it on the ground then flying it.  I wish more of our check pilots did that.

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that with the Becker DF units you can use things other than practice beacons as targets. 

[SJFedor]

Keep in mind that with the Becker DF units you can use things other than practice beacons as targets.

True, but using things like radio stations and the like only demonstrates that they can follow the black marble. These broadcast at a much higher strength then an ELT/EPIRB signal. Plus, you'd then have to "verbal" the two more crucial skills: wing nulls and build/fade or aural procedures, since you can't tune radio stations into the aircraft radio. You could train a monkey to follow the marble; doing the other skills requires some proficiency and knowledge. ASOS/AWOS are also a possibility, but again, pump out a lot of power, and when you're close in, are really tough to null out or build/fade without traveling long distances.

Short Field, of all the people in this conversation, can vouch for how thorough I am with these flight checks.

It was a learning experience!!!  My briefed flight plan was good for about 10 minutes, then I had to re-plan the next event multiple times as we progressed through the check ride.  Made it lots tougher than just planning it on the ground then flying it.  I wish more of our check pilots did that.

Which I got from a few very good, experienced mission pilots that i've had the privilidge to fly with. Missions (especially SAR) rarely go as briefed, and I believe in doing my checkrides as such.

[Auxpilot]

Those things that can be covered via an oral discussion are in the...wait for it..."oral discussion" area of the form.  If NHQ wanted you to just discuss DF'ing, that's where they would be.

I guess that means that I have to start having my F91 pilots show me how to ditch a plane too? That is not in the "oral" section of the F91