Serious decline in CAP pilots?

[RiverAux]

This story about the decline in the overall number of private pilots in the US has some quotes from CAP folks in NY Wing: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070818/NEWS01/708180336/1002/NEWS.

Says NY Wing has lost 10-15% of its pilots and has lost 4 aircraft in the last few years due to a lack of pilots to fly them. 

To some extent this pilot loss is close to CAP's overall membership decline, but has anyone seen excessive pilot loss in their wings?

[Eclipse]

No - maintaining proficiency and qualification has been an ongoing issue, but the numbers have remained pretty static.

[a2capt]

What I'm seeing is a lot of apathy from the older folks, who don't want to deal with 'computers' and technology to do a search, get a flight release, submit stuff, take the annual written test, etc.

..and the younger generation, who can afford to learn to fly, some barely, have high demanding jobs.

So.. between the two of them, somewhere in the middle..

Plus the C182 with G1000 has taken the flight around the patch to a whole new meaning.

Of course, a lot of people don't realize you can just turn it on and set it to display 'classic data' and just use the radio and look out the window, too.

[Ricochet13]

Well here's a thought that might border on heresy. 

Start permitting member-owned aircraft to be used in non-funded training missions.

Already have one aircraft to maintain and although I have no problems paying for fuel, I'm not about to pay an hourly fee to rent a CAP aircraft for local training missions, much less drive 2-3 hours round trip to use the closest existing corporate aircraft  I will however train in my own aircraft with an aircrew to maintain not only currency, but proficiency.

[Nomex Maximus]

I have been in for six months now and can't seem to get a check pilot to give me a checkride. Sort of makes it hard to build the hours needed to become a mission pilot - which was the whole reason for me to join CAP in the first place.

[Eclipse]

I have been in for six months now and can't seem to get a check pilot to give me a checkride. Sort of makes it hard to build the hours needed to become a mission pilot - which was the whole reason for me to join CAP in the first place.

Based on my own experience, I have no doubt you have had difficulty, but it needs to be said that the issue with check rides is generally a combination of proximity to a plane, number of check pilots in the wing, and the flexibility of both the pilot and the check pilot with regards to taking the time out to make things happen.

We're all volunteers, after all, and many if not most of our checkpilots are also CFI's who live off of their flight time.

If you've >calling< them, being flexible (as in offering to take a vacation or personal day and meet them mid-week), and you have a plane in relative proximity, well then maybe its on us, but if like some,
you're waiting for an invitation on a clear, sunny day, between 10-11am, with a ride to and from the airport
maybe you should bend a little.

(a wild generalization, but we all know pilots like this, especially newer ones.)

[Ricochet13]

Have been in CAP for 4 1/2 years Nomex.  Still haven't gotten to be a MP but have over 30 missions of one sort or another in other capacities.  Hang in there!  Think about going outside your squadron or group for a check-ride.  Don't get discouraged.  Call or email your wing Standards & Eval Officer and get some help from him or her if you haven't already.

Think you mentioned 20 MP's in your wing based on the latest pilot list.  Keep working on being that #21.

[RiverAux]

Are you waiting for a "free" checkride during a flight clinic or mission or have you been willing to pay to rent the plane and get it done sooner?

[Nomex Maximus]

I have no problem paying for the plane. It's just getting the checkpilot and the airplane aligned at the same time that has been the problem. Checkpilot is one of the most tasked people in the squadron and the airplane keeps needing repairs.

[Eclipse]

I have no problem paying for the plane. It's just getting the checkpilot and the airplane aligned at the same time that has been the problem. Checkpilot is one of the most tasked people in the squadron and the airplane keeps needing repairs.

You don't have to use your squadron's CP's or your plane.  Reaching out to CP's elsewhere in the wing might be the key.

[smj58501]

If the FAA User Fee proposal passes, we will probably see a decline.

[LittleIronPilot]

Well here's a thought that might border on heresy. 

Start permitting member-owned aircraft to be used in non-funded training missions.

Already have one aircraft to maintain and although I have no problems paying for fuel, I'm not about to pay an hourly fee to rent a CAP aircraft for local training missions, much less drive 2-3 hours round trip to use the closest existing corporate aircraft  I will however train in my own aircraft with an aircrew to maintain not only currency, but proficiency.

I concur to some degree. I pay a ton to maintain and fly my 182, so I will rarely spend additional money to fly theirs unless it is mission related. Not saying I will not, but it will take longer given the limited funds I have to play with.

[Eclipse]

Well here's a thought that might border on heresy. 

Start permitting member-owned aircraft to be used in non-funded training missions.

Already have one aircraft to maintain and although I have no problems paying for fuel, I'm not about to pay an hourly fee to rent a CAP aircraft for local training missions, much less drive 2-3 hours round trip to use the closest existing corporate aircraft  I will however train in my own aircraft with an aircrew to maintain not only currency, but proficiency.

You can to a point - the entirety of the taskings could be done in anything with wings - doesn't have to be a CAP plane (unless its plane specific like the Becker or something) - you just can't get mission credit in a POV without a really, really good reason.

The planes can fly the other way, too - hook up with an aircrew and have them arrange to come your way.
Since everybody's initial Form 5 is at member expense, check pilots are usually glad to get a "free ride" to
bring a plane for a F5 / 91.

[wingnut]

Have a guy fly 7 hours a day on a mission for 10 days and wait 6 months to get paid while paying 16% interest, there needs to be an IG inspector on that

[Eclipse]

Have a guy fly 7 hours a day on a mission for 10 days and wait 6 months to get paid while paying 16% interest, there needs to be an IG inspector on that

Yes there does, and that has nothing to do with this discussion, especially considering the first F5 will be at member expense.

[Ricochet13]

You can to a point - the entirety of the taskings could be done in anything with wings - doesn't have to be a CAP plane (unless its plane specific like the Becker or something) - you just can't get mission credit in a POV without a really, really good reason.

Just looked out my window at the POV I've been using for almost 5 years to do ELT and other ES missions - about 30 so far if I count correctly.  Got mission credit for Ground Team, UDF & CUL/MRO actions using it.  There are good reasons to do this with aircraft too.  

[Eclipse]

You can to a point - the entirety of the taskings could be done in anything with wings - doesn't have to be a CAP plane (unless its plane specific like the Becker or something) - you just can't get mission credit in a POV without a really, really good reason.

Just looked out my window at the POV I've been using for almost 5 years to do ELT and other ES missions - about 30 so far if I count correctly.  Got mission credit for Ground Team, UDF & CUL/MRO actions using it.  There are good reasons to do this with aircraft too.   

I meant aircraft POV, not automobile. as discussed in other threads, most wings discourage or prohibit member-owned aircraft for mission use, so getting a mission number for an activity in a non-CAP plane will be challenging at the least.

On the ground personal cars are the norm.

[SJFedor]

There's some hoops to be jumped through to get a member owned aircraft ok'ed for mission use. There's no real reason to use SM Jim-bob's C182 when the corporate C182 that appropriated funds paid for is relatively close by (and by relatively, we're taking maybe 2 hours flight time). If the member owned aircraft supercedes our aircraft for a specific mission (say, intercept training for AFNORTH off the coast, and a member has a light twin that can be used, then by all means) but for the run of the mill 3am ELT mission, CAP as a corporation, as well as the AF, would probably prefer that you use their own toys, not yours.

[Ricochet13]

I meant aircraft POV, not automobile. as discussed in other threads, most wings discourage or prohibit member-owned aircraft for mission use, so getting a mission number for an activity in a non-CAP plane will be challenging at the least.
On the ground personal cars are the norm.

That's the point I was trying to make.  Member-owned vehicles and aircraft have a place in training missions.  A key to increasing participation as I see it.  My wing will be implementing this type of use in the very near future.  All unfunded of course, but will aid in training, proficiency, and probably of equal importance, retention.

[Eclipse]

I meant aircraft POV, not automobile. as discussed in other threads, most wings discourage or prohibit member-owned aircraft for mission use, so getting a mission number for an activity in a non-CAP plane will be challenging at the least.
On the ground personal cars are the norm.

That's the point I was trying to make.  Member-owned vehicles and aircraft have a place in training missions.  A key to increasing participation as I see it.  My wing will be implementing this type of use in the very near future.  All unfunded of course, but will aid in training, proficiency, and probably of equal importance, retention.

...until somebody reads their insurance policy about not being covered for this type of activity, or worse, bends one and sues CAP.