Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 24, 2017, 06:18:42 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

 11 
 on: Yesterday at 08:44:45 PM 
Started by jfkspotting - Last post by Eclipse
OK, this is productive.

In the last week we've identified >two< things to never, ever do.

Ever.

 12 
 on: Yesterday at 08:30:03 PM 
Started by jfkspotting - Last post by etodd


Two words, Brief Relief. Google it.

I prefer the Travel Johns. Really helps on flights I do outside of CAP where I'm often flying 3-4 hours:

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/travel-john-pack-of-18.html

Brief Reliefs are just about spill proof and they seal. We at AT&T use them a lot!

Yep. Same with the travel johns I linked. Pee in one and you can turn it upside down and no spill.
Totally absorbs it all. :)

 13 
 on: Yesterday at 05:00:32 PM 
Started by jfkspotting - Last post by PHall


Two words, Brief Relief. Google it.

I prefer the Travel Johns. Really helps on flights I do outside of CAP where I'm often flying 3-4 hours:

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/travel-john-pack-of-18.html

Brief Reliefs are just about spill proof and they seal. We at AT&T use them a lot!

 14 
 on: Yesterday at 03:13:10 PM 
Started by deepblue1947 - Last post by Eclipse
I agree on what it should be, nothing in the new PD changes a single thing in regards to performance expectations or responsiblities.

What changed is the time between and it'll cost more to be a Lt Col (in addition to providing a new pinch point to block them without making a CC have to say "no".


 15 
 on: Yesterday at 03:06:57 PM 
Started by jfkspotting - Last post by etodd


Two words, Brief Relief. Google it.

I prefer the Travel Johns. Really helps on flights I do outside of CAP where I'm often flying 3-4 hours:

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/travel-john-pack-of-18.html

 16 
 on: Yesterday at 02:30:46 PM 
Started by jfkspotting - Last post by PHall
How the heck did they squeeze 5.8 out of a glass 182?  Assuming that's right, it had to either be
flown by tiny Elvis or they came in on fumes. Depending on speed, that wold seem to exceed the range
by 20-40%.

You could totally do it, physiological issues aside, depending on the mission profile. If it was a transport sortie (perhaps to get to a mission base for a SAR or highbird or something). At altitude, lean it out and use low power settings. Performance charts for 55% power at 10,000 feet standard temperature you're burning 10 gph. With full tanks  (87g) and a skinny crew your endurance would be 8.7 hours - 1.0 hour reserve - (4.6 gals in the climb and 1.1 for taxi so call it 0.5 hours) ~ 7 hours. This is flight time. Most of the time in WMIRS reports would be Hobbs time so 5.8 Hobbs would be closer to 5.3 or so of Tach (equivalent to flying) time. Longest sortie I've flown in a (round dial) 182 is 5.0 and it gets uncomfortable... -- John


Two words, Brief Relief. Google it.

 17 
 on: Yesterday at 01:47:43 PM 
Started by deepblue1947 - Last post by Storm Chaser
Field Grades in CAP actually mean something now.

Such as?

C'mon, for years CAP has been giving grades like it was candy. I, for one, am glad they're making it harder to get promoted. That said, I do think the current system still needs improvement, but this was a move in the right direction.

Promotions should be tied not just to PD and performance, but to responsibilities and expectations. Members should be promoted because they're ready to assume greater responsibilities with the organization.

Unfortunately, that's not always the case. We just need to look around to see many field grade officers who not only can't wear the uniform correctly, but can't even command, direct, or manage anything. Yet, they're Lt Cols and Majs. I think the intent with these and other changes was to minimize this issue.

 18 
 on: Yesterday at 12:36:18 PM 
Started by jfkspotting - Last post by jayleswo
How the heck did they squeeze 5.8 out of a glass 182?  Assuming that's right, it had to either be
flown by tiny Elvis or they came in on fumes. Depending on speed, that wold seem to exceed the range
by 20-40%.

You could totally do it, physiological issues aside, depending on the mission profile. If it was a transport sortie (perhaps to get to a mission base for a SAR or highbird or something). At altitude, lean it out and use low power settings. Performance charts for 55% power at 10,000 feet standard temperature you're burning 10 gph. With full tanks  (87g) and a skinny crew your endurance would be 8.7 hours - 1.0 hour reserve - (4.6 gals in the climb and 1.1 for taxi so call it 0.5 hours) ~ 7 hours. This is flight time. Most of the time in WMIRS reports would be Hobbs time so 5.8 Hobbs would be closer to 5.3 or so of Tach (equivalent to flying) time. Longest sortie I've flown in a (round dial) 182 is 5.0 and it gets uncomfortable... -- John

 19 
 on: Yesterday at 11:04:21 AM 
Started by jfkspotting - Last post by Live2Learn
That 5+ hour sortie flew with only two people and an auxiliary gas tank in lieu of the third?

and was equipped with Pee tube, microwave, refrigerator, and fax (to request signed authorization to greatly exceed the crew flight hour limitation as well as exceptions to relevant safety rules).  :)

 20 
 on: Yesterday at 10:41:32 AM 
Started by xray328 - Last post by PHall
VG has 30 days to offer the item for sale on their website or you are free to source it from wherever you want.  So far they haven't wanted to start selling t-shirts from a squadron yet.

Gonna have to drop a "cite please" here.

You're quoting very specific terms, yet nothing public has any of that verbiage or guidance, and members don't look to vendor agreements for their operational guidance, they are bound by published regulations, the totality of which in this regard, as far as I can tell, are quoted above.

We all know how often people say things because they "know" despite a reg or other document that directly conflicts with the answer.

I also grant you're just echoing what you were told, so it's not on you, regardless.

As I have already said multiple times in this thread, what I am saying is coming from my LO who is also a trademark lawyer and the verbiage is in the CAP-VG contract.  I do not have a copy of said contract so I can't cite it directly.  I trust his judgement since he actually does this for a living.  I really don't have the time to attempt to review the VG contract myself as I am sure it is buried in legalese and there are far more meaningful things to do.

Regulations  are only a part of the puzzle, along with public law and the VG contract.  The contract is the key and I'm not sure if that is a document for the masses.

Not asking you to release it to the masses. Just asking if your Trademark Lawyer has read it before he gave you his opinion.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.272 seconds with 20 queries.