For many, many years CAP has had a goal of putting 200 hours on each aircraft each year. Now, this is averaged out over the fleet, but the clear message to a squadron is that if you're below that number you may lose your aircraft to someone that will fly it. And the same goes at the Wing level -- if your average drops below 200 you may start to lose aircraft.
As far as I know, this 200 hour goal is pretty random and a goal of 150 hours per plane would be just as justified.
However, I think that the goal probably should be redesigned to take into account emergency and non-emergency flying.
While a Wing can have some influence on how much emergency flying it does based on developing strong relationships with other agencies in the state, you really can't predict how much SAR or DR flying is likely to be done in any given year.
That being said, over the long term you can predict that the Gulf Coast states (for example) are likely to have a fairly high percentage of DR flying and that interior states are not likely to have as much. In the old days of ELT missions you could predict that the states with the most people (and most planes) would have the most demand for ELT missions. So, while it isn't entirely under local control, you do need to take emergency flying into account.
I guess what I am proposing that rather than a single 200 hour goal that it be broken down into an hours goal for SAR/DR flying an hour goal for everything else. Exactly what might be reasonable would demand more analysis of our flying time allocations than I have the ability to perform, but lets say just for sake of discussion that we went with something like 150 hours of "routine" flying and 25 hours of SAR/DR flying.
With the dual goals the analysis of use would go something like this. Those that underachieved on routine flying would be most at risk for losing planes (since presumably they have more control over their ability to do this). However, if they underachieve routine, but overachieve SAR/DR they would be buffered to some extent by the demonstrated need to have those planes there for emergency use.
Based on these principles, I would propose that this be the priority list for keeping planes where they're at.
Priority for Keeping Planes in Place
1. Overachieve SAR/DR, Overachieve routine
2. Overachieve routine but Underachieve SAR/DR,
3. Overachieve SAR/DR but Underachieve routine
4. Underachieve SAR/DR and Underachieve routine
Obviously, if over the long term (and not just based on a single year's data) you've got a wing that is regularly overachieving on both ends you might look at getting them some more aircraft and taking them from the wings that were underachieving on both.
It would be a little harder to apply this to squadron level since due to the vagaries involved in moving planes around for maintenance, etc. its hard to say that X squadron flew Y hours unless you're going to track flying hours of each pilot in the wing, which probably isn't worth the effort (though it could be done).
Am I nuts?
Talking with our Wing Air Force Liason ( I dont remember what we called them) a couple years back, he laughed at the requirement and said "Yeah, I dont know. Thats something CAP imposed on itself. The Air Force doesnt care."
It should be more about whether or not you are responding when needed for missions and O-Rides. Not "pilot proficiency". I know of units who exceed their 200hrs completely with proficiency flying and havt responded to a search on ground or in the air in years.
I tend to agree with you about that. Never been a big fan of pushing member-funded flying as a way to pump up usage hours.
If I've got a pilot thats been flying funded missions regularly I"m not going to ask them to spend their own money on proficiency flying. And on the other hand I'm not thrilled about a guy who treats CAP sort of like a rental company and does a lot of proficiency flying, but not much mission work (though I can't say that I've personally seen that).
Perhaps taking into account the percentage of funded flying budget (for non-emergency flying such as o-rides) utilized may be a better guide than just routine hours flown.
I don't like the 200 hour goal either. The bottom line should be are you fulfilling your missions. Are you maintaining pilot proficiency, are you flying SAR/DR missions when called on, are you getting your cadets o-rides in a timely and regular manner. Our airplanes fly a lot in the summer. They fly at JFA, summer encampment, NESA, and CD missions as well as supporting our ES responsibilities. During the winter months they are flown much less due to weather issues. We can usually fly at or near the 200 mark averaged over the year, but you can run into headaches when you are expected to fly as much in January and February as you are in June and July. You can't arbitrarily divide 200 hrs by 12 mos. and say that you should be flying 16 or 17 hours a month all year round. In California, Florida, Hawaii, and the like you can probably do this. But not in states that have a lot of inclement weather during the winter months.
There is also the issue of maintenance. How much money does a wing spend for MX for a 100 hr. check? By requiring 200 hours on the plane, you are taking it in twice a year. One of my groups planes has been in MX for nearly a month. So far in the last 60 days, we estimate that we have had to cancel nearly 30 hours of scheduled flying due to maintenance issues or the plane being away for its 100 hr and not being turned around in a timely manner. The last report I heard was that there was a problem with the fuel system. It was down for nearly two weeks with a bad ASI just before leaving for the 100 hour.
I'm not sure that 200 hours is the best metric, but there needs to be something. With far more units than aircraft, some formula is needed to determine where the assets go. I'm sure we're all aware of folks that complain loudly that they never seem to have a plane assigned, but it just sits on the ground when one is made available.
Quote from: ol'fido on April 07, 2013, 07:14:01 PM
There is also the issue of maintenance. How much money does a wing spend for MX for a 100 hr. check? By requiring 200 hours on the plane, you are taking it in twice a year.
Yes but one will be incorporated into the annual inspection so you are only talking about one additional inspection per year.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on April 08, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: ol'fido on April 07, 2013, 07:14:01 PM
There is also the issue of maintenance. How much money does a wing spend for MX for a 100 hr. check? By requiring 200 hours on the plane, you are taking it in twice a year.
Yes but one will be incorporated into the annual inspection so you are only talking about one additional inspection per year.
I'll take your word for it,Dave. I'm not a pilot type.
Randy: the Wing doesn't fund the 100 hr inspection: National does with their contracted maintenance. In fact, the Wings don't even pay for the movement of the aircraft from home station to the maintenance site: National does. For the trivia minded, the Wings submit the paperwork and National either reimburses them or sends a check directly to the maint shop.
Oops, that was the system when I quit two and a half years ago: assume that it is still the same. I was an aircraft manager for four CAP planes over the span of 18 year
I don't know for sure, but suspect that the 200 hour requirement from National is a SWAG, based on the amount of maintenance funding available in the National budget, divided by the 550 aircraft, with a standard amount per hour used to fund maintenance. That is about as technical as I suspect that the whole thing actually is.
Consider the following:
Airplane A flies 100 hrs/yr and its average maintenance cost is $X/yr.
Airplane B flies 200 hrs/yr and its average maintenance cost is _____
If you answered "2x", you would probably be wrong. Yes, you have to pay for twice the number or oil changes & 100 hr inspections; but the more frequent use of Airplane B would generally result in fewer squawks to be fixed during those inspections or unscheduled maintenance. Anyone who deals with aircraft maintenance knows that sitting still breaks airplanes. Seals & hoses fail, batteries die, fuel systems get dirty, vacuum pumps and alternators go bad, etc. And those are just the easy/cheap things to fix. Cylinder walls & constant-speed props are where the money really flies out the door.
I'm speaking from a very big-picture perspective, which is what an operator of a 500+ aircraft fleet (like CAP) must do. I'm sure you can come up with some isolated examples of heavily-used airplanes running up exorbitant maintenance bills, but you'd be using outliers to argue against a statistically significant conclusion. The bottom line is that, the more the plane flies, CAP spends less on maintenance per flight hour.
Here's another item to consider. Some aircraft engines enjoy the benefit of a TBO extension when they are flown often. Instead of having to overhaul or replace an engine at a TBO of 2000 hrs, the engine may get a bonus 200-400 hours of life if it meets a minimum frequency of use during those first 2000 hrs. Considering an engine replacement costs >$20,000, this is a $2000-4000 value. The Lycoming IO-540 in the Cessna 182T has such an extension policy. I believe the average monthly use must be >40 hrs to qualify, so this is probably not a factor in CAP's push to get 200 hrs/yr. But it's yet another reason why increasing utilization lowers cost of operation.
CAP isn't permitted to fly beyond TBO so that advantage won't work. The 200 hours requirement was derived from a study (I don't have it) which determined the breakeven point of an engine reaching TBO or corroding in place due to lack of use. The idea is that 200 hours of use would reach TBO due to reduced internal corrosion. I always thought the Air Force imposed the 200 hour requirement, now the LO says we did it ouselves? Can that be verified?
The requirement no longer is a fleet average of 200 hours but is 200 for every airframe. Now DOs' have to move aircraft around to get time on less flown airframes.
For some Wings which have minimal mission rsources 200 hours is a tough goal to reach. In todays environment with reduced ELT missions and cadets who aren't interested in O-Rides, achieving the minimum time could be impossible. Expecting members to pay for flying to make up the difference also isn't realistic when the shortfall is significant.
Years ago, it was determined to fly the fleet an average of 200hr/year/aircraft. This was done to minimize maintanence/replacement costs; for it has been shown numerous times aircraft fly longer and more effecient when flying vs staying stagnent in the hanger/on tiedown.
If there is a trend towards a significant drop in flying hours, I would expect the size of the fleet to decrease. I would hope for an increase in missions though, for decreasing the fleet is the beginning of something I fear; for many reasons.
Quote from: RTFB on September 03, 2013, 04:34:36 AM
Consider the following:..................
As an A&P / IA with 30 years of aviation maintenance experience, let me just add one thing to this post:
:clap:
Putting 200 hours on an aircraft should not be a issue.
If each squadron with an aircraft was mandated.....mandated to maintain 9 or ten crews (that is 9 pilots, 9 observers and 9 scanners and no double billeting) and each crew was tasked to do at least 1 hour a month to maintain profeciancy.
Add to that a mandate to fly at least 3 hours a month O-rides.
That's 12 hours just manditory flying..that's a 144 just doing O-rides and Pro flying.
Add 10 hour for SAREX's each quarter that 184 hours and then you are looking at 16 hours of actual missions to make up the differences.
CAP's problem is that we post an expectation of what we want to fly with out giving any mandate of how we should be doing that flying.
If every active member in CAP did their staff job at just a 50% level for an entire quarter, this author included, we would not be having these discussions.
You're the GAO or AF IG. You're trying to find waste in government. You come over to CAP and look at the fleet. You're gonna ask, "Why 550 aircraft? Why not 420 or 610? How many are required to accomplish the mission?" That's a tough question.
And while procurement is a special color of money, maintenance is not. Were the fleet smaller we could save Uncle money or spend more on cadets / training / staff / widgets / shoe trees.
The 200 hr rule is an educated guesstimate based on tempo, geography, and finances. Were I Mr GAO I'd ask tough questions on why we are keeping a fleet at 550 (plus 49 gliders) when our own math points to needing 501 aircraft. { 100,300 hrs / 200 hrs per AC }
I say cut the fleet to 510 (2% cushion) and see what happens.
It appears aircraft location is as political as logical - we expeience the same under utilization at the same locations every year. Small state, but we may have up to three aircraft located at Wing HQ's airport for most of the year; end of FY scramble ensues as aircraft are re-located temporarily to airports near the pilot center-of-gravity.
Geography matters a bit, but not too much. We really need pilots in order to put 200 hours on; we get some pilo
Outside the GOBN, my guess is most CAP MP's I know fly about 1/3 of their annual hours in CAP. That's anecdotal, not measured.
I think 200 hours is a decent target, as good as any; 10 distinct crews per squadron isn't realistic. I mean 10 pilots isn't tough, but 10 MP's? For our Wing, not likely. I think I heard the target is 5 MP 's per aircraft. We have very long serving IP 's who don't "do" MP, or don't do it any longer. Still, 200 hours seems a legimate goal - can't see a quality squadron leaving an airplane parked, only flying it on O rides or other funded missions.
But with the price points converging, C17/B12 vs club rental, sometimes it's a lot easier to fly other than CAP - one stop at AicraftClubs.com vs multiple web site visits, phone calls, emails, etc. The CAP mission is attractive, for sure, and keeps many of us around. But it isn't hard to spend more time feeding the system than flying the plane.
Here are the numbers from WMIRS as of 15 minutes ago:
2013
183 hours minimum - exceeded by 5 wings and 1 region (SER), only NatCap and CT are above 200, with NH at 199.
131 national average - exceed by 27 wings and 1 region
2012
200 hours minimum - exceeded by 22 wings
177 national average - exceeded by 34 wings
2011
200 hours minimum - exceeded by 23 wings
183 national average - exceeded by 31 wings
2010
200 hours minimum - exceeded by 32 wings
202 national average - exceeded by 32 wings
2009
200 hours minimum - exceeded by 35 wings
206 national average - exceeded by 30 wings
Mike
Wow. That's a grim trend line. Aging and/or declining pilot pool? Declining mission? My squadron has lost a few more active pilots than we've gained over the last ten years - meaning guys that are still flying, but no longer active in CAP.
Not all big drama departures; just family, work, etc. Some we did lose to the bureaucratic hassles - no one thing, just the preponderance of frustrations. That shut me down for quite a while. I came back, others have not.
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 07, 2013, 03:57:05 AM
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.
Really? I can create a WMIRS sortie and complete the pre-flight sections of the e104 in less than 5 minutes, including pulling the TAFs & METARs from ADDS. I don't know anything about you personally, but let me say that many people blame their computer/web incompetence on CAP's processes. Not that there aren't a million other things about CAP's bureaucracy to complain about...
Quote from: RTFB on September 07, 2013, 06:15:32 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 07, 2013, 03:57:05 AM
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.
Really? I can create a WMIRS sortie and complete the pre-flight sections of the e104 in less than 5 minutes, including pulling the TAFs & METARs from ADDS. I don't know anything about you personally, but let me say that many people blame their computer/web incompetence on CAP's processes. Not that there aren't a million other things about CAP's bureaucracy to complain about...
You can try to make that argument all you want. The overwhelming fact is that overly burdensome approach to flying in CAP (ie the regulations/bureaucracy) is the number one contributor to reduced hours/deterrence to fly in our Wing and WMIRS kind of sucks.
How do I know/what makes me say these things? We just completed a survey of our 120+ pilots. We had over a 60% response rate. 48% of the respondents rated this as the #1 challenge in flying with CAP. Our regulations/bureaucracy are second only to personal availability (an interesting discovery that we will look for more insight to address) in preventing members from flying more.
As for the 200hr goal, it needs to be re-evaluated. Flying is down across the board as the earlier post notes. So, what is national going to do about it? Continue to threaten to take an airplane? Nice.. Go ahead....where are you going to move it to? Another squadron that already didn't qualify to get an aircraft? I'm sure that will solve the issue. Not.
National needs to take a step back and look at the factors they can actually control as it pertains to promoting more flying. Those factors include scrapping the silly consolidated National maintenance model. Waiting weeks on parts while it goes through some silly process with slow shipping, keeps aircraft off the schedule. Overly restrictive, burdensome, and punitive regulation are deterrents to pilots. Those roadblocks need to be removed.
Quote from: RTFB on September 07, 2013, 06:15:32 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 07, 2013, 03:57:05 AM
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.
Really? I can create a WMIRS sortie and complete the pre-flight sections of the e104 in less than 5 minutes, including pulling the TAFs & METARs from ADDS. I don't know anything about you personally, but let me say that many people blame their computer/web incompetence on CAP's processes. Not that there aren't a million other things about CAP's bureaucracy to complain about...
I'm not saying it's not doable, I'm saying its a lot more hassle than getting a plane elsewhere.
Finding a FRO, waiting on him to approve the flight... Why can't my squadron commander do that instead of having to find a special guy in another city I've never met to tell me I can fly? Want to land at a neighboring airport to fill up on cheaper gas? Another sortie, another flight release. Again, not impossible, just more trouble than renting one at the fbo.
I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal. They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::) If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!
Your squadron commander CAN do that.
He just has to take the FRO training and send the request to wing to get on the list.
Building the sorties in WIMRS is not that hard...takes maybe 5 minutes.
Quote from: FW on September 07, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal. They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::) If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!
I still don't know why we are having trouble putting time on our aircraft.
NVWG reported recently that we have something like 4.2 pilots per aircraft.
Simply mandate that they all get one hour of flight time per month and once a quarter the do that at night so that they maintain their currency....and you have 48 hours per airframe just doing currency training.
Then you mandate that each airframe do something like 10 hours of O-rides per month and you add another 120 hours.
That's 168 hours just with squadron level operations.
Add 10 hour ever other month that's 60 hours per year....for a grand total of 228 hours.....BEFORE we do any real missions!
Bump up the requirement to have each squadron have 9 pilots per assigned aircraft.....add 10% for squadron with out an plane who have pilots....and the air frame hours are just there!
I was told for a long time the reason we wouldn't get a plane at my unit was that we didn't have enough pilots.
So we finally had like 4 pilots and got a plane assigned. And consequently flew the wheel pants off the thing.
Every month, I'd go to commander's call and hear the other units with aircraft reporting "We only flew 1.2 hours" or "5.5 hours." I'd say "22.9" or something and they'd all look at me like I made that number up.
One month our plane went to another airport for maintenance for a couple weeks, and I reported it had flown 25 hrs or some such number during the previous month. The Wing Ops guy was like "You couldn't have flown 25 hours, it was with the other unit for two weeks!" He looked at his records, and he was right: we didn't fly it 25 hours. My bad. The other unit flew like 3 hrs and we flew 22. 8)
Add into the mix, the great Member Owned Freeze-Out era.
Units that have no aircraft, coupled with the "hassle", and you're removed a lot of the motivation to remain current, even if it's to fly corporate aircraft less than you would have flown your own for CAP.
Therefore, there's less pilots, and you've heightened the "Flying Club" factor of the units that do have an aircraft.
Sure, CAP Incorporated saw the member owned hours as a threat to their corporate aircraft's viability.
But at the end of the day, what's the mission? To be the largest fleet operator, or to serve the community, state and nation in aerospace education and emergency services?
It all comes down to the motivation of individual members, their willingness to deal with the bureaucracy and their leaderships personal efforts to get the numbers up by acting as both a facilitator and motivator of the flying program. Units that have high usage have the right mix of members and leadership. Those that don't, don't.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 03, 2013, 11:59:08 PM
Putting 200 hours on an aircraft should not be a issue.
If each squadron with an aircraft was mandated.....mandated to maintain 9 or ten crews (that is 9 pilots, 9 observers and 9 scanners and no double billeting) and each crew was tasked to do at least 1 hour a month to maintain profeciancy.
Add to that a mandate to fly at least 3 hours a month O-rides.
That's 12 hours just manditory flying..that's a 144 just doing O-rides and Pro flying.
Add 10 hour for SAREX's each quarter that 184 hours and then you are looking at 16 hours of actual missions to make up the differences.
CAP's problem is that we post an expectation of what we want to fly with out giving any mandate of how we should be doing that flying.
200 hours is a big problem for most wings/squadrons. The majority of squadrons with aircraft in my wing don't need mandates to fly. If they did I suspect pilots would not comply. If they don't fly now why follow a mandate! If 200 hours is achieved it is through their own dedication. Flight hours in CAP have been declining for several years. Is it due to reduced missions in some states ELT, cadet lack of O-Ride interest etc.) I can't say. someone with all the facts can run the numbers at NHQ. The solution certainly isn't the Air Force deciding to increase our mandatory flying hours.
If only a handful of states can get to 200 hoours with the national average at 130, the fleet will shrink. Maybe that is what the Air Force is thinking.
Quote from: RTFB on September 07, 2013, 06:15:32 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 07, 2013, 03:57:05 AM
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.
Really? I can create a WMIRS sortie and complete the pre-flight sections of the e104 in less than 5 minutes, including pulling the TAFs & METARs from ADDS. I don't know anything about you personally, but let me say that many people blame their computer/web incompetence on CAP's processes. Not that there aren't a million other things about CAP's bureaucracy to complain about...
Sometimes it does go pretty easy. Often, though, it's two, three, four phone calls, same or greater number of emails. Call an FRO to be sure he's available to respond to the release request. Sometimes one call, sometimes five. That's after the email chase for approval if it's funded, or a B training mission. Then the " personal" phone call/conversation with the FRO for IMSAFE. No value added there for the member - though it may help NHQ with liability. Then someone else in your wing cancels your sortie by accident, and WMIRS is too lame to incorprate business rules to warn/cope with that.
I really don't think many people blame thier computer/web incompetency on CAP proceeses. The proceeses ARE gacked, as is the software supporting them (WMIRS, eServices).
This new pilot has a perspective, and expectation, based on experience with non-CAP flying. I think he, and the rest of us, accept there has to be a bit more oversight and hoop jumping than at an FBO or club. But something less than the current process might get pilots in the air more often.
I started my instrument rating using CAP aircraft a few years ago. That lasted about two sessions. The rest of the hours went on club airplanes. My instructor was in CAP (not anymore, though he still instructs). And we hit roadblocks, hassles, Region limitations, and threw in the towel. We did a bunch of it in a C-172P the club bought from CAP
Quote from: lordmonar on September 07, 2013, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: FW on September 07, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal. They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::) If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!
I still don't know why we are having trouble putting time on our aircraft.
NVWG reported recently that we have something like 4.2 pilots per aircraft.
Simply mandate that they all get one hour of flight time per month and once a quarter the do that at night so that they maintain their currency....and you have 48 hours per airframe just doing currency training.
Then you mandate that each airframe do something like 10 hours of O-rides per month and you add another 120 hours.
That's 168 hours just with squadron level operations.
Add 10 hour ever other month that's 60 hours per year....for a grand total of 228 hours.....BEFORE we do any real missions!
Bump up the requirement to have each squadron have 9 pilots per assigned aircraft.....add 10% for squadron with out an plane who have pilots....and the air frame hours are just there!
It's a volunteer organization and, particularly in the case of pilots, members are often times spending their own dime. You can't
mandate anything. The only real action that can be taken in a volunteer organization is to exclude membership. Is that what you're proposing? If not, what is your proposed "consequence" with this mandated approach? Again, if hours are down across the board, and the fact is they largely are, where are you going to send the plane? To another underperformer? This is yet another concept of the punitive approach that plague this organization. That mindset needs to change and such a cultural change needs to be driven from the top.
Yep, pretty easy to mandate that pilots spend $750+ a year to fly CAP's planes to meet an arbitrary goal that has no real apparent purpose.
Quote from: A.Member on September 08, 2013, 07:13:44 AMThis is yet another concept of the punitive approach that plague this organization. That mindset needs to change and such a cultural change needs to be driven from the top.
I agree with this. The penalty has to be realistic. When you've got the same problem across the board. It's easier to find a solution to the reason why utilization is down, then spend your energy harping at everyone.
.. otherwise, you're going to mandate that I blow chunks of cash, and make it a trail of hoops and hurdles for me to do so at the same time. Easier for me to keep my money. You've still got the aircraft on the ground instead of in the air. Where as if CAP went back to the real meat of it's three missions, owning a huge fleet of aircraft isn't necessarily in the picture. We were founded on member owned aircraft. Now we're struggling to keep the corporation owned ones utilized. I fully suspect the aircraft would be there if we needed them. Aside from the niches like gliders, Green Flag, the corporate model should be to supplement the fleet, not provide it. Oh but they wouldn't be painted the same. They were not for most of our existence anyway, and we worked quite well.
Quote from: NIN on September 07, 2013, 04:25:24 PM
I was told for a long time the reason we wouldn't get a plane at my unit was that we didn't have enough pilots.
So we finally had like 4 pilots and got a plane assigned. And consequently flew the wheel pants off the thing.
Every month, I'd go to commander's call and hear the other units with aircraft reporting "We only flew 1.2 hours" or "5.5 hours." I'd say "22.9" or something and they'd all look at me like I made that number up.
One month our plane went to another airport for maintenance for a couple weeks, and I reported it had flown 25 hrs or some such number during the previous month. The Wing Ops guy was like "You couldn't have flown 25 hours, it was with the other unit for two weeks!" He looked at his records, and he was right: we didn't fly it 25 hours. My bad. The other unit flew like 3 hrs and we flew 22. 8)
My squadron had five mission pilots, and about that many more Form 5 pilots, as well. We had More MP's than a neighboring Group. We lost our airplane. We'd lose it by June every year, anyway, as we'd have it way over 200 hours by then, and they'd swap it out with some low-time aircraft from a GOB location.
The center of gravity for my Wing's pilot population isn't aligned with the the Wing's political CG. It's a two-three hour round trip to the closest glass. Sixty mile round trip for a 172. There are two steam gauge 182's a bit closer, but one is at a local gov't owned airport, and fuel there is much more expensive than nearby airports. Of course, I could add another sortie in WMIRS, get a second release, etc., etc., and stop for fuel on the way back.
I don't know how much scrutiny, local or national, is paid to aircraft placement? Giving that some objective analysis might help the hours quite a bit. Maybe not solve the problem, but be part of the solution?
Quote from: sparks on September 07, 2013, 11:06:01 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 03, 2013, 11:59:08 PM
Putting 200 hours on an aircraft should not be a issue.
If each squadron with an aircraft was mandated.....mandated to maintain 9 or ten crews (that is 9 pilots, 9 observers and 9 scanners and no double billeting) and each crew was tasked to do at least 1 hour a month to maintain profeciancy.
Add to that a mandate to fly at least 3 hours a month O-rides.
That's 12 hours just manditory flying..that's a 144 just doing O-rides and Pro flying.
Add 10 hour for SAREX's each quarter that 184 hours and then you are looking at 16 hours of actual missions to make up the differences.
CAP's problem is that we post an expectation of what we want to fly with out giving any mandate of how we should be doing that flying.
200 hours is a big problem for most wings/squadrons. The majority of squadrons with aircraft in my wing don't need mandates to fly. If they did I suspect pilots would not comply. If they don't fly now why follow a mandate! If 200 hours is achieved it is through their own dedication. Flight hours in CAP have been declining for several years. Is it due to reduced missions in some states ELT, cadet lack of O-Ride interest etc.) I can't say. someone with all the facts can run the numbers at NHQ. The solution certainly isn't the Air Force deciding to increase our mandatory flying hours.
If only a handful of states can get to 200 hoours with the national average at 130, the fleet will shrink. Maybe that is what the Air Force is thinking.
mandates allow you to plan and track progress.
You got 5 pilots.......they all need to put one hour on the aircraft a month.....First of the month....."I see only two of your pilots flew this month.....what about the other three?" "No excuse, no plan to fix it next month....maybe we need new leadership in your squadron or give the plane to a squadron who can better manage it".
Quote from: A.Member on September 08, 2013, 07:13:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 07, 2013, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: FW on September 07, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal. They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::) If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!
I still don't know why we are having trouble putting time on our aircraft.
NVWG reported recently that we have something like 4.2 pilots per aircraft.
Simply mandate that they all get one hour of flight time per month and once a quarter the do that at night so that they maintain their currency....and you have 48 hours per airframe just doing currency training.
Then you mandate that each airframe do something like 10 hours of O-rides per month and you add another 120 hours.
That's 168 hours just with squadron level operations.
Add 10 hour ever other month that's 60 hours per year....for a grand total of 228 hours.....BEFORE we do any real missions!
Bump up the requirement to have each squadron have 9 pilots per assigned aircraft.....add 10% for squadron with out an plane who have pilots....and the air frame hours are just there!
It's a volunteer organization and, particularly in the case of pilots, members are often times spending their own dime. You can't mandate anything. The only real action that can be taken in a volunteer organization is to exclude membership. Is that what you're proposing? If not, what is your proposed "consequence" with this mandated approach? Again, if hours are down across the board, and the fact is they largely are, where are you going to send the plane? To another underperformer? This is yet another concept of the punitive approach that plague this organization. That mindset needs to change and such a cultural change needs to be driven from the top.
a) I most certainly can mandate a lot of things......you can volunteer to follow the rules or you can volunteer to quit.
b) Yep it may be on their own dime......load a crew into a 182 for an hour of Continuation Training.....split the cost. $30-$40 per person.......that too hard for you......then maybe you shouldn't be a CAP crew member.....sorry it that is too harsh....but we already do that to our CAP members.....you got to go to encampment $200, you need a set of BDU's for encampment $100. You need to go to two conferences....$100-$200 each.
The mandate is three fold. 1) Mandate to the squadrons to recruit and train X number of pilots (Observers and scanners...not to be double billeted) per aircraft assigned. 2) Mandate to each of those pilots (and crews) to perform a currency flight of one hour per month....that is take off......do some sort of quick training (30 minutes) and the do a few touch and go to ensure the pilot is flight current. 3) mandates allow the squadron plan, track and report their compliance on a regular basis and allows wing/group to judge the squadron's readiness to react to any missions assigned to them.
Consequences: Not really consequences...because wing should be monitoring the situation and helping our or making changes as needed. If a squadron can't meet expectations due to incompetence then retrain as needed or find someone who can do the job. If the squadron WON"T meet expectations then take away their toys and give it to someone who will use them properly.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 08, 2013, 12:46:16 PM
Yep, pretty easy to mandate that pilots spend $750+ a year to fly CAP's planes to meet an arbitrary goal that has no real apparent purpose.
????
I need you ready to fly on a moments notice.
That means current and familiar with the assigned aircraft.
Say your pilots all own their own aircraft.....everything from a Cub to a lear jet......but not one of them has a C-182 glass.....just suppose.
Asking them to log one bloody hour on the plane they will have to fly in a mission "has no real apparent purpose?"
Like I said.....putting 200 hours on an aircraft should be a no brainer.
Every aircraft SHOULD have 10 pilots assigned to it. That insure that you can get enough of them to respond to ES call out and space them out for a long SAR/DR mission.
Every pilot (and crew) SHOULD get one hour flight time a month....just to stay current this ensures that they are current and ready to respond toe ES call outs.
Every plane SHOULD be flying a certain number of O-rides per year. if we had 36K cadets and 500 planes....that is 72 O-rides a year just to give each cadet ONE o-ride. That is six O-rides a month/aircraft.
Isn't that why we have airplanes in the first place? To be ready to answer the call from our city, state and nation and to promote Aerospace Education to our cadets?
Yes it could be expensive.....that's why CAP is not necessarily for everyone.
You're putting a lot of thought into designing mandates to meet a goal that has no actual purpose. Our goal isn't to put time onto the airplanes. If the goal is to maintain pilot proficiency, then we need to have a rational discussion of just how many hours it takes and how that might be different depending on what the pilot does for the organization. A pilot that does o-rides might need a different level of proficiency than a mission pilot. And, if we're interested in proficiency, there is no reason that proficiency time couldn't be built up in non-CAP aircraft.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 08, 2013, 07:51:07 PM
You're putting a lot of thought into designing mandates to meet a goal that has no actual purpose. Our goal isn't to put time onto the airplanes. If the goal is to maintain pilot proficiency, then we need to have a rational discussion of just how many hours it takes and how that might be different depending on what the pilot does for the organization. A pilot that does o-rides might need a different level of proficiency than a mission pilot. And, if we're interested in proficiency, there is no reason that proficiency time couldn't be built up in non-CAP aircraft.
No....I'm not mandating putting time on the air frames.....and I don't think USAF and CAP is either.
I think it is just no one has really explained it the way I just did.
IF you had enough pilots to ensure ES coverage. If each of those pilots put in at least ONE hour a month into keeping the skills current and IF we flew enough O-rides to insure each cadet got at least one flight a year.
Then putting 200 hours on the airframes would NOT be a problem.
If you are not putting 200 hours on your airframe.....you DONT have enough pilots, they are NOT doing enough training and they are NOT flying enough O-rides.
Now.....someone tell me I am wrong.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 08, 2013, 07:58:26 PM
[If you are not putting 200 hours on your airframe.....you DONT have enough pilots, they are NOT doing enough training and they are NOT flying enough O-rides.
That assumes:
1) What "enough" pilots is
2) What "enough" training is
3) what "enough" o-rides are
You're just working backwards trying to explain why it shouldn't be a problem to meet this arbitrary standard instead questioning the standard itself.
Here's how it appears to me. YMMV
Some number cruncher, somewhere, decided that 200 hours per year was a good target.
The Air Force and CAP decided this was a good number. So it bacame the target.
Now with the reduction in flying that we have had over the past couple of years there are basically two options available to the "deciders".
1. Lower the target and maintain the current fleet of 550 aircraft.
2. Keep the 200 hour target and reduce the fleet to the point that all of the aircraft will get 200 hours a year.
Considering what has been happening with the budget lately, I would bet on option 2.
Or some version of the option with which I began this thread -- no single overall target, but a mixture of targets for different types of flying...
The Air Force wishes we had more hours on our aircraft. We're not accomplishing this. The questions I have: Why are flying hours reduced when mission funding has remained constant (relatively)? Why has the Air Force changed their opinion of our utilization/year/aircraft? Why is it a problem for pilots to fly CAP aircraft for proficiency, currency and, further training vs. another source? Why are we not succeeding in finding new missions which can be flown by pilots all over the country?
If we can't figure this out, the fleet will shrink. From past experience, once we lose, we don't get back... :(
Quote from: lordmonar on September 08, 2013, 07:34:00 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 08, 2013, 07:13:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 07, 2013, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: FW on September 07, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal. They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::) If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!
I still don't know why we are having trouble putting time on our aircraft.
NVWG reported recently that we have something like 4.2 pilots per aircraft.
Simply mandate that they all get one hour of flight time per month and once a quarter the do that at night so that they maintain their currency....and you have 48 hours per airframe just doing currency training.
Then you mandate that each airframe do something like 10 hours of O-rides per month and you add another 120 hours.
That's 168 hours just with squadron level operations.
Add 10 hour ever other month that's 60 hours per year....for a grand total of 228 hours.....BEFORE we do any real missions!
Bump up the requirement to have each squadron have 9 pilots per assigned aircraft.....add 10% for squadron with out an plane who have pilots....and the air frame hours are just there!
It's a volunteer organization and, particularly in the case of pilots, members are often times spending their own dime. You can't mandate anything. The only real action that can be taken in a volunteer organization is to exclude membership. Is that what you're proposing? If not, what is your proposed "consequence" with this mandated approach? Again, if hours are down across the board, and the fact is they largely are, where are you going to send the plane? To another underperformer? This is yet another concept of the punitive approach that plague this organization. That mindset needs to change and such a cultural change needs to be driven from the top.
a) I most certainly can mandate a lot of things......you can volunteer to follow the rules or you can volunteer to quit.
b) Yep it may be on their own dime......load a crew into a 182 for an hour of Continuation Training.....split the cost. $30-$40 per person.......that too hard for you......then maybe you shouldn't be a CAP crew member.....sorry it that is too harsh....but we already do that to our CAP members.....you got to go to encampment $200, you need a set of BDU's for encampment $100. You need to go to two conferences....$100-$200 each.
The mandate is three fold. 1) Mandate to the squadrons to recruit and train X number of pilots (Observers and scanners...not to be double billeted) per aircraft assigned. 2) Mandate to each of those pilots (and crews) to perform a currency flight of one hour per month....that is take off......do some sort of quick training (30 minutes) and the do a few touch and go to ensure the pilot is flight current. 3) mandates allow the squadron plan, track and report their compliance on a regular basis and allows wing/group to judge the squadron's readiness to react to any missions assigned to them.
Consequences: Not really consequences...because wing should be monitoring the situation and helping our or making changes as needed. If a squadron can't meet expectations due to incompetence then retrain as needed or find someone who can do the job. If the squadron WON"T meet expectations then take away their toys and give it to someone who will use them properly.
I'm going to venture out on a limb, albeit not far I imagine...you're not a pilot, are you?
As an aircrew member, I posed the 200 hour requirement to the wing LG once and was told that that it had to do with aircraft upkeep. In my wing, the DO will aggressively move aircraft around the state to make sure that the wing's fleet meet the 200 hour requirement on each airframe.
Whether you like the 200 hour requirement or not -- or generate excuses -- the bottom line is that there really isn't a reason why it can't be done -- other than weather.
I'm an observer. I used to fly pretty consistently up until the point that I got my senior observer wings. Now, however, my schedule is such now that I'm lucky to get in two to three sorties a year. It shows and I know I'm a little rusty with procedures or equipment. The same holds true for pilots and the airframes themselves.
Quote from: FW on September 08, 2013, 10:32:07 PM
The Air Force wishes we had more hours on our aircraft. We're not accomplishing this. The questions I have: Why are flying hours reduced when mission funding has remained constant (relatively)? Why has the Air Force changed their opinion of our utilization/year/aircraft? Why is it a problem for pilots to fly CAP aircraft for proficiency, currency and, further training vs. another source? Why are we not succeeding in finding new missions which can be flown by pilots all over the country?
If we can't figure this out, the fleet will shrink. From past experience, once we lose, we don't get back... :(
See my post at the top of page 2.
Our Wing just completed a survey on this very topic. Top obstacles are: CAP rules/regulations and personal availability/other commitments.
It's very frustrating that National continues their same approach without any quantitative data or notable strategy behind their directive. If our Wing can compile data, why can't National? That's step 1: Understand the root cause before attempting to solution.
Instead, we hear the same old "fly more" followed by threats of moving aircraft. That approach has proven quite effective, hasn't it?!
Quote from: RiverAux on September 08, 2013, 08:22:40 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 08, 2013, 07:58:26 PM
[If you are not putting 200 hours on your airframe.....you DONT have enough pilots, they are NOT doing enough training and they are NOT flying enough O-rides.
That assumes:
1) What "enough" pilots is
2) What "enough" training is
3) what "enough" o-rides are
You're just working backwards trying to explain why it shouldn't be a problem to meet this arbitrary standard instead questioning the standard itself.
I agree that CAP is very poor in mandating these requirments to squadrons.
Like I said.....10 crews (pilot, observer. scanner) per aircraft is a nice round number to be able to have a crew ready at any given time for call outs.
Like I said......1 hour a month (or 2 hours ever other month or 3 hours ever quarter) is a nice round number to insure that the crew stays current to be ready for call outs.
Like I said......at least one O-ride per cadet per year is a nice round number to meet our AE goals on the CP side of things.
Sure they are "assumptions", but they are logical assumptions, not with specific mission related goals in mind.
Quote from: A.Member on September 08, 2013, 11:48:25 PMI'm going to venture out on a limb, albeit not far I imagine...you're not a pilot, are you?
No......but that does not invalidate my point. I am as Senior Observer.....I would expect my Observers and Scanners to foot their share of the flying bill as well. This is not pilot bashing in any way.
I am active in ES. I can crunch the numbers as well as the next guy to know what sort of manning a unit needs to have to be able to respond to an immediate ES call out.
If you only got 3 pilots in your squadron flying "your" airplane......what are the odds that you can get a crew ready to respond within say 2 hours of notification to fly a SAR missionb?
Logis suggest that more crews you have trained and ready....the more likely that one of them will be available at 8 PM on a Thursday to fly a SAR "right now".
Do I know that 10 is the right number? No.....it is a WAG.....but it is better then the 4 that my wing is currently reporting.
Quote from: A.Member on September 08, 2013, 11:54:48 PMOur Wing just completed a survey on this very topic. Top obstacles are: CAP rules/regulations and personal availability/other commitments.
What CAP rules prevent a crew from scheduling a flight? Personnel available is exactly what I am talking about. Mandate to the squadron commander to have more personnel.........and help, train, and hold them to the fire....and you fix that problem. Other commitments.....I'll buy that. Again....If you can't commit to flying at least one hour a month and/or one O-ride a month.....then maybe you would better serve CAP in some other capacity than "Pilot". It is not different then what we ask our CP personnel....we need you there 3 hours a week or we willl have to find someone else to do it.
QuoteIt's very frustrating that National continues their same approach without any quantitative data or notable strategy behind their directive. If our Wing can compile data, why can't National? That's step 1: Understand the root cause before attempting to solution.
Instead, we hear the same old "fly more" followed by threats of moving aircraft. That approach has proven quite effective, hasn't it?!
I completley agree with this statement.
In my experince in CAP in the entire ES world....it is a cart vs horse issue. No one has done any OPLANS that spell out exactly what each wing/group/squadron should be doing to meet CAP's over all "SPECIFIC" mission objectives.
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
Speaking as a NHQ guy, I suppose I should point out that these policies result from careful decisions based on mountains and mountains of data. Endless charts, Powerpoints, briefings, and reams of tabular data highlighted and tabbed.
Obviously we can and should be better at communicating how these standards are reached, but I can assure you based on the number of hours lost to my family, church, and career, that we really, really study the metrics carefully. And often.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
Quote from: Ned on September 09, 2013, 12:59:24 AM
Speaking as a NHQ guy, I suppose I should point out that these policies result from careful decisions based on mountains and mountains of data. Endless charts, Powerpoints, briefings, and reams of tabular data highlighted and tabbed.
Obviously we can and should be better at communicating how these standards are reached, but I can assure you based on the number of hours lost to my family, church, and career, that we really, really study the metrics carefully. And often.
I've got to challenge you a bit on that data, Ned. I've been involved with this organization for ~15 years. During this time, I do not ever recall a solicitation for info/survey from National (or anyone else for that matter) in reference to any topic related to CAP flying. So, if for no other reason than that, any data National is using related to this topic is suspect, at best - regardless of how many PowerPoints someone has put together.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 12:12:09 AM
Quote from: A.Member on September 08, 2013, 11:54:48 PMOur Wing just completed a survey on this very topic. Top obstacles are: CAP rules/regulations and personal availability/other commitments.
What CAP rules prevent a crew from scheduling a flight? Personnel available is exactly what I am talking about. Mandate to the squadron commander to have more personnel.........and help, train, and hold them to the fire....and you fix that problem. Other commitments.....I'll buy that. Again....If you can't commit to flying at least one hour a month and/or one O-ride a month.....then maybe you would better serve CAP in some other capacity than "Pilot". It is not different then what we ask our CP personnel....we need you there 3 hours a week or we willl have to find someone else to do it.
How does that approach solve or even move the needle on the issue in any positive direction?
There is already a pilot shortage. We don't have a line at the door for new ones. Hours are down. Pilots indicate the burdensome nature of flying in this organization, combined with a punitive a approach to dealing with issues, is one of the leading deterrents to putting on more (or sometimes any) hours. Sorry, but I don't see anything in your approach that addresses this issue in any positive manner - quite the contrary.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 12:12:09 AM
Mandate to the squadron commander to have more personnel
Yes, and personnel will magically appear out of thin air now that squadron commanders realize that it is important to recruit pilots into the organization.
Snark aside, if one wants to read between the lines, NHQ has set goals for how many pilots we should have. Using the Commanders Dashboard:
>5 pilots per aircraft is "Green" and I assume this is what they would like to see
4-4.9 is "Yellow"
<4 is "Red"
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
Defensive much? ???
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:57:21 AM
Quote from: Ned on September 09, 2013, 12:59:24 AM
Speaking as a NHQ guy, I suppose I should point out that these policies result from careful decisions based on mountains and mountains of data. Endless charts, Powerpoints, briefings, and reams of tabular data highlighted and tabbed.
Obviously we can and should be better at communicating how these standards are reached, but I can assure you based on the number of hours lost to my family, church, and career, that we really, really study the metrics carefully. And often.
I've got to challenge you a bit on that data, Ned. I've been involved with this organization for ~15 years. During this time, I do not ever recall a solicitation for info/survey from National (or anyone else for that matter) in reference to any topic related to CAP flying. So, if for no other reason than that, any data National is using related to this topic is suspect, at best - regardless of how many PowerPoints someone has put together.
Ned, honest question, no snarkiness or cynicism intended - do you honestly believe the process, as now exists, to get a training mission launched (funded or otherwise) is efficient or logical?Filling out a few forms is the least of it. I have, literally, spent as much time on email, phone calls, WMIRS, eServices, and commuting as I did flying the mission.
I do second the above - to my knowledge, NHQ has never solicited/surveyed pilots on the impact of the process on their participation, or on how aircraft are assigned. I fly a lot of my hours in CAP airplanes, but it is often a chore to do so. I like the mission. I don't like the goat rope.
One anecdote - I crossed paths with a former CAP instructor a while back, during a time I had stepped away from CAP, in frustration. He aked me if I was still flying CAP, and when I told him I'd quit, he resonded "Everyone does, eventually". An exaggertion, but he made his point.
Mandating an hour a month isn't an issue - we'll fly that, and much more. Just clean up the klunky, stop, stumble, and fall mess of a process.
Quote from: PHall on September 09, 2013, 03:55:50 AM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
Defensive much? ???
Nothing defensive about it. Just pointing out it his comment was provided from a position with no direct experience and it added no value to the discussion.
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 04:26:22 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 09, 2013, 03:55:50 AM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
Defensive much? ???
Nothing defensive about it. Just pointing out it his comment was provided from a position with no direct experience and it added no value to the discussion.
No "direct experience". Try again.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 01:06:31 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 04:26:22 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 09, 2013, 03:55:50 AM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
Defensive much? ???
Nothing defensive about it. Just pointing out it his comment was provided from a position with no direct experience and it added no value to the discussion.
No "direct experience". Try again.
Are you a pilot - yes or no?
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:17:21 PM
Are you a pilot - yes or no?
Irrelevant to the conversation, unless you can explain how it is.
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
What does being a non-pilot have to do with it?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 02:21:10 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:17:21 PM
Are you a pilot - yes or no?
Irrelevant to the conversation, unless you can explain how it is.
So, that's a no. Enough said.
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 02:21:10 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:17:21 PM
Are you a pilot - yes or no?
Irrelevant to the conversation, unless you can explain how it is.
So, that's a no. Enough said.
This is so helpful to the situation....."your not a pilot....ergo your opinion/idea/input to the situations is completely irrelevant". And you wonder why "non-pilots" have problems with "pilots".
The question was......what regulations make it hard to schedule a training sortie.....and we have yet to get an answer.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
What does being a non-pilot have to do with it?
Quite frankly, everything. Without being a pilot and going through the process, it's pretty difficult to understand the difference in effort required to fly in this organization vs. others. CAP has a self-created regulatory problem that impacts our ability to attract and retain pilots. Attempting to marginalize the issue with silly comments such as they're "too lazy to fill out a few forms" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the challenge we face.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 03:05:25 PM
The question was......what regulations make it hard to schedule a training sortie.....and we have yet to get an answer.
60-1, 60-2, 62-2, 66-1, 173-3, 174-1...
Hi RiverAux,
Re: your original post - no, you ain't nuts. And A.Member isn't goofy, and, as much as it pains me to say so, neither is Eclipse. We do need to get pilots in airplanes more often, and/or reduce the fleet, or junk the 200 hour magic number.
I'll get airborne more often in CAP airplanes if the hassle factor is reduced. I ain't lazy and I ain't stupid, but my time is valuable to me. See the earlier comment concerning reasons why one Wing's pilot's are flying less. I do fly CAP a lot, but all things being equal, I'd fly more if it didn't take so much time to feed the system. . .
It's be great if NHQ took a look at the processes, to see where the redundant and negative-value events exists, and streamlined the process to get airborne.
I don't want to "just burn gas and touch the sky" - I can do that without CAP, and much more conveniently. I want fly the mission, serve the goal. It'd be great if it was less painful to do so. Like I said, we ain't stupid, and when your time is wasted on stupid, it saps entusiasm.
We better get more relevant, more efficient, organizational flatter, and a lot smarter. It isn't a MP or MO or ground-pounder issue, I think. We got a 1960-'s organizational style - the new, young (presumably) pilot who posted earlier was put-off by the bureacracy. We should listen, not blow him off. We need a lot more of him. We can sell him SOME additional hoops, IF the hoops make sense. But not many. . .
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:21:33 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
What does being a non-pilot have to do with it?
Quite frankly, everything. Without being a pilot and going through the process, it's pretty difficult to understand the difference in effort required to fly in this organization vs. others. CAP has a self-created regulatory problem that impacts our ability to attract and retain pilots. Attempting to marginalize the issue with silly comments such as they're "too lazy to fill out a few forms" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the challenge we face.
And you think someone who has worked at multiple levels of command never had to take a new member to Mission pilot? Or know how the process works? I like most pilots, but those that exhibit attitude like yours are just...sigh.
Here, let me turn this into a uniform discussion....
BTW, you don't have to be a pilot to understand the issues. If you're involved enough in the process you don't need to be a control manipulator to have an informed opinion or ability to comment accurately.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 09, 2013, 03:28:30 PM
And you think someone who has worked at multiple levels of command never had to take a new member to Mission pilot? Or know how the process works? I like most pilots, but those that exhibit attitude like yours are just...sigh.
In most cases, no, I don't. Any anecdotal experience that person may have onboarding a new member does not make tehm dialed into the challenges of flying in this organization. Have they ever flown outside of CAP? Do they really know what it takes? Can they compare the two? Do they really know what's being asked of pilots in CAP? Do they take on the personal and fiscal responsibility of the pilots? With very few exceptions, the answer to those questions is likely a resounding "no". Without that understanding/perspective, which is key to the challenge, how can they speak to the issue?
Many of the hoops pilots have to follow are the result of PILOTS screwing up and bending aircraft. The safety call is on such example.
Yeah, agreed - being a pilot doesn't give me more insight than an experienced MO. But the hassle-load does fall predominatley on the MP. Just the normal PIC load is plenty,especially in a very tight airspace environment - add in some truly pointless CAP hoops, and the day gets a lot longer.
Again, I claim no special view from the pilot's seat - just that maybe we feel the frustration a bit more, 'casue we have more hoops to jump through.
If I may suggest, can we all go back and read RiverAux's orginal post - it makes sense, maybe we can expand on that a bit?
Quote from: arajca on September 09, 2013, 03:43:21 PM
Many of the hoops pilots have to follow are the result of PILOTS screwing up and bending aircraft. The safety call is on such example.
Do you think this organization is the first to bend an aircraft?
Yep, CAP's saftey record is better than GA's in general, as I have heard. Planes are gonne get bent sometimes - overreacting, or reacting in a silly, ineffectual way looks good politically - adds nothing but hassle.
But hey, 200 hours, remember? Good idea? Time has passed it by? How to get more pilots flying more often?
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: arajca on September 09, 2013, 03:43:21 PM
Many of the hoops pilots have to follow are the result of PILOTS screwing up and bending aircraft. The safety call is on such example.
Do you think this organization is the first to bend an aircraft?
Nope. Never said or suggested it was. Just putting forth a point PILOTS tend to overlook when they complain about the hoops they need to jump through.
Ah geez, we aren't overlooking it - we can't! Someone takes off with the tow bar attached? My next call for a release, the FRO asks me if I've removed the tow bar? Man, that's just stupid! I'm not at the airport, I'm at home, an hour away! Asking that question, at that time, is just silly. And pointless.
One FRO wanted me to call back just before engine start, so he could ask again.
The tow-bar guy overlooked something - we're human, it's gonna happen. But respond with an intelligent corrective action - a one paragraph email blast, or a one sentence reminder at the monthly safety meeting. Don't ask me to call you a THIRD time, from the airport, before engine start. You aren't adding anything but distraction at that point.
Quote from: SunDog on September 09, 2013, 04:07:24 PM
Ah geez, we aren't overlooking it - we can't!
Based on the discussion so far, pilots seem to think they are blameless for the hoops.
QuoteSomeone takes off with the tow bar attached? My next call for a release, the FRO asks me if I've removed the tow bar? Man, that's just stupid! I'm not at the airport, I'm at home, an hour away! Asking that question, at that time, is just silly. And pointless.
It got you thinking about it, didn't it?
QuoteOne FRO wanted me to call back just before engine start, so he could ask again.
One individual, who is also human, going overboard.
QuoteThe tow-bar guy overlooked something - we're human, it's gonna happen. But respond with an intelligent corrective action - a one paragraph email blast, or a one sentence reminder at the monthly safety meeting. Don't ask me to call you a THIRD time, from the airport, before engine start. You aren't adding anything but distraction at that point.
Unfortunately, those intelligent corrective actions haven't proven effective, as seen by repeated events.
Quote from: arajca on September 09, 2013, 04:23:04 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 09, 2013, 04:07:24 PM
Ah geez, we aren't overlooking it - we can't!
Based on the discussion so far, pilots seem to think they are blameless for the hoops.
Non-concur. It hasn't been a topic in this thread; the details behind our regulations is a much larger discussion.
Quote from: arajca on September 09, 2013, 04:23:04 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 09, 2013, 04:07:24 PM
The tow-bar guy overlooked something - we're human, it's gonna happen. But respond with an intelligent corrective action - a one paragraph email blast, or a one sentence reminder at the monthly safety meeting. Don't ask me to call you a THIRD time, from the airport, before engine start. You aren't adding anything but distraction at that point.
Unfortunately, those intelligent corrective actions haven't proven effective, as seen by repeated events.
The same can be said about the approach from National. Shall we continue down that ineffective path as well?
Not blameless - we didn't say that. People who get in the ring and do things are subject to failures and bad decisions.
No, it didn't get me thinking about it, else it may have distracted me, and netted out to less than zero on the safety meter. Mostly becasue I don't attach a tow bar to taxi out; I attach it to push the plane back into the tie-down. It did waste my time. You ask "What if the prior pilot left the bar attached?" - that's already on the checklist, under nose gear and tire.
My understanding was that every FRO was directed to make that inquiry. That was my experience, as well.
So, if the intelligent actions don't work, let's try stupid, ineffective ones? Read back - CAP accident rate is lower than GA. We aren't bending anything at a high rate, greater than the rest of the GA community. We fly mostly VFR, in familiar areas & airports, with other pilots often on board, and frequent checkrides. That's probably why we aren't bending things very often. It sure isn't because we listened to a safety lecture on tick removal or answered a moronic question while still two hours away from the airport.
You want zero mishaps? That won't happen in light planes. Wind blows, parts break, pilots make mistakes. The ROI is in the diminshing returns category when it gets too stupid.
But back to topic - get more of us imbecilic, fault-laden, but lovable, pilots in CAP airplanes more often - what will it take, and do we really need 200 per, anyway?
Quote from: SunDog on September 09, 2013, 03:55:28 PM
Yep, CAP's saftey record is better than GA's in general, as I have heard. Planes are gonne get bent sometimes - overreacting, or reacting in a silly, ineffectual way looks good politically - adds nothing but hassle.
OK, so if we take as a given that CAP's safety record is better than GA in general (I'd prefer to look at hard numbers, but let's assume it for the moment), then you would also need to show that the hoops are "ineffectual", because obviously something is impacting that safety record.
Are there hoops that make little sense? Probably. Are the hoops that burdensome, my opinion is no.
Quote from: SunDog on September 09, 2013, 05:04:52 PM
My understanding was that every FRO was directed to make that inquiry. That was my experience, as well.
So?
How long does that inquiry take? Why not ask a simple question and get an answer?
How many people have been saved a gear-up landing by running their GUMPS check on final, even though they've done it 3 times already in the pattern? Hell, I check gear down on fixed to this day...because it's a good habit to get into to avoid bending metal.
So, if you consider it burdensome for you to be asked if you've removed the tow bar, well, I think that makes Eclipse's point about just not wanting to jump through some pretty low-impact hoops.
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:36:38 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 09, 2013, 03:28:30 PM
And you think someone who has worked at multiple levels of command never had to take a new member to Mission pilot? Or know how the process works? I like most pilots, but those that exhibit attitude like yours are just...sigh.
In most cases, no, I don't. Any anecdotal experience that person may have onboarding a new member does not make tehm dialed into the challenges of flying in this organization. Have they ever flown outside of CAP? Do they really know what it takes? Can they compare the two? Do they really know what's being asked of pilots in CAP? Do they take on the personal and fiscal responsibility of the pilots? With very few exceptions, the answer to those questions is likely a resounding "no". Without that understanding/perspective, which is key to the challenge, how can they speak to the issue?
What it takes? How about, direct quote "I don't have time for all that paperwork. I just want to jump in my club plane and go."
"What it takes..." That's funny.
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:21:33 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
What does being a non-pilot have to do with it?
Quite frankly, everything. Without being a pilot and going through the process, it's pretty difficult to understand the difference in effort required to fly in this organization vs. others. CAP has a self-created regulatory problem that impacts our ability to attract and retain pilots. Attempting to marginalize the issue with silly comments such as they're "too lazy to fill out a few forms" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the challenge we face.
How about being one of the wing staff responsible for insuring those hours are flown, not the mention someone who authored
and piloted, so to speak, a program that gets pilots in the air in for funded training missions on a nearly real-time basis?
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:22:18 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 03:05:25 PM
The question was......what regulations make it hard to schedule a training sortie.....and we have yet to get an answer.
60-1, 60-2, 62-2, 66-1, 173-3, 174-1...
Excuses from members who can't be bothered.
Speak of what you understand and know about. You are literally not only making my argument, but also propagating the problem.
Hi JeffDG,
You're right, of course; the single question isn't burdensome - I was using it as an example of sillinees, a snapshot or slice, of a preponderance of pointless "good ideas" that are part of the bigger picture.
But clearly, I can't answer a tow-bar question 30 miles from the airport. Not quite the same as a GUMP check on final, but I understand what you're saying.
But that example doesn't stand in a vacuum, it's an itty-bitty, petty example of a klunky process. Someone polled their Wing's pilots - the process finished in the second position on why they don't fly CAP more. Most pilots aren't stupid, or lazy, or indolent. Many of them prefer that the hoops they jump through have some value.
What "process"?
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:21:33 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
What does being a non-pilot have to do with it?
Quite frankly, everything. Without being a pilot and going through the process, it's pretty difficult to understand the difference in effort required to fly in this organization vs. others. CAP has a self-created regulatory problem that impacts our ability to attract and retain pilots. Attempting to marginalize the issue with silly comments such as they're "too lazy to fill out a few forms" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the challenge we face.
I as a GTL, MO and ES officer schedule flying all the time. I get training mission numbers, arrange funding, plan missions........fill out the aircraft log, do WIMRS, close out the sorties, call the FRO..........strange......seems I should not be able understand the effort required to fly in this organization because I can't sit in the left seat.
And yes....if someone says "I don't fly anymore because there is regs are too hard to follow"......I put that down to laziness as opposed the ability to understand it. If you are smart enough to fly a C-182 you are smart enough to schedule and execute a CAP sortie.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 06:18:58 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:21:33 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
What does being a non-pilot have to do with it?
Quite frankly, everything. Without being a pilot and going through the process, it's pretty difficult to understand the difference in effort required to fly in this organization vs. others. CAP has a self-created regulatory problem that impacts our ability to attract and retain pilots. Attempting to marginalize the issue with silly comments such as they're "too lazy to fill out a few forms" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the challenge we face.
I as a GTL, MO and ES officer schedule flying all the time. I get training mission numbers, arrange funding, plan missions........fill out the aircraft log, do WIMRS, close out the sorties, call the FRO..........strange......seems I should not be able understand the effort required to fly in this organization because I can't sit in the left seat.
And yes....if someone says "I don't fly anymore because there is regs are too hard to follow"......I put that down to laziness as opposed the ability to understand it. If you are smart enough to fly a C-182 you are smart enough to schedule and execute a CAP sortie.
And if the pilot is worried about a bunch of extra paperwork on a mission, he's doing it wrong. That's the [darn] Observer's job to handle the mission paperwork. Pilot's the bus driver.
For a CAP training/actual mission sortie, the pilot needs to do a weather briefing, weight and balance, and an evaluation of hazards to be encountered. Should be doing those for every flight anyway. When I sit right-seat, the pilot doesn't touch the CAPF104, and when I'm in the left, I expect my MO to do that for me.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:36:38 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 09, 2013, 03:28:30 PM
And you think someone who has worked at multiple levels of command never had to take a new member to Mission pilot? Or know how the process works? I like most pilots, but those that exhibit attitude like yours are just...sigh.
In most cases, no, I don't. Any anecdotal experience that person may have onboarding a new member does not make tehm dialed into the challenges of flying in this organization. Have they ever flown outside of CAP? Do they really know what it takes? Can they compare the two? Do they really know what's being asked of pilots in CAP? Do they take on the personal and fiscal responsibility of the pilots? With very few exceptions, the answer to those questions is likely a resounding "no". Without that understanding/perspective, which is key to the challenge, how can they speak to the issue?
What it takes? How about, direct quote "I don't have time for all that paperwork. I just want to jump in my club plane and go."
"What it takes..." That's funny.
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:21:33 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
What does being a non-pilot have to do with it?
Quite frankly, everything. Without being a pilot and going through the process, it's pretty difficult to understand the difference in effort required to fly in this organization vs. others. CAP has a self-created regulatory problem that impacts our ability to attract and retain pilots. Attempting to marginalize the issue with silly comments such as they're "too lazy to fill out a few forms" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the challenge we face.
How about being one of the wing staff responsible for insuring those hours are flown, not the mention someone who authored
and piloted, so to speak, a program that gets pilots in the air in for funded training missions on a nearly real-time basis?
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:22:18 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 03:05:25 PM
The question was......what regulations make it hard to schedule a training sortie.....and we have yet to get an answer.
60-1, 60-2, 62-2, 66-1, 173-3, 174-1...
Excuses from members who can't be bothered.
Speak of what you understand and know about. You are literally not only making my argument, but also propagating the problem.
Yea, I got it. You've established your lack of credibility on the topic already. I wasn't looking for additional documentation to that fact.
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 06:49:13 PM
Yea, I got it. You've established your lack of credibility on the topic already. I wasn't looking for additional documentation to that fact.
(http://younglivingoillady.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mirror.jpg)
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 06:13:21 PM
What "process"?
Hello Eclipse - I meant the totality of of getting MP qualified, staying current, chasing the paper and electrons, genetrating and flying a mission, Just an honest impression that there are more hoops than there needs to be. We've bumped heads before, but this is not a snark, I'm coming at you in all sincerity here. . .
I don't have a big issue with the 104 - it's the whole big, hairy, slimy slog to get to that point. Systems that don't talk to each other, buggy/bad software, some truly asinine release procedures, duplicated effort, etc. Making the guess-du-jor where the airplane(s) are located today, policy-by-email ("Don't use THAT mission number, use the OTHER one - don't you know that money is spent! We SENT an email!"). Then tracking down the person who is handling THAT bucket of bucks, as opposed to the other person handling another bucket, and, "Oh, be sure to get your release from Joe for this mission. ". Only Joe isn't current as a FRO because someone or some software didn't recognize or save the last update on eServices for him. And you're off on another phone/email chase. Pilots know these are common, routine kind of events. Or geez, you can't fly - you missed the bagel-slicer safety meeting. . .
Take the annual "don't taxi into a fixed object" training mentaility. A lot of good organizations have quarterly safety requirements. Not saying that fits us
for sure, but we could
look at it. How about
looking at a streamlined release procedure, because you
know that can take five or six phone calls. Then I get the "Call me back when you're about to start engine" Really? WTF? Why? You gonna give me a weather update? I've already talked to you twice in the last four hours! And I've been told a bunch of times the FRO ain't a dispatcher.
Hey, if I don't close the mission because I crashed, generate an auto-email two or three hours after I was supposed to be down. No news is good news. I hesitate to be this specific, because this off the top of my head, and there could certainly be holes in these thoughts. But. . .
To the bigger picture - Why not
look at how we do this, because guys are not flying, and the goat-rope is part of the reason. Pilots in at least one Wing have said so. Whether we think their reasons are "good" or not, the process is bugging them to a meaningful degree.
Look, I'm doing the dance, I'm here, I'm flying. . .I took a long break, decided I'd come back and jump through the hoops as necessary, and so be it. But I don't have to lilke it. And I
know the "as-is" has cost us good pilots. Wouldn't it be a good use of time/money to examine how we go about this part of the mission?
Wow. Guess what? Some time just opened up for me - I can go extend my night currency. How do I do it? Hit AircraftClubs.com, one time, and bolt for the club?
Or, start the WMIRS chase, track down an FRO. Wait. . . it's Sepetember - is the clsosest airplane really at the advertised location? Ummm. It was on Saturday, but I've gotten burned before. And it's a 182. $$$$. I can drive an hour to the 172, but it's at a GOB airport. No fuel after 1600, no landings after 2100, but it keeps an airplane close by for the GOB's. No joy there.
I can call around, make sure the 182 is at home-base, invest an hour or so getting the CAP hoops done. Wait, have to go home and get a uniform - driving my wife's car, and don't have my go bag in there. Looks like 2.5 Hobbs NOT on a CAP aircraft. . .
Truly, I know, this is a bit over the top. But not all that much.
Go, and enjoy yourself.
Quote from: JeffDG on September 09, 2013, 05:10:20 PMSo?
How long does that inquiry take? Why not ask a simple question and get an answer?
Ok but if every time a pilot makes a mistake, if CAP would have all FROs add a new question to their conversation with all pilots, how long would it be.
Did you disconnect the tow bar?
Did you remove the gust locks?
Did you remove the cowl plugs?
Did you remove the pitot tube cover?
Did you sump the fuel tanks?
Did you check weather?
Did you check your personal exhaust pipe for the presence of your head?
30 seconds? One minute?
I've mentioned in other threads that CAP-USAF was pretty shocked during our SAV that there are no questions regarding ORM during the release.
They intended to "shop it" up and discuss having it added.
I don't see how anything that increases safety situational awareness is a bad thing, especially when you read some of the completely unnecessary 78s that
are filed every year.
Our aircrews aren't just "flying", that's missed on many of them. They are flying with a purpose, and one which exceeds and is outside the
parameters of simple "wheels up / wheels down" which is the purpose of the GA flying of most our members. That means that they have 100 more
details to deal with and remember then someone who is "just" flying their club plane (which leaves plenty to remember).
And just like Homer Simpson who forgot how to drive when he learned home wine making, all those details get muddled together and sometimes
fall out the backside of your head. Add-in family issues, "my boss is a jerk", and maybe you didn't hit the head before take off, and
you get into trouble.
Sometimes these "reminders", are what is needed to wake people up or trigger a forgotten checklist, etc.
As an FRO, rarely will I release anyone who isn't clearly at the airport and ready to go, and I always run the full list. I also ask the
pilot to contact me when they land, etc. This generally gets appreciation that someone knows they are gone and where they
were headed.
CAP needs and values its pilots, however we have no need for pilots who are too busy for basic safety procedures, or who believe they "know better".
Do that on your own time in your plane, then at least ours will be fully operational to come and find you when your tow bar hits the prop.
Good to go for another 90 days.
SA is good. Useless/silly stuff is not. Would like to see NHQ review the procedures, with an open mind, some imagination, see if streamlining is possible without compromising safety. I think it may be. Let's look at what has value in proportion to the cost, keep what's worthwhile, junk the nonsense. Some things may be worthy, but not enough to justify continuing with them.
Honestly, it ain't missed on us - we know it's a diffrent kind of flying. Just like two hours in the clag with no autopilot is diffrent. Also tough aviating, and well outside the CAP usual experience. CAP or Club, If I launch from inside the DC FRZ, it ain't "wheels up, wheels down". I'm tightly constrained, horizontally and vertically, lot's of frequency changes and hand-offs, and not much forgiveness for mistakes.
Not a personal critique, but if I gotta call you three times before I start the engine, then I won't be bothering you again. You aren't helping me fly safer or do the mission better, but you are distracting me and wasting my time. And If I can't get a release until I'm at the airport, then I also won't be bothering you again.
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 05:03:10 AM
And If I can't get a release until I'm at the airport, then I also won't be bothering you again.
I am not a pilot or FRO, but I am really having a hard time understanding this mentality. What is so hard about having to call for a release when you're actually ready to go flying? Are you afraid that you'll get to the airport and be denied or be unable to reach a FRO?
One of the reasons we have such a FR (and safety process) system is because of our penchant for walking aircraft into hangers or other such fixed structures. I'm not happy with this any longer, and it is one of many reasons why I no longer fly CAP aircraft. For me, it was much easier to buy an aircraft and fly; safely and conveniently. I now belong to three other organizations where I can use my aircraft and skills. There is paperwork, however it is not constraining. I am still asked to maintain a certain level of proficiency; it's just that I'm able to accomplish this with more flexability.
Why are we flying CAP aircraft less each year? I used to fly CAP aircraft about 125 hrs/year.... :(
Quote from: FW on September 10, 2013, 12:01:33 PM
One of the reasons we have such a FR (and safety process) system is because of our penchant for walking aircraft into hangers or other such fixed structures. I'm not happy with this any longer, and it is one of many reasons why I no longer fly CAP aircraft. For me, it was much easier to buy an aircraft and fly; safely and conveniently. I now belong to three other organizations where I can use my aircraft and skills. There is paperwork, however it is not constraining. I am still asked to maintain a certain level of proficiency; it's just that I'm able to accomplish this with more flexability.
Why are we flying CAP aircraft less each year? I used to fly CAP aircraft about 125 hrs/year.... :(
We? Hard to say.
You bought a plane and joined at least three other organizations. No harm no foul, but not exactly cricket to ask why "we" are flying less, when you,
by design, made a choice to play elsewhere.
Eclipse, that was my point. Volunteers want to participate, however due to the nature of cost/benefit, "we" do what is most convenient to fill our time and needs. I'm still active in CAP, however flying in CAP is not a part of it. The need to fly for a cause is replaced by other organizations. IMHO, that's what is happening with other CAP pilots; they are finding other ways to satisfy their flying needs.
Quote from: FW on September 10, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
Eclipse, that was my point. Volunteers want to participate, however due to the nature of cost/benefit, "we" do what is most convenient to fill our time and needs. I'm still active in CAP, however flying in CAP is not a part of it. The need to fly for a cause is replaced by other organizations. IMHO, that's what is happening with other CAP pilots; they are finding other ways to satisfy their flying needs.
Again, fair enough, but if you're flying anyway, what's this nonsense about "cost benefit"?
No one should be maintaining their ticket just for CAP, at least not doing so and then complaining about the "cost", because that's not how the model
is supposed to work, any more then if a GTM buys a HMMV for SARExs and complains about the cost. The point of CAP is bringing skills you already have
and using them towards a greater purpose then just "having them". If you >want< to go and become a pilot for CAP, great, but no one is asking you to,
so you can't complain about it.
However, >if< the only flying you do to maintain currency and proficiency at the typical rate of the average low-time CAP pilot is in CAP airplanes,
doing so will not only
save you money every year (we've run the numbers here), but once you're an MP, you never need to spend another nickel
on a CAP flight.
That's assuming you can be "bothered" to fill out a few forms, and do an online safety thing once a month, which appears to be "too much" for many of
our esteemed pilots.
CAP provides access to new, and nearly new, state-of-the-art, highly maintained aircraft for a fraction of the cost of what those sames aircraft would
be to rent or buy, yet many of our pilots would rather sit in the FBO and argue about CMX, mostly because GA is a bunch of old women on the front
porch and "I don't like that Jim guy down at CMX, because I heard he overcharged my buddy for spark plugs, once. He found the mistake and
refunded the money, but still, don't like him one bit.."
In exchange for that access, and for the opportunity to do more then hamburger runs and pattern rides, CAP expects our pilots to act like adults
and treat their flying time "professionally". Also wear long pants, a golf shirt with a patch on it, and make sure someone knows you're taking the plane and
where you are going - too much for some people.
Maintaining flight currency in CAP is laughably simple. Flying for free, once you're qualified is also incredibly simple, but making excuses is a lot
easier, so, there you go. If anything, pilots should be lauding the 200 hour expectation because that means there's actually funding to make those
numbers.
Quote from: JeffDG on September 09, 2013, 06:32:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 06:18:58 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 03:21:33 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 09, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 09, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 09, 2013, 12:17:54 AM
"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."
It is, huh?! Again, from another non-pilot.
What does being a non-pilot have to do with it?
Quite frankly, everything. Without being a pilot and going through the process, it's pretty difficult to understand the difference in effort required to fly in this organization vs. others. CAP has a self-created regulatory problem that impacts our ability to attract and retain pilots. Attempting to marginalize the issue with silly comments such as they're "too lazy to fill out a few forms" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the challenge we face.
I as a GTL, MO and ES officer schedule flying all the time. I get training mission numbers, arrange funding, plan missions........fill out the aircraft log, do WIMRS, close out the sorties, call the FRO..........strange......seems I should not be able understand the effort required to fly in this organization because I can't sit in the left seat.
And yes....if someone says "I don't fly anymore because there is regs are too hard to follow"......I put that down to laziness as opposed the ability to understand it. If you are smart enough to fly a C-182 you are smart enough to schedule and execute a CAP sortie.
And if the pilot is worried about a bunch of extra paperwork on a mission, he's doing it wrong. That's the [darn] Observer's job to handle the mission paperwork. Pilot's the bus driver.
For a CAP training/actual mission sortie, the pilot needs to do a weather briefing, weight and balance, and an evaluation of hazards to be encountered. Should be doing those for every flight anyway. When I sit right-seat, the pilot doesn't touch the CAPF104, and when I'm in the left, I expect my MO to do that for me.
Taxi driver - bus drivers follow established point to point routes, taxi drivers go where they are told ;)
Clearing Authority: Did you preflight the aircraft?
Pilot: Sure Did:
15 minutes later the plane runs off the side of the runway across a ditch (small one) and stops in the grass. Rudder Gust Lock and Remove Before Flight Banner still in place and very visible.
Clearing Authority: Did you preflight the plane?
Pilot: Yep.
5 minutes later suck a wheel chock into the prop prop bent.
Safety Meeting Notes: Anytime a towbar is attached to an airplane the other end should be in your hand. Anytime a towbar is on the flight line it needs to be in your hand.
Question: How far will a Cessna 172 prop sling a towbar?
A very human trait is people tend to hear what they want or expect to hear, and often say what they think the listener wants to hear. We can not legislate common sense or responsibility.
The Civil Air Patrol has a great aviation safety record and the real credit for that belongs to the members. Maybe the hoops, jumps, etc. weed out many lesser pilots prone to short cuts. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, but lets look for meaningful and achievable goals.
Annual written tests: The present airplane test is a joke. I believe it was created by the AOPA sometime back in the 1970's. Really, how many pilots actually take the test more than once? I would guess many have kept the answers and just fill out a new answer sheet every year. The tests all need to be make/model with an airplane specific component. Keeping good boys and girls honest, review the test every two years.
60-1 Test: The 60-1 test is pretty good but could have wing/local components added. Using the Air Force Aero Clubs as an example. Air Forces Services prepares and distributes a 35 question written test based on the AF Aero Club Guidance, AIM, and FAR's. Each aero club then adds an additional 15 questions based on the local conditions. Separate tests for VFR flight and IFR.
Will new tests eliminate "tow bar tossing"? No. Neither is an FRO asking tow bar removed? Chocks removed? Are your emotions in check? is your underwear clean?
Do we mandate a "Supervisor of Flying" for every airplane every day and have the SOF (FRO) visibly check and insure the pilot has in fact dotted the i's, crossed the t's and jumped thru the correct number of hoops?
Civil Air Patrol IS NOT FUN FLYING. Civil Air Patrol is Flying Mission Training, flying mission proficiency, flight crew training. Anyone looking for fun flying needs to rent from an FBO or join a club somewhere. As all CAP Flying is crew training and/or crew proficiency the entire crew neds to be involved in all preflight checks. Mandate all aircraft pre-flight checks will be a shared crew activity, a crew member reading the item challenge and the pilot performing and reading back the response: Observer: "Wheel Chocks and Tow Bar Removed". Pilot: holding up the tow bar and chocks "Removed".
Quote from: NC Hokie on September 10, 2013, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 05:03:10 AM
And If I can't get a release until I'm at the airport, then I also won't be bothering you again.
I am not a pilot or FRO, but I am really having a hard time understanding this mentality. What is so hard about having to call for a release when you're actually ready to go flying? Are you afraid that you'll get to the airport and be denied or be unable to reach a FRO?
Hi NC Hokie - Yes, that's about it. My practice is to get the release before leaving the house - the drive can be an hour, or even two. Given the state of WMIRS and eServices, you don't know what may be gacked logistically. One FRO saved me the trouble of the drive, since he happended to know the airplane wasn't at the airport. That happens rather more than you would think.
If it was just the phone calls, no worries. Four is way too many, and the FRO isn't adding any value to my safety or efficeincy after the first conversation (my opinion, YMMV) . CAP wants to know where the airplane is, and that's cool, makes sense. If it's a real mission, I'll be on the phone witrh the IC serveral times anyway, no problem.
Not to embaraass anyone, but when I heard the "tow bar" question the first time, I cracked up! I thought the FRO, a pilot I know well, was joking! That has to hurt safety credibility, when your pilots are laughing at it, doesn't it? It's been the butt of jokes for weeks in my Wing. . .
I have never had a FRO ask me if I did a preflight - then again, almost every FRO I use is a pilot. Sometimes an IC isn't a pilot, but they leave the airplane driving to the grunts, and are handling the bigger picture. I mean, what would you expect me to say: "Gee, I'm glad you mentioned that! I forgot!" or, "Gee, I intentionally omitted that, but since you brought it up, I'll admit I'm in violation and ground myself!". Or lie to you and and say I did it, then feel bad and slink over to chcek the oil, after all?
I think the corporate culture and peer pressure in CAP assures that very, very few airplanes are launched withiout a pre-flight. And when one happns, a stupid question before hand isn't gonna prevent it. . .
Picking some goofy item for additional, unwarranted attention, is dumb, and it's distracting, and worse, it makes the program look stupid to the pilots, and they lose respect for it. Hey, if we've had a rash of tow-bar take-offs, I stand corrected, and yield the floor. But if it was just one. . .
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 04:34:16 PMNot to embaraass anyone, but when I heard the "tow bar" question the first time, I cracked up! I thought the FRO, a pilot I know well, was joking! That has to hurt safety credibility, when your pilots are laughing at it, doesn't it? It's been the butt of jokes for weeks in my Wing. . .
It's not so funny when you're writing a 78 and suspending a pilot who is, thankfully, still alive. This is not a joke, nor is it
imaginary, it's based on far too many incidents, as is the need for the RBF streamers on the tails hooks because of far too many
unreported tail strikes.
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 04:34:16 PM
Hey, if we've had a rash of tow-bar take-offs, I stand corrected, and yield the floor. But if it was just one. . .
It's not just one.
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 04:34:16 PM
. Hey, if we've had a rash of tow-bar take-offs, I stand corrected, and yield the floor. But if it was just one. . .
I've been briefed on at least two in the last year.
I stand corrected. Thank you. I'm sorry I laughed, but in my defense, I wasn't the only one. O.K., I'm smiling now, too, since no one got hurt. . .it was just so off the wall, such a weird item to pick out of the basket. Maybe if it been control locks, or fuel caps. . .
I think (hope) the pilots did a preflight, and believed they'd looked at the nose wheel. Or events evolved in such a way that the bar was attached after the pre-flight, maybe to drag it out of a hangar? Maybe they were distracted then? (not a snark about another FRO call, I mean really, like a call from home, etc.)
So, say something about the hassle factor, then? Or all is well, everything we're doing makes sense, is a good use of time, effort vs reward? Nowhere to reduce the bureacracy, lighten the load, still keep it safe? The survey from the aformentioned Wing's pilots is an anomaly, just pilot griping, with no merit? Not worth NHQ's time and $$$ to explore why pilots are drifting off?
Automating part of the release procedure isn't worthy of $$$$? Quarterly saftey currency isn't frequent enough? Thicket of thorns that is our web-based systems is good enough?
Not being cavalier, and I am happy those pilots are safe, but doing an occasional 78 is better then never doing one - boats are safe in harbor, but that's not what boats are for. I'm trying to say, in my clumsy way, that at some point, the ROI doesn't justify the cost. Driving away your crews is counter-productive, IF your efforts aren't yielding improvement in mishap percentage. Accept that someone will occasioanlly make an honest, non-negligent mistake. The wind will be a little beyond their capabilities; we'll overlook a cowl plug. Leave a seat-belt hanging out (confession).
If we aren't making truly making things safer AND we're discouraging pilots, we've hit the lose-lose box in the matrix. Can't we look (metrics, surveys, analysis) and see if what we're doing makes sense? If NHQ has done that, then get off top-dead-center and share it with us! Gain some credibility. No Power Points, though, please.
Maybe we find it's better to concentrate on the real killers, like VFR into IMC, or cross-controls on final, or head down-and-locked in the glass instead of scanning for traffic? Maybe we're doing really bad stuff and just barely getting away with it? And perhaps spend less time on keyboards and cell phones?
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 05:24:24 PMMaybe if it been control locks, or fuel caps. . .
Seen 78's on those in the last year as well.
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 05:24:24 PM
Maybe we find it's better to concentrate on the real killers, like VFR into IMC, or cross-controls on final, or head down-and-locked in the glass instead of scanning for traffic? Maybe we're doing really bad stuff and just barely getting away with it? And perhaps spend less time on keyboards and cell phones?
First, why would these be mutually exclusive?
Second, when there is a demonstrable trend or hazard, then steps will likely be taken there as well. We can spend all day
trying to find "other" that is just as bad or worse as the things we are already trying to remediate, but in the mean time,
we should take the issues we already have issues with seriously and stop trying to prove how much we "know better".
Again, I love to see non-pilots with nothing but pure conjecture tell pilots why they're wrong about not flying more. It's laughable.
As for the comments on things like tail rings, if National was serious about the issue, they'd do install something like tail-ring guards - many flight schools use these for this very same reason. Putting a remove before flight tag does not prevent the issue from occuring. Go visit an FBO and look at the tail-rings on any of the tri-cycle gear aricraft (Diamonds have skid plates). I'd bet nearly all have been ground down or have some indication of a strike. Whether it's due to hangar rash, new pilot training, or old pilot training, stuff is going to happen. The only way to prevent is to not have airplanes at all.
Short of that, the best thing to do is have a culture that supportive of openness and reporting. That's not our approach today. Today, the first knee jerk reaction is to ground someone or everyone. Perhaps, there are times when that's justified but not most.
The "no idea" is strong in this one...
Quote from: A.Member on September 10, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
Again, I love to see non-pilots with nothing but pure conjecture tell pilots why they're wrong about not flying more. It's laughable.
So I guess facts and experience just have no bearing in your reality?
Quote from: A.Member on September 10, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
As for the comments on things like tail rings, if National was serious about the issue, they'd do install something like tail-ring guards - many flight schools use these for this very same reason. Putting a remove before flight tag does not prevent the issue from occuring. Go visit an FBO and look at the tail-rings on any of the tri-cycle gear aricraft (Diamonds have skid plates). I'd bet nearly all have been ground down or have some indication of a strike. Whether it's due to hangar rash, new pilot training, or old pilot training, stuff is going to happen. The only way to prevent is to not have airplanes at all.
Yes, "stuff happens" which is an interesting attitude to take when it's not your plane. However "stuff happening", like tail strikes, isn't the issue. The issue was they went unreported. You can treat something like that anyway you want. A lot of us in CAP tend to think bouncing the tail off the ground on landing is a relatively big enough deal to at least mention it, you know, rather then leave it for the next guy. Prop strikes, too. Yes, those happen,
unreported. That's a new engine for you non-pilots who need a little help with that.
Quote from: A.Member on September 10, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
Short of that, the best thing to do is have a culture that supportive of openness and reporting. That's not our approach today. Today, the first knee jerk reaction is to ground someone or everyone. Perhaps, there are times when that's justified but not most.
Yes, a reported incident gets the pilot grounded, until things are investigated, and then in 99% of the cases everyone moves on and CAP eats the repair cost.
That's unreasonable?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2013, 05:29:46 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 05:24:24 PMMaybe if it been control locks, or fuel caps. . .
Seen 78's on those in the last year as well.
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 05:24:24 PM
Maybe we find it's better to concentrate on the real killers, like VFR into IMC, or cross-controls on final, or head down-and-locked in the glass instead of scanning for traffic? Maybe we're doing really bad stuff and just barely getting away with it? And perhaps spend less time on keyboards and cell phones?
First, why would these be mutually exclusive?
Second, when there is a demonstrable trend or hazard, then steps will likely be taken there as well. We can spend all day
trying to find "other" that is just as bad or worse as the things we are already trying to remediate, but in the mean time,
we should take the issues we already have issues with seriously and stop trying to prove how much we "know better".
Come on, Man! They ain't mutually exclusive, and I didn't say they were. I said "less time" on less catostrophic stuff. And I didn't say I knew better, but I did say it is clearly, transparently, grostesquely apparent that pilots believe CAP is way, way overweight when it comes to bureacracy, and that it APPEARS some self-examination and house cleaning is in order.
Man, I keep asking in ths thread, and the questions you, Ned, etc., are not anwering remain the same- you think what we have in place is an efficient, logical, member/pilot friendly method of qualifying pilots and suporting saftey in our flying? You believe, as managers and leaders, that the current system isn't wasting meaningful amounts of our time, and putting us at somewhat greater risk by doing so?
Eclipse, you said earlier, in another post, that it was up to me to make the time for the hoops - but I ain't made of minutes. If they aren't available, and I can't cut some out, then I don't fly CAP. Lather, rinse, repeat for the entire pilot cadre. Look at the average hours drop.
Snapshots of individual errors mean nothing, much. Ned has metrics? Share 'em, Ned! Publish the positive impact of calling the FRO four times; we understyand that's a tough measure to quantify, and you will get plenty of slack from us for having to make SOME subjective conclusions. We aren't pouting, and we aren't prima donnas.
If you think what we have we have is good, quiute sound, and works fine, and taking a look at it isn't worth the resources to do so, then say that. Give me an affirmative, and I'll fold my tent - we don't have anything else to talk about on the topic of flying hours or bureacracy.
Quote from: SunDog on September 10, 2013, 07:48:55 PM
...you think what we have in place is an efficient, logical, member/pilot friendly method of qualifying pilots and suporting saftey in our flying? You believe, as managers and leaders, that the current system isn't wasting meaningful amounts of our time, and putting us at somewhat greater risk by doing so?
Well, in that respect I can only speak for my wing and the system as nationally published, and in those respects, I can say,
unequivocally, "yes".
What I personally see is a lot of pilots somehow able to negotiate the minefields and gateways with little drama, and then far too many who are armed with
excuses, many of whom seem prone to personal drama or other challenges in addition to not being able to somehow negotiate the "bureaucracy".
But I also reject that term, since I don't see a whole lot in the process which isn't the minimal reasonable baseline information of "who, what, where, and when".
If your wing is top-heavy with GOBs, or flying is a closed club, well then pick up a staff position and work to fix it, but don't blame the system itself, which,
warts and all, it pretty simple, and generally works, "good enough" if not great.
I also don't buy this assertion that release requirements and similar, even if they are "bureaucracy", are "increasing risk". If you're so pressed for "minutes"
that being asked about ORM or a tow bar is too onerous to accommodate, then maybe you're too pressed to be flying that day.
Life is choice and CAP is not for everyone. If you don't have the "minutes", you simply don't.
There are a myriad of reasons CAP flying hours have been challenged the last several years, primarily:
1) Funding challenges, both real and imagined, due to the issues with the Federal budget and CAP appropriation.
We have lost at least 1-2+ months the last two fiscal years due to budget panics - that's 10%+ of the calendar
we can never get back, not to mention the ancillary consequences of misinformed members who continued to labor under
the idea that we had no funding. As you say minutes are limited. This impacts both CAP and member funded flying
because of MX.
Fix - Front-loading the budget so we can still pay for gas if sequestration hits. That or other funding streams
that allow us to continue operations even when USAF funding is cutoff. We also need to stop the "chicken little"
reactions, as they cause more long-term ripples that question viability, then the actual splashes of the real funding problems.
2) We are locked in a churn cycle and not growing the aircrew and staff cadre.
Individuals will always have their availability ebb and flow. As an organization, we can't allow that to impact operations.
If one member has no more "minutes", then someone else can step up, but when we continue to depend on a shrinking and
aging pool, there's only one way that spiral will flow.
Fix - recruiting as a mission not an afterthought.
2a) People and the calendar don't scale. As said, the aircrews only have so many flying hours per month, yet
as the pool gets smaller we keep the same expectations. This forces members to have to make choices between
mission, professional development, other activities, and non-CAP activities.
Fix - recruiting as a mission not an afterthought.
None of this has anything to do with "bureaucracy", except in as much that we don't have enough experienced staff
to mentor our members in what is ultimately a pretty straightforward and simple system of qualification and mission
operations, so members are forced to "figure it out on the fly". Not fair to anyone.
Fix - recruiting as a mission not an afterthought.
I'm beginning to think recruitment is important. Oh well, we'll just leave that for later. >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2013, 05:50:20 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 10, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
Again, I love to see non-pilots with nothing but pure conjecture tell pilots why they're wrong about not flying more. It's laughable.
So I guess facts and experience just have no bearing in your reality?
This from the guy that just one page earlier, after having someone explain why he doesn't fly much with CAP anymore, took exception and tried telling us how it is. Brilliant. Thanks for being part of the problem.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2013, 05:50:20 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 10, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
As for the comments on things like tail rings, if National was serious about the issue, they'd do install something like tail-ring guards - many flight schools use these for this very same reason. Putting a remove before flight tag does not prevent the issue from occuring. Go visit an FBO and look at the tail-rings on any of the tri-cycle gear aricraft (Diamonds have skid plates). I'd bet nearly all have been ground down or have some indication of a strike. Whether it's due to hangar rash, new pilot training, or old pilot training, stuff is going to happen. The only way to prevent is to not have airplanes at all.
Yes, "stuff happens" which is an interesting attitude to take when it's not your plane. However "stuff happening", like tail strikes, isn't the issue. The issue was they went unreported. You can treat something like that anyway you want. A lot of us in CAP tend to think bouncing the tail off the ground on landing is a relatively big enough deal to at least mention it, you know, rather then leave it for the next guy. Prop strikes, too. Yes, those happen, unreported. That's a new engine for you non-pilots who need a little help with that.
It's nice to see that the following comment was completely lost on you, despite being quoting it in your subsequent quip:
Quote from: A.Member on September 10, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
Short of that, the best thing to do is have a culture that supportive of openness and reporting.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2013, 05:50:20 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 10, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
Short of that, the best thing to do is have a culture that supportive of openness and reporting. That's not our approach today. Today, the first knee jerk reaction is to ground someone or everyone. Perhaps, there are times when that's justified but not most.
Yes, a reported incident gets the pilot grounded, until things are investigated, and then in 99% of the cases everyone moves on and CAP eats the repair cost.
That's unreasonable?
In some cases that is the correct approach. In many, the response is indeed unreasonable to a point that it promotes our current culture; one of silence and fear that drives pilots away. How hangar rash is addressed is a notable example.
But you just go ahead and keep believing these aren't real issues; you've got all the answers...carry on, all is well. ::)
Sundog,
you have been expressing your unhappiness with the various systems since you joined CAPTalk.
I don't think anyone in CAP has ever said that we have the "efficient, logical, member / pilot friendly method of qualifying pilots and supporting safety in our flying" (to use your words.)
And I have not been disputing you on this, except to note that the stakeholders and decision makers in these areas do indeed use metrics and data when reaching their decisions. I know that because they show me the data, and I know these are highly qualified folks. I get periodic comprehensive briefings on our safety and know that they perform a great deal of trend analysis (which is why I remember the multiple tow bar incidents.)
I have personally buttonholed our senior safety folks and asked that we share additional data with the members and stakeholders and strongly asked them to shift our safety program (or at a minimum the non-flying portion thereof) to an evidence-based approach. (IOW, if you cannot support the notion that having every member watch a Powerpoint and take a 10 question test each month measurably increases safety, then perhaps we should find an education program that does.)
But our safety program's underpinnnings are more complex than most imagine, starting with the Statement of Work (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/u_011504073611.pdf) (basically our agreement with the Air Force on how we do business) that specifically requires the CAP safety program to be based on Air Force safety directives (see section 8.1). Restated, our safety program has to mirror the AF's "as determined by HQ, CAP-USAF." You have indicated that you are a former AF flyer, so I suspect you would agree that the military's pilot qualification, flight release, and safety procedures can often be descripted as bureaucratic and time consuming. If CAP's procedures are based on the AF's procedures, it can hardly be suprising if ours are similarly preceived. Being tied to AF safety programs reduces our agility to innovate for a volunteer-rich environment.
So even if CAP safety agreed with me on this (and I'm not sure they do), they/we can't unilaterally change our safety program.
So my questions to you are:
1.
Other than being excessively bureaucratic and time consuming, what specifically is wrong with our FR process? Exactly how should it be improved without compromising accountability or safety?(Note: I'm not in any way suggesting that bureauocracy or wasting anyone's time is unimportant, but the odds of achieving significant change in the system go up significantly if we can point to other factors. Remember, I'm a volunteer just like everyone else here. I get that time is valuable.)
2.
How specifically should we change our pilot qualification program?3.
How specifically can we further enhance flying safety?Remember, if I just go back and tell the hard working folks on the volunteer national staff and our corporate team "hey, the pilots think there is too much hassle and bureaucracy in our FR procedures," it is unlikely to produce much change from staffers who sincerely believe that they have done the best they can to balance efficiency with safety.
But if I can ask about why one or more specific procedures should not be adopted (or omitted), I will get better answers to my questions.
Finally, maybe it's just me but
Quote from: SundogWe aren't pouting, and we aren't prima donnas.
seems at least a little inconsistent with
Quote from: Sundog[If you answer supporting the status quo] I'll fold my tent - we don't have anything else to talk about on the topic of flying hours or bureacracy.
;)
Thank you for your service, both here and in the armed forces.
Ned Lee
I think that this may be one of the few times in the history of CAPTalk where a thread that had been dead for almost half a year (and only got 7 responses the first time around) is necroposted and then goes on for 6 pages.
Of course, it veered wildly off track from the proposal that started the thread, bu still a worthwhile discussion.
This month's issue of AOPA Pilot has a very good editorial on why GA's safety record is not as good as other segments of the pilot population. The number one reason was GA not acting as a cohesive group. GA pilots, as a whole, are free to be as proficient as they wish. They are not subjugated by rules; other than the FAA regulations, and personal goals.
CAP pilots, a subgroup of GA pilots, do a better job of being proficient and safe. However, I don't think I've ever seen such a compilation of incidents, hanger rash, collisions, and other such mishaps than in CAP. I think many CAP pilots have that "rental car" mentality. More regulation, process and education has not fixed this additude. There must be a different way.
I understand what the SOW says, however we are not the Air Force. Our safety program does not appear to have been successful at making CAP pilots safer. I would argure that it has only reduced flying hours. If so, we need to go back to the drawing board.
I have dealt with this issue (in varying degrees) over the last 20 years. and have noticed a trend that I don't think can be fixed by legislation. "We" need a different way to think.
Oh man, Ned, well said. . .thank you, much appreciated! Give me a little time to order my thoughts, and put some coherent words together? I'll answer your very fair and coegent questions as best I can, from my optic. I did use the FR as a micro-example, but I won't limit the rsponse to FR only.
And yep, I've howled about systems - grant me a little grace, and credit for motive - please note that I joined CAPTalk a LONG time after joining CAP, and was driven here at least in part by honest frustration, accumulated over some years.
How if I come back with a realistic scenario? A walk through the qual, mission, and release process, what I've hit, or know other pilot's have hit? Not the grim outlier, once a year crater, but not the cool-breeze, all went well, either? With some suggestions for consideration?
Ned, me again; I got all excited, didn't finish - 24 hours, O.K.? Other duites call right now, but I promise. . .
And about "folding my tent" - I meant I'd shut up about it if you guys were real, true believers, and just stop kicking on a closed door. No pout intended, just no reason to keep hurting my foot. . .
Hi Ned!
First, a couple of prerequisite assumptions? CAP, via WMIRS, knows:
The hours a pilot has flown in CAP,
The aircraft the pilot has flown, and dates of the sorties.
The pilot quals,
The open sorties by aircraft,
The proposed launch and return times.
The landing airport for the aircraft, from the last completed (not cancelled) sortie.
The avionics in the airplane,
Should have the W&B data. Maybe not on W&B, but should. . .
The aircraft Tach hours as last recorded.
FR "as-is", B12 mission: Seven (7) phone calls, eight (8) web site visits.
WMIRS isn't really a flight release tool - it just records the event; it's used to blast an email to a FRO(s), and back to the PIC. So, from scratch, we reserve the aircraft in AircraftClubs.com. This time of year, I need to confirm the airplane is actually parked where it's usually based. That takes two phone calls, but only two, because I know who to call, from experience. If I don't know who to call, I can't retrieve a phone number from eServices for anyone outside my squadron, so I'm making several more calls. But let's just say it's only two calls. I find out, in fact, the aircraft isn't there, but another 182 has been swapped with it, and is parked in the original aircraft's spot. Back to AircraftCLubs.com, cancel the original res, and add the new one. One more web hit.
Dang, system says I ain't safety current. Watch a video on lightening safety. Or, just jump to the test and wing it.
And this one is insidious – none of our 182's are configured alike, and I mean they are VERY different. Does it have a G400? GX55? GX60? A weird DME/VHF combo box? One-of-a-kind comm Panel? Why yes, this one does! Sit and study panel for 15 minutes, until you know and remember where the engine instruments are, how to work the comm panel, and the xpdr – please note the VFR button on the xpdr, which is equivalent to a suicide switch in the DC FRZ, by the way. But I digress. . .again, I know who to call to ask about the avionics, so it's just one call.
For practical purposes, many of us contact an FRO first, to alert him the email is coming, and to know he's there to act on it. We then enter (or complete) the WMIRS entry, and call him back. Kill a little time, refresh or re-enter WMIRS, confirm the release is in. Do NOT rely on the return email, because it doesn't always arrive, or arrives but WMIRS doesn't reflect the release. Click into and do the 104. Note that WMIRS does NOT populate the crew quals or the aircraft equipment.
Within four hours of original FRO contact (I know, the four hour rule isn't hard, but many/most FRO treat it as such) I'm at the airport. Make another call to the FRO, because he wants one.
Open the aircraft book, determine the airplane has just enough time remaining to make the ferry to the 100 hour. What happened here? WMIRS doesn't require that tach hours be entered. Heck, I've forgotten and left it off a few times.
But, I can squeeze in three times around the pattern and leave enough time on it for the ferry. Call the FRO back? Umm. . .maybe. . . but probably not. Oh, wait. It was B12 – yep, call him, because the profile isn't happening. He's a nice guy, and mods the WMIRS entry for you, to C17. Unless he went out for milk and bread. Which he did. Is the FBO open, computer available? Yes! Can I mod the mission symbol on a released flight? I dunno, actually – if so, that's cool. If not, either go home, or cancel the sortie, add a new one, and call another FRO. . . and if I do fly, call the FRO, tell him I'm down safe.
A bad day? Sure. Way outside the norm? No, it's not. And while not USUALLY this bad, it can also be much worse, and for a new guy it could have killed his cell phone battery. Remember this is just the CAP FR piece. Nothing about the email dance to get the B12 approved, or the FAA paper/electron chase.
FR fantasy scenario. Two web site hits, one home safe phone call.
I enter the sortie in AircraftClubs.com and WMIRS. I have already identified a short list of "favorite" FROs in my profile. They all get the email blast. First one to the release wins. I get a text that I'm released , if that's how I've indicated I want my releases, or an email, if I prefer.
Now, the radicalization: reward us for recent CAP flying experience and total CAP time. If I have 250 CAP hours, and I'm instrument rated, flown 20 CAP hours in the last 90 days, then drop the required personal phone call to the FRO. The email/text is it. Go fly! (modify the hour requirements however it makes sense – these are off the top of my head)
If I'm a 100 CAP hour TMP, have me talk to someone, sure.
Here's what I should get from the automated systems, WMIRS, whatever:
ACCURATE tach hours/time remaining. Remind me/require me to enter the ending tach time.
Check the last completed sortie, landing airport, and compare it to the home-of-record base for the aircraft. If it landed somewhere OTHER than home base, WARN me, with a pop-up, like WMIRS does with total tach time, or if I try to dual schedule over another sortie's tine period.
Give me a list/link of the avionics, a picture of the panel. My Wing has the DF equipment listed in AircraftClubs.com. Not much use to the MP, really. Please don't tell me the Wing should cover that – they haven't, and if NHQ collects minutia that serves NHQ needs, they can collect some operational useful info for guys driving the airplanes.
Link to the W&B. If CAP doesn't have that data for every aircraft, then collect it from the Wings. And update it when a change is made. Yeah, yeah, the numbers in the airplane are the official ones. Only the airplane is 30 miles from me, and I need to SWAG a CG, to decide if I can have a MS in the back. Save him a long drive, too.
Allow me, as a MP, to "down-shift" the symbol, like drop a B12 to a C17, even after the release, without re-engaging with the FRO or WMIRS before flying. Picture no cell signal, no FBO computer. Assumes the FRO who can release a "B" can also release a "C". CAP trusts me with the airplane; trust me with accounting, too.
Allow FRO's, IC's, and Aircrew to "opt in" for publishing their phone contact info, in an OBVIOUS place. While not included in the horror story above, I have been assigned crew members from other squadrons by a real busy Air Ops, who then assumes I know who these guys are, and how to reach them. I can find an email in eServices, but not a phone. So I'm calling around to track these folks down. An IC took pity on me once, gave me direction on finding IC contact info – that wasn't exactly intuitive. . .
Safety currency: go to once a quarter, instead of monthly. In busy season, I may fly quite a few days (CAP) in a month. Now I have to take most of an evening away from home for a 10 minute Power Point on downed power lines? Is it of some value? A little. Maybe. Not much, certainly not worth the time it cost me. I can go on-line, save the drive, or use a non-CAP event. But then I'm back in eServices (where no one wants to be) hacking away at a bad interface, hoping I get it right, and someone in my chain of command remembers to approve it. If not, back on the phone/email trail of tears.
Summary:
I respect the USAF imposed constraints. So, be leaders, pitch a better way. That's what senior management is there for. Make a case to USAF, press the point. And let us know you're doing it. We all know it could take a while. Let us know you are trying?
Systems (WMIRS, eServices) are there to collect info for management. Only incidentally are they constructed for rank-and-file convenince. That's reality for any organization. For USAF members, or corporations, the use can be mandated. But we aren't employees. If we don't buy in sufficiently, if we are put-off, or frustrated, we can bolt. Hours drop, we participate less.
If nothing else here makes sense, how about this; consider CAP the same way we think of the local Volunteer Fire Department. That model is MUCH closer to our reality than the USAF model. CAP pilots have other options. We can't pay bonuses to retain people hat are otherwise fed-up.
And think of CAP member's time as NHQ's money – you should want us to spend what time we have available on tasks of real value – yeah, yeah, I know, Unit Inspections, and downed power line briefings have SOME value. But CAP needs to figure out some priorities, because our time budget is not unlimited.
I may have misstated something here, or be unaware of a common work-around. Could be plenty detail to critique – but keep the big picture in mind – we want pilots to fly more, and the FR process is part of the problem. After I take my lumps on this one, let's kick around getting/staying qual'ed, etc.
QuoteNow I have to take most of an evening away from home for a 10 minute Power Point on downed power lines? Is it of some value? A little. Maybe. Not much, certainly not worth the time it cost me. I can go on-line, save the drive, or use a non-CAP event. But then I'm back in eServices (where no one wants to be) hacking away at a bad interface, hoping I get it right, and someone in my chain of command remembers to approve it.
Are you saying you don't want to go to a meeting, but you go for the 15 minute safety brief?
The person who moves the aircraft could certainly update the aircraftclubs.com listing to show where the aircraft is actually parked.
Two phone calls saved.
Not safety current? Do you go to the meeting much? Doesn't sound like it. Currency lasts as long as 60 days, if it's done early in the month. Like Day 1.
Different avionics? Sounds like you don't fly much, if you have to make call to ask which button to push.
Make notes on your kneeboard content.
Another phone call saved.
As an FRO, I'm fine with the email coming first. That tells me to expect a call. I'm usually near a computer or connection, and I keep CAPF99 on my devices, and "last resort", a pen and form nearby.
I don't need 27 phone calls, I release the flight after confirming what I'm supposed to. I am not a dispatcher. I'm either releasing you, or not.
Maybe the Wing needs a few less technophobic FROs?
Tach hours not entered? That's a procedural problem. Sure, maybe it should require it. But that can be fixed with policy too. "You don't do this, you don't fly next time."
I'm not even going to get into the bread and milk run. If you're telling me that the FRO expects to be called back, and by virtue knows when your flight is, why are they making themselves so hard to get ahold of? Back to "Maybe the Wing needs new FROs"
I stopped reading at the fantasy line.
But I'll tell you how I do it as an FRO.
I see the email. I know to expect a call.
I get the call, we talk about it.
Since I'm a pilot I not only know what they're doing, I can absolutely relate to it.
I.M.S.A.F.E. is covered, other specifics, a little chit chat. "Your released".
..and they call me back when the flight is done, of if they never went, etc.
I occasionally check flight radar feeds to see if they're in the air, if they landed, etc.
Easy peasy.
Sounds like you've got control freaks making things harder than they need to be.
That entire process is a Charlie-Foxtrot of members and staff who are out of the loop, don't trust each other, aren't attending meetings, and
have issues with technology.
It isn't even slightly typical, so there's not much point in going through it point-by-point.
As a2capt says, most of it can simply be eliminated, especially all the redundant contacts.
Call an FRO to tell them they received an email and you'll be calling them later? Seriously?
The suggestion that you can change a mission symbol mid-flight, especially from an AFAM to a corporate, indicates you really don't understand that process at all.
These two issues are pretty critical, though, and need comment:
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 02:23:21 AM...we reserve the aircraft in AircraftClubs.com.
WMIRS has had an aircraft scheduling module since 2011 - why isn't your wing using this?
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 02:23:21 AM
This time of year, I need to confirm the airplane is actually parked where it's usually based.
The aircraft should never be >anywhere< except as indicated in the "Aircraft Status and Support Resources Reporting System" (unless, of course it's actually in use
in which case it's not available). This is a national system intended to allow staff at all levels and other wings and regions to do reporting and planning for missions and activities.
Your wing is not using the proper tools as provided. That's not a "system problem" that's a "we know better problem"
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 12, 2013, 04:19:29 AM
QuoteNow I have to take most of an evening away from home for a 10 minute Power Point on downed power lines? Is it of some value? A little. Maybe. Not much, certainly not worth the time it cost me. I can go on-line, save the drive, or use a non-CAP event. But then I'm back in eServices (where no one wants to be) hacking away at a bad interface, hoping I get it right, and someone in my chain of command remembers to approve it.
Are you saying you don't want to go to a meeting, but you go for the 15 minute safety brief?
Howdy Aux; no, I like the meetings. Just sometimes I've been out and about for CAP quite a bit - the CC and Ops have what they need from me, and I from them, for the next week or two. Take a night off?
Make your night off not a safety brief night?
Quote from: a2capt on September 12, 2013, 05:29:02 AM
The person who moves the aircraft could certainly update the aircraftclubs.com listing to show where the aircraft is actually parked.
Two phone calls saved.
Not safety current? Do you go to the meeting much? Doesn't sound like it. Currency lasts as long as 60 days, if it's done early in the month. Like Day 1.
Different avionics? Sounds like you don't fly much, if you have to make call to ask which button to push.
Make notes on your kneeboard content.
Another phone call saved.
As an FRO, I'm fine with the email coming first. That tells me to expect a call. I'm usually near a computer or connection, and I keep CAPF99 on my devices, and "last resort", a pen and form nearby.
I don't need 27 phone calls, I release the flight after confirming what I'm supposed to. I am not a dispatcher. I'm either releasing you, or not.
Maybe the Wing needs a few less technophobic FROs?
Tach hours not entered? That's a procedural problem. Sure, maybe it should require it. But that can be fixed with policy too. "You don't do this, you don't fly next time."
I'm not even going to get into the bread and milk run. If you're telling me that the FRO expects to be called back, and by virtue knows when your flight is, why are they making themselves so hard to get ahold of? Back to "Maybe the Wing needs new FROs"
I stopped reading at the fantasy line.
But I'll tell you how I do it as an FRO.
I see the email. I know to expect a call.
I get the call, we talk about it.
Since I'm a pilot I not only know what they're doing, I can absolutely relate to it.
I.M.S.A.F.E. is covered, other specifics, a little chit chat. "Your released".
..and they call me back when the flight is done, of if they never went, etc.
I occasionally check flight radar feeds to see if they're in the air, if they landed, etc.
Easy peasy.
Sounds like you've got control freaks making things harder than they need to be.
Quote from: a2capt on September 12, 2013, 05:29:02 AM
The person who moves the aircraft could certainly update the aircraftclubs.com listing to show where the aircraft is actually parked.
Two phone calls saved.
Not safety current? Do you go to the meeting much? Doesn't sound like it. Currency lasts as long as 60 days, if it's done early in the month. Like Day 1.
Different avionics? Sounds like you don't fly much, if you have to make call to ask which button to push.
Make notes on your kneeboard content.
Another phone call saved.
As an FRO, I'm fine with the email coming first. That tells me to expect a call. I'm usually near a computer or connection, and I keep CAPF99 on my devices, and "last resort", a pen and form nearby.
I don't need 27 phone calls, I release the flight after confirming what I'm supposed to. I am not a dispatcher. I'm either releasing you, or not.
Maybe the Wing needs a few less technophobic FROs?
Tach hours not entered? That's a procedural problem. Sure, maybe it should require it. But that can be fixed with policy too. "You don't do this, you don't fly next time."
I'm not even going to get into the bread and milk run. If you're telling me that the FRO expects to be called back, and by virtue knows when your flight is, why are they making themselves so hard to get ahold of? Back to "Maybe the Wing needs new FROs"
I stopped reading at the fantasy line.
But I'll tell you how I do it as an FRO.
I see the email. I know to expect a call.
I get the call, we talk about it.
Since I'm a pilot I not only know what they're doing, I can absolutely relate to it.
I.M.S.A.F.E. is covered, other specifics, a little chit chat. "Your released".
..and they call me back when the flight is done, of if they never went, etc.
I occasionally check flight radar feeds to see if they're in the air, if they landed, etc.
Easy peasy.
Sounds like you've got control freaks making things harder than they need to be.
Hello A2,
Yes, I fly a lot. I usually make one meeting a month. Can't always, not and fly a lot too. Reference time budget.
But I don't fly the airplane from the other side of the state. And as I said, our 182's vary greatly in avioincs and instrumentation. NHQ has the data. Share it? I can't make notes on what I can't see. I have a good deal of expereince with avioincs, as a user, and a maintainer. I'll do my research, if I know what to look-up.
Yes, the last guy could update the location in A/C.com, assuming he has the rights. But if WMIRS knows where it landed, why repeat data entry? And hope the guy remembers, or has the access to do ther update. NHQ has the data, share it?
And I'm probably not up for grouding a guy who forgets to enter tach time. Not a proportional response, is it? And when are you gonna un-ground him? Leave him a voice mail, maybe he'll call back in a few years. Good chance we won't be hearing from him again. As you say, correcting the bug in the software is a better idea.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 12, 2013, 03:24:55 PM
Make your night off not a safety brief night?
Or fly one less day? See what I mean? Quarterly, maybe? Two more times to do ops, two less times to learn how to slice a bagel safely?
I'm really trying to opush the point that time available for CAP is finite - we can spend it smarter, can't we. Or, NHQ can at least LLOK at it, devote a few $$$ to reviewing the ROI on what we're doing.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 12, 2013, 02:53:18 PM
These two issues are pretty critical, though, and need comment:
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 02:23:21 AM...we reserve the aircraft in AircraftClubs.com.
WMIRS has had an aircraft scheduling module since 2011 - why isn't your wing using this?
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 02:23:21 AM
This time of year, I need to confirm the airplane is actually parked where it's usually based.
The aircraft should never be >anywhere< except as indicated in the "Aircraft Status and Support Resources Reporting System" (unless, of course it's actually in use
in which case it's not available). This is a national system intended to allow staff at all levels and other wings and regions to do reporting and planning for missions and activities.
Your wing is not using the proper tools as provided. That's not a "system problem" that's a "we know better problem"
I believe we use AircraftCLubs.com becasue of repeated failuresbugs with the CAP product. I remember a general revolt, but not the details. Wasn't my call, but I'm OK with A/C/com - it works. it.
Eclipse, I get it, people are supposed to do things correctly, by the book. But NHQ has the data. Share it? Record a home base for the airplane. One column in a DB. If the last landing airport is something else, give me a pop-up saying so? I'm buliding a sortie! NHQ systems know weher the airplane is! It's not in the usual, location! So write ten lines of code and give me a heads when buliding the sortie?
I gotta go glom through some byzantine navigation? Picture new guy - if we keep him long enough.
This can be improved. I think doing so will get us more flying hours.
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 03:37:35 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 12, 2013, 03:24:55 PM
Make your night off not a safety brief night?
Or fly one less day? See what I mean?
Yes, you have plenty of excuses and mental hoops, but can't see where the real problem is.
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 03:45:43 PMEclipse, I get it, people are supposed to do things correctly, by the book. But NHQ has the data. Share it? Record a home base for the airplane. One column in a DB. If the last landing airport is something else, give me a pop-up saying so? I'm buliding a sortie! NHQ systems know weher the airplane is! It's not in the usual, location! So write ten lines of code and give me a heads when buliding the sortie?
You keep indicating "where the plane is".
Ours come back to their home airport, or the system is updated. Not rocket science.
I literally can't see how your planes could be moving that much and not being where they are supposed to be.
In my wing, if a plane isn't where it's supposed to be, that's a serious issue, and the POC is held responsible.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 12, 2013, 01:28:51 PM
That entire process is a Charlie-Foxtrot of members and staff who are out of the loop, don't trust each other, aren't attending meetings, and
have issues with technology.
It isn't even slightly typical, so there's not much point in going through it point-by-point.
As a2capt says, most of it can simply be eliminated, especially all the redundant contacts.
Call an FRO to tell them they received an email and you'll be calling them later? Seriously?
The suggestion that you can change a mission symbol mid-flight, especially from an AFAM to a corporate, indicates you really don't understand that process at all.
You are correct, it is FUBAR. If you really, truly, believe it isn't typical, congratulations on the organization of your Wing. With respect, you ain't flying where I fly. It isn't always that bad with my Wing, either. But it is NOT WAY unusual, either. This wasn't fiction, this was experience. I didn't pick the worst ones, becasue I didn't want to overstate the case.
Please see my bigger point - the policy, processes, and implementation we have don't fit the world our pilots work in. You are correct, that if everyone got their heads around the current method, and embraced it, we' be good to go.
But the present method appears to be a pain in the butt for too large a portion of our pilot pool. They ain't buying in, or not enough, anyway? It APPEARS to take too much time and attention - the rewards aren't justified by the effort. And it isn't laziness, it's just value judgements by people who think their time is being wasted on badly designed processes.
Heck, CAP could probably ADD to the process and time required, if they got our buy-in, if what they wanted made sense. The least costly part part of a project is communications.
I've suggetsed that sharing some data, at the sortie build point, in a convenient manner, has merit. What I didn't say out loud is, doing so doesn't put any money or kudos in NHQ's basket - and I'm left with the impression that a donkey like WMIRS (or eServices ) is O.K. to foist off on the membership.
PS
I didn't mean change from A mission to a lower symbol, in flight. I suggested it would have been nice to convert my B12 to a C17, once it was clear the B12 was a no-go. If that's a big lift regulation wise, that's a mighty unweildy reg. . .
Also, let's drop the home safe call, too. If I get to WMIRS within two hours of my down time, you get the email I closed it out. I'm not dead, and we don't have to talk. Unless I'm low time CAP pilot (whatever that number turns out to be). To your point of view, I admit, the homee safe call isn't much of a hassle. I'm not pressed for time or attention cycles at that point.
And adding sorties for a fuel stop. Prop stops, new sortie? Is that to bump up the sortie count? Help push a budget, or look like we're busier? Semi-ethical lying? Or is it legit, to count starter cycles, maybe? Here's a real world - heading to home base, and know the fuel pumps are closed. Land out, about 15 minutes away, fuel. Start up, fly home. How many guys are entering both sorties. All? Most? Some? I will confess, I enter them all, A, B, or C. But someone may be entering "estimates" in the book and WMIRS.
Will it kill our number-pumping to allow a "A brief stop, for the purpose of re-fueling only, duing the termination leg of a sortie" to be in one sortie? Not a big, big deal, just a few less minutes of writing in the book and paging through WMIRS.
I don't want to burn our house down, or throw out all the FRO's, or be cavalier about our aircraft or safety. And if Senior Managament doesn't think we have a pressing problem with hours, and is fine with whatever the current state of pilot attrition is, so be it.
I want to say CAP has the people to look at this, find ways to do it smarter, easier, and just as (or more) safely.
Look to lighten it up a bit - here's a funny one:
I called for a release - the FRO was about 70-80 miles from my location; he had a thunder storm right on top of his house, so he didn't want to release me. I was in severe clear, on the backside of the line, heading the other way. He was polite, but adamant. I worked it a bit, but no joy. I was about to blow him off, make an other call. . .
He was on his computer, though, so I got him on AWC and walked him through pulling up the radar. I almost made it, but he was sure the ground clutter around the radar site was rain. Couldn't budge him on the ground clutter, or that it was actaully legal to fly in rain. He was sure I was wrong about that. . . he was kind enough to look up a few FRO numbers for me on the spot, and not take offense. We joke about it today. . .
Quote from: Eclipse on September 12, 2013, 03:46:35 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 03:37:35 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 12, 2013, 03:24:55 PM
Make your night off not a safety brief night?
Or fly one less day? See what I mean?
Yes, you have plenty of excuses and mental hoops, but can't see where the real problem is.
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 03:45:43 PMEclipse, I get it, people are supposed to do things correctly, by the book. But NHQ has the data. Share it? Record a home base for the airplane. One column in a DB. If the last landing airport is something else, give me a pop-up saying so? I'm buliding a sortie! NHQ systems know weher the airplane is! It's not in the usual, location! So write ten lines of code and give me a heads when buliding the sortie?
You keep indicating "where the plane is".
Ours come back to their home airport, or the system is updated. Not rocket science.
I literally can't see how your planes could be moving that much and not being where they are supposed to be.
In my wing, if a plane isn't where it's supposed to be, that's a serious issue, and the POC is held responsible.
Seriously? I thought it was clear I was describing an authorized re-location of an aircraft, usually to get it somewhere to build hours. Only the word sometimes doesn't get out, especially across groups, that it has been relocated. No one stole it. . .we just didn't tell everyone it was moved.
And several times each summer we have PO'ed pilots staring at empty tie-downs. If it's a week day and they took leave, they are REALLY annoyed. WMIRS/NHQ has a pretty good idea where the airplane parked last time (unless the PIC entered the wrong landing airport code).
I think it's a cheap, easy idea to pop-up a warning when current location doesn't eqaul home-base location?
True, it won't fix thoses cases where the CAP-USAF guy doesn't bother to schedule it, and just drives out and flys away, but that only happened once. We can live with that. . .
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 04:42:54 PM
You are correct, it is FUBAR. If you really, truly, believe it isn't typical, congratulations on the organization of your Wing.
Thank you.
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 04:42:54 PM
With respect, you ain't flying where I fly. It isn't always that bad with my Wing, either. But it is NOT WAY unusual, either.
It really is. I can totally understand your frustration if this is the situation in your wing, but it's not a systematic problem on a
national scale. One of the things which >is< endemic to CAP is the fact that Wing CC's are given latitude to function as
their own little CAP, and ignore a lot of things NHQ wants them to do. The new governance may help that somewhat, but
for the most part the autonomy continues. If you don't use the tools provided, then there's not much NHQ can do to help.
Your situation sounds like how things were in my AOR ten years ago, primarily based on fiefdoms and personalities of bad actors.
Someone needs to clean house.
But with that said, in this and other threads, you've indicated a clear disdain for the UX on NHQ's web resources, which is likely
clouding your use of them. I'm the last person to defend some of the inexplicable choices they make in UI design, but
since they aren't going to change any time soon, you simply use them and move on.
Gritting your teeth every time you click something in WMIRS will just give you a headache.
For example - one of our pilots just cancelled his reservation for this PM because of WX issues and I got a message from WMIRS to that effect.
The ASSRRS knows where the planes are, who is expecting to use them, and notifies members on changes if they are interested in
receiving the information. You can't reserve a plane that's in maintenance or otherwise booked, which is essentially the
same as your desire for a pop-up on the sortie.
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 04:51:56 PM
I think it's a cheap, easy idea to pop-up a warning when current location doesn't eqaul home-base location?
Hey SunDog. I'll admit, WMIRS isn't the most user-friendly tool I've ever used and, over the years, I've probably become a bit numb to some of the things that used to frustrate me. Allowing the Aircraft Scheduling module to work in Local vs. Zulu time is still a big one since I don't 'think' in Zulu time (I always have to do a mental conversion). Timing out after 20 minutes when running a mission is another.
Anyway, use the Help Desk link to submit your suggestions. I'm about 1 for 3 in getting stuff changed that way. I'm on CAWG ES staff so I was getting dozens of notifications of pending Ops Qual approvals every day after NHQ implemented a change last month. I submitted a suggestion for a daily digest instead and a few days later, voila! Much less full inbox. Give it a try.
-- John
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 03:31:25 PM
And I'm probably not up for grouding a guy who forgets to enter tach time. Not a proportional response, is it? And when are you gonna un-ground him? Leave him a voice mail, maybe he'll call back in a few years. Good chance we won't be hearing from him again. As you say, correcting the bug in the software is a better idea.
Why not? You've already pointed out that this could lead to cancelling a flight because there isn't enough tach time left to fly the released sortie(s) AND fly the plane to the MX depot. At best, this inconveniences a pilot planning to do currency training, but what if it scrubs a day of cadet flying? Or an actual mission?
When you consider the only thing that gets a lot of pilots' attention is either money or grounding, we don't have a lot of tools to use
in terms of "proportional response".
Wow...that's the quite the process you go through there.
I can process what I need in about 5 minutes of computer time and two phone calls (one pre-flight, one post-flight down and safe)...
So, you've added complications to your process, but you blame the system for those complications...hmmm...
Kind of off topic, but they mentioned at the last NB meeting that an updated version of WIMRS is coming soon...
Hi Jeff - that isn't the usual process, that would be an exagerration. Real missions are genearlly very smooth - constant phone comms with the IC, and he/she is smoothing the way, probably pretty much the same in most Wings, I think . . .
But, aye, Matey, it sure does happen that way more often than a rational mind can accept. . . . Not sure how many of these it would take to burn someone out. Maybe not chase 'em completely away, but perhaps ensure reduced pariticpation.
I'm not succeeding in raising the view up to the 20,000 foot level. Maybe I'm not articulate enough, or focused enough. . .
If the CC asked me (though there is no reason the CC would) I'd say "Hours are down, and pilots think the process to get airborne is klunky. and discourages participation. Could we spare some $$$ to examine the processes, find some ways to streamline them"?
"Sir/Ma'am, one Wing surveyed their airplane drivers and said the process bites. Maybe we could gen up a survey, get some specifics, see what might be doable, short term? And we coluld get some comms out, let 'em know we feel their pain, and are evaluating the goat rope."
And, "There may be some cghanges, or may not. But we'll tell you why, either way."
Quote from: Eclipse on September 12, 2013, 05:51:56 PM
When you consider the only thing that gets a lot of pilots' attention is either money or grounding, we don't have a lot of tools to use
in terms of "proportional response".
Lot of pilots? Come on. . .really? You have lot of dummies driving airplanes in your Wing? Lot of morons, idiots, self-serving cretins who only care about money and getting airborne? Maybe it's "some", instead of "lots"? Or just a couple of jerks, maybe? One or two pin-heads who don't respect MOs, and value what they bring to the mission. Or the Ground Team folks. . .
If they've anoyed you, try this - pretend you are a pilot who forgot to populate a single data point on a web-form, one the software doesn't enforce. Heck, there is even a disclaimer on the screen that it
isn't required.
Wing informs you that you're grounded. Are we gona hear from yopu again? I'm thinkning possibly not. And CAP just p*ssed away what may be years of training, experience, and local knowledge. You don't use a a nuke to kill a rabbit.
You can do what the maintenance officer did with me - call me, clearly annoyed, and ask for the numbers. I pull them out of my wallet, read them to him, and apologize. He thanks me, and we agree that WMIRS is. . . you've already heard that part before. . .
Quote from: SunDog on September 12, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Hours are down,...
Are they? Especially when adjusted for the budgetary issues?
I'm looking at my wing's numbers right now, with a few days left in the FY. I don't know that
we've ever made 200 per airframe actual (a couple planes are located for strategic reasons
in outlying areas), but we almost always make the 200 average, and already have this year, and that's
with only a 10-month "year" because funding was late to arrive and paused for a month mid-cycle), without
that, we'd probably be close to 200 actual per airframe.
I keep hearing how there are no more ELT missions, yet my wing has 8 finds this year and that's about on
par with every other year since I started.
Sandy certainly "helped", and our CD flying is way up, not to mention that we had several good-sized
incidents that provided aerial assessment missions.
We should be doing a lot more, and we're giving money back (even though members spent their own instead
of using easy funded missions), but it's "about the same" in terms of hours and dollars.
Just looked at hours back to 2007, which is all WMIRS has.
In the 7 year span, our peak year was about 7% higher then the last 4, but that is because the peak year and
the year before included a lot of AFJROTC flying that is no longer being funded in my wing. Remove the AFJROTC
hours and we are essentially static for the last 7 years.
Now, maintaining the status quo has actually required that we do a fair amount of work replacing hours "lost".
My wing implemented two different initiatives this year which accounted for about 140-150 flying hours. Without those,
we'd probably be down at least 1/2 that amount (nothing is a zero-sum).
If wings are sitting on the sidelines and mourning the loss while not doing anything, then, K-SARAH-SARAH.
What we need to figure out in my wing is why, when the paperwork and other expectations are exactly the same,
we have members flying self-funded B17 & C17 sorties when there was about $5k of funded, quick-spin A7 program
money left on the table.
I know that down here several pilots are flying on their own dime to build hours and proficiency toward getting their MP quals so that they can take advantage of those funded hours.
Quote from: ol'fido on September 12, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
I know that down here several pilots are flying on their own dime to build hours and proficiency toward getting their MP quals so that they can take advantage of those funded hours.
Awesome, and we want them to come and get it.
What doesn't compute for us is the MPs who could take it by just asking for it and leave it on the table.
Quote from: a2capt on September 12, 2013, 05:29:02 AM
The person who moves the aircraft could certainly update the aircraftclubs.com listing to show where the aircraft is actually parked.
Two phone calls saved.
Not safety current? Do you go to the meeting much? Doesn't sound like it. Currency lasts as long as 60 days, if it's done early in the month. Like Day 1.
Different avionics? Sounds like you don't fly much, if you have to make call to ask which button to push.
Make notes on your kneeboard content.
Another phone call saved.
As an FRO, I'm fine with the email coming first. That tells me to expect a call. I'm usually near a computer or connection, and I keep CAPF99 on my devices, and "last resort", a pen and form nearby.
I don't need 27 phone calls, I release the flight after confirming what I'm supposed to. I am not a dispatcher. I'm either releasing you, or not.
Maybe the Wing needs a few less technophobic FROs?
Tach hours not entered? That's a procedural problem. Sure, maybe it should require it. But that can be fixed with policy too. "You don't do this, you don't fly next time."
I'm not even going to get into the bread and milk run. If you're telling me that the FRO expects to be called back, and by virtue knows when your flight is, why are they making themselves so hard to get ahold of? Back to "Maybe the Wing needs new FROs"
I stopped reading at the fantasy line.
But I'll tell you how I do it as an FRO.
I see the email. I know to expect a call.
I get the call, we talk about it.
Since I'm a pilot I not only know what they're doing, I can absolutely relate to it.
I.M.S.A.F.E. is covered, other specifics, a little chit chat. "Your released".
..and they call me back when the flight is done, of if they never went, etc.
I occasionally check flight radar feeds to see if they're in the air, if they landed, etc.
Easy peasy.
Sounds like you've got control freaks making things harder than they need to be.
Hey A2 - Feel free to stop reading at any point here, as well. I do read all your words, but I'll try to start cutting back. Mutual ignoring is likely where the thread is heading, anyway.
BUT! I call Shennigans, shennaigans! Unless you are the
only FRO in your wing, and you
always answer the phone;
The process doesn't
start with the FRO - he/she is one required, but minor, step. Example - you are my number three FRO - I called the first two, home and cell numbers. No joy. I called you on home number, then got you on your cell. Six calls to connect to my third choice. I've gone five, six deep, routinely. A nice chat on connection, but what are we talking about related to the flight? Not to be harsh, or rude, but I probably don't care what you think about the weather forecast, or the denisty altitude. You might mention them, and no harm done, but I have things to do, like check the weather forcast and the compute the density altitude.
Please, note, I didn't say it's a NO value conversation, just a low-value event. If you are an experienced pilot, and I'm a low time guy, I do see the value, and yeah, lets have a conversation. So set some threshold on experience, to require an FRO conversation.
Just no rational reason for that phone chase; it's bad business process. Not even debating IMSAFE with you, but I will ask, sincerley, as a pilot, would you even call an FRO if you weren't ready to respond in the affirmative? I can imagine, maybe once, over a long service as an FRO, someone may have hestitated and told you "Uh, no. I'm too tired/sick/worried. Never mind, let's cancel".
Diffrent story if the FRO was a dispatcher, qualified and empowered to make a go or no-go decision. Then we'd have a lot fewer FRO's, and CAP would need more insurance, I think.
But hey, I could be wrong. Let's ask NHQ to do the add and take-aways, and support, with metrics, some of the goat rope. If the numbers support it, NHQ wins over pilots, and gains some credibility.
Eclipse doesn't believe the goat rope can be as bad as all that. But he isn't a pilot, and doesn't experience the time compression and blizzard of trivia. But you do - has an FRO ever brought up something that caused you to cancel? I mean related to your fitness for flight?
I wonder if he read this?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 12, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
What doesn't compute for us is the MPs who could take it by just asking for it and leave it on the table.
[/quote]
Wait, wait, does this make sense? If lots of us pilots are concerned only with $$$ and not being grounded, why the heck would we be leaving funded flying hours on the table? Why, why, what could it possibly be? What could be putting us off? could it be. . . nah. . .
Hey, I'm goofing, really. . .not gonna pillory you over one casual note; not fair, not constructive.
I think Ned commented (agreed?) that the process isn't well designed. I think you know that, as well. But I think I'll pass on the pilot qual mess, and the aircraft location dance of the thousand veils. Inertia is probably gonna win this one, but the glide down may last long enough for some good flying in the near and mid-term.
You all take care now, ya hear?
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 02:22:21 AM
Just no rational reason for that phone chase; it's bad business process.
Why is it a chase? If they don't answer their phones, they should not be FROs.
What's a "home phone"?
I only publish my cell number and >always< answer my phone. Why wouldn't I?
That's pretty much typical of all the FROs in my wing. I don't think I have called
anyone at "home" in 5+ years.
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 02:35:27 AM
Wait, wait, does this make sense? If lots of us pilots are concerned only with $$$ and not being grounded, why the heck would we be leaving funded flying hours on the table? Why, why, what could it possibly be? What could be putting us off? could it be. . . nah. . .
It makes absolutely >zero< sense, since the entirety of the expectations for the flight, with the exception of actually >asking<
for the funding, is identical. In fact, the effort is a wash, since the "asking" is made up for by us creating the sortie.
My wing does not suffer the slings and arrows yours apparently does. These >funded< A7's can literally be approved in real-time
when weather or other opportunities present themselves, otherwise we ask for 24 hours, but frankly we don't really care on the lead time. We want it to be as simple and non-onerous as possible.
Some of the C17s are understandable since those will be pilots ramping up, but the B's don't compute. It's literally like walking into
a restaurant and before ordering the watress says "If you want, that guy over there will pay for your meal, you just have to go ask him,,," and responding "Nah."
Quote from: Eclipse on September 13, 2013, 02:36:07 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 02:22:21 AM
Just no rational reason for that phone chase; it's bad business process.
Why is it a chase? If they don't answer their phones, they should not be FROs.
What's a "home phone"?
I only publish my cell number and >always< answer my phone. Why wouldn't I?
That's pretty much typical of all the FROs in my wing. I don't think I have called
anyone at "home" in 5+ years.
I heard of a FRO who went on vacation once. Another one was flying when I called. Sometimes they go out with their friends and families.
Dang slackers. . . I know for a fact that one guy went TDY.
I guess they could use the WMIRS feature that allows them to opt out of availability when they'll be out of touch - that feature works, right? I'm not a FRO, so it's not available to me. . .
I also know of a few who prefer to be called on their home phone numbers. Ludittes.
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 03:13:20 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 13, 2013, 02:36:07 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 02:22:21 AM
Just no rational reason for that phone chase; it's bad business process.
Why is it a chase? If they don't answer their phones, they should not be FROs.
What's a "home phone"?
I only publish my cell number and >always< answer my phone. Why wouldn't I?
That's pretty much typical of all the FROs in my wing. I don't think I have called
anyone at "home" in 5+ years.
I heard of a FRO who went on vacation once. Another one was flying when I called. Sometimes they go out with their friends and families.
Dang slackers. . . I know for a fact that one guy went TDY.
I guess they could use the WMIRS feature that allows them to opt out of availability when they'll be out of touch - that feature works, right? I'm not a FRO, so it's not available to me. . .
I also know of a few who prefer to be called on their home phone numbers. Ludittes.
This word, "vacation", what means it?
You can release a flight on your phone, from the beach, and "out with friends" - it's part of the deal if you want the responsibility.
Someone TDY could well still release flights, heck, we have people deployed in combat areas that still do CAP work, though as you say, they could simply remove themselves from the pool.
Again, these are people issues, not system issues.
It is a simple fix......more FRO's.
Sundog....are you an FRO? Are there any FRO's in your squadron?
It is as easy as taking the online training and then having their names added to the FRO list at wing.
They system as designed is not broke...but as built may be clunky...but that is because people complain about it with out trying to fix it.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
It is a simple fix......more FRO's.
Sundog....are you an FRO? Are there any FRO's in your squadron?
It is as easy as taking the online training and then having their names added to the FRO list at wing.
They system as designed is not broke...but as built may be clunky...but that is because people complain about it with out trying to fix it.
They're the same people who come to SAREXs and sit around drinking coffee and [censored]ing that they're sitting on the ground, but you never seem to see them with an AOBD SQTR handy either.
Quote from: JeffDG on September 13, 2013, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
It is a simple fix......more FRO's.
Sundog....are you an FRO? Are there any FRO's in your squadron?
It is as easy as taking the online training and then having their names added to the FRO list at wing.
They system as designed is not broke...but as built may be clunky...but that is because people complain about it with out trying to fix it.
They're the same people who come to SAREXs and sit around drinking coffee and [censored]ing that they're sitting on the ground, but you never seem to see them with an AOBD SQTR handy either.
Yep....and I say the same thing to them as well.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on September 13, 2013, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
It is a simple fix......more FRO's.
Sundog....are you an FRO? Are there any FRO's in your squadron?
It is as easy as taking the online training and then having their names added to the FRO list at wing.
They system as designed is not broke...but as built may be clunky...but that is because people complain about it with out trying to fix it.
They're the same people who come to SAREXs and sit around drinking coffee and [censored]ing that they're sitting on the ground, but you never seem to see them with an AOBD SQTR handy either.
Yep....and I say the same thing to them as well.
Of course they won't, then they only thing they will fly is a desk with a computer. That's what happened to me, and I've seen it happen to too many people. They all want to fly, but don't want to deal with all the paperwork that makes it happen.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
It is a simple fix......more FRO's.
At one point, maybe. A few years ago our Wing cut out almost all the FROs. I can't quite recall exactly why, but I think it had to do with some sort of mandatory reporting issues. Think there were a lot of FROs on the books that never actually did releases but were still obligated to send some sort of report in that they never did. I could be getting that backwards or maybe its not an issue anymore.
I took the FRO "training" at one point when I was working on AOBD (I think, or it may be something I did as squadron commander back when they could release flights) and wasn't terribly impressed. Unless it has changed significantly, I don't see why the computer couldn't do almost all of it.
We had a "great purge" of FROs a couple years ago as well. There were some bad actors and a lot of empty shirts.
Reporting was a pretty significant part of the problem because we had far too many flights released without a
99 somewhere that matched. "I'll get it later."
Since then we've slowly grown the cadre back with some attitude adjustment, and an understanding that
in all but the most extreme circumstances or emergency, the releases should be done through WMIRS, which
then negates the whole reporting problem.
It's actually kind of amusing, since "FRO" was spoken in hushed tones and was primarily the parlance of pilots.
When I finally cared enough to look into it, I had to ask around for what I was missing "Is this it?"
Quote from: RiverAux on September 13, 2013, 07:58:18 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
It is a simple fix......more FRO's.
At one point, maybe. A few years ago our Wing cut out almost all the FROs. I can't quite recall exactly why, but I think it had to do with some sort of mandatory reporting issues. Think there were a lot of FROs on the books that never actually did releases but were still obligated to send some sort of report in that they never did. I could be getting that backwards or maybe its not an issue anymore.
I took the FRO "training" at one point when I was working on AOBD (I think, or it may be something I did as squadron commander back when they could release flights) and wasn't terribly impressed. Unless it has changed significantly, I don't see why the computer couldn't do almost all of it.
From what I understand.....the whole/main reasons for FROs is so that someone knows that you are flying and when you are supposed to be back. All the other "safety" BS that it seems that some wing's require and FRO to do.....is a lot of "good ideas" instead of people knowing what the main purpose is for.
As far as I know commanders can still be FRO......anyone can.....on of my squadron's FRO is a MS who won't fly (he gets air sick). But he is there to release our flights. We are in the process of adding at least three more FROs to our rosters and having a rotating schedule on who to call.
Call/text before going to the airport to alert them "I'm flying at 9". He releases your flight in WRMS. Call him just before engine start and he says have a good flight. When you land....call him back "wheels down" and you are good.
It gets a little complicated with a flight with multiple landings (each one is a sortie).....but the system works here no problem.
We even release flight the night before......call up at 7pm.....I'm flying at 0700....okay you are released call me when you land of you if you change your ETD/ETA.
I think a lot of the problems is not with the system but with the idea fairy making things more complicated.
While releasing a flight is not rocket science, it's more than just receiving a text and punching a button in WMIRS. FROs need to run the appropriate checklist, verify flight, aircraft and pilot information, and ask related questions. This should be done, at a minimum, over the phone. They are "responsible for authorizing a CAP pilot to fly as pilot in command in [a] CAP aircraft."
As for the requirements to be a FRO, while CAPR 60-1 doesn't specify qualifications, ratings, specialties or training beyond the FRO online course, FROs must "possess a sound knowledge of the CAP flight management program" according to the regulation; it shouldn't just be anyone.
Wings can (and sometimes do) specify additional requirements and can limit who can be and how many FROs a unit can have. CAPR 60-1 is very clear when it says that the "eFlight Release process should decrease the overall number of FROs a wing needs, so it should be understood that not every person who completes the FRO online training course will be selected to be an FRO."
I think a previous revision of 60-1 limited FRO appointment to Pilots, ICs, certain Operations staff, aircrew, and commanders of units with pilots (I could be wrong, but
this conversation sounds familiar). I know a few years ago, related to the "great purge", there was a discussion, at least in my wing, that
pilots as FROs was somewhat a conflict of interest because in the rare case that a flight release had to be denied, one pilot wouldn't want to
upset another, or be viewed as hard-asses, so they might let something "trivial" pass by. Data on "troubling" releases supported that
assertion, and some of those FROs were no longer burdened with those decisions.
The Wing CC recently asked me if I thought we has enough FROs (as indicated in 60-1), I indicated "yes", as we hadn't heard any
complaints in quite some time, and that to my knowledge, no commander who submitted a member for FRO appointment and been disapproved.
For clarity to the conversation, here is what 60-1 says about the FRO. I've highlighted a couple key points about the
responsibilities of ascertaining a safe arrival and initiating a missing aircraft search. Unless a flight plan is filed,
60-1 requires the FRO verify safe arrival, so this isn't just some FROs being a nanny. However its also common courtesy,
and some small recognition that you're part of a team and not just a "lone hawk who must kiss the sky".
"2-5. Flight Release. The flight release officer (FRO) is responsible for authorizing a CAP pilot
to fly as pilot in command in CAP aircraft. The release is made directly between the FRO and
the pilot in command and not to a crew member/passenger. The PIC and the FRO will have a
personal or telephone conversation prior to flight release. The FRO is expected to verify
appropriate information prior to giving a flight release. The WMIRS eFlight Release process
automatically provides a great deal of the information flight release officers need. The FRO is
not a dispatcher and is not responsible for the actual conduct of the flight. They are responsible
for confirming the aircraft safely arrived at its destination unless an FAA flight plan is used (see
paragraph 2-5e).
a. Prior to flight, a flight release is required for all CAP flight activities.
b. FROs are CAP senior members designated in WMIRS as flight release officers by a
region or wing commander, or his/her designee. FROs must have passed the online CAP FRO
training course (https://missions.capnhq.gov/ops/dot/school/fro/) and possess a sound knowledge
of the CAP flight management program prior to being appointed as an FRO. Commanders should
only appoint a sufficient number of FROs to meet wing needs. The eFlight Release process should
decrease the overall number of FROs a wing needs, so it should be understood that not every
person who completes the FRO online training course will be selected to be an FRO.
c. FROs may not release a flight on which they are PIC, crew or passenger.
d. All flights must be released using eFlight Release in WMIRS. The only exception is in
the event that access to WMIRS is not possible, in which case flights may be released on a CAPF
99, CAP Flight Release Log. These CAPF 99 released flights must then be recorded in the
eFlight Release process within 24 hours unless extenuating circumstances prevail and the NOC is
informed. A CAPF 99 release is a last resort. When all releases documented on a CAPF 99 are
recorded as eFlight Releases in WMIRS, the CAPF 99 may be discarded or filed IAW CAPR 10-
2, Files Maintenance and Records Disposition, for a supervised mission. For supervised
missions, the IC must be an FRO and may release any flight related to that mission. Additional
mission management personnel (such as air operations branch directors and operational section
chiefs) may be appointed FROs in sufficient quantity to meet the operational mission needs of
the wing/region.
e. All eFlight releases (and flights temporarily released on CAPF 99 for a base with no
internet access) require the date, N-number, mission symbol, PIC, passengers, estimated flight
time and route of flight recorded prior to release. The FRO must be notified of any changes
made prior to departure. If an FAA flight plan will not be used, the following additional steps
are required:
(1) Record an estimated landing time prior to release.
(2) The FRO is responsible for initiating missing aircraft procedures 2 hours after the
estimated landing time if not notified the flight was extended or safely concluded."
The FRO's main job is to make sure the plane landed safely.
Just look at the 99.
QuoteCAP FRO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
1. Are PIC(s) qualified to fly the CAP aircraft for the type of flight proposed (consult the Ops-Qual FRO Report)? Does the PIC(s) possess the appropriate pilot currency for the flight?
2. Are all aircraft occupants CAP members? If not, have applicable procedures been followed for non-CAP members, including CAPF 9 if applicable?
3. Is the correct mission symbol selected?
4. Is the route of flight complete, and does the PIC have permission to fly to destinations outside the wing? Does permission exist for all landings at
every airport IAW CAPR 60-1?
5. Will a flight plan be filed (required for over 50nm)? If not, what is the estimated landing time? Unless an FAA flight plan is filed and activated,
the FRO is responsible for initiating missing aircraft procedures two hours after the estimated landing time if not notified the flight was safely concluded.
Nothing about ORMS, nothing about checking with the wx services, nothing about "have you pre-flighted the AC"
Are you qualified and current?
Are all pax CAP members or have the appropriate authorizations?
Are you using the right fund site?
You're not going to land at that dirt strip by the beach again are you?
Close out your flight plan or call me or we are going to come looking for you!
That's an FRO's job and nothing else. Everything else is the PIC's job.
True enough, and in most of this thread, even though we've raised the question about ORM, etc., the pilots with
angst are only being asked these questions and that's still too much.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 09:01:52 PM
The FRO's main job is to make sure the plane landed safely.
Just look at the 99.
QuoteCAP FRO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
1. Are PIC(s) qualified to fly the CAP aircraft for the type of flight proposed (consult the Ops-Qual FRO Report)? Does the PIC(s) possess the appropriate pilot currency for the flight?
2. Are all aircraft occupants CAP members? If not, have applicable procedures been followed for non-CAP members, including CAPF 9 if applicable?
3. Is the correct mission symbol selected?
4. Is the route of flight complete, and does the PIC have permission to fly to destinations outside the wing? Does permission exist for all landings at
every airport IAW CAPR 60-1?
5. Will a flight plan be filed (required for over 50nm)? If not, what is the estimated landing time? Unless an FAA flight plan is filed and activated,
the FRO is responsible for initiating missing aircraft procedures two hours after the estimated landing time if not notified the flight was safely concluded.
Nothing about ORMS, nothing about checking with the wx services, nothing about "have you pre-flighted the AC"
Are you qualified and current?
Are all pax CAP members or have the appropriate authorizations?
Are you using the right fund site?
You're not going to land at that dirt strip by the beach again are you?
Close out your flight plan or call me or we are going to come looking for you!
That's an FRO's job and nothing else. Everything else is the PIC's job.
Don't forget: Are you and everyone on the flight safety current?
Quote from: Al Sayre on September 13, 2013, 10:01:32 PM
Don't forget: Are you and everyone on the flight safety current?
That's one of the reasons to only release electronically, since the system checks that.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
It is a simple fix......more FRO's.
Sundog....are you an FRO? Are there any FRO's in your squadron?
It is as easy as taking the online training and then having their names added to the FRO list at wing.
They system as designed is not broke...but as built may be clunky...but that is because people complain about it with out trying to fix it.
Hello Lordmanor! No, I'm not an FRO, and have never handled a SQTR that would endanger my AOBD avoidance. Seriously, adding either isn't in the cards - the free time isn't there. Flying currency and profuciency take quite a bit of time. Maybe later, if/when I can no longer pass the Medical. . .
I admit to having drunk coffee at a SAREX, but I don't think I yammered at the Air Branch folks. Even though they sent my crew out to DF a practice beacon, then couldn't confirm if we had the location correct location on the debrief, because they didn't know where it had been placed. That's gonna happen sometimes, no one is perfect.
Quote from: Al Sayre on September 13, 2013, 10:01:32 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2013, 09:01:52 PM
The FRO's main job is to make sure the plane landed safely.
Just look at the 99.
QuoteCAP FRO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
1. Are PIC(s) qualified to fly the CAP aircraft for the type of flight proposed (consult the Ops-Qual FRO Report)? Does the PIC(s) possess the appropriate pilot currency for the flight?
2. Are all aircraft occupants CAP members? If not, have applicable procedures been followed for non-CAP members, including CAPF 9 if applicable?
3. Is the correct mission symbol selected?
4. Is the route of flight complete, and does the PIC have permission to fly to destinations outside the wing? Does permission exist for all landings at
every airport IAW CAPR 60-1?
5. Will a flight plan be filed (required for over 50nm)? If not, what is the estimated landing time? Unless an FAA flight plan is filed and activated,
the FRO is responsible for initiating missing aircraft procedures two hours after the estimated landing time if not notified the flight was safely concluded.
Nothing about ORMS, nothing about checking with the wx services, nothing about "have you pre-flighted the AC"
Are you qualified and current?
Are all pax CAP members or have the appropriate authorizations?
Are you using the right fund site?
You're not going to land at that dirt strip by the beach again are you?
Close out your flight plan or call me or we are going to come looking for you!
That's an FRO's job and nothing else. Everything else is the PIC's job.
Don't forget: Are you and everyone on the flight safety current?
Isn't most of that captured when building the sortie? Or already stored in eServices? I think CAP knows if I'm qual'ed in the plane, saftey current, and if there is pax without a CAP ID entered. . .??
I suppose if WMIRS captured that a non-CAP was on board, then it could kick it out to manual FRO intervention, and protect CAP for liability. Pretty sure airport identifiers would be a clue software could use to determine if I was intending to leave the state, and dump it back to manual intervention. In those cases, WMIRS tells me I have to talk to the FRO. Also, I think I indicate if a flight plan is or isn't being filed, as well.
If it's a routine, in-wing, CAP crew only mission, then what will you and I need to talk about? I mean, with even medicire validation and edits, how did the request even get genertated? Why would the sofware allow me to get to the point if bothering you?
I was getting the idea that the other stuff WAS. required -Eclipse, I may have misunderstood you before? I dunno, this looks awfully close to being something that could be automated for most routine missions.
But, if that's a bridge too far, and you just want to hear my dulcett tones, let's go with an absolute limit of one voice comm, before flight, for pilots under a certain CAP flying hiurs experience threshold.
All bets off on real missions, multi-aircraft training, etc. Then we all talk.
Well Sundog......then you are part of the problem.
As much flying as you do and as knowledgeable in CAP procedures as you are.....you are perfect for FRO duties.
This is not being sarcastic.....this is the truth.
But right there you say "I'm too busy to do it" and lament how hard it is to get a hold of someone else who is doing it.
So your answer is "we just shouldn't have to do it". But really FRO is a 5-10 minute job.
Get the phone call.....log into Eservices, release the flight.......call the guy back when he forgets to call you.....and call the wing commander and the FAA if he does not answer to start the mission.
You and your buds from your squadron should all become FROs and then you just call each other....no hunting up some nobody from 100 miles away.
Easy Pleasey.
Oh man, now I feel a LITTLE guilty. . . I could bob-and-weave, tell you I'm not available via phone for most of the day (which is true), but I won't BS you. . .I don't care to be a FRO, and wouldn't volunteer if I could be available. It's not a part of CAP that appeals to me. Same with Ground Team, and CP. All worthy endeavors, and it's cool folks want to do those things. But, as a volnteer, I don't.
I didn't complain so much about not being able to contact a FRO - I think my Wing probably has enough - more directly, I was asking, challenging really, the "why"; what's the value added, or what's the value added that couldn't be automated, at least for routine flights? And, bigger picture, beyond flight release issues, are we being smart with our time? Are we doing what makes sense, are we making ops safer, or just throwing up hoops that seem like a "good idea" to someone? I think members will put up with a lot of "overhead" if the tasks make sense. Not so much when tasks don't make sense, or exist to cover gaps in bad systems or bad business practices.
Anyone here think NHQ has done an adequate job with automation? I think a few folks do, actually. Maybe a lot more don't? Anyone feel like NHQ has other priorities, other uses for the $$$, and figures what we have is good enough? It wouldn't cost a lot to review work flow, take some measures, and alter some emphasis. And it would be real cheap to do dome comms - anyone here feel like a mushroom?
I sense some members feel like it's immoral or slacking off to be mostly just a pilot in CAP, with a light "other duty" load. I haven't felt that same vibe for the real active GTMs, or lawyers, or chaplains. Flying is what I bring to the table. Yep, it's fun, maybe more fun than the very important work the lawyer is doing for CAP.
And while our egos usually keep us from admitting it, it's stressful. It's tiring, and it can be scary. Not to be dramatic, just being straight with you. . .it takes a lot of time, and that's freely given, and it comes out of our life "bank account". CAP should spend it with respect. . .
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 11:08:07 PM
I admit to having drunk coffee at a SAREX, but I don't think I yammered at the Air Branch folks. Even though they sent my crew out to DF a practice beacon, then couldn't confirm if we had the location correct location on the debrief, because they didn't know where it had been placed. That's gonna happen sometimes, no one is perfect.
Nobody dispatched a GT to deactivate?
SunDog....to answer your question about Value Added for FROs.....as past experience has told us......telling someone where you are going, what you are doing and when you are coming back is the NUMBER ONE way of helping you if you get into trouble.
You see this time and time again....lost hiker, missing elderly, over due aircraft.......It is when the search target does not show up for work on Monday morning is the first time anyone has missed them. Then the concerned relatives spend hours looking in "his usual haunts" before the figure out something is really wrong.....but no one knows where to start looking.
The whole point of FRO is someone knows what your plan was and when you were supposed to be back.....so the search starts two hours after you are over due....in stead of two days......and they have a general idea of where you were supposed to be so they can start looking there.
Like I said....a lot of wings and a lot of FRO's add a bunch of BS to the process that may not be value added.....but the main point of knowing what your plan was.....and starting the search early......is defiantly value added IMHO.
As for just being a pilot......in my book there is nothing wrong with that. But if you are not part of the system you use......it is a little disingenuous to gripe about how "it doesn't work so well"
Thanks for serving.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 14, 2013, 07:04:12 AM
SunDog....to answer your question about Value Added for FROs.....as past experience has told us......telling someone where you are going, what you are doing and when you are coming back is the NUMBER ONE way of helping you if you get into trouble.
Again, something that could be automated. Frankly, I'd feel more comfortable if an email/text blast went out to the 20 different people on Wing staff and the ICs from WMIRS if a sortie wasn't closed by a certain time rather than depending on a single FRO to remember, "oh yeah, Johnny was supposed to call me a few hours ago).
^ So in an environment where people are still telephoning each other to let them know they sent them an email,
automation helps this?
The issues Sundog keeps raising are a combo of people problems and "I know better". Neither are likely to be helped by further
automation.
Who's going to call all the people on the email list and tell them they have an email coming?
What if they are on vacation?
Quote from: RiverAux on September 14, 2013, 02:58:34 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 14, 2013, 07:04:12 AM
SunDog....to answer your question about Value Added for FROs.....as past experience has told us......telling someone where you are going, what you are doing and when you are coming back is the NUMBER ONE way of helping you if you get into trouble.
Again, something that could be automated. Frankly, I'd feel more comfortable if an email/text blast went out to the 20 different people on Wing staff and the ICs from WMIRS if a sortie wasn't closed by a certain time rather than depending on a single FRO to remember, "oh yeah, Johnny was supposed to call me a few hours ago).
Which one is supposed to make the call when you are over due?
But talking to your FRO before you fly.....makes sure that there is actually a person there to get that automated text and do something about it.
Now....here is an interesting idea.......why not make the NOC be the FRO? Manned 24 hours 7 days a week.....and if you are over due....they step 10 feet to the left and get AFRCC on it right away....also they don't have a problem with finding out who to call to start the ball rolling.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 14, 2013, 03:19:54 PMWhat if they are on vacation?
Or asleep? I'm going to fly from 20:00 to 22:00 on a Friday to a distant base for an 06:00 SAREX the next morning.
At 00:00 when I am officially over due....the E-mail goes out........and no one reads it because they all went to be at 10:00 so they can be ready for the 06:00 SAREX.
Like I said before.....maybe the NOC should be the FRO.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 14, 2013, 05:00:01 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 14, 2013, 03:19:54 PMWhat if they are on vacation?
Or asleep? I'm going to fly from 20:00 to 22:00 on a Friday to a distant base for an 06:00 SAREX the next morning.
At 00:00 when I am officially over due....the E-mail goes out........and no one reads it because they all went to be at 10:00 so they can be ready for the 06:00 SAREX.
Like I said before.....maybe the NOC should be the FRO.
Hi L,
Trying to stay out of the weeds, but for this example, unless the ELT goes off, no one is coming looking for you until dawn, anyway. At least not from CAP.
But yeah, it's good someone knows when and where we're going, but that, as someone just said, might best be handled with automation. Or your NOC idea. Or not. Be great if NHQ had that conversation with us,
kicked it around, etc.
I filed SFRA and VFR flight plans today, got a weather brief, checked for pop-up TFRs, and got a departure freq and squawk. I didn't talk to a human until engine start.
I was thinking, as I mentioned earlier, keep the FRO in the mix, but for most routine missions, flown by experinced pilots, drop the voice comm. If you're one of the FROs on my list, and are the first to respond to the ping from WMIRS, and release me, again, what do we have to talk about? And if WMIRS pings you when I close, no conversation necessary, right? And if I don't close, multiple pings go out, or, as you suggested, the NOC gets a blast.
Climbing back up to the light levels - I think there may be numeous examples like this, doing it smarter, saving some aggravation, maybe a little safer.
Someone asked me the form number for a non-CAP passenger. I didn't know, and didn't care. It
is important that I know the form is necessary, and that we need it when someone not from CAP will be on-board. On the very rare occasion I have such a paasenger, other folks will be involved, and it will come up And I will look up the Form and give it the required attention.
Asking me to recall the form number on a Form 5 checkride is kinda dumb, though, isn't it? Wouldn't it be smarter to quiz me on how to handle non-CAP passengers? Make sure I know approval is required, and I have to have the pax sign the release, and NOT take it on the flight?
Have more modern, scenario based evaluation, maybe? Just a very minor, trivial example. But it has many brothers and sisters.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 14, 2013, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 14, 2013, 02:58:34 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 14, 2013, 07:04:12 AM
SunDog....to answer your question about Value Added for FROs.....as past experience has told us......telling someone where you are going, what you are doing and when you are coming back is the NUMBER ONE way of helping you if you get into trouble.
Again, something that could be automated. Frankly, I'd feel more comfortable if an email/text blast went out to the 20 different people on Wing staff and the ICs from WMIRS if a sortie wasn't closed by a certain time rather than depending on a single FRO to remember, "oh yeah, Johnny was supposed to call me a few hours ago).
Which one is supposed to make the call when you are over due?
But talking to your FRO before you fly.....makes sure that there is actually a person there to get that automated text and do something about it.
Now....here is an interesting idea.......why not make the NOC be the FRO? Manned 24 hours 7 days a week.....and if you are over due....they step 10 feet to the left and get AFRCC on it right away....also they don't have a problem with finding out who to call to start the ball rolling.
Actually, the NOC is not manned 24x7,more like 8~10x7, with a forwarded phone to the duty officer in the evenings and on weekends.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 14, 2013, 05:00:01 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 14, 2013, 03:19:54 PMWhat if they are on vacation?
Or asleep?
I mentioned text as well as email and it wouldn't be a whole lot harder to add in an automated phone alert as well.
If the NOC was manned 24-7, then I would probably be in favor of using them.
I'd hazard at least 1/2, if not 2/3rds of the fleet is used for at least one sortie a day and that's on a weekday.
Summer weekends would be nearly the entire fleet.
Adding 200-250+ phone calls, emails, or even data points to the day of one or two people who, presumably,
already have a fair day's work, isn't going to be easy or cheap.
Plus this "fixes" a non-existent problem. If your FROs can't be bothered, make them "not FROs".
Quote from: SunDog on September 15, 2013, 04:56:42 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 14, 2013, 05:00:01 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 14, 2013, 03:19:54 PMWhat if they are on vacation?
Or asleep? I'm going to fly from 20:00 to 22:00 on a Friday to a distant base for an 06:00 SAREX the next morning.
At 00:00 when I am officially over due....the E-mail goes out........and no one reads it because they all went to be at 10:00 so they can be ready for the 06:00 SAREX.
Trying to stay out of the weeds, but for this example, unless the ELT goes off, no one is coming looking for you until dawn, anyway. At least not from CAP.
Ummm... the statements above need some clarification. If you go down and the 406 ELT goes off and AFRCC get the notification that it's a CAP plane, they are going to be calling your WAMO ASAP. When you are overdue the FRO is not supposed to send an email but call the WAMO and report the overdue aircraft. The WAMO get's an IC and a mission is started.
Dawn? Can we not fly at night looking for our own?
Night electronic are searches are possible. I have flown several successful missions. Identification and coordination with the ground team is a challenge but also doable. Route searches, anything visible, really needs daylight to work.
Thanks sparks for responding to my rhetorical question :D
I would launch an aircraft on a night electronic search, gather resources for a first light search, determine probabilities, gather cell and radar data. I would not be sitting on my hands until dawn. I would be part of a CAP team searching for one our own.
Certainly launching to listen for, and isolate, and have a strong chance of finding the source of an active ELT.. if there's ambulatory conscious survivors, they could possibly even signal back.
NHQ released the FY13 totals last week. My wing is #2 on average per airframe (yay us!).
Some wings indicate fractions for the number of aircraft they have. Any idea how that's possible?
Giving up the plane mid-year? Joint custody between wings?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 16, 2013, 11:58:19 PM
NHQ released the FY13 totals last week. My wing is #2 on average per airframe (yay us!).
Some wings indicate fractions for the number of aircraft they have. Any idea how that's possible?
Giving up the plane mid-year? Joint custody between wings?
I would guess mid-year transfers. I know we had one last year or the year before that left about mid-year.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on September 14, 2013, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 11:08:07 PM
I admit to having drunk coffee at a SAREX, but I don't think I yammered at the Air Branch folks. Even though they sent my crew out to DF a practice beacon, then couldn't confirm if we had the location correct location on the debrief, because they didn't know where it had been placed. That's gonna happen sometimes, no one is perfect.
Nobody dispatched a GT to deactivate?
It was a practice beacon, gonna be in use all day. Air Branch just didn't know where it actually was, other than in a particular grid. I kinda wanted to know how accurate we had DF'ed that puppy - that lat/long thing, wanted to narrow it down a little closer than a full grid. When I asked on debrief, it didn't seem important - debriefer thought I could ask someone or other, he wasn't sure just who.
That repeated on a few SAREX occasions - hey, Air Brnach is learning too. Gentle suggestions are usually welcome. Hints about sun position at time of search, diffrence between AGL and MSL.
As time goes by, squadron-based training seems a bit more time efficient to me. Someone has a practice beacon, someone else has a ground team. Get it done in half a day, skip the ICP chaos, no 2300 phone briefs the night before, followed by the change-up call at 0600.
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on September 14, 2013, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 11:08:07 PM
I admit to having drunk coffee at a SAREX, but I don't think I yammered at the Air Branch folks. Even though they sent my crew out to DF a practice beacon, then couldn't confirm if we had the location correct location on the debrief, because they didn't know where it had been placed. That's gonna happen sometimes, no one is perfect.
Nobody dispatched a GT to deactivate?
It was a practice beacon, gonna be in use all day. Air Branch just didn't know where it actually was, other than in a particular grid. I kinda wanted to know how accurate we had DF'ed that puppy - that lat/long thing, wanted to narrow it down a little closer than a full grid. When I asked on debrief, it didn't seem important - debriefer thought I could ask someone or other, he wasn't sure just who.
That repeated on a few SAREX occasions - hey, Air Brnach is learning too. Gentle suggestions are usually welcome. Hints about sun position at time of search, diffrence between AGL and MSL.
As time goes by, squadron-based training seems a bit more time efficient to me. Someone has a practice beacon, someone else has a ground team. Get it done in half a day, skip the ICP chaos, no 2300 phone briefs the night before, followed by the change-up call at 0600.
So, you've got it all figured out, yet you're unwilling to assist with staffing...gotcha.
Quote from: Mission Pilot on September 16, 2013, 11:01:42 PM
Thanks sparks for responding to my rhetorical question :D
I would launch an aircraft on a night electronic search, gather resources for a first light search, determine probabilities, gather cell and radar data. I would not be sitting on my hands until dawn. I would be part of a CAP team searching for one our own.
Most definetly, firm agreement. Night is OK with me, let's go find 'em. I just think that by the time the calls were made, the wheels started turning, a 0030 missing would not get going until early/sunrise. CAP member, non-CAP, regardless.
We had that experience a few years ago, looking for our own, but it didn't end well. A CAP MP, in his own plane. Cell data was the clincher. As I recall, the radar data wasn't much use, as it was a target rich environment - not far outside controlled airspace, and lot's and lot's of people squawking 1200. But down in wooded mountains. I don't think the radar data gets delivered at life-saving speed, either, though in this case the outcome wasn't affected. But can picture a case where folks were waiting and it would get the job done.
I was new MP then - not in mnagament - I think I recall the cell data taking a bit to get sorted out - couple of days? Maybe not that long, though. . .I do leave my cell turned on when I fly now.
Quote from: JeffDG on September 17, 2013, 02:09:43 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on September 14, 2013, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 13, 2013, 11:08:07 PM
I admit to having drunk coffee at a SAREX, but I don't think I yammered at the Air Branch folks. Even though they sent my crew out to DF a practice beacon, then couldn't confirm if we had the location correct location on the debrief, because they didn't know where it had been placed. That's gonna happen sometimes, no one is perfect.
Nobody dispatched a GT to deactivate?
It was a practice beacon, gonna be in use all day. Air Branch just didn't know where it actually was, other than in a particular grid. I kinda wanted to know how accurate we had DF'ed that puppy - that lat/long thing, wanted to narrow it down a little closer than a full grid. When I asked on debrief, it didn't seem important - debriefer thought I could ask someone or other, he wasn't sure just who.
That repeated on a few SAREX occasions - hey, Air Brnach is learning too. Gentle suggestions are usually welcome. Hints about sun position at time of search, diffrence between AGL and MSL.
As time goes by, squadron-based training seems a bit more time efficient to me. Someone has a practice beacon, someone else has a ground team. Get it done in half a day, skip the ICP chaos, no 2300 phone briefs the night before, followed by the change-up call at 0600.
So, you've got it all figured out, yet you're unwilling to assist with staffing...gotcha.
True enough - have zero interest in moving sticky-notes around on the map. Smarter people than me, who have the time to get the quals, and the interest to use them, do it much better.
I make myself available for SAREX's and other Wing training events, and if they want or need me, I go. Otherwise, I try to stay out of the way - is a pilot slacking if he/she doesn't work in Air Branch? I dunno, maybe you have a point, and it is true they are sometimes short-handed.
Not sure I can spare the time for both, and still give the flying part serious attention. This is where the blizzard of other CAP time-suckers start to build up, little-bitty pieces at a time.
I don't FEEL guilty - CAP gets a lot of my time every month, and what I bring to the table is piloting. I don't do GT or CP either. Should I feel as guilty about those worthy endavours that I also don't contribute time to? Anything more special about Air Branch? I guess you could make the argument that as a pilot, I might have more to offer in AB - but I see non-pilots doing it well enough.
I give the time I can sapre, and since it's volunteer, I spend it on the activity I like and am qualified to do. Will listen to reason, though, will keep an open mind.
SunDog, you have committed to being a Mission Pilot and we thank you for that :clap: :clap:
Someday you may want to do more, and we will thank you for that then.
Now back to the 200 hour per aircraft goal ;D
I've seen several mentions to mission pilots getting to fly for free. How does this work? I can't fly CAP aircraft yet, so I'm unfamiliar with it. Though, it will take so long to get to 300 hours I may never need to wory about it at all :-\
Once qualified, Form 5s and 91s are funded.
All cadet orientation flying is funded - get approved for that status and in most wings you can
fly every hour you can handle on the USAFs nickel.
Counter Drug flying is fully funded.
And then of course the majority of mission and mission training is funded as well.
Some wings have budgeted monthly missions, same as the monthly As & Bs which allow for
funded training and proficiency flying against the 60-1 sortie profiles.
Not to mention MX transports, aircraft location changes, new aircraft transports and inter-wing exchanges,
plus encampments and flight academies.
Lots of opportunities once you get qualified. We have several pilots in my wing that fly nearly 100 hours a year
on CAP, and one who flew in excess of 150 hours last year, all or most funded.
Quote from: Mission Pilot on September 17, 2013, 10:14:46 PM
SunDog, you have committed to being a Mission Pilot and we thank you for that :clap: :clap:
Someday you may want to do more, and we will thank you for that then.
Now back to the 200 hour per aircraft goal ;D
Quote from: Mission Pilot on September 17, 2013, 10:14:46 PM
SunDog, you have committed to being a Mission Pilot and we thank you for that :clap: :clap:
Someday you may want to do more, and we will thank you for that then.
Now back to the 200 hour per aircraft goal ;D
Gad, Yeah, I do wander. . .sorry. Went back and read the OP once again. He makes sense, and the data is in place to track the numbers he wants to measure - mission symbols would cover a bunch of it.
Engine TBOs are based on calendar as well as total Tach hour - need a minimum number of flying hours per time period-maybe per month? We might need to keep that mark covered, maybe stay at or above that hard floor on every aircraft, to be efficient stewards of the tax dollar.
And, here I go, this could be bad. . .use a GIS tool. Map your airports. Map your pilot addresses (or just thier Zip Codes). Map your aircraft locations. Put the airplanes near your pilots.
There will have to be some placements that won't work with, for sure, just based on geo coverage. Or lack of tie-downs, other logistics. Gonna hurt some feelings, too. But the annual scramble to get hours every late summer tells a tale - we aren't being smart about where/how to park aiplanes.
Not the total fix, and very Wing dependent, probably. Might not help Wings that already run with the Mission as first priority. On the other hand, there are three airplanes at my Wing HQ airport tonight. One of them was brought in to get it's doors flown off because it was serving as a static display for most of tbe FY. I didn't check, but I susoect it'sf lown a lot of funded missions the last six weeks.
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 18, 2013, 04:08:32 AM
I've seen several mentions to mission pilots getting to fly for free. How does this work? I can't fly CAP aircraft yet, so I'm unfamiliar with it. Though, it will take so long to get to 300 hours I may never need to wory about it at all :-\
Mission Pilots don't need 300h.
At 100h of PIC, you can become a Transport Mission Pilot...nice thing there is you can get highbirds at SAREXs...anywhere from 2-4 hours per sortie, funded!
At 175h you can become a Mission Pilot Trainee. You can fly the MP stuff, just with a supervisor riding along.
At 200h you can take your CAPF91 and become a MP.
Quote from: JeffDG on September 18, 2013, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 18, 2013, 04:08:32 AM
I've seen several mentions to mission pilots getting to fly for free. How does this work? I can't fly CAP aircraft yet, so I'm unfamiliar with it. Though, it will take so long to get to 300 hours I may never need to wory about it at all :-\
Mission Pilots don't need 300h.
At 100h of PIC, you can become a Transport Mission Pilot...nice thing there is you can get highbirds at SAREXs...anywhere from 2-4 hours per sortie, funded!
At 175h you can become a Mission Pilot Trainee. You can fly the MP stuff, just with a supervisor riding along.
At 200h you can take your CAPF91 and become a MP.
That's good to know. I was under the impression that full mission pilot was 300 hours and o-ride pilot was 200 hours.
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 18, 2013, 02:23:47 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on September 18, 2013, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 18, 2013, 04:08:32 AM
I've seen several mentions to mission pilots getting to fly for free. How does this work? I can't fly CAP aircraft yet, so I'm unfamiliar with it. Though, it will take so long to get to 300 hours I may never need to wory about it at all :-\
Mission Pilots don't need 300h.
At 100h of PIC, you can become a Transport Mission Pilot...nice thing there is you can get highbirds at SAREXs...anywhere from 2-4 hours per sortie, funded!
At 175h you can become a Mission Pilot Trainee. You can fly the MP stuff, just with a supervisor riding along.
At 200h you can take your CAPF91 and become a MP.
That's good to know. I was under the impression that full mission pilot was 300 hours and o-ride pilot was 200 hours.
CAP Cadet O-Ride pilots are 200, AFROTC O-Rides are 300...I think AFROTC is the only one that needs 300, but I could be wrong there.
MP is definitely 175 for trainee, 200 for CAPF91