New 60-1

[Eclipse]

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

If the FBO dings the airplane, the FBO is responsible, not the PIC. 
The PIC might not even be in the same zip code when they pull the plane out.

[SunDog]

We generally don't need to have cadets push or pull.  Not too many occasions where a lot of airplanes are jamned on a ramp anymore. And hangars are not the rule in my wing.

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

I used to recite the USAF mantra of "If you never enter the prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop", but our 182's have that useless, short little tow-bar, so you always have some part of your anatomy in the arc. If there are no witnesses, I don't use it.

Have you even watched the ground handling video? That is not what the video says at all. Suggest you to  watch the video one more time, especially at the 11 minutes mark. 

I must have watched it, since I'm getting flight releases - maybe I fell asleep along about where it emphasizes it's bad to shove airplanes into objects?  Honestly, it's lost in the blizzard of administrivia. . .mostly, I just have a care not to bump into things when pushing, pulling, or taxiing airplanes.  I avoid prop arcs, too. . .

[SunDog]

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

If the FBO dings the airplane, the FBO is responsible, not the PIC. 
The PIC might not even be in the same zip code when they pull the plane out.

Not an issue (no/few hanagrs) in my wing. . .more faith in the system than I have, but perhaps you're correct. Still, probably good advice to actually NOT be present when the FBO does the ding.

[PHall]

I just retook the Aircraft Gound Handling online class. Didn't even watch the video and still got an 80% on the test.
It's not Rocket Surgery!!!

[SunDog]

I have heard some members go straight to all the tests, without passing go.  They miss that good info about not skipping rope with downed power lines, or driving across flooded roads, or the safe use of shoe laces. . .some go directly to FAA, AOPA, or other sources for education related to flying activities. 

I bet the GT folks have similiar useful sources about saftety/best practices in their endeavors, to avoid getting squished, bit, hyperthermic, or lost.  Come to think of it, I've had all those things happen to me in an airplane. . .

Yuks aside, CAP has some good training on-line. The safety stuff is mostly noise, though. . .and the avaition stuff is better covered much better by a plethora of other entities.

[Eclipse]

I have heard some members go straight to all the tests, without passing go.  They miss that good info about not skipping rope with downed power lines, or driving across flooded roads, or the safe use of shoe laces. . .some go directly to FAA, AOPA, or other sources for education related to flying activities. 

There is a check box on each test that indicates you have reviewed the materials or presentation.

Integrity and all that...

[JeffDG]

I have heard some members go straight to all the tests, without passing go.  They miss that good info about not skipping rope with downed power lines, or driving across flooded roads, or the safe use of shoe laces. . .some go directly to FAA, AOPA, or other sources for education related to flying activities. 

There is a check box on each test that indicates you have reviewed the materials or presentation.

Integrity and all that...

Doesn't say when you reviewed them.  The same video year after year, yes, I have reviewed the video...two years ago.

[SunDog]

Brilliant! Someone's mild guilt is assuaged!

I have heard some people hesitate (briefly), just for that check-box reason. . .then figure they've already had the equivalent training a zillion times. Not the letter of the law, granted. . .but "Ridiculousness" was coming on shortly, and someone may have needed time to study something useful. Heck, score 80, you must have known enough. . .

[Eclipse]

I have heard some members go straight to all the tests, without passing go.  They miss that good info about not skipping rope with downed power lines, or driving across flooded roads, or the safe use of shoe laces. . .some go directly to FAA, AOPA, or other sources for education related to flying activities. 

There is a check box on each test that indicates you have reviewed the materials or presentation.

Integrity and all that...

Doesn't say when you reviewed them.  The same video year after year, yes, I have reviewed the video...two years ago.

Agreed - knife safety is knife safety, doesn't change much, neither will safe driving tips:

1) Smash the gas pedal to the floor.

B) Move the steering wheel as abruptly as possible.

3) Let the defroster clear the windshield enroute, etc., etc.

Just saying you had to have reviewed it at some point.

[PHall]

The Ground Handling video has not changed since the last time I did the course.
So yes, I could truthfully check the "I have reviewed the material" box with no guilt.

[vento]

We generally don't need to have cadets push or pull.  Not too many occasions where a lot of airplanes are jamned on a ramp anymore. And hangars are not the rule in my wing.

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

I used to recite the USAF mantra of "If you never enter the prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop", but our 182's have that useless, short little tow-bar, so you always have some part of your anatomy in the arc. If there are no witnesses, I don't use it.

Have you even watched the ground handling video? That is not what the video says at all. Suggest you to  watch the video one more time, especially at the 11 minutes mark. 

I must have watched it, since I'm getting flight releases - maybe I fell asleep along about where it emphasizes it's bad to shove airplanes into objects?  Honestly, it's lost in the blizzard of administrivia. . .mostly, I just have a care not to bump into things when pushing, pulling, or taxiing airplanes.  I avoid prop arcs, too. . .

No wonder you didn't know that CAP will NOT throw you under the bus if the FBO is handling the aircraft. You watched but chose not to see...

[SunDog]

I'd say that was a fair assesment. Not sure I "chose" so much as I dozed, but same-same. . .

If the video explcitly states that the FBO can tear a wing off in your prescense, with no repercussions on you (PIC), that's good.  If I was at the airport when the FBO started shoving it out of the hanagr, my knee-jerk reaction would be to be on-hand during the movement, kinda make sure the wingtips and such survived the evolution.  Sounds like a better move is to be out of sight of the action.

If you're not there, you're not there. . .plausible deniability. . .you'd still have to trust in management, I think. Based on observed history, that doesn't come easy for me.  What is written, what is said, does not align with what is done, not often enough. . .

[RiverAux]

constant revising of the regulations is just getting ridiculous.

That may be the first complaint ever seen on CAPTalk about CAP regulations being revised TOO frequently.