Wearing of the FDU during non-CAP CFI Flight Training and other flight

[srosenberg]

I have an interesting question about the wearing of the Flight Suit that fits into a regulation gray area.

The reason to wear the FDU (Flight Duty Uniform/Flight Suit) is more than for reasons of looking cool - it is for safety, the Nomex fire resistant fabric.  For those of us who are training to be private pilots by seeking out a non-CAP CFI, and flying in a non-CAP aircraft, it is desirable that we train under the same circumstances that we would fly for CAP.  For instance, the feel of boots on the rudder control pedals has a different feel to it than that of sneakers.
 
While I have read the CAP Uniform Manual for guidance of when the flight suit may or may not be worn, the only guidance that is offered references the kinds of dining establishments one may conveniently wear the uniform when getting a bite to eat. More generally is the 1-hour before/after a CAP meeting/activity rule for any CAP uniform. More specifically is to not wear any CAP uniform at any event that will bring discredit upon it.

Personally, I would consider any opportunity in which a new prospective CAP pilot may log a flight hour is a training opportunity that supports the CAP mission regardless of if it is specifically CAP sanctioned or not, and therefore the uniform could technically be worn. Flight training is indeed part of Aerospace Education, one of the three aspects of the CAP mission, and the very act of it brings credit upon the member and the uniform which stands opposite to the previously stated rule regarding discredit. 

Locally, I have the Fort Meade Flying Activity nearby that rents wet (fueled) aircraft at a significant discount.  It is an NSA flying club that is open to CAP members, so the FDU's would be appropriate.  It is a small logic leap to say that the same concept might apply to privately owned rental aircraft if a member wanted to wear the uniform.  The issue that I am running upon is that there is no hard and fast rule described in the uniform manual that comes close to addressing training that a member does independently that is conducted outside of CAP, using non-CAP aircraft.   

I was wondering if there was anyone out there in this CAPTalk forum that has run upon the answer to this.

[Eclipse]

Remove the insignia and namebadge and you can wear it anywhere you want, otherwise CAP-activities only.

Conveniently, the FDU has Velcro on anything relevent to the issue.

[lordmonar]

Rank should not be Velcro

[Live2Learn]

Remove the insignia and namebadge and you can wear it anywhere you want, otherwise CAP-activities only.

Conveniently, the FDU has Velcro on anything relevent to the issue.

CAPR 39-1 says "8.2.3.2. Rank Insignia (Officers). Wear regular size plastic encased rank insignia centered on top of each shoulder with bottom edge of insignia placed 1⁄2 inch from shoulder seam and attached with clear plastic or OD thread."

A better option might be to acquire a second USAF style FDU for flight training, if the intent is to "train as we fly" complete with flight suit and boots.

[Eclipse]

Rank should not be Velcro

Whoops, good point, although you could argue (I wouldn't) the grade insignia isn't CAP-specific, per se,
though in that case you're opening yourself up to stolen valor / poser accusations.

Best to just not wear it, it's really not necessary in a GA plane, anyway.  Depending on the flight
school, you might get asked who you're trying to impress with a flight suit and 5 hours PIC.

[srosenberg]

I would like to refocus the question a bit.  We could be talking about velcro, and who we are trying to impress, etc, etc.  The question is... can a CAP flight suit be worn while undergoing private pilot training?  I am Mission Observer qualled myself, and this is the way that I go flying in the right seat.  Not seeking to impress - seeking the Nomex and boots. 

Is there any reason why I cannot undergo my flight training, or any non-CAP flight training in my CAP flight suit?  If so, where is it in the regs?

I have access to a private pilot CFI... not wearing my flight suit to a flight school.

[Eclipse]

No, you may not wear the CAP FDU during non-CAP flight activities.

Further, wear of the uniform outside of normal meetings or other activities requires explicit approval of your CC.

39-1 is your guide.  If it doesn't say you can, you can't.

When you're performing as a mission Observer, that's a CAP activity.

You can wear your boots wherever you want, but not the FDU with insignia.

[lordmonar]

If it is a "CAP" FDU then no.   If it is just a plain ole NOMEX flight suit the it is not a player.   The question is what makes a NOMEX flight suit a FDU. 

[DoubleSecret]

If it is a "CAP" FDU then no.   If it is just a plain is nonexistent flight suit the it is not a player.   The question is what makes a nonexistent flight suit a FDU.

I've seen non-officers on USAF incentive flights (Airman of the Galaxy, etc.) who had tape covering the grade insignia on borrowed officers' flight suits.  Remove velcroed insignia, cover the grade insignia with tape (which couldn't be appreciably more flammable than the plastic-encased rank), go play birdman.  That plus changing into/out of flight gear at the facility = minimal chance of drama.

[srosenberg]

Great.. I think that I got my answer.  I do find it odd that training (flight hours of any kind that does benefit CAP) is not included in the list, but that is just me.   Looks like I will have to hit Ebay and put together a non-CAP flight suit. Thanks for all the discussion.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Nothing odd about it. The benefit is for you, not CAP.

[Eclipse]

I do find it odd that training (flight hours of any kind that does benefit CAP) is not included in the list, but that is just me.

You find it odd that an activity which is strictly prohibited without NHQ explicit approval during CAP time is
OK to perform on your own time in uniform?

[srosenberg]

What is strictly prohibited about CFI flight training?  Once more... why isn't that encouraged for seniors as part of Aerospace Education and Emergency Services?  I am in the process of seeking flight training scholarships from AOPA and EAA.  I would like to think that should I be awarded one that I might be able to receive it in uniform as this is an event that would reflect well upon the uniform.  Not a CAP sponsored activity, but there is pride in our organization that should be shown. 

Let's take an even bigger picture of prohibited activities.  We have a fleet of CAP aircraft that each month every Wing pushes down to their squadrons the need to fly.  Either the aircraft get the hours in, or they cannot be justified to be kept in cognizance. CAP does not provide flight training to pilot newcomers like me without a private pilot license.  I get that.   There is a degree of difficulty in attempting and achieving Mission Pilot in CAP if you are not already a pilot. Cadets get some training opportunities then they leave and go to college or do whatever it is that they choose to do in adulthood. Someone like me who will stick around and do the ES mission (that I am currently doing) does not get the time of day in terms of pilot training.  Pilot Training for Seniors, as prohibited as it may be in CAP, is only so because we (the CAP organization) choose it to be so. There is no reason why some kind of assistance should not be offered in this area for those who prove to be dedicated to the CAP ES mission. One would think that such training would put additional needed hours on aircraft. Look at industry trends for private pilot ticket holders.  They are on the decline. Aviation fuel is expensive.  At what point does it impact our mission? 

I am not saying that we should train those that just show up.  There is a disconnect from Mission Observer to Mission Pilot where one miracle happens.  Many pilots I know tell me that the best Mission Observers are those who want to be pilots or are pilots. For me to get from here to there, I have to do it by myself, and then come back and plug away at 200 more hours. There should be a path from one to the other if for no other reason - this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlDWCDnXZ2k) or any other reason the pilot becomes incapacitated.  Should the pilot be incapacitated, it is the Mission Observer will will be PIC, and hopefully the Scanner has taken First Aid to help the pilot from the back seat. Should this not happen, we lose all three aircrew.  (I received my safety chops on the maintenance side of Naval Aviation on the flight deck.)

That's my vent, my beef and my 2 cents.  I have a significant love for the CAP mission and what we do.  I proudly wear the uniform.  You can't blame me for wanting to wear it during my flight training.

[Eclipse]

What is strictly prohibited about CFI flight training?

CAP members are prohibited from receiving initial pilot training in CAP aircraft (or as a CAP mission) without
explicit approval of NHQ, and then only when there are no local flight schools available - one reason indicated is
that CAP does not want to be viewed as competing with those schools (an issue which comes up regularly in
regards to cadet flight training).

You are wrapping up a lot of unrelated issues into your desire to wear a CAP uniform during a non CAP activity.

Your question was "can I" the answer is "no".  Why is because NHQ has said "no".

There is a disconnect from Mission Observer to Mission Pilot where one miracle happens.
Many pilots I know tell me that the best Mission Observers are those who want to be pilots or are pilots.

Yes, many pilots say that.
Many who have had to deal with Observers who are also pilots and try to act as co-pilots disagree.
The "safety pilot / co-pilot" mentality causes a lot more issues then it has ever fixed.

[Live2Learn]

Srosberg, your point on the need for the right seater to have the ability to make a survivable landing is good.  I haven't heard of any CAP Wings or other units that have sponsored a 'pinch hitter' course which would explicitly target developing basic aircraft and landing skills.  That might be a good topic to discuss with the Wing DO and ES Officer.

[Eclipse]

Srosberg, your point on the need for the right seater to have the ability to make a survivable landing is good.  I haven't heard of any CAP Wings or other units that have sponsored a 'pinch hitter' course which would explicitly target developing basic aircraft and landing skills.  That might be a good topic to discuss with the Wing DO and ES Officer.

CAP has an official "Air Crew Emergency Training (ACET)" program which can be found in the LMS and is
available to instructor pilots so inclined.

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?new_online_air_crew_emergency_training_course_available_through_eservices&show=news&newsID=15052

[Live2Learn]

Srosberg, your point on the need for the right seater to have the ability to make a survivable landing is good.  I haven't heard of any CAP Wings or other units that have sponsored a 'pinch hitter' course which would explicitly target developing basic aircraft and landing skills.  That might be a good topic to discuss with the Wing DO and ES Officer.

CAP has an official "Air Crew Emergency Training (ACET)" program which can be found in the LMS and is
available to instructor pilots so inclined.

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?new_online_air_crew_emergency_training_course_available_through_eservices&show=news&newsID=15052

I'm aware of the program, but this is the first time I've ever seen a screen shot of what it might look like.  Even when I was Squadron Commander I didn't have access to review it because I'm not an active CFI.  Thanks for posting.  It looks like a good approximation of the "Pinch Hitter" program. 

I've set up several "PH" events for the flying companions of pilots in other organizations.  The results were impressive, and suggest an organized approach to getting MS and MO through a similar program would be worthwhile.

[srosenberg]

Catching up with several points made here.

I am aware of the ACET Program, and by aware it means that I have heard about it. What I had heard is that it was not widespread. I will continue to investigate.

Pinch hitter is a term that I would not use.  My belief is that anyone who sits right seat should be under the impression that they should train themselves to save their own lives (and thereby the lives of those in the aircraft) should something unfortunate happen to the pilot. I work with my pilots to learn what they know. This may seem contrary to NHQ policy on flight training, and I really don't care. NHQ and the competing Flight Schools are not in the aircraft with me.  I come from the safety upbringing of the maintenance side of Naval Aviation where what you don't know can get you killed and kill others.  I am not going to let poor CAP policy that is directed by competing Flight Schools dictate the course of events during an air emergency that I am involved in. Instead.. I am going to learn to fly.. with or without the help or guidance of CAP policy. That is just me though.  How many Mission Observers do we have?

The point that I was making was that any flight training that I do outside of a CAP aircraft, CAP sanction, or CAP instruction, does benefit CAP as training goes and therefore one could argue the relevance of how CAP FSU's could be worn.  The CAP policy only says that CAP itself cannot provide the training.  There was someone who chimed in that I was the only one getting the benefit.  I disagree.  CAP benefits through increased competency (that they do not presently provide a training regimen for within their existing policy) that leads to future flight proficiency of a CAP Mission Pilot.  This benefits the future of supporting the CAP ES Mission and increased Squadron and therefore Wing mission capability. Presently, we expect our new pilots to show up with skills in hand and make little effort toward those who cannot do that.  If we are not supporting our future, what the heck are we doing?  I currently volunteer in an CAP ES aircrew role on a very long road to Mission Pilot... how does my outside flight training not benefit CAP? Why should I buy a second flight suit for something that clearly does benefit CAP, especially when the wearing of uniforms in the context of outside training is not clearly documented within CAP policy?  The best advice I received here was to have the use of the uniform sanctioned by my Squadron Commander during my training.

Yes, I find this training policy odd in an organization that has a fleet of aircraft, safety programs, aircrew qualification programs, hazard reporting, etc, etc.  The pilot training prohibition policy is poor policy that protects the flight schools and leaves CAP vulnerable to losing a three member aircrew when the flight may had otherwise been saved by a Mission Observer supported by ongoing training.  Nobody wants to talk about this, but I will leave you talking about it in terms of risk - probability and impact.  The probability of pilot incapacitation is likely low, and at best medium.  However, in the video we saw a "known unknown", a bird strike, could easily make it a reality. Then there are medical problems such as a pilot's new misunderstood sensitivity to hypoxia at a lower altitude, or stroke, heart problems, etc. As a persistent threat to all pilots, how often do these kinds of things happen?  The impact is obviously high - partial to total crew loss.  This risk has always been mitigated by training.  Presently, there is not as much of a requirement that a Mission Observer successfully complete Microsoft Flight Simulator landings to have a fair shot at lining up for a runway approach.  There is also no requirement that the Mission Scanner complete first aid training - the only person in a position to help the pilot if this risk were to be recognized as an issue.

The use of the flight suit is not to impress...  it is safety gear.  As a new pilot soon to fly solo... a simple stall on landing can tumble a plane and set it on fire. I don't intend on doing this, and I hope to be a competent enough pilot so that this does not happen.  However, if this should happen, or if the aircraft were to somehow spontaneously combust, there is a significant difference between wearing Nomex and the usual clothing I see GA pilots wearing. I kind of cringe at those pilots who fly in the CAP Polo Uniform - again, part of a Naval Aviation safety upbringing. Some might forget that the wings above us in the cockpit are also fuel tanks.  The attitude that Nomex is not required in GA is likely coming from a competent pilot with many hours of flying. (my guess)  No disrespect to his opinion, this isn't the same thing as my situation of being a new pilot. This said, if I were involved in an aircraft fire, I would prefer that I don't have hot melted plastic dripping into my burns from my choice of clothing that day.  The difference is a burn that can heal, and a burn that permanently disfigures.  The nay-sayers here can have their attitude about safety and uniform wear.... I have my own.  In these terms, a couple of patches and rank insignia become a relatively unimportant point in the grand scheme of things, however a reasonable point to be made, and asked in terms of what the Uniform Manual actually says.

I have disagreement that if something is not mentioned in the Uniform Manual or the regs that it is automatic that one can't do it. NHQ policy exists only as far as it is documented.  If it is documented that you can or can't do something, you can or can't as documented.  If it is not documented, it means that NHQ has likely not placed enough thought into the matter to document it, and therefore, the question should be asked. We should not assume that the regs hold all the knowledge, or all relevant discussion points have been considered, or the regs contain safe and sound policy written in stone by smart people which should be followed accordingly. While working in a squadron maintenance QA position in the Navy, it was often my job to improve existing NAVAIR policy by offering feedback and recommendations based on the ground truth.  CAP policy should not be any different in this capacity, and positive change begins with asking good questions, and scrutinizing the applicability of existing policy.

Throughout this, the solution on the original topic that I gleaned was to raise the question with my Squadron Commander so that my concern may be escalated, discussed, and weighed - something I will do after we get back from the holiday.

Thank you all for your input - and have a happy and safe New Year!

[jeders]

I have disagreement that if something is not mentioned in the Uniform Manual or the regs that it is automatic that one can't do it.

Disagree all you want, it doesn't change the fact that there is a great big disclaimer in 39-1 that specifically says anything not authorized by that manual is prohibited. So that means that your original question of wearing a CAP uniform during a non-CAP event is specifically prohibited; end of story.

The use of the flight suit is not to impress...  it is safety gear.

I have to throw the BS flag on this one UNLESS you also plan on wearing a helmet whenever you fly. If you go down on final, the odds are that blunt force trauma to the head will kill or incapacitate you long before the fire ever becomes an issue. The only time that the Nomex really becomes a safety item is if there is a fire in the cockpit during flight. So, if you're going to claim the safety card, then I expect to see you wearing a helmet.

The point that I was making was that any flight training that I do outside of a CAP aircraft, CAP sanction, or CAP instruction, does benefit CAP

Not necessarily. If you get that outside training and then punch out of CAP before you get a chance to use it, CAP received absolutely no benefit. I know it's nice to think that the other training we all do away from CAP is of benefit to CAP (and there fore we should get some additional benefit), the simple fact of the matter is that the only person who benefits is the individual receiving the training.

As for the training policy, a number of us find it odd, but it is what it is; and so you have two options. Option one is salute and execute; if you are former military, I'm sure you're familiar with this option. The second is to write up a proposal for the Senior Advisory Group and the Board of Governors describing exactly why it is important for CAP to allow pilot training to senior members from initial flight training through higher level certificates. Be sure to include who is going to pay for what, how it's not going to hurt local flight schools and FBOs (whom many CAP units rely on for low cost or free hangar space), and how you're going to come up with instructor pilots willing to provide hundreds of hours of free instruction. However, at no time is wearing a CAP uniform during non-CAP training an option.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I am going to learn to fly.. with or without the help or guidance of CAP policy.

Good on you. Has nothing to do with CAP.

The point that I was making was that any flight training that I do outside of a CAP aircraft, CAP sanction, or CAP instruction, does benefit CAP as training goes and therefore one could argue the relevance of how CAP FSU's could be worn.

No, it benefits you, not CAP. We have specific rules on wear for a reason. Instances like this are probably part of that reason.

The CAP policy only says that CAP itself cannot provide the training.  There was someone who chimed in that I was the only one getting the benefit.  I disagree.  CAP benefits through increased competency (that they do not presently provide a training regimen for within their existing policy) that leads to future flight proficiency of a CAP Mission Pilot.

Are you the observer or the pilot? Two different things. Pilots can do proficiency flights in CAP aircraft. Observers, are not pilots.

This benefits the future of supporting the CAP ES Mission and increased Squadron and therefore Wing mission capability. Presently, we expect our new pilots to show up with skills in hand and make little effort toward those who cannot do that.

How long have you been in CAP? I've never had interest in Aircrew, but I can call BS on this all day long. I've yet to see someone show up at a CAP meeting, and be a Mission Pilot the following month.

If we are not supporting our future, what the heck are we doing?  I currently volunteer in an CAP ES aircrew role on a very long road to Mission Pilot... how does my outside flight training not benefit CAP?

Because CAP has certain requirements to be a pilot. Once you have those, welcome to the table. Until then, you're no more an asset in the cockpit (in terms of flying the plane) than the scanner. There's plenty of people who have a PPL and are not a good fit for CAP and its way of doing things.

Why should I buy a second flight suit for something that clearly does benefit CAP, especially when the wearing of uniforms in the context of outside training is not clearly documented within CAP policy?

Uniform wear is quite clearly documented. Check out 39-1, Pages 9-10.

The best advice I received here was to have the use of the uniform sanctioned by my Squadron Commander during my training.

Not really. That policy is for special events, not flight training. Generally, if it has something to do with CAP, or can be of benefit to represent CAP (and no, you getting flight training is not something to do with CAP), but is not an organized CAP event, you check with the CC and go from there. Can you image the headlines if something bad happens during your training? How does that bring credit upon CAP?

Yes, I find this training policy odd in an organization that has a fleet of aircraft, safety programs, aircrew qualification programs, hazard reporting, etc, etc.

Goes to show that you don't understand the relationship CAP has with FBOs. We get a lot of goodwill from those greedy flight training people. If we were stepping on their toes with taking business from them, they'd be lobbying airport managers to get rid of CAP. You also don't seem to factor in corporate insurance rates on our fleet. Chances of a new guy denting the plane (or worse) are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than someone who has XXXX flight hours, which is probably why we have certain thresholds to being O-Flight Pilots, Transport Pilots, Mission Pilots, etc. 

The pilot training prohibition policy is poor policy that protects the flight schools and leaves CAP vulnerable to losing a three member aircrew when the flight may had otherwise been saved by a Mission Observer supported by ongoing training.  Nobody wants to talk about this, but I will leave you talking about it in terms of risk - probability and impact.

If you think your pilot is one heartbeat away from a nosedive, that's when you call a safety stop, and refuse to fly with them.

The probability of pilot incapacitation is likely low, and at best medium.

Medium? Try extremely low.

However, in the video we saw a "known unknown", a bird strike, could easily make it a reality. Then there are medical problems such as a pilot's new misunderstood sensitivity to hypoxia at a lower altitude, or stroke, heart problems, etc. As a persistent threat to all pilots, how often do these kinds of things happen?  The impact is obviously high - partial to total crew loss.  This risk has always been mitigated by training.  Presently, there is not as much of a requirement that a Mission Observer successfully complete Microsoft Flight Simulator landings to have a fair shot at lining up for a runway approach.  There is also no requirement that the Mission Scanner complete first aid training - the only person in a position to help the pilot if this risk were to be recognized as an issue.

How in the world will first aid in a cramped plane help a pilot in trouble? If the pilot is feeling sick, he needs to put the bird down asap. You're so off into the deep end of "what if" that at this point, why not just ground the fleet, and keep it on the ground. For that matter, lets lock up all the corporate vans, because if the driver with 15 cadets has a stroke, there's not even a second set of pedals for the front passanger!

The use of the flight suit is not to impress...  it is safety gear.  As a new pilot soon to fly solo... a simple stall on landing can tumble a plane and set it on fire. I don't intend on doing this, and I hope to be a competent enough pilot so that this does not happen.  However, if this should happen, or if the aircraft were to somehow spontaneously combust, there is a significant difference between wearing Nomex and the usual clothing I see GA pilots wearing.

Great, we'll be able to ID your body based on your torso birth marks! The Nomex argument is always silly in GA terms, because people will wear boots or shoes that don't cut it, have no gloves, and no helmet. We'll just have a midriff open casket.

The attitude that Nomex is not required in GA is likely coming from a competent pilot with many hours of flying. (my guess)

Yea, I flew a few weeks back internationally, and the pilot and co-pilot were decked out in Nomex, and had parachutes to boot.

This said, if I were involved in an aircraft fire, I would prefer that I don't have hot melted plastic dripping into my burns from my choice of clothing that day.  The difference is a burn that can heal, and a burn that permanently disfigures.  The nay-sayers here can have their attitude about safety and uniform wear.... I have my own.

Which brand of gloves and Helmet will you be using?

  In these terms, a couple of patches and rank insignia become a relatively unimportant point in the grand scheme of things, however a reasonable point to be made, and asked in terms of what the Uniform Manual actually says.

Perhaps....actually reading the uniform manual?

94 CAPM 39-1 26 JUNE 2014
CHAPTER 8 – FLIGHT DUTY UNIFORMS
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are authorized functional
clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties. Flight duty includes preparation,
preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The
FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical
rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and
Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot,
observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission
qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on
days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and
CFDU wear is appropriate.

If it's that important, get a GA Flight bag, and get one for CAP.

I have disagreement that if something is not mentioned in the Uniform Manual or the regs that it is automatic that one can't do it.

That's exactly what the uniform manual says. If it's not in there, it's not allowed.

1.1.2. Oversight.
1.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication
is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as
prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication 6 CAPM 39-1 26 JUNE 2014
are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive
grooming and appearance standards.

[Eclipse]

Flight training doesn't necessarily benefit CAP - what if you're the worst pilot in your state?
Seeing the "Zippered Sun God" emerge from his chariot after doing something silly (or dangerous)
won't enhance CAP's image at the FBO, and in fact may make it worse, all because you "knew better"
about the great service you were doing for CAP by learning to fly in their uniform.

Next question - is your flight instructor wearing a flight suit?  How about the other students around you?
If they are, you might want to review crash statistics with them and find out why they feel the need,
since as Jeders mentioned, impact trauma is a much higher risk then fire.  If they aren't, take the hint,
as probably 75-90% of flight instructors dress in comfortable civilian clothes with ground weather being
more of a factor in their dress then post-crash fire.

As to the assertions about MO's needing to assist pilots, or the Scanner performing first aid from the back
seat, well, good luck with that.   Just do >your< aircrew job, and don't worry about it.  CAP doesn't,
GA doesn't, nor do crash statistics.

Your squadron commander can't authorize it because he doesn't have the authority to authorize the
training as a CAP activity, only NHQ can do that.

And "supporting the future"? What the heck does that have to do with your wearing a uniform
in a prohibited fashion?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Flight training doesn't necessarily benefit CAP - what if you're the worst pilot in your state?
Seeing the "Zippered Sun God" emerge from his chariot after doing something silly (or dangerous)
won't enhance CAP's image at the FBO, and in fact may make it worse, all because you "knew better"
about the great service you were doing for CAP by learning to fly in their uniform.

I'm just going to quote Eclipse's signature:

Effort" does not equal "results".

[srosenberg]

"Good on you. Has nothing to do with CAP."

Actually... it has everything to do with CAP when this is where I intend to the the sole area of my flying.  I think that the squadron commander can sense one's contribution to the squadron and the mission, and assess this.  It is not like I am going to take my Cessna skills and go fly for United. 

".... Instances like this are probably part of that reason."

What instances like this have happened in the past and what were the results? What possible negative outcome comes from outside training like this that disrespects the uniform.  I am still searching for this.

"Are you the Observer or the Pilot..."

I am an Observer training to be a Pilot. There is no connectivity between the two inside of CAP. It's the addage "You can't get there from here."  It can help.  I am not seeking to do proficiency in a CAP aircraft.  In fact, I never brought that topic up.  My point here was that when we are not training the Mission Observer to support an in flight emergency, we may suffer crew loss if the pilot is ever incapacitated." You can disagree with me until the time that it actually happens. I have already filed the Hazard Report on this some time ago.

"How long have you been in CAP".

I have been in CAP for nearly 2 years.  After my first year, I had accomplished my Level 1, 2nd Lt., Yeager Award, Mission Scanner, Mission Observer, Mission Scanner/Observer Evaluator, understanding of G1000 MFD buttonology, ICUT Evaluator, Airborne Photographer, and Operations Officer Technician Specialty rating among other quals including SLS and CLC.  That was year 1.  I have my online FEMA courses completed, and took ISC-300 at MER SAR College (one more to go) with the intentions of becoming a Planning Section Chief when I am too old to fly. I have one minor detail to wrap up on my Level III even though I won't be needing it for a while. Over the past year I picked up Technician Specialty ratings for Communications and Information Technology. I am working on a fourth rating for Professional Development that my squadron threw at me because they needed a PDO, and I was not a bad choice based on all the training I did in such a short time.  I passed the FAA Knowledge Exam for Private Pilot Aircraft with an 87% without going to ground school by showing up at my local FSDO. I brought my curriculum (a collection of second hand books that I bought on E-bay and read) and answered their pop quiz to get the piece of paper I needed to sit for the exam. If there is going to be a case where someone is going to be a Mission Pilot the following month, it will be me.  I don't expect that though.  It is a hard road ahead, and I expect to be a Mission Pilot in the time that I can make it happen. Experience happens in the amount of time you want it to. Please don't fault the dedicated.

"There are plenty of people who have a PPL that are not a good fit for CAP and our way of doing things."

Could not agree more.  Reminds me of one I met up here in the DC area.  He was asking about the restricted space in Thurmont, MD.  He wanted to see if there was a way he could get clearance to fly it, and asked me because I was in my flight suit (having returned from a SAREX on the Eastern Shore). I was taken aback... "Camp David you mean?" It took him a couple go rounds to help him understand that he really could not fly there without significant consequences. There are people who buy themselves into flying, and those that do more to earn it. My point was more oriented toward CAP offering opportunities to help those that want to earn it, to earn it, and in doing so we are trained to be compatible with CAP culture. This can include the help and participation of FBO's.  Another case in point.  As I am learning to be a pilot myself, I pay my dues by getting to the aircraft wayyyy early to support pre-flight.  Granted, the pilot is responsible for the preflight, and does one himself.  However, by the time the pilot arrives, most of the work is done where the red flags and window screens are removed, I have the HOBBS and TACH, oil qty, tire pressures, lights checked, and tanks dipped and strained.  There was a time that there was significant frost on the aircraft and without me there to turn the aircraft into the sun, it would had delayed us.  Anyway, I learned this in CAP, from the pilots, by the checklist.  Conversely, when I did my first flight hour with a CFI, I found the preflight to not be as extensive as the one we do in CAP. That, with a sense of lapsed standards and the wrong attitude can be a dangerous thing.  I get your meaning. 

The mantra I developed before I even considered a serious attempt at flight training and even prior to joining CAP was to "Fly safely, with meaning." Translated, it means, "Don't kill yourself over a $200 cheeseburger!"  I find that I can easily accomplish my mantra in CAP.  The issue I come across is that I am consistently running against a river current of policy meant to deter the bad egg factor. Last year I experienced this when my Ops Officer recommended me to be an FRO based on my former Navy Squadron QA experience, and the Wing told me that I was not old enough (in CAP years) to have the right attitude to perform the job. Coming from a QA position in an operationally active E-2C squadron with a year and a half of at sea time aboard an aircraft carrier... I disagreed. 

"Relationships between CAP and FBO's"

Here is an excellent point... thank you.  Now I do. 

"Medium? Try extremely low. "

Disagree.  Professionally, I am a PMI Certified Project Management Professional with a significant understanding of Risk Management.  As far as probability is concerned with a multitude of known unknowns... (risks that we know about that in a large sampling happen all of the time, we just don't know when they are going to happen and to who), one mitigates a risk in some way if the risk impact is exceptionally high. Crew loss is an exceptionally high impact. Training has always been a low cost mitigation.

"Check out 39-1"

Actually, I did.  It does not describe the wearing of any uniform relative to training that is held outside of CAP.  So if I independently go to a non-sanctioned Water Survival training held by the Coast Guard so I can get a qual for WS, I can't wear my uniform?  I am not seeking to be argumentative, just seeking to express my point.  Just to show I have actually read the regulation, apparently though later on in 39-1, it does say that I can wear my FSU's into a Burger King or some other similar establishment to get a bite to eat while at a CAP activity, as long as they don't primarily serve alcohol. I should also not wear it to any of those Communist Party Meetings .

"How in the world will first aid in a cramped plane help a pilot in trouble?"

- With great difficulty, however should the pilot have an immediate issue, one where the MO must take control of the aircraft, the only person in a spot to provide any kind of help to the pilot is the Mission Scanner... much like a dentist might from behind the seat.  Even so, since MO's must be MS's first, First Aid is not a bad thing, not even if the Pilot or MO lands the plane hard in the middle of nowhere.  To your point, it would be highly desirable for the pilot to land the aircraft if the pilot could do that.  In the case of my previous video of the bird strike - what if the windshield cut into the pilot and knocked him out. It is a freak thing, I recognize, but as they say "defecation occurs."  The only person there to help stop any bleeding from such an event would be the Mission Scanner. Let's put you in the Mission Scanner seat... what would you do?  Would you let your friend bleed out because the cockpit is cramped and uncomfortable?  As improbable as this scenario is, bird strikes happen all of the time, and this does not include other kinds of emergencies.  I saw a previous comment about that I am "what if'ing this.. and what'ifing that...."  Risk Management is entirely about what if's.  So is Hazard Reporting.

"If you think your pilot is one heartbeat away from a nosedive, that's when you call a safety stop, and refuse to fly with them. "

Well said, however this was not the point I was making.  My pilots know that should I have an issue with their I'M SAFE that cannot be resolved between us, I will call the FRO. I have told them, and told them why. All of them are friends and I would not let them take off much like I would not let them drive drunk. It would be more than a refusal to fly, but an escalation to the FRO that would not be out of anger, but be out of love. Astronaut Mike Mullane has an excellent presentation on "Normalization of Deviance" http://www.publicsafetyedu.com/PSEN_NOD.html in this area that I highly recommend. The FRO can sort it out, and I know that the rules for the FRO say that if they have a negative gut feeling for a flight, they should not release it. To your comment, I was talking about conditions that were not known prior to takeoff. 

"The Nomex argument is always silly in GA terms, because people will wear boots or shoes that don't cut it, have no gloves, and no helmet. We'll just have a midriff open casket. "

I have also heard the one about the guy dressed in Nomex that got burned while trying to pull his pilot out of the burning aircraft.  I am not saying that it is like wearing indestructable black box material.  I am saying that it is a preference in clothing over types of clothing that melt.  It is possible to crash without head injury, and for the aircraft to catch fire. Should this be the case, I prefer to be in Nomex.

"Perhaps....actually reading the uniform manual?"

Yup, read it.  Where does it mention outside training?  Again, it should be up to the squadron commander to determine if the outside training is relevant to CAP or not based on the circumstances or performance of the person undergoing the training or intended use of the training.  You might be able to call me on the "What happens if I were to leave CAP after training" factor.  The answer would come back that I don't get to fly anymore for lack of access to a low cost aircraft.  I would not have as much fun doing it either.  However while I am still here, it would be nice to proudly wear the uniform during my training and reflect well upon our organization.  Not a lot to ask for, and does not cost CAP anything, even if I were to leave with my skills.

[srosenberg]

Ok.. On Zippered Sun God... I am going to have to just buy a second flight suit on that one.  It's not worth the trouble, and may even cause me an aneurism to even discuss it.


My fingers are tired.

[Eclipse]

"Check out 39-1"

Actually, I did.  It does not describe the wearing of any uniform relative to training that is held outside of CAP.

And there's your answer.

Again, it should be up to the squadron commander to determine if the outside training is relevant to CAP or not based on the circumstances or performance of the person undergoing the training or intended use of the training.

It is, within his AOR and level of authority.

First Aid Class?  Sure.

ICS Training?  No problem.

Flight training?  Nope.  Why, because initial flight training of members requires NHQ approval, therefore it is
not an activity he can, under any circumstances, authorize, and therefore he cannot authorize you to
wear a CAP uniform while participating in that activity.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Still can't past the point of wanting to be IN uniform, doing flight training...

[srosenberg]

Well I have my reasons.   It looks like a second flight suit is for me if for no other reason to end this mess.

I believe that some valid points were discussed, and I thank you again for your contributions.

[lordmonar]

Well I have my reasons.   It looks like a second flight suit is for me if for no other reason to end this mess.

I believe that some valid points were discussed, and I thank you again for your contributions.

That was the answer about 100 posts ago.

[Private Investigator]

I have disagreement that if something is not mentioned in the Uniform Manual or the regs that it is automatic that one can't do it.

Disagree all you want, it doesn't change the fact that there is a great big disclaimer in 39-1 that specifically says anything not authorized by that manual is prohibited. So that means that your original question of wearing a CAP uniform during a non-CAP event is specifically prohibited; end of story.

The use of the flight suit is not to impress...  it is safety gear.

I have to throw the BS flag on this one UNLESS you also plan on wearing a helmet whenever you fly. If you go down on final, the odds are that blunt force trauma to the head will kill or incapacitate you long before the fire ever becomes an issue. The only time that the Nomex really becomes a safety item is if there is a fire in the cockpit during flight. So, if you're going to claim the safety card, then I expect to see you wearing a helmet.

I bring my helmet with me everytime I go to Hooters because it is really expected of Maverick to do so. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

And you keep your helmet on after you return home because in the morning you will crash...?

[Panzerbjorn]

Too much to quote, edit, and filter, so I'm just going to talk.  A lot of excellent points have been made, and I just figured this thread could also benefit from hearing from a pilot who came into CAP before he was one.

First....flight training in boots and Nomex flight suit.  Why on earth would you want to do such a thing to yourself, especially if you plan on doing any of your flight training during the year and in places when outside air temperatures exceed 40 degrees?  You have enough to concentrate and sweat about during your initial flight training without adding a sweat bag.  I guarantee you that your instructor won't be sitting there in a flight suit and combat boots.  Now, I won't debate the safety benefits of wearing Nomex, but I question the logic behind why according to 39-1 the green FDU must be made of Nomex, but the BFDU has the option of being either Nomex or cotton/polyester.  Personally, I'm not eligible to wear the green one, so I go with the more comfortable blue cotton/polyester one when I actually wear a flight suit.  95% of my CAP flying is done in a blue polo and gray slacks.  When it gets chilly, I add the black leather jacket.  If I get called to the airport while I happen to be out and about in civies, or if it's just plain cold out, that's when I turn to the flight suit.

Next, while goodwill towards FBO and flight schools play in to the reasons why Seniors can't get their primary training in CAP aircraft, it's not the primary reason.  If it was, we wouldn't allow cadets to conduct primary flight training in CAP aircraft.  A bigger reason is that CAP gets no benefit out of giving adults primary training in their aircraft if the end result is that Senior leaves as soon as he gets his PPL.  Currently we rent our 182s to members for right around $40/hr dry, which works out to be right around $100/hr wet to fly a new G1000 182T NAVIII. You'll be paying right around $180/hr wet at any given flight school for the same equipment.  It's a huge temptation to budding pilots to go the CAP route to get their primary to same precious moolah.

Next, how CAP supports the development and training of her pilots.  Those training and funded flight hours are directly related to your PIC time.

Up to 100 hours PIC: You're pretty much on your own and rely on your own motivation and pocketbook for flight hours.  You can get your Form 5 while the ink is still wet on your PPL.

100-175 hours PIC: Now you can be a Transport Mission Pilot.  Now you can be funded for various tasks like maintenance flights.  You can fly High Bird missions, and you can fly legitimate transport missions.  CAP once gave me 10 hours of funded PIC time to fly from Chicago to Duluth to Scott AFB to Mattoon, IL back to Chicago to transport someone supporting an Actual.  The opportunities are limited, but they're there.

175-200 hours PIC: you're now in the range of Mission Pilot Trainee.  You are now eligible for SAR training funding in support of development for you to be a Mission Pilot.

200 hours PIC: You've hit that magical 200, and can now take your Form 91.  Now as a Mission Pilot, the doors open and you have all sorts of opportunities available to you including cadet orientation pilot.

300 hours PIC: AFROTC cadet o-flight pilot is available to you.

500 hours PIC: CAP glider tow pilot.

The most aggravating time for a new CAP pilot is that period until you get 100 hours of PIC, then CAP is able to actually help out beyond letting you use the airplane.

Next, I highly disagree with the statement that someone could just come into CAP off the street with 200 hours of PIC and be a Mission Pilot in the next month.  The only reason, in my opinion, I was able to get my MP qualification right when 200 PIC clicked over was because I had already been an Observer for several years and had a firm understanding on what it is we do as well on how to do it.  I also had the benefit of using every one of those 25 hours of training between 175-200 hours PIC devoted exclusively to MP training.    I would agree that you can get it done in 25 hours, but few CAP pilots fly 25 hours a month.

Next, the FRO issue.  I hear what you're saying regarding the FROs and pilots about being friends.  But I don't see the problem with that.  Your job as an FRO is not to second guess the capabilities of the pilot and find ways to stop the flight.  Your job is to ensure that the flight is filed correctly under CAP regulations, has the right symbol, and ensure the crew complies with IMSAFE.  You're then there to monitor the flight until it's back safe down on the ground.  The ORM worksheet gives categories of who can release that flight based on the overall risk.  The higher the risk, the higher the authority needs to release that flight.  The idea of you not liking the pilot and calling the FRO basically demanding that they not release the flight or 'unrelease' the flight is ludicrous because it's completely unnecessary. If you're getting bad voodoo vibes about the flight, you have the complete right and ability to abort the flight as part of the aircrew.  There's no need to talk to the FRO.  You shouldn't even be calling the FRO to get a release unless you're the pilot.  That's the pi,it's responsibility.  In that scenario, if you called me, I would be polite and say "The flight has been released, but it sounds like you're having a problem and aborting.  That's fine, just don't fly then and make sure you indicate in WMIRS when you close out your sortie that you didn't fly the sortie."  It need not go any further than that.  But to assume that because an FRO and pilot are friends that there's a good ole boys complacency attitude there is ignorant, in my opinion.  I know the vast majority of the pilots who call me for a release and friends with all of them.  I have a pretty good idea of the capabilities of those pilots and trust that they are flying within their comfort zones as well as legal capabilities.  Wing FROs are chosen based on their knowledge of 60-1 regulations, maturity, and most of all....need.  If you already have your complement of FROs for the Wing, you don't need to keep adding them.  You can always still release flights as an AOBD without being a designated Wing FRO when you're operating at a Mission/SAREX in an AOBD capacity. 

Anyway, I'll pass the soapbox to someone else for the time being, but this thread just begged for me piping in.

[Eclipse]

Wow - I didn't even catch that nonsense about the FRO until you mentioned it.

Any aircrew member who isn't comfortable can call a "knock it off' or simply disengage themselves from a flight,
but you don't go calling the FRO and trying to get things "unreleased" - that's a pilot-only job.

Doing that, or calling a "knock-it-off", is going to have ramifications for someone, so you better be prepared
with legitimate justification.  A substantiated safety issue about the aircraft, pilot, or mission plan is fair game,
some nonsense about somebody "touching your stuff" or similar is likely to get you disavowed for a while,
whether officially or unofficially.

Probably the #1 thing that gets new CAP members in trouble is "failure to follow procedure", something goes "sideways",
or not to their liking, and instead of addressing it properly, they make up things on the fly, ignore the chain or complaint system,
etc., etc., and their possibly legitimate issue is lost in the noise of not following the rules.

I'm sure your response is going to be "I'll take that risk, out of love...".  Whatever.  Seriously, you're >WAY<
up in your head about this and need to "unoverthink" things a bit. You asked if you could wear a flight suit during non-CAP IPT,
and even the OP itself included "head-off-the-objections" verbiage which indicated you probably already knew the answer.
The answer was / is "no" to which you then responded with manifestos about public image, safety, flying from the right seat, first aid
by the scanner from the back seat (or maybe he's out on the strut doing CPR through the window?), and a host of other unrelated
issues that have nothing to do with what you wear when you're not in CAP.

Relax, take CAP a small piece at a time - use what you learn in IPT to your advantage as an MO, but don't get ahead of yourself,
and don't be all "first year college" when you're talking to people locally about what CAP should or shouldn't be doing.

[srosenberg]

So Eclipse... what you are saying is that an FRO who is promised IM SAFE and releases  a pilot on the phone holds the full picture  more than a friend doing the right thing by being the ground truth who may see that things are not ok? I know to quit the flight. I wont let my friend fly either. How did your priorities get so screwed up to call this a pilot only thing?

You work with your pilots the way you want. Mine already know what I am about, and I have their respect.

[Eclipse]

So Eclipse... what you are saying is that an FRO who is promised IM SAFE and releases  a pilot on the phone holds the full picture  more than a friend doing the right thing by being the ground truth who may see that things are not ok? I know to quit the flight. I wont let my friend fly either. How did your priorities get so screwed up to call this a pilot only thing?

We give our pilots an assumption of integrity when they answer the FRO's questions, verified for most answers about the mission
parameters via what is available in WMIRS.  Crew and aircraft readiness on the ground are left to the PIC with input from the aircrew.

You, as an MO, have the right to disengage at any time you feel unsafe.  You can call "knock it off" at any time in the air and ask to
be RTB'ed, you do >not< however, have the authority to "unrelease" a flight.  You can raise any objections you like, get on the phone
through your chain or the wing SE or DO and indicate the issues, but if a PIC feels his aircraft and crew are safe, and the mission can
continue without you, he can notify the FRO that the crew has changed, and be on his way, leaving you on the ramp.

Now, any FRO with a lick of sense, who gets a call from another member of the crew who is trying to "unrelease" the flight
is going to immediately call the PIC back and find our WTH is going on out there, and if he determines there's an issue, he may well
revoke the release verbally and update WMIRS (and then get on the horn with the DO, Wing CC, or unit CC and start recommending
flight suspension until the situation is sorted out).

But absent a verifiable issue, or with assurances that the situation is either "manageable" or "non-exisitant", that aircraft may well
leave without you.

You work with your pilots the way you want. Mine already know what I am about, and I have their respect.

"Your" pilots?  So you have never had occasion to fly with someone you have just met in the briefing room and don't know from Adam?
You might consider that possibility if you intend to participate outside the scope of your home unit. The threshold of ORM for a given
mission may be above your comfort level but subjectively within the realm of safety.

CAP has standardized processes, authority, chains of command and assumptions of integrity for this very reason, because
you may well >not< know the other guys in the plane, nor will they have any awareness of your history or abilities.
Walk too far outside your lane and you may find yourself with extra free time on the weekend.

[Panzerbjorn]

So Eclipse... what you are saying is that an FRO who is promised IM SAFE and releases  a pilot on the phone holds the full picture  more than a friend doing the right thing by being the ground truth who may see that things are not ok? I know to quit the flight. I wont let my friend fly either. How did your priorities get so screwed up to call this a pilot only thing?

You work with your pilots the way you want. Mine already know what I am about, and I have their respect.

What we're saying is that the FRO only needs, and really only WANTS, to deal with the pilot.  In order to grant a flight release, we must speak with the PIC.  If you call me as the MO, I can't grant you a flight release.  That's in FRO training and part of the test.  If you call me as the MO and start bawling me out for granting a flight release and how I need to reverse it, my first question is going to be why was I called for a flight release in the first place when you clearly are having some major crew issues on the ground.

What we both also said is that you sitting in that right seat have every right and ability to abort a sortie at ANYTIME.  If you say you're aborting this sortie, why do you need the 'blessing' of the FRO?  The FRO is there to CYA and as an insurance policy to send out search teams if you go down somewhere.  They're not dispatchers.  Think of it this way...you've been talking about primary flight training.  Now you're an FRO.  Who are you to decide my capabilities as a pilot?  Are you going to tell an Instrument rated pilot that he can't go fly just because the ceilings are lower than what you feel comfortable flying in?

By the way....Because the FRO doesn't have nearly the full picture that the pilot does, that's WHY the FRO is not there to second guess the pilot and deny a flight release because of what THEY think is going on.  They can advise, caution, and strongly caution of anything they THINK is going on, but the final go or no-go call belongs to the PIC.

For someone who couldn't figure out that you shouldn't be wearing a CAP uniform flying in a non-CAP plane under non-CAP circumstances, perhaps you should try listening to much more experienced CAP members such as Eclipse and myself instead of telling us our priorities are screwed up and that we should do things our way, and you'll just do things your way.  I promise you that contributed to a loss of some respect from THIS Mission Pilot.

[Storm Chaser]

Now, I won't debate the safety benefits of wearing Nomex, but I question the logic behind why according to 39-1 the green FDU must be made of Nomex, but the BFDU has the option of being either Nomex or cotton/polyester.

That's easy to answer. The green Nomex flight suit is not a CAP corporate uniform, but an Air Force-style uniform. As such, the Air Force has control over it. In the 12+ years I've been flying with the Air Force, I've yet to be issued a non-Nomex flight suit. If you don't want to wear Nomex, there are other options... in blue.

[Panzerbjorn]

Now, I won't debate the safety benefits of wearing Nomex, but I question the logic behind why according to 39-1 the green FDU must be made of Nomex, but the BFDU has the option of being either Nomex or cotton/polyester.

That's easy to answer. The green Nomex flight suit is not a CAP corporate uniform, but an Air Force-style uniform. As such, the Air Force has control over it. In the 12+ years I've been flying with the Air Force, I've yet to be issued a non-Nomex flight suit. If you don't want to wear Nomex, there are other options... in blue.

I agree.  My point was actually more trying to say that if the need was felt for that extra margin of safety, then it would be an across the board requirement to wear Nomex instead of giving you other options like the cotton blue one or the polo/slacks flying uniform.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree as well. Safety is not the main reason for CAP to have the AF-style FDU. If it was, there wouldn't be other options as you point out.

[lordmonar]

I agree as well. Safety is not the main reason for CAP to have the AF-style FDU. If it was, there wouldn't be other options as you point out.

Safety is not the main reason the USAF has the FDU either.  .  Sorry could not pass up the opportunity to air crew bash. 

[Storm Chaser]

I agree as well. Safety is not the main reason for CAP to have the AF-style FDU. If it was, there wouldn't be other options as you point out.

Safety is not the main reason the USAF has the FDU either.  .  Sorry could not pass up the opportunity to air crew bash. 

Actually, it was one of the reasons it was developed. It was designed to meet the needs of fighter pilots and other aircrew members. Now, it's also become a distinctive uniform for rated officers, career enlisted aviators and other personnel performing flight duties. This "distinctive" uniform has been extended to other career fields, including space operations.

[srosenberg]

I do understand all that Eclipse. I know that I don't have the authority. I do have the courage and ability to do the right thing by finding those who have it, specifically the FRO, followed by the cc. Safety is a team effort. I support my pilots, they know it. They want to fly with me because I do have a background in aviation safety and maintenance and will work with them to carry the load. They all tell me that they would never give me a reason to take such a nuclear option. It is understood.  My previous point was that based on knowing the differences between right and wrong, and how standards of safety can be deviated from through rationalization, justification, and then normalized, I will do all that I can to prevent them from flying under these circumstances.

Keep in mind that I previously stated that I was recommended by one of these same pilots to be an FRO because of my history, experience, and attitude toward safety.

I know the norms of how my pilots fly. If something is off, I am going to bring it up. It is unlikely that it would get this far. However, if there is a pilot showing stress because he just got over the flu, at the same time his wife is leaving him and he fibs to the FRO because he is under the pressure of needing to make some touch and go's to be current... we will have words.
How exactly does a FRO verify that?

I think that I am about done with this thread. It has grown far beyond its original intent.

[srosenberg]

On the Your pilots comment... I have had one instance where I have flown with someone I didn't know. I gave him all the support that I would give any other PIC. I got to know him and trust him as he did me and now he is one of my pilots. I say my pilot because of that trust, or the attitude I have of supporting my pilot.

[Eclipse]

I know the norms of how my pilots fly. If something is off, I am going to bring it up. It is unlikely that it would get this far. However, if there is a pilot showing stress because he just got over the flu, at the same time his wife is leaving him and he fibs to the FRO because he is under the pressure of needing to make some touch and go's to be current... we will have words.
How exactly does a FRO verify that?

In the way that NHQ has indicated he should - by running the lists and judging the responses.  That's the process.
A process that is far more rigorous then the average GA pilot endures to go fly his own plane, or even your
CFI when he is teaching you. 

How you would know that a pilot is recently ill and having emotional stress is beyond me, unless he's so far gone
he can't light his cigarette to look into the fuel filler.

You do realize that a lot of flights in CAP occur with only one person onboard, right?

You can press the extreme and edge cases all you like, it doesn't change the conversation or the process.
That's how these conversations go - everybody is the "savior of the extreme", while completely missing the
point and flow of how things actually work in CAP day-to-day.

Pilots don't eat the bad fish and need the scanner to land the plane, they don't show up drunk and get in fights
with their crews about safety, and they don't take off in crosswinds that require a boat anchor to stay on the runway
at the objections of their uber-qualified crew.

They need a second set of eyes for times when they are in overload, and a crew who are focused on their jobs,
so that they can fly the plane.  As a non-pilot MO I don't think twice about flying the airplane, and I don't expect the
pilot to be worried about the logs, the radio, or the photos.

That's how it's supposed to work.

[srosenberg]

Lots of flights do fly with one person. Not denying that.

I would know if there are issues afoot by knowing the norms of my pilots and by knowing my pilots. Keeping my eyes open for anything unusual. Looking for the source.

Not seeking to change process. Do not agree that it is a pilot only task either and MO's should know their place.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Not seeking to change process. Do not agree that it is a pilot only task either and MO's should know their place.

That's nice. That attitude will serve you well in CAP.

[Panzerbjorn]

Not seeking to change process. Do not agree that it is a pilot only task either and MO's should know their place.

Okay.  On your next sortie, YOU call the FRO and get your release.

[srosenberg]

I never said an MO can get a flight release. I said that an MO should do all they can do to ensure that their pilot does not fly if things are not OK or as advertised to the FRO. I would rather do this and suffer a consequence than for my pilot to fly unsafely and potentially suffer harm.

[Panzerbjorn]

Which is what we've been saying all along except that it's not necessary to get the FRO involved at that point.  Absolutely the MO should be involved in the safety of the crew and has the authority to knock it off, also what we've been saying the entire time. 

No one is arguing your point that you as an MO, as mission commander, have a large role to play and plenty of authority to hit the abort button.  We're arguing simply the need you feel to call the FRO and get them involved with that.

A release is PERMISSION to fly the sortie, not a COMMAND to fly the sortie.

[Private Investigator]

And you keep your helmet on after you return home because in the morning you will crash...?

Exactly my friend.