The 200 hour per aircraft goal

[Eclipse]

Are you a pilot - yes or no?

Irrelevant to the conversation, unless you can explain how it is.

[lordmonar]

"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?

[A.Member]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[A.Member]

"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. 

[A.Member]

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...

[SunDog]

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. . .

[Майор Хаткевич]

"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.

[NIN]

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.

[A.Member]

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?

[arajca]

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.

[SunDog]

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?

[A.Member]

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?

[SunDog]

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?

[arajca]

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.

[SunDog]

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.

[arajca]

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.

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.

It got you thinking about it, didn't it?

One FRO wanted me to call back just before engine start, so he could ask again.

One individual, who is also human, going overboard.

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.

[A.Member]

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.

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?

[SunDog]

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?

[JeffDG]

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.