Funded Check Flights

[Plubius]

From VA Wing:

Effective FY09,  1 October 2008, to receive funded flying for a Form 5 or a Form 91 check ride a pilot must have participated during the prior fiscal year in;

At least one SARCAP/SAR/Eval and at least one actual mission either on staff, ground personnel, a pilot/observer/scanner, or,

At least three SARCAP/SAR/Eval either on staff, ground personnel, a pilot/observer/scanner, or,

On three actual missions in either on staff, ground personnel, as a pilot/observer/scanner.

Is this a common requirement in other wings?

It seems participating requires ever more outlay. Throughout much of the state, actual missions are few and far between and at least in the last few years there have not been enough sarex's to meet the requirement.

Such a policy seems shortsighted. I can imagine some pilots packing up when thousands of dollars have been spent training them. What happens when they're needed for a large mission? How much funding is lost when the list of MP's shrinks? Is it any wonder that membership is declining?

[PHall]

Sounds like they're trying to spend their money only on people who actually participate.

Good idea, but their method may be a bit heavy handed.

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't be opposed to this PROVIDED that the Wing usually gets enough active missions that all pilots have a chance to participate in them often enough to qualify for the funded flight.  If only a small percentage of your pilots even have a chance to participate in one of the three categories, then this requirement wouldn't be very fair. 

However, if you're in a place overrun with missions and really want to direct your free flights towards those who do the most, then this would be ok by me. 

[FW]

Wow. I guess the wing is planning many missions for members.  Most wings have at least 1 training SAREX and 1 ungraded SAREVAL each year.  Combine that with CN training and you're "home free".  

There should however, be plenty of funding for all MP's to get Form 5's and 91's taken care of.  I've never heard anyone complain of "not having enough".  
Then again, an "actual mission" can be flying to a meeting, proficiency flying, ferry flights and, O'flights for cadets.  

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of minimum standards.  There are more than enough opportunities to fly for CAP.  And to tell you the truth, I don't remember paying a cent of my own since becoming a TMP a long, long time ago.

[Short Field]

I like it!  We have a fair number of TMPs show up for the funded Fm 5s but after that, all they do is fly CAP airplanes at cheaper rates than they can rent them elsewhere.   They have the hours for MP but no interest in becoming one.

Our Wing's goal is to have one SAREX each month.  Some months get skipped when there is a heavy flying commitment - like Funded Fm 5s and Fm 91.  Lots and lots of changes to fly on missions and SAREXs if they so desired.

[Larry Mangum]

Somewhere in my possesion is a letter from the AFXO at Maxwell that states a wing can only use training funds to pay for Form 5's and Form 91's only if the wing has accomplished ALL of its training objectives as submitted in its Annual Training Plan.

[sparks]

A rational approach would be to limit funded check rides to mission pilots. As noted above not all wings have multiple exercises allowing pilots the opportunity to fill various squares. Requiring participation in one mission a year would be realistic if that requirement was necessary.

[FW]

^Form 5's and 91's should only be reimbursed if the pilot is a rated MP (reevaluations only).  TMP's should not be getting reimbursed because they are not "transporting" the aircraft from point A to B during these "missions".  YMMV

Missions for Form 5's and 91's are usually planned and budgeted as "open missions" for each quarter.  These missions are set up in conjunction with SAREX's, and other training missions.  I don't think this has changed in the last 7-8 years.

[Pylon]

^Form 5's and 91's should only be reimbursed if the pilot is a rated MP (reevaluations only).  TMP's should not be getting reimbursed because they are not "transporting" the aircraft from point A to B during these "missions".  YMMV

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind that.  John Doe, private pilot, is interested in joining Civil Air Patrol.  But first, we'll need $62 from him for dues, he'll need to buy his own uniforms so he can fly, and then we won't let him fly volunteer missions for us until he also pays for our internally-created checkride requirements to get himself qualified as an MP.  Not exactly an encouragement for qualified people to join.

[KyCAP]

TMP and MP funding status has changed in the past 5 years.  There used to be a "Flight Clinic" program.   TMP COULD get funded in that program up until about 4 years ago.   I ran the last one in the US that was allowed to fund the TMP because the DRAFT reg became REG the day after the event and it caused some "confusion" with the timing on the accounting.

TMP fly HOURS and HOURS of Radio Relay as highbird and to say they are any less valuable in the operation to me is absurd. My two cents.

SAR/DR/CD MP


Edit: Combined double-post --MK

[mikeylikey]

Reading the above letter, the pilot in question need only attend 3 CAP training exercises and do something OTHER than flying (OR sit Mo, MS) if they later want to fly "for free".

Honestly, I think it is a good thing to expose the "pilot clubs prospective member" to what actually happens on the ground, in the COMM shack, on a search line, and interact with those they will most likely never see again, as the typical member is "employed" on the ground.   

I do understand many pilots are recruited into CAP with the following speech;

"Ya...join and you will start out as a Captain automatically (after waiting 6 months for the rank to go through), and we can get you in a plane as soon as your card arrives.  No you don't have to deal with Cadets or other non-flyers, and you can show up to weekly meetings as you wish, and when you do you can wear a flight suit.  Heck you can wear your flight suit to anything you want, because you will be a pilot.  Of course you can use the Base BX, as long as you have your flight suit on, and members that joined way before you, but have to wait to promote because they are not pilots will have to salute you.  Welcome aboard, and we need about $62.00, but because you are a pilot we will make sure the Squadron pays for your yearly membership renewals in the future.  Did I hear you have a kid, if so we can fast track him to the SPAATZ, because your a pilot!!!"

So, I can see where some pilots may be upset, actually having to become familiar with CAP's other two missions!

[FW]

^Form 5's and 91's should only be reimbursed if the pilot is a rated MP (reevaluations only).  TMP's should not be getting reimbursed because they are not "transporting" the aircraft from point A to B during these "missions".  YMMV

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind that.  John Doe, private pilot, is interested in joining Civil Air Patrol.  But first, we'll need $62 from him for dues, he'll need to buy his own uniforms so he can fly, and then we won't let him fly volunteer missions for us until he also pays for our internally-created checkride requirements to get himself qualified as an MP.  Not exactly an encouragement for qualified people to join.

I buy my own uniforms and pay dues just like everyone else.  For a pilot, paying for currency and proficiency is just part of "doing business".  For the privilege of "free flying".  I have no problems with going through some extra training.  And, I don't  have a problem with CAP only "paying" for those pilots who contribute on a regular basis.  There should be no shortage of opportunities for pilots to fly for CAP.  Those that do, should be given free Form 5's and 91's those that don't can pay.  We don't have unlimited funds and need to prioritize the expense.  For the newbie, it's a small price of "admission" for a great experience.

[mikeylikey]

^ Colonel, you are so correct!  Pilots should get an understanding of how the whole "SAR process and operation" works.  I wouldn't mind requiring pilots and crew rotate through ground operations positions, just so they can later say "Oh I remember how that works".

There are many pilots and crew who have no idea what happens on the ground.  I think that is a real bad idea.  Everyone should have at least a basic understanding of what goes on during a mission both air and ground.   

[rightstuffpilot]

Honestly, from a standpoint of a very small wing--it would decrease mission availability and resources to implement something like this.  Although it is important that people who recieve funded flying do attend missions, I think this could be implemented without having such drastic requirements.  IE: Attend 1 or 2 practice SAREX's/SAREVALs/Actuals a year.  This is a bit more realistic in a wing that has 5-10 actual and SAREX missions a year.

[Short Field]

Really???  I would rather see more funded flying for people who support the organization by flying and working on SARs, SAREXs, and other missions than using the money to fund the annual Fm 5 ride for people you only see just before it is time for the funded annual Fm 5 ride.  One person who showed up and got a funded Fm 5 ride had not participated in a SAREX, SAR, or even attended a meeting in the last two years.  But he pays his dues.....

[FW]

How the wing budgets its training funds is the business of the individual wing.  However, I think priority for paid 5's and 91's should be given to those who "actively" participate in the program.  The definition of "actively" can vary from wing to wing depending on many variables.  It would be shameful and wrong however, to dole out the "freebies" for pilots who just happen to be "connected".  I would take a dim view of such practices and, if it were my decision, would make a quick change of the situation.