Am I reading 60-1 correctly

[flyguy06]

Am I reading 60-1 correctly:

para 3-3(a)(3) says in order to fly high peerformanc e aircraft the pilot must have 100 hours total time. Ok, cool. para 3-3(a)(4) says that cadets do not have to have 100 hours total time to trtain and solo in a high performance aircraft.

SO, am I reading that a cadet withless than 100 TT can fly a 182 but a Senior memnber with less than 100 TT cannot?

As a CFI I am oppsed to what seems to be getting rid of 172's and making CAP a majority 182 fleet. I dont feel comfoprtable teaching a 16 or 17 year old how to fly a high performance airplane. Its a lot faster and you have to do a lot more things. It would definantly take longer than usual to solo them.

[FW]

You're reading the reg correctly.
CAP will not be purchasing C172's in the near future.
Yes, C182's are faster, heavier and have a few extra items on the checklist.
Yes, it problably will take you longer to solo in a C182.


BTW, it's going to be a long time before the majority of our fleet is composed of C182's.  

[Eclipse]

...and there aren't that many cadets taking primary instruction from CAP, and even fewer who are CAP pilots.

A conversation point yes, anything more?  No.

And for the record, I am very much in favor of the 182's, its nice to be able to actually bring some gear with me >AND< have some fuel for the actual mission.

[SAR-EMT1]

The Johnson Flight Encampment currently going on in IL has two cadet pilots serving as instructors. I believe they are twenty and both are from other states.

In fact one is our own Capt Christie DuCote. (If I misspelled that I apologize)

[SarDragon]

IIRC, Christie Ducote is 21 and no longer a cadet, nor is she a CFI.

[wingnut55]

I soloed in a beach Bonanza at 16, as a cadet, on CAP dime, yes it was a little more interesting but I flew just as well, now if I can get Bosshawk to let me fly his I will have come full circle

Now I forget is it flaps first than, landing gear?

[Eclipse]

I didn't say there weren't >any<, I said there weren't >many<.

CAP's abilities regarding flight instruction are one of its more important benefits for cadets, its just underutilized and shouldn't be the deciding factor in airframe choice.

[Flying Pig]

CAP doesn't maintain its fleet of aircraft to provide High Performance endorsements to cadets.  We maintain them to fly searches.  Flight instruction is just a cherry on the cake.  None of our airframe considerations should be based on what is easiest for cadets to fly.

Also, in most of our CAP courses, the Mountain Flying Course, the DEA over flight course as an example, CAP pilots act as mentors and facilitators, not instructors.  And I would venture to guess only a small percentage of CAP pilots are CFI's. I am not a CFI, but I imagine most don't appreciate the term being bestowed on just anyone. 

[Frenchie]

I suspect that once a few 182s get bent soloing cadets, the days of CAP using them as primary trainers will be gone and once the 172s are gone, so will go the entire program of soloing cadets.

It is entirely possible to use HP aircraft as primary trainers.  The military does it every day.  However the insurance costs are going to be significant.

[Eclipse]

I suspect that once a few 182s get bent soloing cadets, the days of CAP using them as primary trainers will be gone and once the 172s are gone, so will go the entire program of soloing cadets.

It is entirely possible to use HP aircraft as primary trainers.  The military does it every day.  However the insurance costs are going to be significant.

I think those are pretty wild assumptions - I don't know of any CAP 172's or 182's recently bent by cadets getting instruction, nor any data which would indicate that the airframe makes much difference.

Again, the number of cadets receiving primary instruction in CAP planes is so small it approaches a statistical zero.

Regardless, considering the age of many of the aircraft today, its going to be a LONG time before most states have a 182-only fleet.

By that time, there will be a new wave of pilots brought up on, or into the glass cockpits and higher-power aircraft, and the inertia we see today with pilots who are happy/comfortable only in 172's will have transitioned or left CAP.

(I'm not saying they should, so don't take indignation, I'm saying they will as the reality of aging and life situations)

[airdale]

once the 172s are gone, so will go the entire program of soloing cadets

IMHO the G1000 182s are a poor airplane for CAP.  Expensive, equal or poorer load carrying capacity than the 180hp 172s and replete with complexity that is beyond the capability of the occasional pilot.  I am Form 5 in both and for most S&R situations I would much prefer the 172.  The exception would be if there is a lot of weather in the area.  I do like the NEXRAD and Strikefinder on that color tv to the right!

What CAP should do, again IMHO is to develop S&R techniques that are appropriate to the new LSAs like the Cessna 162.  You can buy two or three LSAs for the price of a 182 and you can probably fly all of them for a total cost less than flying the 182 as well.  Outside visibility from the front seat is better, v-speeds and cruise are similar to the 172s, they are easy to fly and train in ...  The list goes on.

Unfortunately, I think the negative macho factor of flying an LSA will preclude CAP from even considering them.

[Flying Pig]

Bring the 162 to Fresno, up in the Sierras in August.  As a Mission Pilot you'd find yourself searching by yourself with a 100 hp engine.

[airdale]

True enough.  But I think an LSA would work wherever a 172 would work.  And there is a lot of flat land where the 182's grunt is unnecessary.  I shouldn't have made the statement quite so broadly.

[Eclipse]

True enough.  But I think an LSA would work wherever a 172 would work.  And there is a lot of flat land where the 182's grunt is unnecessary.  I shouldn't have made the statement quite so broadly.

What good is a two-seater airplane for CAP?

Again, pilots thinking about flying and not mission.

One thing the 172's are great at is o-rides, and we fly a lot of those.  A two-seater means no more 99 rides, no scanners.

Whos going to take the photos of the things you're flying over?

Also, the 162 will be  a G300 glass cockpit so its still "complex" from an instrumentation level.

Not to mention the fact that it's going to be made in China, so if your 3-year old puts it in his mouth, he could get lead poisoning!

[airdale]

I think you & I just have a different view of the world.

What good is a two-seater airplane for CAP?
Again, pilots thinking about flying and not mission.

Like I said: " ... to develop S&R techniques that are appropriate to the new LSAs ..."  More airplanes available, fewer occupants.  Figure out how to make the POD come out the same.

Whos going to take the photos of the things you're flying over?

Well, I think the right-seater might be able to do that.  It is possible to change from the way things have always been done to new ways appropriate to new times.  Not for everyone, though.  I understand that.

Also, the 162 will be  a G300 glass cockpit so its still "complex" from an instrumentation level.

It's no G1000.  But I also guarantee you that the chosen LSA supplier will be delighted to install whatever instrumentation CAP specifies.

Not to mention the fact that it's going to be made in China, so if your 3-year old puts it in his mouth, he could get lead poisoning!

Now there's a real adult-type argument.  Actually most of the LSAs are made in eastern Europe.  AFIK is is only Cessna that is going to China.  But regardless, your xenophobia is irrelevant to a rational decision.  And irrelevant to a rational discussion.

[Flying Pig]

I think you & I just have a different view of the world.

What good is a two-seater airplane for CAP?
Again, pilots thinking about flying and not mission.

Like I said: " ... to develop S&R techniques that are appropriate to the new LSAs ..."  More airplanes available, fewer occupants.

Whos going to take the photos of the things you're flying over?

Well, I think the right-seater might be able to do that.  It is possible to change from the way things have always been done to new ways appropriate to new times.

Also, the 162 will be  a G300 glass cockpit so its still "complex" from an instrumentation level.

I will tell you from experience that it's no G1000.  But I also guarantee you that the chosen LSA supplier will be delighted to install whatever instrumentation CAP specifies.

Not to mention the fact that it's going to be made in China, so if your 3-year old puts it in his mouth, he could get lead poisoning!

[/b]

Now there's a real adult-type argument.  Actually most of the LSAs are made in eastern Europe.  AFIK is is only Cessna that is going to China.  But regardless, your xenophobia is irrelevant to a rational decision.  And irrelevant to a rational discussion.

I think it was actually meant as a joke.  Regardless, the LSA would be very ill-equipped for CAP.  At least here in CA.  With our terrain, our border mission and other CD operations, having the LSA would completely ruin those operations.  Changing the way we fly?  I dont think thats the issue.  If you ask me, we need turbo charged aircraft, not step back to a 100 hp 2 seater.

[Eclipse]

Um, duh (on the joke).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119621169217505989.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (full story requires registration)

"...Textron Inc.'s Cessna Aircraft Co. will become the first U.S. manufacturer to turn over complete production of an airplane to a Chinese partner, a move intended to cut production costs and foster a nascent private-aviation market in China.

Cessna officials said China's state-owned Shenyang Aircraft Corp. will build the new Cessna 162 SkyCatcher at its factory in Shenyang, China. The planned single-engine, two-seat airplane will be the smallest in Cessna's product line. It is designed for training and what is known as the light-sport market, for recreational fliers. ..."

Other related articles say this reduces the production cost by about $70k.

Anyone who has ever taken a photo from the right seat, and I've taken a bunch, knows its near impossible to take pics from the right seat without getting a wing or wheel strut in the photo, not to mention the MO has enough to do.

As to gauges, Cessna discontinued production of standard six-pack steam gauges on 31 Dec 2007 (Piper announced they will follow suit by EOY 08), so it'll be a glass cockpit as the only option. 

[flynd94]

A plane is a plane is a plane.  They have subtle differences.  I don't see the big deal with giving primary instruction to a cadet in a C182.  It might take a little longer to solo but, it aint as hard as you are saying.

BTW- My first solo was in a T-34, at the age of 16.  Trust me folks its real easy:

Shiny side up, dirty side down
push stick down, go down and the opposite if you push up (unless inverted)
push stick to the right, go right and the opposite if you push left
throttle in, go fast, throttle out, to slow

Please don't over complicate things

[BillB]

Eclipse asks What good is a two seat plane for CAP? Historically CAP flew two place aircraft almost since the beginning of the organization. L-4's, L=5's T-34's were all two seat. Only when the straight back 172's came into the fleet were aircraft more than 2 seats.

[Eclipse]

We've got both a lot more and a lot less on our plate today with regards to how / why / where we fly.

[airdale]

Eclipse asks ...

I don't think he is too interested in facts.  For example, had he looked at a picture of the C162 he would have seen that the wing strut and gear are well back of the side windows. The Flight design CT doesn't even have a strut and the gear is even further back.  Good bye photo objection.
http://www.signalaviation.com/sales/lsa_images_pop.htm
http://www.lightsportaircraftnews.com/flight-design-usa.html

Not that I believe the simple glass I have seen in LSAs is a problem, but if Cessna won't provide the gauges that CAP wants, someone else will.  The fact that LSAs are not certificated in the same way as our traditional airplanes has strengths and weaknesses.  But a strength is that it is not a big deal to change the instrumentation.

But those are just nits.  We had a 406Mhz. ELT search this weekend and the satellite coordinates were almost exact.  The crew just flew there and they were right on top of the signal.  How does that affect your need for three people in a 182 (if you're not in mountainous terrain)?  How does the fact that you can probably fly four or even six pairs of eyes for the same price as three affect things?

My point is not that it is a slam dunk, but that it is worth consideration, not knee-jerk rejection by those who choose to be unhampered by facts.  LSAs may not be panacea, but a heads-down march to a 100% 182 fleet has a lot of negatives too.

[flyguy06]

...and there aren't that many cadets taking primary instruction from CAP, and even fewer who are CAP pilots.

A conversation point yes, anything more?  No.

And for the record, I am very much in favor of the 182's, its nice to be able to actually bring some gear with me >AND< have some fuel for the actual mission.

I have to disagree with you on this one my friend. In GAWG, there are several cadets taking primary instruction. I know of one who got his Private Pilots license solly through CAP and is currently working on his instrument rating in CAP.

I guess thats where we differ. Whereas I like ES, my primary goal in CAP is to see more young people flying. Its a great benefit when a young boy or girl can rent an aircraft for $36/hr as opposed to $110 at an FBO. I think we need to increase the flight training for cadets. Why canty we have both 172's and 182's?

We have two senior squadrons in my area that give one flight scholorship a year to a deserving caet in a neighboring squadron. They raise the money themselves and give it to a cadet. thats cool and I wish more units did that.

Yes, i am a strong advocate for cadet flight training in CAP. Heck, I wish we could have a NPA in every Region.

Bring back FLIGHT TRAINING for CADETS

[flyguy06]

CAP doesn't maintain its fleet of aircraft to provide High Performance endorsements to cadets.  We maintain them to fly searches.  Flight instruction is just a cherry on the cake.  None of our airframe considerations should be based on what is easiest for cadets to fly.. 

Ihave to disagree with you my LE brother. Youare going off of the premise that ES and CD are "the" most important missions in CAP. I disagree with that. Cadet Programs is equally as important. If I never did any ES stuff in CAP I would happier than a pig in slop. As I have said before Everyone is not in CAP for ES. Some people could care less about it. If CAP became a totally ES organization, I know I for one would leave it and I have been in it for over 20 years.

[RiverAux]

In my wing we've had maybe 3-6 cadets learn to fly in CAP planes in the last 5-10 years!.  So, we're talking about a fraction of 1% of our cadet membership.  So, I agree that shaping our airplane purchase based the rare occassion when it is used for primary flight instruction makes no sense. 

[Eclipse]

Flyguy - yes, we have >some<, not enough to impact what we purchase plane-wise.

And sorry, like it or not, the reason we have the airplanes is ES - the USAF is not going to spend millions each year to train less than 1% of the cadet population to fly GA aircraft.

ES isn't the only mission for the planes, but its the reason we have them.

[SAR-EMT1]

IIRC, Christie Ducote is 21 and no longer a cadet, nor is she a CFI.

You are correct on both counts. She is currently a SM Captain and is not a CFI. The other cadet I refered to is a cadet from Michigan and to my knowledge is not a CFI either.

Both however are pilots who have flown the 182 and both served as instructors at JFE.