"We have met the enemy and it is Us"

Started by Cliff_Chambliss, June 07, 2012, 04:52:30 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cliff_Chambliss

Sometimes we can be our own worst enemies.  I would ask that all members take a moment and think before acting rashly.  If unsure about something, ask the Chain of Command or the Stan Eval folks, or even ask here.  However, we should be careful airing dirty laundry, complaints, or asking "Is this stupid?" on other aviation forums. 
Last week and into this week there has been a thread on another well known aviation forum asking "Is this Stupid" concerning the photo flight profile for a CAP Form 91.  I don't know if the poster misunderstood or was given wrong information but some of what he did say was at odds with the MART and the Operational Mission Inflight Guide. 
However, he says the SOP of a well known volunteer organization says for a photo mission....  is this stupid?.  The way he explained the situation is indeed stupid and as it would not take a mental giant to connect the dots pointing back to CAP, a number of pilots  and others (potential members) now have yet another impression of the stupid things we are alledged to do.  Hold on for a moment while I take aim at my other foot.

It's hard enough to recruit new members as it is without making it seem as if the organization practices unsafe activities.
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
2d Armored Cavalry Regiment
3d Infantry Division
504th BattleField Surveillance Brigade

ARMY:  Because even the Marines need heros.    
CAVALRY:  If it were easy it would be called infantry.

Eclipse

Agree completely, but likely falling on the deaf ears of those who would do such things.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

#2
And I think it's pretty clear on that other board that the guy is talking about CAP.

He was describing a maneuver for doing a photo ID pass where the pilot flew 500' AGL at 80 kts, 10 degrees of flaps, then banked the airplane 60 degrees to the left so a photographer can take a picture.  I agree, that's completely stupid, against regulations and we shouldn't be doing that. 

An ID pass as described by the aircrew reference text is a higher altitude maneuver, 2500-4000 AGL and used by the photographer as a planning picture, so it ought to be whatever the photographer wants it to be.

As to whether or not to talk about these things outside - The kind of thinking that says "don't air dirty laundry" is the same thinking that led Col Holland to crash a B-52 by doing a steep bank turn at low altitudes on his fin flight 18 years ago.  CAP doesn't need to hide things, we need to air them - sunlight is the best disinfectent.  I would rather see CAP with a black eye than with a hidden problem that doesn't get addressed and results in fatalities.  I'd rather CAP be open about a problem with a flying maneuver so that we can share it as an example to others of what not to do and why.

A true safety culture doesn't hide what is embrassing, it exposes it so that everyone can be embarassed about it and not do it.


Eclipse

#4
Quote from: bflynn on June 07, 2012, 06:51:14 PMA true safety culture doesn't hide what is embrassing, it exposes it so that everyone can be embarassed about it and not do it.

You're making the assumption that the poster had a clue what he was talking about, and/or characterized the circumstance properly.

There's a difference between transparency in operations and spouting nonsense in an attempt to paint an organization in in a negative light.  Random members posting what they "think" happened isn't transparency.

Further, posting the issue in a public forum where the majority of the members will have no idea what CAP SOP's are, won't serve anyone involved, except again to paint the organization in a negative light.  Hopefully some people there pointed out that what was indicated was in no way a standard procedure for CAP, and it likely either a misunderstanding of the poster, or a lapse in judgement of the pilot.

Neither is an indication of any systemic issue in CAP as a whole.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2012, 07:53:29 PM
You're making the assumption that the poster had a clue what he was talking about, and/or characterized the circumstance properly.

As I read the original post and commented on it on that other board, I have first hand experience in whether or not I could judge that he had a clue.

jacksmith60187

He did however ask his questions to the subsection of the forum where one asks questions to flight instructors. Seems like he has a legitimate interest in getting a professional opinion.

lordmonar

Like in all things....we have a responsiblity to question and report any actions we think are illegal, unsafe or agains the regs.

We have a duty to our organisation to keep our dirty laundry in house as much as possible.

The guy on the other board.....may not know the regs....he may just be a back seater still learning how things are supposed to done....saw something fishy and asked his "expert" friends on another board.

We see that all the time here on CT.

As I have stated before.....your CoC is your friend 99% of the time. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

jacksmith60187

"As I have stated before.....your CoC is your friend 99% of the time. "

And that other 1% of the time they fill out form 2B.

lordmonar

Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 07, 2012, 11:17:25 PM
"As I have stated before.....your CoC is your friend 99% of the time. "

And that other 1% of the time they fill out form 2B.
That is true of any system.

The question is.....do you have the moral fortitude to risk the 1% and fight the good fight to help fix it.

Think of all those bad officers we have had to deal with in the last 10 years or so.....how many of them would have been eliminated if someone just stood up and said "No....I'm not playing that game"?

HSNBDN would have been gone when he was just a wing commander......just to name one off the top of my head.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

bflynn

Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2012, 10:38:56 PMWe have a duty to our organisation to keep our dirty laundry in house as much as possible.

I would say that we should not have dirty laundry.

But if we do, get it out in the open by whatever means are necessary.  Trying to hide it in the proper channels just says that you're afraid of the wrong people finding out.  Is your fear of embarassment greater than your dedication to safety?

lordmonar

Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 02:38:19 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2012, 10:38:56 PMWe have a duty to our organisation to keep our dirty laundry in house as much as possible.

I would say that we should not have dirty laundry.

But if we do, get it out in the open by whatever means are necessary.  Trying to hide it in the proper channels just says that you're afraid of the wrong people finding out.  Is your fear of embarassment greater than your dedication to safety?
I disagree.  Keeping things in house is not the same as trying to hide anything.
If you and your wife have a fight.....you don't do it out on your front lawn....you try to work it out in private.

Using proper channels is the only way for our leaders to find out and deal with problems.
The main reason why we have these problems.....and the reason whey airing dirty laundry is such a PITA is because those who can/should be fixing it usually don't know about it until they get a call from their wing commander wondering why Cadet Soandso is calling the National IG over something his flight commander did!

In this case....we got some guy harming CAP's reputation (intentionally or unintentially) on an aviation message board........I wonder if his commander/group commander/wing commander are aware that someone is out hot dogging it outside of regulations and outside of safety rules.

So the message is.....Don't play with CAP those bozos will get you killed.......when we already have channels to deal with it.....and will deal with it (usually) if they are aware of it.

Then we, CAP, can be open and above board about it.  Yes Capt Maveric was out hot dogging.....yes, it was reported.....yes we grounded him and he will remain grounded until such time as he proves to us that he can be trusted to follow all the published regulations and safety standards.

No one likes to be back doored.

Now.....if you report it in channels........and nothing happens......then that's a different story.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

bflynn

Quote from: lordmonar on June 08, 2012, 03:41:33 AMKeeping things in house is not the same as trying to hide anything.

No, they don't mean the same thing.  But, the mind set of keeping it in house has an issue.

If we don't ask about problems outside of CAP, then we do it inside because we want to protect the reputation of the organization.  But following that logic, you wouldn't raise it outside your wing because you don't want to impair your wing...why make others pay for the mistakes of a few.  And similarly why would you raise it outside your squadron, you don't want to embarrass your squadron by airing dirty laundry.

So, using your logic to keep it in house, how is someone supposed to know how hight to raise it?  They can bring to the their chain of command, but that's exactly what people did about Col Holland and nothing happened.  Why?  Because when you have the attitude that problem shouldn't be aired above the approriate level, they stop moving up when an individual either decides it isn't a large enough problem to bring highter OR they doubt the problem - whether the problem has been solved or not.

You can't set any limit on where someone discusses a safety issue.

Are you a member of that other board and did you see the post and responses? 

The setup - given 80 kts speed with 10 degrees of flaps at near gross weight, and a 60 degree bank angle.  The question was - "Considering the bank angle, are we letting ourselves get too close to a stall at low altitude?"

Your language suggests you've already decided what happened here.  The member was not hotdogging it.  They had a legitimate concern about safety and they were asking the opinion of other pilots because they were more concerned about safety than CAP's reputation.

Some of the responses:
"80 knots indicated airspeed, or 80 knots calibrated airspeed? At 60 degrees bank, it makes a significant difference in stall margin"

"This might fall into one of those "if you need to ask...." sort of deals.  The wisdom of that aside, I am curious why you need a 60 degree bank to take a photo of something? Is that just the way the geometry works out? What about a longer lens from higher altitude/less bank?"

"Is there some reason you can't read the POH? Or hear the stall horn? "

"You can take fine photos without having to do maneuvers like a 60 degree bank from a 182. Why can't the photographer move to the co pilots seat and open the window as you fly by.   There is no cause worth taking extreme risks to accomplish when there are other, safer ways to do the same thing"

CAP doesn't get a black eye from this...but more important than that, a CAP scanner/AP now feels justified in challenging his pilot about how the pilot flies and is ready to call "this is stupid".  Would that have happened without getting external validation?  No, I don't think so, people would have said what they said about Col Holland - well, if you're uncomfortable, don't fly with him.

bflynn

And a thought - do we have / do we need to better publicize an anonymous safety channel?  Other than the squadron commander, what other channel does a member who is seeing something unsafe have?

Cliff_Chambliss

There is no way I would even try to make a blanket statement that would apply to every wing.  However, in Alabama we are very blessed with an outstanding wing staff in the Emergency Services and Stan Eval sections.  Alabama Wing goes beyond the NHQ minimum requirements in the initial and annual recurrent training and appointment of CAP Instructor Pilots, Form 5 Check Pilots, and Form 91 Check Pilots.   

Should I as an instructor or check pilot, get a question I am not sure of, I can pose it up to the Wing Staff and know I will get a correct answer in short order.  Should a pilot feel they have been told something not quite right or unsafe, that pilot has the right to challenge the instrutor/check pilot, and/or ask the wing staff directly. 

Again, this is for the Alabama Wing and mileage may differ at other wings.   

However, addressing CAP practices (and follies) real or imagined to groups outside is seldom the answer and makes as much sense as asking the shoe shine boy income tax questions.
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
2d Armored Cavalry Regiment
3d Infantry Division
504th BattleField Surveillance Brigade

ARMY:  Because even the Marines need heros.    
CAVALRY:  If it were easy it would be called infantry.

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
And a thought - do we have / do we need to better publicize an anonymous safety channel?  Other than the squadron commander, what other channel does a member who is seeing something unsafe have?

Publicize an anonymous safety channel?

CAP makes it very very to every member that they have multiple avenues for reporting unsafe situations or people violating regulations.

If this was really a burning question, it could have been posted without the derogatory language, and with no allusion to the organization
involved.  This wasn't a situation where it was characterized as a safety issue that was ignored, and therefore must now be shown the light of day,
this was someone who decide he was going to "tell" everyone a question.

Anyone so unfamiliar with, or distrustful of, the system he's sworn to abide, should question why he's involved at all.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
And a thought - do we have / do we need to better publicize an anonymous safety channel?  Other than the squadron commander, what other channel does a member who is seeing something unsafe have?

Publicize an anonymous safety channel?

The existance of one.

If you email safety@capnhq.gov, is that protected?  Or does the fact that you initiated the conversation get back down to the member that you're asking the question about?  Someone who may or may not be in a position of authority and may or may not resent being questioned about their flying skill.

Eclipse

The process is the process, work it or move on.

Broadcasting partial information on a public form impacts the reputation for all of us negatively.

The above contact is only one of several channels, however if you can't stand by your opinions and concerns, do you think spray painting them
on a wall in a public place will get better reaction?

Again, if you think so little of the process and the people put in place to work it, why be involved at all?


"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2012, 03:12:51 PM
Again, if you think so little of the process and the people put in place to work it, why be involved at all?

Your assumptions are wrong, therefore your recommendation of correction is wrong.

Eclipse

There's no "assumption" to be wrong.  You've made your position perfectly clear, and no one is "misunderstanding" you.


"That Others May Zoom"