Mission Pilot Designation -- IFR Rated Priority Funded Training?

[DG]

Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they were damaged.

I'm not getting the point here.  Obviously, IPs and check pilots spend more time in the airplanes than most other CAP pilots.  Until I see an accident rate (per hour flown) I have no idea whether these guys are safer or more dangerous than the average CAP pilot.  And for training accidents, I would want to compare the CAP accident rate to national statistics before drawing any conclusions.

The VFR flying you are doing in your G1000 is being done by an instrument pilot.

But it doesn't have to be!  I included the credential only to make the point that I understand the box and can comment with at least a little credibility on whether the lowly and ignorant VFR pilots that you look down upon should be permitted to fly it or not.

BTW, what is the opposite of having the right stuff?  Unstuffed?  Stuffless?

It is remarkable what you can learn about someone here on CAPTalk.

[heliodoc]

Stuff that "right stuff"

There are plenty of VFR only  pilots flying the G1000 and not all are current instrument rated...some are on their way to updates and getting IFR Form 5'd.

But what about that "current" ICL about the G1000 CAP "Training plan"

Seems like ALOT of the Right Stuffers aren't even complying with the PROPER Cessna or even FITS training plan

Sounds like alot of the Right Stuffers are following even the basics of the FITS program, eh?

Why would an ICL come out against that??

Sounds like ALOT of made up stuff by CAP in their interpretations of the FITS program.

Long haul capability of the G11000?  Sometimes can not get out of the 25 NM area 'cuz the Right Stuff CFI's don't have "enuf" time to X countries

So there is alot of confusion who those"Right Stuff" Check Pilots are or even Right STuff CFI's

[heliodoc]

AND

if there are THAT many CP's flying around together....its no wonder some Wing can not get a CP

They are too tired to fly with anyone else oTHER than check pilots

Is that what we are to gather here?

OR  Is it that only the CP's get to fly around and then we CAP line pilots get to read this HOGWASH about the "Right Stuff"

See where I am going with this???  CP flying with CP's  ......how many CP's does it take to fly a G1000 around

You getting my general drift about  the RIGHT STUFF commentary.

CP's HAD BETTER get a formal training plan together ...The whole CAP now has had 5 years to work thee bugs out of the G1000 program....How come the FBO's seem not to have the problems CAP has

AND  why the ICL about the G1000 Mr CP?? What does THAT indicate to "Pro CAP pilots" who can not even get the basics taught the field.

You can guess I strong feelings toward this... I had to do 20 additional hours in the G1000 in the current Wing when I came from another Wing who had its _ _ _ _ together where I had my initial... Want to know my feelings about CP's who can not ID or plan a checkride.... Your logic about Right Stuff is completely flawed..So get over that Right Stuff stuff.  Most CAPers do not even qualify for the Astronaut Corps

Doesn't sound like CAP has a STANDARDIZED G1000 training  program as of yet..

DO NOT EVER tell me about CAP RIGHT STUFF anymore  MR DG ..... IT IS BS

[Short Field]

I just went back and looked up the Sentinel article.  It did mention my point of more than 1 CP on board.  Short Field did not include that part.

If having  a more advanced rating made you safer, then we should be seeing next to zero incidents compared to PPLs with no advanced ratings.  If that data was out there, it would surely be posted and it is not.

[Short Field]

The G1000 program is aimed at instrument pilots who are qualified and current.

VFR only pilots are not the right stuff to check out and fly our G1000 a/c.

That is the attitude of some of the GOBs around here too.   I am glad National disagrees with you.

CAPR 60-1:
(4) Cessna Nav III G1000 Airplanes – In addition to other requirements:
  (a) Complete the CAP Cessna G1000 transition syllabus for VFR operation.
  (b) For instrument operating privileges in G1000, complete the CAP Cessna G1000 transition syllabus for Instrument operation. To remain current for instrument privileges in G1000 airplanes, a pilot must take an Instrument Proficiency Check using a G1000 airplane or the pilot must complete three of the approaches required for ongoing FAA Instrument currency in a G1000 airplane.
  (c) For flight instructor privileges in G1000, complete the CAP Cessna G1000 transition syllabus for Flight Instructors that is given by a Cessna factory trained instructor.
  (d) G1000 check pilots must be Cessna factory trained or have provided a minimum of 15 hours dual instruction in G1000 equipped airplanes.

[heliodoc]

I am in agreement with Short Field, DG

Got any more fun facts CAP can not bring to the table about its "safer" flight program?  Look at the advanced ratings some CAPers have had with accidents even a former X-15 driver.  READ the facts presented in all the military safety periodicals....CAP pilots, at any time, could be one of those stats, God forbid.  Your assertion the higher rated pilots are safer JUST DOES NOT hold water.

CAP needs a outside source to gather data before it is EVEN relevant to be called FACTS

Ive seen and heard about our program here in my current Wing...most all the problems zeroed in and around CP and CFI's....give 'em a call  ..you can find my PM and the State I am located in

There are days I wonder why I stopped back into CAP at all....nothing has much changed since 30 years ago...just guys thinking they got the Right Stuff with fancier toys that haven't go a TRUE STANDARDIZED training program after 5 yrs ...got it?

[DG]

Your comments are recorded.  And overall will be helpful when it comes to who is called to do what and where.

For the record, we should all work to be the best we can be, and anyone who refuses to move beyond VFR only status does not have the energy or ability we are looking for.

I don't know why, but I was unable to communicate, in spite of several different attempts.

My point either did not get through, or was rejected because of deep seated bias.

Maybe it is a matter of energy and ability.

Maybe it is a difference in meteorological conditions in the northeast.  Where many missions don't go when VFR only pilots are assigned the task and can't fly or choose not to fly in marginal VFR.

The comment by the Colganair pilot comes to mind.  Just before they crashed and burned in BUF, she said that she had more IMC her first day on the job than 1600 hours flying in the southwest.

[heliodoc]

Great DG

The simple fact of the ColganAir FO's comments are just that ....meteorological....THAT Is recorded

With that in mind, CAP OUGHT to be required to PAY for that IMC training to get all up to speed and not just a selected few.  How many CAP CFI's and CP's have the TRUE IMC experience....bet most of em are like the Colgan FO, huh?  This is why I argue the point.  CAP has no real standardized training program or if there is one for the G1000, it is haphazard, at best.   THAT CAP G1000 page, on the NHQ website HAS NOT changed much since 2005, not even the forum board.  So how much creedence should I put in that if NHQ can not even keep a "training website." up to date.  AGAIN, it is time 1AF takes CAP to task for a program with aircraft that at around 475K and starts making CAP ACCOUNTABLE for more serious training in the G1000.  Then MAYBE somebody could take your proposals more seriously.   If you can not take a program seriously and KEP IT UPDATED then what good is it?

If your area is heavy IMC, then train for it.

If folks do not feel up to it (IMC flying in searches)  then they be doing IM SAFE as FAA would like pilots to consider

Is there a problem with that  or do you think that pilot who choose NOT to fly IMC searches are less of a pilot than you??

[aveighter]

DG, your writing on this topic is more reflective of a wild "flight of ideas" than any cogent line of reasoning.  You don't have the "sound" of someone who actually has flying experience.

You're a "Chief Check Pilot Evaluator"?  What does that even mean?  You evaluate Chief Check Pilots?  You're the Chief of Check Pilot Evaluators?

You have no credibility.  I think you are merely another internet poseur.

[Eclipse]

[Capflyer]

I was not going to post in this thread, but I just can't shut up anymore.

IFR vs VFR, check pilots, Instructors and "right stuff".
Seems like all pilot categories have been covered here in this thread.
Furthermore, it seems as if you want to fly safe in CAP, DON'T fly with and instructor or check pilot... .

But in all seriousness, the point is not if the pilot is IFR, VFR, ATP or Commercial (however, right stuff might be accurate). Just because a guy flies a 737 between New York and Seattle several times a week doesn't necessarily make him a good SAR pilot. It's a whole different way of flying. Which pilot do you think is better, the one with a 1000 hours, or the one with a 1000 hours including a 1000 or more landings?

Personally, I'm a former Air Force pilot (fighters) and when I joined CAP I thought it was going to be a breeze and (as a cocky fighter jock) I even thought I could show "those private pilots" how to really fly. However, I decided (luckily) to give the whole thing a more humble approach and listen, learn and observe first.

Good thing I did! The very first thing I realized was that I had to "brush off" my VFR skills to even be able to fly as a SAR pilot. It's true that an instrument rating improves a pilots skills, but that's mostly for low-time pilots. SAR flying demands exceptionally good VFR skills that you easily forget if you fly IFR all the time.

The only times we need IFR in CAP is for ELT searches in bad weather, some occasional transports and sometimes to fly to/from the search area. The rest of our flying is in VFR conditions.

Many of the CAP pilots I admire and who would be my first choice to come and look for me (if I go down) are VFR only pilots. But, they are very experienced SAR pilots and that's what matters for us. Would it help if they got an IFR rating? Of course, but that would be just to get them to the search area in bad weather (providing the search area is in VMC or they couldn't search anyway).

Our job is to save lives. Our priority is our mission more than "fancy flying".
To do this, we need to make sure ALL our aircrew members receive the best possible training for this mission and this type of flying. Notice I said "all aircrew members".
Some of the best observers I have flown with are non-pilots but darn good observers. The key is crew resource management.  Without that, it doesn't matter what rating we have as individuals.

The biggest problem I see in CAP (both air and ground) is the mindset. Many members are focused in flight hours, the latest radios and how many antennas there are on the ground team vehicle. Instead we need to think MISSION. Do we have what we need to accomplish our task? Do we have the training we need?

Ask yourself, if one of your family members were missing, would you send yourself out to search?

By focusing our training on our mission we can get ALL our ES members proficient and feel confident that we can do what we claim we can do,

Don't take me wrong, I don't discourage anyone from getting an instrument rating. It's a good and very useful rating and improves piloting skills, but to prioritize our training money for that is wrong. If I was to recommend any changes in the training, it would be to extend the training for mission pilots to make sure they have even more experience from mission before they go out on a real search as PIC.

Just my 2 cents....

[heliodoc]

Thanks Capflyer

A "bit" more eloquently put than I

I have been to close at this particular Wing with TOO many transition of Stan Eval folks here in this State who claim to be professional CAP CFI's ..... some are...most are not

I have my INST rating but have not used in CAP enough to warrant the IFR search argument, just more the argument of the G1000 program that the CFI's up here really do not have a handle on...but CLAIM they do...

Thanks for the post!

[blackrain]

I was not going to post in this thread, but I just can't shut up anymore.

IFR vs VFR, check pilots, Instructors and "right stuff".
Seems like all pilot categories have been covered here in this thread.
Furthermore, it seems as if you want to fly safe in CAP, DON'T fly with and instructor or check pilot... .

But in all seriousness, the point is not if the pilot is IFR, VFR, ATP or Commercial (however, right stuff might be accurate). Just because a guy flies a 737 between New York and Seattle several times a week doesn't necessarily make him a good SAR pilot. It's a whole different way of flying. Which pilot do you think is better, the one with a 1000 hours, or the one with a 1000 hours including a 1000 or more landings?

Personally, I'm a former Air Force pilot (fighters) and when I joined CAP I thought it was going to be a breeze and (as a cocky fighter jock) I even thought I could show "those private pilots" how to really fly. However, I decided (luckily) to give the whole thing a more humble approach and listen, learn and observe first.

Good thing I did! The very first thing I realized was that I had to "brush off" my VFR skills to even be able to fly as a SAR pilot. It's true that an instrument rating improves a pilots skills, but that's mostly for low-time pilots. SAR flying demands exceptionally good VFR skills that you easily forget if you fly IFR all the time.

The only times we need IFR in CAP is for ELT searches in bad weather, some occasional transports and sometimes to fly to/from the search area. The rest of our flying is in VFR conditions.

Many of the CAP pilots I admire and who would be my first choice to come and look for me (if I go down) are VFR only pilots. But, they are very experienced SAR pilots and that's what matters for us. Would it help if they got an IFR rating? Of course, but that would be just to get them to the search area in bad weather (providing the search area is in VMC or they couldn't search anyway).

Our job is to save lives. Our priority is our mission more than "fancy flying".
To do this, we need to make sure ALL our aircrew members receive the best possible training for this mission and this type of flying. Notice I said "all aircrew members".
Some of the best observers I have flown with are non-pilots but darn good observers. The key is crew resource management.  Without that, it doesn't matter what rating we have as individuals.

The biggest problem I see in CAP (both air and ground) is the mindset. Many members are focused in flight hours, the latest radios and how many antennas there are on the ground team vehicle. Instead we need to think MISSION. Do we have what we need to accomplish our task? Do we have the training we need?

Ask yourself, if one of your family members were missing, would you send yourself out to search?

By focusing our training on our mission we can get ALL our ES members proficient and feel confident that we can do what we claim we can do,

Don't take me wrong, I don't discourage anyone from getting an instrument rating. It's a good and very useful rating and improves piloting skills, but to prioritize our training money for that is wrong. If I was to recommend any changes in the training, it would be to extend the training for mission pilots to make sure they have even more experience from mission before they go out on a real search as PIC.

Just my 2 cents....

A HUMBLE Fighter Pilot!!!!!!!!!! I think their is something mentioned in Revelations about a humble fighter pilot and a sign of the end of days.

Seriously it was a good post. Any aircraft can kill any pilot if you're not on top of things. Remember Scott Crossfield...........

No doubt the vast majority of CAP missions are VFR but I view an IFR rating (yes kept current and the commitment that entails)kind of like an insurance policy and not unlike an ejection seat in a fighter. May not be needed all that much but when it is it can make all the difference. I'm not even refering to multiple approaches to minimums either.

Each  squadron is different with different pilot skill sets (with the pilot roster changing too as time goes on). Maybe more VFR mission training in one squadron makes sense or pursuing instrument training would in another. Also different VFR pilots may be closer to getting the rating than others and that could make the case to get them finished up. Let each Wing King in consultation with each squadron commander make the call how to allocate the funds.

As for the G1000 maybe it will take me 1000 hours with to really understand it. Even our guys who went to the class keep learning new things all the time.

[Short Field]

anyone who refuses to move beyond VFR only status does not have the energy or ability we are looking for.

Mouse in your pocket?  My energy level is down but it is because I just finished a 10 hr duty day.  One 3.5 hr photo mission followed by too many hours trying to unhose a mission base screw-up on the IMU and WMIRS.  Ability?  Don't think so.  Take your insturment rating and then follow me as I do a full stop landing and then take-off in my 182 from a less than 500' strip. 

[Captain Morgan]

ORM limits the amount of IFR we can fly at all.

Common sense and ORM limit the training we fly in IFR.

Only a small percentage of real-world missions can be flown in IFR, since we're still mostly a visual search organization, and a secondary / tertiary responder so anything beyond an ELT in a storm with a high POD and a lot of people on board waits for morning.

Far less of our pilots are IFR rated than VFR (which is fine, based on the first three above).

Otherwise, good plan.

I am NOT disagreeing that VFR pilots are valuable (I am one), but there is some incorrect information here that needs to be corrected.  In KY, the majority of real mission hours (hundreds of hours) are for rooftop communications.  Flying in IMC during and/or en route on these missions is a very common occurrence.  Without actually counting, I would bet more of these are flown under IFR flight plans than VFR.

Also, I just checked the FRO report and 61% of active pilots in the Wing are IFR rated.

Having said that, if there are any VFR pilots who are not seeking their IFR rating (for whatever reason), and you are safe, and willing to donate your valuable time to CAP, you are welcome to come fly in our Squadron.

Also, I am a VFR pilot with over 200 hours in the G1000.

[Mustang]

For the record, we should all work to be the best we can be, and anyone who refuses to move beyond VFR only status does not have the energy or ability we are looking for.

You've made this assertion several times, and offered nothing but your opinion to back it up.  Please come up with some evidence to support your statement, or accept that it's simply your opinion -- which everyone is free to disagree with.

I don't know where you live, but in the mountainous states, an instrument ticket is next to useless.  Save for a very narrow window in Spring and Autumn, IMC in these parts will almost always be accompanied by either icing conditions or convective activity -- which wise pilots avoid.  And anyone who flies in IMC over mountains in a piston single is a fool.

I agree with the sentiment that all pilots should be working to improve their skills, but for most CAP pilots, the skills sharpened in training for a commercial ticket are more applicable to CAP flying -- which is almost universally VFR, not IFR.  In the mountains, I don't care how well you can track a localizer or nail the inbound timing of a hold; I want to know that you can max-perform that aircraft if the need arises, and have the good judgment to avoid situations where such a need will exist.

As to funding priorities, Lt Hess has it right: low-time, inexperienced mission pilots should be the priority for training funds, not the old hands with gobs of experience.  The high-timers need very little practice to keep sharp, while the newbies need to be seasoned through extra practice and training to GET sharp.  We owe that much to those who will fly with them.

<-- Commercial Pilot, ASEL/AMEL/Instrument Airplane; SAR/DR Mission Pilot; CAP Senior Pilot

[heliodoc]

Thanks for the support of us low timer mission pilots, Mustang.

I FULLY AGREE there ought to be mandatory mentoring of all low timers with high time MP's

They don't want to do it??  They get to serve  coffee and doughnuts at mission base and check 101 cards and vehicles in

How does that grab the "Pro Mission Pilot" who doesn't mentor??

[DG]

I FULLY AGREE there ought to be mandatory mentoring of all low timers with high time MP's

They don't want to do it??  They get to serve  coffee and doughnuts at mission base and check 101 cards and vehicles in

How does that grab the "Pro Mission Pilot" who doesn't mentor??

The Senior Mission Pilots I know go out of their way to mentor low time MP's.

And to teach them in the first place so they can qualify as MP.

What's this about mandatory?  Telling people what they have to do.  Is it needed in your Wing?  Maybe because of a mentality of forcing people or telling the what they have to do.

Is that how you deal with people?   "They don't want to do it??  They get to serve coffee and doughnuts at mission base and check 101 cards and vehicles in.  How does that grab the "Pro Mission Pilot" who doesn't mentor??"

Did you ever think that is why you are having trouble?

[heliodoc]

Me having trouble?

Without going into detail...Our Wing has had many malfunctions over the last 2 years after I had shown up from a Wing with approx 10 acft and the current one with approx 20 acft.

Due to the fact that a number of MP's and MP Check Pilots are facing unemployment and the former Stan Eval folks took it upon themselves to "teach through negative motivation" there are a few of us that are in limbo until the new method of Stan Eval gets stood up.

Our Wing may not be like yours DG, there probably are approx 1/2 dozen MP CP around right now and I have not personally gotten current as of yet due to the other issues that are necessary to keep a functioning flying sqdn up.  I just signed up to be the SO of the Sqdn and I am following the US Army Safety School methodology of getting things BOTH on the air and ground side.  So  I have forgone my MP quals for bit.

Some of this type of additional duty you will not see in many squadrons and some you will.

This Wings problem has been you had to be somebody's buddy in order to fly OR when you do call and leave messages to plan a flight, some "Professional CAP MP and CFI's" do nt return phone calls...UNPROFESSIONAL

I call em as I see em.....If the Senior MP do not want to mentor.... Go serve coffee and BS

Might be too much for you DG...... there's an old motto that CAP and SOME CAP folks do not adhere to too often ...... DO NOT WASTE PEOPLES TIME.  If MP do not want to fly with someone... then they ought to have the professionalism and reasons that that are not flying with an individual

Enough said on my part...too blunt for some CAPers

[DG]

Without going into detail...Our Wing has had many malfunctions over the last 2 years after I had shown up from a Wing with approx 10 acft and the current one with approx 20 acft.

Due to the fact that a number of MP's and MP Check Pilots are facing unemployment and the former Stan Eval folks took it upon themselves to "teach through negative motivation" there are a few of us that are in limbo until the new method of Stan Eval gets stood up.

This Wings problem has been you had to be somebody's buddy in order to fly OR when you do call and leave messages to plan a flight, some "Professional CAP MP and CFI's" do nt return phone calls...UNPROFESSIONAL

Wow.  Sorry to hear that.  We don't have that in our Wing.