Obtaining IFR rating in CAP

[Mustang]

Transport Mission Pilot is a form of mission pilot, so if you qualify for that, once it's on your 101 card, you're good to go.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until you've been a member for a year and secure your wing commander's approval.

[KyCAP]

Just read through this thread... One lingering thing in there not clearly laid out although it is mentioned and hinted toward.

Mission Pilot when stated as Mission Pilot does NOT equal or include Transport Mission Pilot.  So training with a requirement of "Mission Pilot" is NOT authorized to Transport Mission Pilots.   

I ran the last "Flight Clinic" that was funded by CAP in 2004 and worked through all of this language with our Stan/Eval officer and John Salvador (NHQ/DO) back then.  Transport Pilots were NOT authorized for that either. Hence, my coming to understand the nuance in the language.

If it is meant to be applicable, it will state BOTH or either.

[SJFedor]

Transport Mission Pilot is a form of mission pilot, so if you qualify for that, once it's on your 101 card, you're good to go.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until you've been a member for a year and secure your wing commander's approval.

No. TMP is not Mission Pilot, which is required by 60-1. '

Don't be that guy.

[Mustang]

Transport Mission Pilots are, in fact, one type of mission pilot. If NHQ and/or the NB Ops committee and/or CAP-USAF wanted it more specific, it'd BE more specific. They've had plenty of opportunity to change the language since 2004, but have not.  Unless and until the regs or a policy letter state otherwise--and they presently do not--the term "mission pilot" does in fact include both Transport and SAR/DR types.  The scope of what TMPs may be assigned is somewhat limited (transport, ferry, highbird), but that's also true of SAR/DR pilots who are not CD-approved. 

If you've got something concrete to support a contrary position--ICL, PL, etc--I'm certainly open to it, but otherwise, you're simply stating opinion.

[mikeylikey]

^ Semantics possibly. 

I think it would better if a comma (,) were placed between "Mission" and "Pilot".  As in  "Transport Mission, Pilot".  That way there is a pause between the words "Mission" and "Pilot". 

You are a PILOT on a transport mission.  You are not a "Mission Pilot".

I do believe clarification may be forthcoming, so hold on to your hat.   

[Mustang]

You are a PILOT on a transport mission.  You are not a "Mission Pilot".

By your logic, SAR/DR mission pilots aren't "mission pilots" either, they're PILOTS on SAR/DR missions. 

A "mission pilot" is any CAP Pilot who is authorized to fly CAP aircraft on a USAF-directed mission, period.  Both Transport Mission Pilots and SAR/DR Mission Pilots are therefore "mission pilots".  If John Salvador wants the term to be more specific, he's got the tools at his disposal to do so; he has not availed himself of these as yet.

As I said, TMPs are not limited to "transport missions"; they may also fly highbird sorties.  In any event, a TMP is, in most cases, a pilot short of the 175 hrs PIC required to be a SAR/DR Mission Pilot Trainee.

And even if they WERE limited to only "transport missions", it's not unreasonable for such a mission to require flight in less-than-VFR conditions, and therefore, an instrument rating would enhance a TMP's usefulness. Instrument training should be permitted on those grounds alone--and, in fact, IT IS.

But that's beside the point, really. It's long been my opinion that all CAP pilots should be trained to the Commercial/Instrument level if they aren't already.  Those two tickets make one a sharper, more competent pilot.

[JC004]

Transport Mission Pilots are, in fact, one type of mission pilot. If NHQ and/or the NB Ops committee and/or CAP-USAF wanted it more specific, it'd BE more specific. They've had plenty of opportunity to change the language since 2004, but have not.
...

This is probably because they were too busy changing patches and other uniform items.  It is a lot of work, deciding how many times to change the command patch and the CAP tape.

[heliodoc]

^

I have to to agree with Mr Colgan

CAP spends ENTIRELY too much time on uniforms and how stylish we can look to our ES suitors.

It DOES take an inordinate amount of time to change all those uni's and uni items and NOT pay attention to other things like having and up to date MART on the CAP.gov operations page.

I readily understand ALL that "volunteer" and "my time" HOORAH.  But there are more important things to attend to than 81 uniform changes per quarter

Makes NASAR look more professional than we do at times, arguing and worrying about what "military badge I can wear" and those 81 uniform changes makes us look pretty silly

How about some REAL IFR training from CFI and not CAP CFI's who are more interested in Form 5 'ing their friends rather than the general population of us COMM/ INST pilots who do get paid in our PTor FT world?

Lets see it for some REAL Mandatory training from CAP and requiring those CFI's, who for instance, got the free ride to Independence , KS and still have yet to make a real "effort" in training a number of aspiring G1000 drivers.  In some Wings, it is appearing (read perception) that it is always the same people getting the AFAM and funded Form 5/91's and not some new crop of pilots

I personally have addressed that I would PAY for my own Form 5 AND 91 and I am sure there are others who will or have done the same

How about all those "professionals" at NATL get a contact team out there to do some compliance checks out there to see where all that training dinero went to and then ckride those and inspect the records of those who were supposed to pass down the training.  There are some Wings CFI's that have taken the mission more seriously than others.....

IFR training is more serious than just a bunch of icons on a website and how many uniforms we can tend to.....

[DG]

No. TMP is not Mission Pilot, which is required by 60-1. '

What is a mission sortie?

I have over 25 A9 maintenance flight mission sorties and/or A15 O-flight mission sorties.   But I never flew a SAR/DR mission or SAREX except as a trainee.  Can I qualify as a mission check pilot?

CAPR 60-1 3-2 h. Mission Check Pilot. The following requirements must be met to be qualified as a CAP mission check pilot in CAP aircraft.
(2) Have a minimum of 25 mission sorties as PIC ....

[Frenchie]

Looking at the reg, the generic "Mission Pilot" is not defined anywhere.  However on the 101 card, MP is the abbreviation for SAR/DR Mission Pilot and many use the terms interchangeably.

I'm not sure you could make such an assumption on a written regulation.  Furthermore look at the following excerpt from 60-11:

a. Appropriated Funding. When appropriated funds are used (the usual case) the only PCT participants that may be reimbursed are qualified SAR/DR mission pilots, SAR/DR mission pilot trainees, and qualified transport mission pilots (TMP) who are commercially rated with a current Class II medical. No appropriated funds will be used for those who are not mission pilots or trainees.

So another regulation specifically includes TMP as a "mission pilot".  You can also look at it from a logical perspective.  Are you more likely to need an instrument rating on a transport mission, or a SAR/DR mission?  I've never seen a SAR/DR mission flown IFR (that's not to say it isn't done), however I've seen many transport missions flown under IFR.

[heliodoc]

Hey folks I will claim ignorance.....


New MART on Operations section at cap.gov

My mistake.......

[KyCAP]

CAPR 60-1 Feb 2008

3-9 Requirements for CAP Mission Check Pilots and CAP Mission pilots

a. All mission check pilots must be CAP members and current qualified SAR/DR mission pilots.

So, no, TMP can NOT be Mission Check Pilots.

[KyCAP]

CAPR 60-1 Feb 2008

3-6 a. - CAP senior member mission pilots are authorized flight training leading to an instrument rating.... (Use mission Symbol B-12).

Which is guiadance if you are going to use the tool to get flight training as a mission pilot you must use AF insurance coverage on unfunded sortie...

However, TMP can NOT use B-12 symbols..

3-9 b. SAR/DR/CD mission pilots are authorized proficiency flight training under AF assigned non-reimbursed mission status.  These flights should be released using B-12 mission symbol and flown IAW attachment 9.

Further-

ATTACHMENT 9-4 – APPROVED MISSION PILOT PROFICIENCY FLIGHT
PROFILE #4
Transportation Mission Profile

The transportation mission profile may only be  flown by FAA commercial rated pilots or qualified SAR/DR mission pilots.  The following is an approved profile for "Proficiency Flight Training for Mission Pilots".

Attachment 10 - Flight Mission Symbols

(B12) Proficiency flight by qualified SAR/DR/CD mission pilots  conducted pursuant to guidelines published by HQ CAP-USAF in attachment 7 and attachments 9-1 through 9-7 and SAR/DR training in accordance with CAPR 60-3.

Seriously, I don't know what is "ambiguous"? 

This should be tightened up to read the following based on the other information in subsequent language in the reg:

3-6 a. - CAP senior member SAR/DR/CD mission pilots are authorized flight training leading to an instrument rating.... (Use mission Symbol B-12).

[KyCAP]

looking at 60-1 Draft..

This is tightened up to reflect the ambiguousness of 60-1 Feb 2008 (and previous editions).

2-8. Pilot Training.

a.  CAP cadets and qualified SAR/DR mission pilots are authorized to use CAP airplanes  for flight instruction toward any FAA certificate or rating.
b.  All CAP members are authorized to use CAP gliders for flight instruction toward any FAA certificate or rating.
c.  CAP senior members that are not current SAR/DR mission pilots must obtain
permission to receive flight instruction in CAP airplanes toward FAA certificates or ratings as follows:
(1)  Senior members who hold a Private Pilot Airplane Certificate or higher and have been an active CAP member for at least 1 year – Wing commander written permission.
(2)  All other senior members – Wing and region commander and the CAP Executive Director, provided the members lives more than two hours driving time from a commercial training facility.

The point I get from this is that CAP is not a cheap alternative to commercially available flight instruction.  So, if you can prove it based on 2-8-c-2 criteria (two hours from flight training facility) then CAP will assist you in progressing. 

Otherwise, you need to be in CAP 1 year or be a SAR/DR mission pilot.

[RiverAux]

I ran the last "Flight Clinic" that was funded by CAP in 2004

Kentucky hasn't had a flight clinic in 4 years?

[KyCAP]

This was the last "clinic" in FY 04 under the CAPR 50-11 which is now CAPR 60-11.   At that time the reg changed and the timing is honestly a bit fuzzy, but the short version is we applied for funding under one reg and did the training while a "Draft" was coming out... It was quite confusing because by the time the funding reimbursement came to the Wing it was under a new reg and required some "clarification".

Thinking about this some more... this is when the AF started requiring Commercial ratings for AF ROTC orientation pilots and the commercial rating was tacked into the reg for the flight clinic funding for Transport Mission Pilots... (I think... still fuzzy)

[DG]

CAPR 60-1 Feb 2008

3-9 Requirements for CAP Mission Check Pilots and CAP Mission pilots

a. All mission check pilots must be CAP members and current qualified SAR/DR mission pilots.

So, no, TMP can NOT be Mission Check Pilots.

OK.

I am a SAR/DR Mission Pilot.  Newly minted.

What is the definition of a "mission sortie"?

I have over 25 A9 maintenance flight mission sorties and/or A15 O-flight mission sorties.   But I never flew a SAR/DR mission or SAREX except as a trainee.  Can I qualify as a mission check pilot in meeting the requirement for 25 mission sorties?

[KyCAP]

Technically, you have the Sorties by the "letter of a sortie".  However, in our wing upon application to the National Check Pilot Standardization Course you also would submit your pilot log book with supporting "sorties" for authorization. 

It is my opinion and observation that this appointment is the discretion of the Wing Stan / Eval Officer.  Therefore, it might be their position that you might have the "numbers" but not the subtance of the "type" of mission flight profiles to be evaluating your peers on a Form 91.

In other words, you probably didn't fly grids or steep turns on maintenance sorties that you need to evaluate peering pilots on.

I am not a Stan/Eval guy.... but I am sure there is one or two lurking to get their read on this.

[airdale]

OP:

I would appreciate any tips, hints, and otherwise useful information to maximize this opportunity.

This thread has kind of drifted OT, but for the OP I'd like to offer a couple of things:

(1) Find a CFII who has a lot of actual working experience in weather and in the system.  Like hundreds of cross-country hours in IMC, flying GA airplanes.  "Dual given" doesn't count.

You can get the rating alright working with someone who has 5 hours of IMC and a shiny new CFII certificate as long as that someone knows how to teach and knows the material.  But what you won't learn is the real world of weather, reroutes, diversions, ice, etc. at the altitudes GA airplanes fly.  Think about it.  Do you really want to learn that world alone, flying single-pilot IFR?

(2) Get as much actual IMC time as you can prior to taking the ride.  Set a minimum, like 10 hours, and stick to it.  After you get the rating, when you get a nice IMC day with just enough ceiling to let you get back into your home airport, call the CFII and go out.  Repeat as often as possible unless you are flying a lot of actual on your own.  This isn't cheap insurance, but IMHO it's pretty good life insurance.

[stratoflyer]

Thanks airdale. That's sounds like great advice.