Thoughts on Pilot Qualifications

[Carl C]

Yes, it should be a full, separate "CAP Checkride", not a form stapled to an FAA solo ride.

What is an FAA solo ride?

[BillB]

The only difference between a CAP Cessna 172 and a non-CAP Cessna 172 is probably only the N Number. So what difference does it make. As long as both have same basic instrimation (glass cockpit vs round dial cockpit) there should be no difference in flight characteristics.

[Nomex Maximus]

How would that translate to CAP Balloon Pilots?  There aren't CAP Balloons for them to qualify in...

MSWG has a CAP balloon...

Yes, lots of wings do...



Many CAP flight academies have sections on ballon training.

Isn't it a bi-otch when NHQ changes the corporate logo and you have to go out and buy a whole new balloon?

[BillB]

No they just slap a new logo decal over the old one, thats why in the photo the balloon leans.

[Nomex Maximus]

Shame you can't do more with a balloon... highbird mission maybe???

[SAR-EMT1]

Or Firewatch   

[flyguy06]

In my non-pilot opinion, It should not be possible to qualify for any CAP aeronautical rating without flying a CAP aircraft.  Some have stated that in CAP aircraft does not mean that the qualifying flight need be completed in a CAP aircraft... If this is true, I believe that CAPR 60-1 3-2 should be changed to reflect that the qualifying flight(s) must occur in a CAP aircraft.  CAP aircraft as defined by CAPR 60-1 1-6. a.

Using CAP Solo Pilot as an example: This would thus change it so that it is not possible for a member to solo outside of CAP and automatically rate CAP Solo Pilot with just an endorsement from a CAP IP. The member would have to solo again in a CAP aircraft under appropriate conditions to qualify for the rating/aviation badge... Like a form 5.  Maybe make a section for a solo flight check.

I agree with this. The whole point of the regulation is to get members to fly "CAP" aircraft. If we dont use CAP aircraft we will loose them. National allocates the number of aircraft based on usage. If they are not used National wil take them away. SO I think members ehould use "CAP" aircraft. Inmy unit, our Commander has his own plane so he rarley if ever flies in CAP aircraft. because of this we have no plane near our squadron and I have to drive 30 mins to get to the nearest plane.

[RiverAux]

In my non-pilot opinion, It should not be possible to qualify for any CAP aeronautical rating without flying a CAP aircraft.  Some have stated that in CAP aircraft does not mean that the qualifying flight need be completed in a CAP aircraft... If this is true, I believe that CAPR 60-1 3-2 should be changed to reflect that the qualifying flight(s) must occur in a CAP aircraft.  CAP aircraft as defined by CAPR 60-1 1-6. a.

How exactly is this a problem?  I'm not sure I've run across very many pilots who have joined CAP and haven't gotten a form 5 so that they could fly a CAP aircraft.  About the only place where this might come up is with cadets and if getting to wear wings on their CAP uniforms is any sort of incentive to get them to get a pilots license, whether or not they become a "CAP Pilot" is fine by me. 

Inmy unit, our Commander has his own plane so he rarley if ever flies in CAP aircraft. because of this we have no plane near our squadron and I have to drive 30 mins to get to the nearest plane.

That isn't an issue with the pilot qualifications regulation.  He isn't going to stop flying his personal plane in order to wear pilot wings on his CAP uniform and even then you're not talking about anything more than the time spent to do a form 5. 

[BillB]

Once CAP wings are earned, they are permanent. Even if the pilot doesn't renew a medical, he is still a CAP pilot. Of course without the current medical he can't fly CAP or any other aircraft, but he still has a CAP pilot rating.

[riffraff]

PS - for you pilot types, the mods are because of my affinity for landing on grass, dirt, and gravel - intentionally.

didn't realize there was anywhere else to land?   

[Trung Si Ma]

PS - for you pilot types, the mods are because of my affinity for landing on grass, dirt, and gravel - intentionally.

didn't realize there was anywhere else to land?   

Why do we call them airfields if they look like roads?

[SJFedor]

Same reason you drive on a parkway, and park on a driveway. 

[flyguy06]

How would that translate to CAP Balloon Pilots?  There aren't CAP Balloons for them to qualify in...

MSWG has a CAP balloon...

Yes, lots of wings do...



Many CAP flight academies have sections on ballon training.

Isn't it a bi-otch when NHQ changes the corporate logo and you have to go out and buy a whole new balloon?

I like that

[SarDragon]

PS - for you pilot types, the mods are because of my affinity for landing on grass, dirt, and gravel - intentionally.

didn't realize there was anywhere else to land?   

Why do we call them airfields if they look like roads?

Because they used to land on fields without any lines or paving.

[MIKE]

Topic.

[Mustang]

In my non-pilot opinion,

This thread should've stopped here. Why do you even care?  In my pilot opinion, non-pilots have no business opining on pilot-related subjects or policy.

As for cadets soloing, something all you flatlanders seem to forget is that not every wing has C-172s in their fleet; nary a wing in the western US does, where all you will find are C-182s, C-206s and GA8s.  So you'd elect to tell cadets in those states "too frickin' bad, go cry to your mama"?

[MIKE]

As for cadets soloing, something all you flatlanders seem to forget is that not every wing has C-172s in their fleet; nary a wing in the western US does, where all you will find are C-182s, C-206s and GA8s.  So you'd elect to tell cadets in those states "too frickin' bad, go cry to your mama"?

CAP aircraft as defined by 60-1, can be a member owned aircraft used as part of an approved flight activity.

[RiverAux]

This thread should've stopped here. Why do you even care?  In my pilot opinion, non-pilots have no business opining on pilot-related subjects or policy.

Although I didn't start the thread, as an Observer/Scanner I have to say that I and others in my position certainly have a vested interest in insuring that the people flying the plane are qualified to do so. 

[Frenchie]

I agree with this. The whole point of the regulation is to get members to fly "CAP" aircraft. If we dont use CAP aircraft we will loose them. National allocates the number of aircraft based on usage. If they are not used National wil take them away. SO I think members ehould use "CAP" aircraft. Inmy unit, our Commander has his own plane so he rarley if ever flies in CAP aircraft. because of this we have no plane near our squadron and I have to drive 30 mins to get to the nearest plane.

If we're talking about the form 5 ride in particular, it can make good sense to do them in non-CAP aircraft sometimes.  Let's say the squadron has a 172 and no CAP 182 aircraft are readily available in the immediate area.  If the pilot is already CAP qualified in the 172, he can take his form 5 ride in a non-cap 182 and be qualified in the 182 AND the 172 (assuming both aircraft questionaires were completed).  This is a real value to CAP because the more CAP aircraft you're qualified in, the more value you are to CAP.

[sparks]

Havng a CAP aircraft available for "O" flights and missions can have an effect on recruitment and retention. When that asset is taken away squadrons are impacted.  The obvious solution would be to permit "O" rides in member airplanes. The downside is that might reduce hours on corporate aircraft and liability insurance would be another consideration.

Maybe CAP has too many aircraft for the actual missions it flies. If someone actually calculated how many hours aircraft are needed for training and actual OPS it might indicate the fllet is too big. I can hear the sacred cow falling over now! This isn't in line with the corporate thinking. No, I'm not an aircraft owner. I do belopng to a flying club and fly the CAP plane too.