Thoughts on Pilot Qualifications

[MIKE]

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.

[SJFedor]

For some reason, I remember seeing an old CAPF 5 that had a "Solo" block on it. Anyone that's been around a while know?

Personally, IMO, solo badges and pre-solo badges should be restricted to cadet wear only. I see seniors in their 40's that are wearing solo badges because they solo'ed back when they were a cadet. It's rather ridiculous.

Now, as far as the CAP aircraft thing, I can understand that to a point, and 99% of people who complete a F5 are going to do so in a corporate aircraft. Those that don't are doing it in a Wing approved member owned aircraft, whereas that member plans, at some point, to be able to provide it to the CAP in the event of the fecal matter striking an air moving mechanism. Even still, people who provide their own planes to CAP typically also get F5s in the corporate birds.

I'm guessing part of this stems from the debate as to whether or not a cadet can get their F5 signed off by a DPE, and then have it reviewed by a CAP CP and off they go. If the cadet is doing their checkride in a CAP corporate aircraft, by all means, but if they're just doing it in some FBO plane, then no, they should have to do a F5 in a corporate bird.

YMMV

[Eclipse]

What's the issue?  As long as its the same type as we fly, a Cessna is a Cessna.
In some areas, CAP planes are not easily accessible, and initial Form 5's are not funded, so if you have to drag a plane to you (or vice-versa), its on your nickel.

The only caveat(s) I would make:

* If a CAP airframe is sitting next to your rental, then no - that's silly and we need the hours on our planes.

* And you should need the permission of the WING/DO or similar to curtail abuse.

But if a member wants to spend money renting an airplane, and it benefits CAP, I don't see the issue.

[MIKE]

I do not agree that I soloed (on my own dime in someone else's plane.), or yeah I'm a pilot... Gimme my wings. is appropriate for award of a CAP aeronautical rating/badge.  I think you should have to qualify in a CAP aircraft first... Yes, I include member owned aircraft in this definition so long as it is an approved flight activity as defined by CAPR 60-1.

In other words... Your a pilot... that's great, but you aren't a rated CAP Pilot until you are checked out in a "CAP aircraft."

[Eclipse]

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

[jimmydeanno]

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

[Al Sayre]

The only difference between CAP aircraft and the one you rent at the FBO is the extra radio and DF equipment, neither of which is used on a normal Form 5, the Form 91 is a different story.  Basically a Form 5 is the same as a BFR checkride, and many checkpilots will do both for you at the same time.  

As far as the aircraft go, there are two basic models of 172, either fuel injected or carburated.  Other than the starting procedure, everything else is pretty much the same.  If you can fly one, you can fly any of them.  Same basic situation with the 182's except that we also have the Glass panel versions which are a slightly different beast and require a different check ride, but a steam gauge 182 is a steam gauge 182, not much difference.  

If it's your dime and it's get's us more qualified pilots I don't see any problem doing a CAPF-5 in a non-CAP aircraft, provided it is similar to the CAP aircraft you would be flying.  That means you can't do your CAPF-5 in your homebuilt low-wing tail dragging Buzzmaster 5000 that you have 2000 hous in and then jump in a CAP Cessna when you haven't flown a Cessna since 1957 when you got a 1/2 hour ride from the factory rep demonstrating the new land-o-matic tricycle gear...  but doing your CAPF-5 in a rental Cessna 172 a the the local FBO, no big deal.  YMMV

[Al Sayre]

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

MSWG has a CAP balloon...

[Trung Si Ma]

I fly my 172 to various locations in the wing to participate in SUI's.  The nearest CAP aircraft (also a 172) is located 30 min (flying) / 75 min (driving) away from me in the opposite direction of the one I need to travel.

I do not ask for reimbursement from CAP for the flights, but to take credit for the "donation", my tax gal says that I have to go through all of the normal CAP procedures (CAPF5, flight release, mission #, etc) to claim the flight.  My insurance company also likes the idea of annual CAPF5 checkouts in my airplane.

My 172 is going in the shop over Thanksgiving to get the STOL kit, HD nose gear, powerflow exhaust and significantly bigger tires put on it.  It will neither fly, nor land, like a CAP 172.  A corporate aircraft CAPF5 is pretty worthless to me since I don't plan on flying any of their aircraft.

Don

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

[MIKE]

For the purposes of this thread a CAP aircraft is:

1-6. a. CAP Aircraft. Any aircraft (either member owned/furnished or CAP corporate) used in a CAP flight activity

.

[Fifinella]

Not sure what your concern is on this issue. 

In my case, I came to CAP with a Commercial Multi-Engine license.  [Due to having been an AF pliot, and taking the FAA military equivalency test, I could legally fly planes with 2 or more engines, but not less.] 

The way 60-1 is written, I could not use CAP aircraft to receive training for my Single engine add-on because I was not already a CAP pilot, and I could not become a CAP pilot because I didn't have a Single engine rating, and therefore, could not check out in a CAP plane.

So I paid out of my own pocket, driving 2 hrs each way to the flight school, to get my single-engine rating.  I took my checkflight with an FAA examiner who was also a CAP evaluator, and received my FAA certification and my Form 5 on the same flight.

According to your construct, I should not have been able to become a CAP pilot and MTP in this way, but should instead have gotten my FAA cert and then taken a Form 5 flight in a CAP aircraft.  Why?

I am trying to bring my expertise to CAP.  Why make it more difficult/annoying/expensive than it already is?

[Eclipse]

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.

[jimmydeanno]

HOLY BALLOONS BATMAN!  I have never seen one of those!  Guess you learn something new every day...  Thanks!

[BlueLakes1]

Not sure what your concern is on this issue. 

In my case, I came to CAP with a Commercial Multi-Engine license.  [Due to having been an AF pliot, and taking the FAA military equivalency test, I could legally fly planes with 2 or more engines, but not less.] 

The way 60-1 is written, I could not use CAP aircraft to receive training for my Single engine add-on because I was not already a CAP pilot, and I could not become a CAP pilot because I didn't have a Single engine rating, and therefore, could not check out in a CAP plane.

So I paid out of my own pocket, driving 2 hrs each way to the flight school, to get my single-engine rating.  I took my checkflight with an FAA examiner who was also a CAP evaluator, and received my FAA certification and my Form 5 on the same flight.

According to your construct, I should not have been able to become a CAP pilot and MTP in this way, but should instead have gotten my FAA cert and then taken a Form 5 flight in a CAP aircraft.  Why?

I am trying to bring my expertise to CAP.  Why make it more difficult/annoying/expensive than it already is?

If the person who gave you the checkride was both a FAA examiner and a CAP check pilot, I see no issue with it at all. I would see one were the FAA examiner not a CAP check pilot, though.

Actually, I think that there is a loophole in 60-1, and there is a way that you could have done your single engine training in a CAP plane, but you'd have to do some hardcore barracks lawyering to get it done. Your way, while a pain, was probably simpler.

Don't you wish you'd have just gone through UPT now with the T-6? Then you'd already have a single engine rating too! 

[Fifinella]

Don't you wish you'd have just gone through UPT now with the T-6? Then you'd already have a single engine rating too! 

Yeah, that would've been much easier.   But I'm not sorry for the chance to have flown T-37's and T-38's.  What a blast!

[BlueLakes1]

Yeah, that would've been much easier.   But I'm not sorry for the chance to have flown T-37's and T-38's.  What a blast!

Lucky...I've simmed all three types (T-6, T-37 and T-38), and I'd do just about anything for some stick time in the real deal (though I have to admit I'd want the T-6 first...that's loggable PIC time!)

What was your MWS when you got done?

[Fifinella]

^^My first MWS was KC-135's. (air refueling)  Nobody Kicks A** Without Tanker Gas!

[BlueLakes1]

^^My first MWS was KC-135's. (air refueling)  Nobody Kicks A** Without Tanker Gas!

Very nice...my office is at Grissom ARB, home of the 434th ARW. I love the 135...and I've got a NKAWTG tab around here somewhere too. 

[Fifinella]

Small world...Grissom was my first assignment (after training).

[Carl C]

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.

What is the basis for your opinion?   Why would you object to a checkout in a non CAP a/c?