thoughts on aircrew weight limitations

[DrJbdm]

What would the thoughts be if CAP made a regulation regarding limitations on weight for aircrew members? Just for the record, I have not heard if CAP is even considering such a move but I would support such a move for safety of flight reasons if it came about.

  Without looking at any current hard data, it seems that most of our planes have severe weight limitations once loaded with fuel, I believe in most cases it is limited to just over 500 pounds. With the weight gain our members seem to be having these days, you couldn't have a scanner on board if the pilot and observer both weighed more then 200 pounds. I think CAP should set a weight limit of at least the CAP weight limit for wearing the AF uniforms; although I think it needs to be much stricter.

  I know there would be many pissed off members if they where suddenly forced from the cockpit because of weight, the only other option is to remove the scanner from the plane. But the problem still exists in that with our expanding belly we have had problems getting out of an aircraft quickly in an emergency, I have noticed this first hand in a engine fire on start up. we may also have problems with the flight controls having full range of motion in some cases.

  It's an issue that CAP may be forced to take a hard look at.  What does everyone on here think?

[Eclipse]

What does everyone on here think?

I think the last time I checked pilots were required to perform a weight and balance, which means that respective aircrew weight is a self-limiting factor.

[wingnut]

have you seen the large pickles(Nomex flight suits) that show up for missions, CAP is reflective of the general population, FAT,FAT,FAT

your right we should  all do a National weigh in

me included

[CFI_Ed]

  Without looking at any current hard data, it seems that most of our planes have severe weight limitations once loaded with fuel, I believe in most cases it is limited to just over 500 pounds.

Depends on the airplane type -  you are probably correct when referencing the 172S with fuel to the tabs; maybe correct when talking about 172P; 182T G1000 - the problem is the landing weight.

[DrJbdm]

The population unfortunately is getting fatter and fatter, as are our members. I have to struggle to maintain my weight, it's just far to easy to gain weight and not even notice you are doing it. a few years ago I put on over 50 pounds and it was so gradual I never really noticed I was doing it, I had to go to the gym almost every day to get the weight off and now I have to go about three days a week to keep it off.

  I know the different classes of aircraft have a different take off weight and landing weight, I'm not sure of the 182T and the GA-8. But with the C-172R we are always at gross max take off weight in CAP with the combo of equipment, aircrew and fuel at the tabs, in order to land we have to fly for a while to burn off enough fuel to get our landing weight in order. I just think with no strict weight standards, we are going to end up having a problem. the new 182T w/ G1000 doesn't help that much in the weight issue, it may allow a little bit more wiggle room but not by much. Aviation is dangerous enough without adding to the problem with overweight aircrew.

  I know the requirement to have to do a weight and balance will help in some regard but I don't think thats enough. with out a strict standard for weight we will not be getting our pilots motivated to lose significant weight. If I knew I had to be below say 210 pounds in order to fly for CAP then that might motivate me to lose weight if I had a weight issue. Yes, we would lose many members who simply didn't have the inner strength needed to lose weight but thats ok, we would also improve our image and be able to recruit better candidates.



 

[Eclipse]

If I knew I had to be below say 210 pounds in order to fly for CAP then that might motivate me to lose weight if I had a weight issue. Yes, we would lose many members who simply didn't have the inner strength needed to lose weight but thats ok, we would also improve our image and be able to recruit better candidates.

(emphasis mine).

No, its not ok, not at all, in any way, shape, or form.  And if you think it is, you're entirely missing the point of CAP.

We are not the military, we are not Jenny Craig, and we are not Weight Watchers. Pilots already, in general, are more fit and monitored than the general population because of the requirement for regular physicals, etc.

We are also an organization that is struggling to maintain readiness without all the silly "extra value" people try to place on their members.

You yank flight privileges from pilots who are competent, within reason for the airframe, and active members otherwise, and you gut the program overnight.

There is a difference between not looking good in a flight bag and not being able to competently and safely fly an airplane.

[mikeylikey]

This issue can go both ways.  If we have a FAT pilot, then get someone who is stick and bones skinny to fly right seat.  Then balance out the back.  This is such a non-issue. 

If we are going to regulate anything, perhaps taking the 90 year old CFI and O-ride pilot out of the seat would be more logical.  In my pre-flight training days I have declined to fly certain missions because of the person doing the actual flying.  The whole "this guy is 80 years old, is he going to have a heart attack and am I ready for that while mid-flight".  Now, since I do fly (but not for CAP) I am more than capable of taking control if the pilot decides to expire while driving me around.

I see age more of a factor than weight.  I honestly have not come across many FAT aircrews in CAP.  I do see FAT wing kings trying to climb in and out of CAP planes though, and I laugh.......

[CFI_Ed]

If the point of the original thought was for US (me too) to lose weight, I agree  .   The point gets lost when it's posed as a Flight Ops issue.

[Eclipse]

What commonly happens is that the little fellers team up with those afflicted by gigantism (me), and everything is fine.

Getting off my FPOC and moving is going to be good for my heart, however it is not going to reduce
the length of my arms and legs, which has been infinitely more of an issue for me than weight.

By definition there are no "fat aircrews" (by aggregate).

[arosea]

Bigger people = Bigger airplanes and more powerful engines

[DrJbdm]

Eclipse, it is entirely ok to limit weight of Aircrew members, we only have so many small members as it is. besides, theres other factors involved when it comes to having big people in small airplanes.

We are not the military, we are not Jenny Craig, and we are not Weight Watchers. Pilots already, in general, are more fit and monitored than the general population because of the requirement for regular physicals, etc.

We are also an organization that is struggling to maintain readiness without all the silly "extra value" people try to place on their members.

  the flight physicals have nothing to do with keeping us thin enough for flying, we as active pilots do seem to try to keep the weight down but there are many who do not.

  What is this "silly extra value that people try and place on their members"? If you are saying that in CAP we have no standards and shouldn't have any standards because we want everyone to feel good about themselves and be able to serve then you are missing the point. Doing so robs CAP of the service it could do if we maintained strict standards of REAL readiness instead of what appears to be CAP baby standards.

  restricting fat pilots from flying as part of an aircrew will not gut the program overnight, I think you may already find flights limited with the weight and balance that has to be filled out for every flight. I have already seen some members not being able to fly because they and the crew where just too fat to safely fit with in the margins for the proper weight and balance.

  Cessna 172s and 182s where not designed to be flown by people who are  significantly overweight they are light aircraft that carries a really light load. they are honestly getting to the point that they are only able to safely carry 2 people because of the increase in body fat of the general population. Pretty soon CAP will have to remove the scanner from the back because we can no longer safely fly with one.

  The point is, we need to watch our image both as individuals and as the U.S. Air Force Aux.. we have to keep ourselves as fit as humanly possible for the jobs that we do.  We owe it to CAP, the USAF, our customers and to ourselves to maintain physical fitness standards and body fat standards for our operational people IE: ground team and aircrew.

   As PIC I tend to be very picky with who I want on my crew. I'm responsible for them. call me a dirty word if you want, but I am looking out for the complete welfare of me and my crew, both in a safety and comfort standpoint.

[mikeylikey]

^ I am "heavy" but not because of being fat.  I was FAT at one time, but through a weight training program and running am no longer that way.  I am very close to not being allowed in AF-style uniforms because my muscle weighs more than any FAT I have.  So, I am in excellent health, but should not fly because I am too heavy?? 

..... besides, theres other factors involved when it comes to having big people in small airplanes.

Like what?  Other than balancing out, what other factors come up? 

[DrJbdm]

I know muscle weights more then fat, I have the same problem. our airplanes are small, personally I think CAP should have gone with a larger airframe to carry out our missions but thats a different story.

  comfort can be a problem when you have two large members trying to sit shoulder to shoulder in such a thin small frame of the 172, use of the flight controls may be a problem as well in some cases of extreme body size.

  I know any time you bring up weight it can be a very sensitive issue, alot of people are very sensitive about being barred from doing something because of their weight. I know that there's not many people who choose to become fat, it just unfortunately sneaks up on us as we slow down and do less moving around. the junk foods that are everywhere are also a big problem. Heck even our kids are getting fat in schools. it's an epidemic.

[RiverAux]

Yes, a proper weight and balance ensures that any individual flight is safe in that area.  So, there is no issue there.

The issue for the organization is having enough little people qualified as aircrew to make up for the big people.  Right now this is an entirely random process and doesn't always work out for the best. 

If you have a very heavy aircrew member there are only so many people small enough to be able to fly in the plane with them. That big person does have less actual value to CAP (as far as aircrews go) since they cannot fly with a lot of people and can only be used on a certain percentage of missions.  Simple fact of life.

So, a person that weighs little is far more valuable to the aircrew person than a heavy person.   If we're talking about a small pilot that is even better since a large pilot automatically has precedence and you must find 2 small people to go with him.  A big scanner can be left behind if necessary. 

Now, I don't think a generic weight limit to be an aircrew member is appropriate since due to the weight and balance calculation we do have some wiggle room.  However, I don't think it would be out of line at all to set a general rule that aircrew members must meet the height/weight standards to wear AF uniforms (not that they have to, just that they could).  This would give incentive for the big folks to lose enough weight to meet the standard and give some minimal assurance that there won't be too many people in the program that would bust the weight/balance for you. 

[smj58501]

  (Rolls his eyes in agony and cried aloud "NOOOOOOOOOOOO not another weight topic... getting as bad as uniforms")

[N Harmon]

The point is, we need to watch our image both as individuals and as the U.S. Air Force Aux.. we have to keep ourselves as fit as humanly possible for the jobs that we do.  We owe it to CAP, the USAF, our customers and to ourselves to maintain physical fitness standards and body fat standards for our operational people IE: ground team and aircrew.

Wait. Of all of the reasons there are to limit aircrews to officers under a certain size, you're choosing our organization's need to project a specific "image"? I do not think that is a very good one.

[Pylon]

So... let's see here:

• Flight Medical performed by a licensed Physician, certifying a member to fly aircraft... CHECK


• Bi-annual flight review by a license CFI, certifying a member to fly aircraft... CHECK


• CAPF 5 checkride by CAP Check Pilot, certifying a member to fly CAP aircraft... CHECK


• Weight and Balance performed as required, and plane can operate safely... CHECK


• Operational Risk Management matrix fillout as required (well, at least in NER), and plane and crew can operate safely.... CHECK


• FRO says the crew is safe to fly... CHECK

But you still want to disqualify these members for CAP flight because everyone from the flight medical physician, to the CFI, to the CAP Check Pilot to the weight and balance sheet all missed something critical indicating that an overweight member is not capable of, nor safe to, fly a Civil Air Patrol aircraft?  Tell me; what is it that those processes, procedures and checks would not catch?

I don't care what your weight is; If everyone from the flight doc, to the CFI and Check pilot, to the weight and balance sheet, to the FRO and ORM matrix all say that a member of whatever weight is good to go on an aircrew with me, I'm more than happy to be a part of the mission when them and get it done, while you're on the ground dreaming up unnecessary requirements.

Sounds like you're really more interested in the aesthetic dimension of it all, and really not anything related to sound science, safety, or realistic mission requirements.  That's a shame.  Perhaps if we spent less time devaluing some of our contributing volunteers and more time refining our actual mission capability, we'd be of much better service to our customers.

[SarDragon]

I think the primary concern here is the number of crewmembers that can fly a mission when two of them are heavier than average. I was unable to fly a mission some months ago because of that.

I'm 5'10", 190 lb dressed to fly, and the other two guys each outweighed me by 60 pounds or more. The plane (a 182) was topped off for fuel, and we would have been over the weight limitation if I went along. If the fuel had been just at the tabs, it would have been close.

[RickFranz]

From what I understand about the new glass cockpits with all the hi tech auto pilot.  Sound like you could do a grid search on auto pilot and let the pic look out the window and leave the scanner at home.  Of course there is always that look out for the guy thing the pilot is suppose to do...

[Eclipse]

I think the primary concern here is the number of crewmembers that can fly a mission when two of them are heavier than average. I was unable to fly a mission some months ago because of that.

I'm 5'10", 190 lb dressed to fly, and the other two guys each outweighed me by 60 pounds or more. The plane (a 182) was topped off for fuel, and we would have been over the weight limitation if I went along. If the fuel had been just at the tabs, it would have been close.

So...the alternative might have been you had no pilot and no mission.  Your AOBD or IC should be making operational decisions about mission execution Are we concerned about finding people, etc., or more worried about who gets to go for a ride?

There have been plenty of times when my in-spec gargantuism precluded me from flying, K-SARA-SARA.  Either somebody topped off the 172s we used to have, or two other big guys were slated as well, my personal ops tempo and qualifications mean I am not concerned about missing a ride now and then.

There have been other times when my specific skill and experience was requested and the aircrew was limited or scaled to allow me to get my hugeness folded into the rear or right seat.

If you have so few aircrew that you can't creatively schedule flights that give everyone a turn, you need to look there, not limit the aircrew you already have qualified from flying at all.

And for all the noise about recruiting, I don't see a line outside of people begging to fly for CAP. At a quick mental survey, in my wing if you precluded the tall guys who are heavy but in-spec, (causin' they is tall drinks of water), and the ones who are legit overweight but still rockin' pilots, you would basically
shut down an encampment, a flight school, and all but stand-down ES.

Excellent plan, however it is self-fulfilling, because the little-feller pilots that were left would quickly be worn into little numbs, so you'd never have to worry about them getting fat.  Quitting on burnout, maybe, but not fat.

[SarDragon]

If I miss a ride, I miss a ride. I was more concerned about the lack of the extra set of eyes on the search, and the missed learning opportunity. I make each mission I go on an oppotunity to learn something new, and have seldom failed at that.

[Short Field]

This post seems to be more against "fatties" than an aircraft safety issue.  Sure glad I am in the CIVILIAN auxillary to the USAF and not the USAF AUX.

[Flying Pig]

On the Fossett search, because of the high D.A. I saw a few crews that had to mix and match people.  Weight and Balance is the unarguable factor.   Either you can or you cant.  If your over gross, the PIC has some decisions to make.  Im all for fitness, but there is no way we can start setting up crew quals based on Physical Fitness standards other than those already set by the FAA.  But really, if the weight and balance says your good, your good.  Go fly. 

From what I understand about the new glass cockpits with all the hi tech auto pilot.  Sound like you could do a grid search on auto pilot and let the pic look out the window and leave the scanner at home.  Of course there is always that look out for the guy thing the pilot is suppose to do...

Ahhhhhh.......I think thats where your suppossed to use the happy faces to let us all know you were kidding!

[RickFranz]

You are right 

Sorry about that.

[Short Field]

The terrain display, GPS system,  and autopilot are really great innovations on the new airplanes.   Just need to program the autopilot not to try to fly through mountains...    

[Mustang]

I'm a "fattie" and also flew as a mission pilot on the Fossett search.  The C-182 is an immensely capable airplane, and even at max gross weight, I was able to fly myself and my crew of two to altitudes just shy of 14,000' without a problem.  The C-206 is even more capable.

That said, we are running into real problems with useful load on the turbocharged G-1000-equipped C-182s.  These birds have really gained weight with the 24-G seats, airbag shoulder harnesses, oxygen systems, etc.  Add the extra CAP gear, satphone, etc and it's a two-place airplane with full fuel, and a three-place airplane with fuel to the tabs, but only if the crew and their gear are modest in weight. 

Some will say that we don't need turbocharged airplanes, I haven't made up my mind on that one completely but I do appreciate that one's performance and thus safety margin goes way down at the density altitudes those of us in the high mountains have to face. Unfortunately, the decisionmakers in this organization are mostly flatlanders (and sea-level ones at that), so they don't quite understand what we're dealing with. To see what it's like, limit yourself to 1800 RPM in a 172 or 18" MP in a 182 sometime--for takeoff, climb, everything.  Head on up to 4-5000' and see how she does.

With the payload capacity of the turbocharged G-1000-equipped C-182s being so limited, however, I have suggested to the powers that be that mountainous states be equipped with turbo'ed C-206s instead of 182s.  This would make huge strides in regaining lost utility as the C-182 line as gotten heavier in recent model years.

[Flying Pig]

Turbos would be great..but we would need to a huge increase in our maintenance budget to go along with the planes.

[0]

I agree that we all (myself included) should maintain a certain weight to be part of air crew.  Maybe it's time for "Biggest Loser CAP Aircrew"

[Flying Pig]

I think its almost a self fixing problem,  If you keep showing up to searches, and keep find yourself left behind after the W&B is completed....you'll get the hint.

[jimmydeanno]

Unless it is the pilot and observer that take up the W&B so the 140 lb scanner gets left behind...

[SarDragon]

Unless it is the pilot and observer that take up the W&B so the 140 lb scanner gets left behind...

BTDT - 180 lb scanner.

[MIKE]

CAP should not have to purchase larger and/or more powerful airframes because our aircrew have too much mass... when factoring the posted useful load.  Part of the qualification process should include the weight issue such that the aircraft is never overweight, such that a crew member is left on the ramp.  I don't think it is unreasonable to say that one must be a maximum of X lbs and Y tall to serve as aircrew on a particular airframe.

[jimmydeanno]

Unless it is the pilot and observer that take up the W&B so the 140 lb scanner gets left behind...

BTDT - 180 lb scanner.

My wife weighs about 110 and had to be left behind during a SAREX when she was going for her scanner rating.  Fuel was at the tabs on a 172 and there wasn't much gear.  I've been told I can't go and I'm about 150ish, again, fuel at the tabs on a 182.  It does get really annoying when it happens multiple times because of the time that is wasted.

[Eclipse]

CAP should not have to purchase larger and/or more powerful airframes because our aircrew have too much mass... when factoring the posted useful load.  Part of the qualification process should include the weight issue such that the aircraft is never overweight, such that a crew member is left on the ramp.  I don't think it is unreasonable to say that one must be a maximum of X lbs and Y tall to serve as aircrew on a particular airframe.

OK, so now we're limiting height, too?

You're going to have a lot of pretty hanger queens.

W&B issues should be worked out by the AOBD or RUL as crews and sorties are being planned. There should be no "ramp surprises" that leave a crewmember waving goodbye to the plane.

This is >why< we have bases operations staff, to work this kind of stuff out.

[MIKE]

I've heard talk that some taller people have trouble fitting in the Airvans.

[Eclipse]

Heck, I have trouble fitting in most cars, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to fly, as long as
I can keep my gangly arms and legs out of the way.

I have yet to see a 172 be able to take more than three adults in mission mode no matter
what they weigh, the 182's were a gift from the Lord.

[Flying Pig]

Fitness and height and weight standards for volunteer aircrews.  I have been a law enforcement aircrew member for almost 4 years now.  I can guarantee you that we in LE are famous for not being late to dinner.  If we can't get our guys on the ball......Im not seeing CAP being very successful at accomplishing it.   

[Eclipse]

^^^ Excellent point - LEA's and FD's all over the country struggle with this exact issue, and if they can't get their people to step up at the point of a paycheck, good luck for us.

(and that doesn't address those of us who could go on a liquid diet for two months but would still have the same sized arms and legs)

[RickFranz]

I guess if we went to UAV's that would take care of all our air crew problems...

[davedove]

I'm not currently part of an aircrew, but I am a large guy (height and girth), so I got to thinking.  Assuming the 500 lbs. is about right for total aircrew weight, with three people in the aircrew, that means an average of 167 lbs. per aircrew member.  Looking at the height/weight standards, if you use the AF standards, that means a man would have to be between 5'4" and 5'5" to fall within the standards.

How many men are you going to be able to recruit that are under that height?  There just aren't very many of that size out there in the population.  Women fit within the standards much easier, because they are smaller on average than men.

If the average weight per person is 200 lbs., that raises the height to 5'11" or 6', so that is a lot easier to fill, but still leaves out a lot of guys who are over 6'.

Of course, this is using the more strict AF standards, not the more more relaxed CAP standards, so it would still be hard for CAP to find the people.

I agree we all need to lose some of the weight, especially me, but CAP has a hard enough time getting people now.  Something like this would indeed gut the program.

[Flying Pig]

Could someone who is 5'4" even fly a 206?  Im 6' and I have the seat all the way up and I still feel like Im head on with the attitude indicator.

[Frenchie]

I have yet to see a 172 be able to take more than three adults in mission mode no matter
what they weigh, the 182's were a gift from the Lord.

The 172p we used to have had a full fuel useful load of 615 lbs even with the required stuff in the back.  If you had the fuel at the tabs, you get 717lbs of useful load left.

We have a few women in our squadron that are 130 lbs or less and a few men that are 175 lbs or less.  With two each of these men and women you could take 4 even with full fuel in theory.  In practice we never did it as far as I know, although we did do a few O-flights with a pilot and 3 cadets.

[jayleswo]

Try recruiting some cadets (over 18) as Scanners and Observers - even mission pilots. They are often below your weight limits.

[DrJbdm]

I'm not ever flying with a cadet who's the Mission Pilot. that should never happen, the MP should always have to be a CAP Officer.

[jimmydeanno]

I'm not ever flying with a cadet who's the Mission Pilot. that should never happen, the MP should always have to be a CAP Officer.

I'm sorry you feel that way, perhaps you should get over yourself and recognize that the cadets skills meet the criteria to be a mission pilot.  It's just a difference of membership type, not skill.  < and no, I am not retracting that statement, ever.

[Flying Pig]

I don't think it has to do anything with getting over ones self.  I dont know that I would be particularly excited about it either on the face of it.  I would want to know more background on the pilot, how long have they been flying, etc. A cadet mission pilot is probably not going to have  a lot of experience.  Then again, you could have a 18-19-20 year old professional CFI-I with 1000 hours already under his belt.  Im probably a little easier with it because I am a pilot and could intervene if necessary, vs. a non-pilot observer or scanner who is putting their trust in a, lets call it what it is a "cadet".
Although I wont say never, I think any cadet MP should expect a lot of scrutiny before we (Seniors) pile in with him or her to go off on a mission.  It should probably be something that is included in a Cadet Mission Pilot check out.  Lets call it, "WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT FROM THE OLD FARTS AS CADET MISSION PILOT"  Is it fair considering the cadet CFI-I, MP met all the same quals as a 60 year old Private Pilot/Mission Pilot?  Yes and no.  Its fair because they are still young and don't bring with them some of the common sense/life experience that an older member will have.  And I might have reservations jumping in with an 18 year old PIC with a Private and 70 hours of flight time. No, because the cadet really may be more qualified AND experienced than the other pilots.   If a cadet is in the position of really getting some serious flight time on missions, and this is becoming an issue, maybe the cadet should evaluate the benefit of staying a cadet vs a Senior FO.  Its just how life is in any arena. A cadet mission pilot walking in on a mission is always going to grab peoples attention, good or bad.

[davidsinn]

Doesn't PRWG have a full cadet Aircrew? I seem to recall reading about it in the Volunteer last year.

[davidsinn]

I'm not ever flying with a cadet who's the Mission Pilot. that should never happen, the MP should always have to be a CAP Officer.

There is a Cadet(Spaatz) in my wing that's training to be an MP and I would rather fly with her than some of our older MPs. She has her act together and does not have the huge head I've noticed a few of our Lt. Col MPs have.

[jimmydeanno]

I don't think it has to do anything with getting over ones self.

Of course it does.  Making the statement that you (not you) wouldn't EVER fly with a cadet mission pilot is absurd.  Would you not fly on a commercial airliner because the pilot happened to be under 25 or take flying lessons from a 20 year old CFI?  Then add to it that it should be required for all MPs to be officers. 

So you have a 20 year old CFI, who flies everyday for a living and teaches people how to fly who happens to be a cadet member and you won't fly with them.

However, you have a 20 year old CFI, who flies everyday for a living and teaches people how to fly who happens to be a TFO and you will?

Same person, different title on their membership card.  It has everything to do with getting over one's self and looking at the qualifications and abilities of the individual who has proven that they are qualified to perform the task.

If you or anyone else doesn't feel comfortable flying with a qualified "cadet in charge" it's probably better that you don't. I guess it is good to know that the 1% of people who makes these types of comments aren't the ones working with cadets or the ones actually making decisions.

Keep up all the great work all you cadet MPs out there and keep on racking up those finds!

[Flying Pig]

Can cadets qualify for the CD program?  Is there any thing a Cadet mission pilot is prohibited from doing?  Although a cadet may be fully qualified, where I could see it being an issue would be working with outside agencies even if the cadet is an older 19-20 yr old cadet.
For example if an adult cadet MP shows up for a photo recon mission with the local Sheriff's Dept, and someone sees the title "Cadet" I could almost guarantee the mission would come to a screeching halt until some calls were made.  I think having the term "CADET" may send up some flags for agencies not really familiar with CAP and our different programs and terminology.  In many agencies outside of the military, the term "cadet" is translated to mean "kid".  I would recommend any cadet MP flying with a non CAP agency to just leave the term "cadet" out of, and off of,  anything unless it is really necessary.  But I think your right if a cadet is truly qualified, it really comes down to a title on a membership card.

I would just encourage anyone with a cadet Mission Pilot coming up in the ranks, sit down with them and explain to them that they are truly a RARE BREED and to expect to feel like a circus freak with all of the whispering and finger pointing.  If you are a cadet MP already, make sure all of your ducks are in a row ALL OF THE TIME and expect people to check and triple check your preflight planning and your flying. Take it as a source of pride when they don't find anything wrong.  But I think most people will bend over backwards to help you.  You are to be congratulated and don't let your skill stop with CAP.

[MIKE]

Topic.

[Flying Pig]

OK.....topic.  Should large people be allowed to fly?