Higher flying bar to cross now?

[bflynn]

The recent threat on 110LL vs Jet-A got me thinking about a different topic related to our choice of airplanes.

More recently, C-182, a Caravan and/or C-206 have become the more common airplanes being acquired, frequently with G1000 or other glass cockpits.  Certainly there are good reasons for the choices.

My question - are we painting ourselves into a bit of a corner by having a standard that is a more complex airplane than many pilots are learning to fly?  I ask this because I'm in that boat.  I learned on a PA-28-161 and somewhat recently moved to a C-172, both with steam gauges.  In moving to fly any one of the three aircraft above, I have extra training to cross that chasm.  Not only do I have to learn the CAP admin side of flying, but also to fly complex and TAA aircraft, including glass and the G1000.  That's a lot of chasm to cross at once and I know I'm not the only one in my squadron who is looking at this.

So - are we putting ourselves into a situation where it's more difficult for us to get new pilots up to speed?  It's cool to have these aircraft and these systems, but should we also have a bridge program for newer pilots to help them get into the left seat more easily?  You can say it's the pilot's responsibility and it is.  But isn't it also CAP's loss to have pilots but not having them flying?

Just thoughts that occurred.  I'm sure I'll get there eventually anyway, but it's a little difficult.

[Panzerbjorn]

We have a Caravan?  You may be thinking of the GA-8.  We wouldn't be using Caravans as they are turbo-props, and would most certainly be crossing into the territory you're speaking of.

I came into CAP as a non-pilot, and have steadily advanced my way through the ranks and fleet, first with 172s, then 182s, then 182T G1000, and then GA-8, soon onto 206s.  That leap from 172s to 182s was an intimidating one at first, debut a few hours in the aircraft with an instructor quickly made me comfortable.

Recently, an emphasis on proficiency flying has been made and there doesn't seem to be anything keeping a pilot like yourself grabbing an instructor and hopping into a 182 flying one of the proficiency profiles to get you used to flying that aircraft in the left seat.  There is also usually funds made available a couple times a year in a Wing for training in the G1000.

Are we painting ourselves into a corner?  No, I don't believe so.  The G1000 is the most Technologically Advanced aircraft we have, and even that you can get a good comfort level with after just a few hours at the controls.  Otherwise, the aircraft flies like every other 182.

It can be done, and CAP provides the opportunities for that bridge training you are suggesting.  I'm living proof of it.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Our Squadron received a 182 G1000 over a year ago and we were wondering the same thing.  I can say in retrospect that it has been a very positive experience in many respects.

Some of the positives are:

1. You need a minimum of two flights for the VFR transition training and this can help new CAP Pilots in their transition to bring CAP Pilots.

2. A new Aircraft is a fantastic Recruiting tool

3. There are so many advantages to the G1000 that include situational awareness, WX data link, world class autopilot, etc.

We thought the transition to the G1000 would leave some our Pilots stranded but all but one pilot have completed their transition to VFR and a number to IFR.

However, key to the transition is having a bunch of G1000 check Pilots.

We love our 182 G1000.

[PHall]

CAP does NOT have any Cessna C-208 Caravans.  And at $1Million a copy we won't be getting any anytime soon.

[bflynn]

Yes, my mistake - I was thinking of the GA-8 and wrote Caravan.  Obviously different airplanes.

[Eclipse]

When we started adding glass aircraft to the fleet, some of the more seasoned pilots waived the Armageddon flag
and rang the death knell of CAP aviation.

Some dropped out or refused to even consider transition training, however many did the training (more then a few on
CAP's dime) and now it's the opposite, when you swap in a steam for a glass as part of fleet rotation, they
wail an gnash teeth about the steam airplanes.

The reality is that CAP doesn't have a choice, especially with the younger pilots CAP will have to recruit to remain
viable.  Cessna doesn't make steam anymore and they will become more and more of the minority in the next decade,
not just in CAP but in the general GA universe as well.

[Live2Learn]

As long as we do not allow our stick and rudder skills to erode the TAA aircraft are great.  Unfortunately, while flyiing glass is similar to flying the round gages, it does take additional cost to bring pilots who ony have steam gage experience into the cockpit.  Yes, the aircraft are nice recruiting tools.  Yes, they offer great situational awareness (providing the pilot also looks OUTSIDE).  Yes, the auto pilots are great workload reducers (unless they crap out... which has happened).  Two questions remain:  First is the continuing cost of maintaining the aircraft.  While mechanically they aren't much different from any other fuel injected SE plane, the avionics suite is their heart.  I don't know what CAP pays for the db subscription.  The owner of a G1000 equipped Kodiak tells me it's a bit over $100 per month.  I expect if the MFD or PFD develops a problem the cost will likewise be a budget issue.  The second is fuel.  The G1000 suite weighs quite a bit more than the old six pac, so useful fuel is reduced.  Also, availability of 100LL is going down every year.  In Washington the State  revenue office shows  the amount sold decliing by 1-3% per year.  I'm looking forward to getting checked out in the G1000 suite.  Meanwhile, all of the aircraft I fly for work and pleasure are still round dials.  Whether it's possible to maintain proficiency with the G1000 avionics while flying it just 30-40 hours a year remains a question for me.

[Eclipse]

In Washington the State  revenue office shows  the amount sold decliing by 1-3% per year.

Is there any background to that data or just raw numbers? Because it's at least as likely to be related to the economy in that
there are simply less GA pilots to buy it, and those still around are flying less (maybe the current slide will help that).

Also, while the 100LL phase-out isn't a trivial issue, the alternatives being developed will back fill the need.

[Huey Driver]

Let's be real - Skyhawks are not the workhorse of SAR. So why did we only purchase Skyhawks this year? For glider tows and for training primarily.

That being said... this was the biggest purchase we've had in quite some time, I believe. So with the purchase of these new airframes, I wouldn't say we're painting ourselves into a corner. I get where you're coming from though. But like Panzerbjorn said, the transition from C172 to C182 isn't too bad after a few hours with a good instructor. Same thing with the G1000, or even less time for the lesser-equipped TAA.

However, it takes some time to build the hours and experience, and meet the requirements for MP. So until we get there, there's no reason to jump right into Skylanes or Stationairs. Another reason why the Skyhawks were a good purchase.

Also, does anyone know what avionics we'll have on these new Skyhawks? G1000, Aspen/Garmin 430 setup, steam gauge?

[Al Sayre]

Transitioning to different aircraft is a good thing.  As pilots it is necessary the we are constantly learning, and every new aircraft we fly has something to teach us.  I personally would not want to fly with someone who refuses to learn how to use "that there newfangled equipment...".  JMHO

[bflynn]

Transitioning to different aircraft is a good thing.  As pilots it is necessary the we are constantly learning, and every new aircraft we fly has something to teach us.  I personally would not want to fly with someone who refuses to learn how to use "that there newfangled equipment...".  JMHO

Why do you assume the reason would be a refusal?

I'm observing a sitation - I'm in this class myself, but my reasoning right now is that I just don't have time and increasingly not the money.  As I described elsewhere, I have a son entering private school with tuition just above "youch".

I've also seen many pilots enter our squadron, hit that wall and stop.  Its difficult to get it all done and they choose different, less difficult options.  If the CAP response is "we only want pilots who are stubborn enough to get through this", then I think it's a disservice to the organization.  I don't have numbers, but if the ratio of "pilots who join" to "pilots who stay around and fly" is not at least 10:1, I'd be surprised.

[Panzerbjorn]

As long as we do not allow our stick and rudder skills to erode the TAA aircraft are great.  Unfortunately, while flyiing glass is similar to flying the round gages, it does take additional cost to bring pilots who ony have steam gage experience into the cockpit.  Yes, the aircraft are nice recruiting tools.  Yes, they offer great situational awareness (providing the pilot also looks OUTSIDE).  Yes, the auto pilots are great workload reducers (unless they crap out... which has happened).  Two questions remain:  First is the continuing cost of maintaining the aircraft.  While mechanically they aren't much different from any other fuel injected SE plane, the avionics suite is their heart.  I don't know what CAP pays for the db subscription.  The owner of a G1000 equipped Kodiak tells me it's a bit over $100 per month.  I expect if the MFD or PFD develops a problem the cost will likewise be a budget issue.  The second is fuel.  The G1000 suite weighs quite a bit more than the old six pac, so useful fuel is reduced.  Also, availability of 100LL is going down every year.  In Washington the State  revenue office shows  the amount sold decliing by 1-3% per year.  I'm looking forward to getting checked out in the G1000 suite.  Meanwhile, all of the aircraft I fly for work and pleasure are still round dials.  Whether it's possible to maintain proficiency with the G1000 avionics while flying it just 30-40 hours a year remains a question for me.

Don't forget the awesomeness of the SAR tools in the G1000.  You can plug in your whole search and let the AP fly it.  It's almost cheating.

Yes, the reduced useful load is a little aggravating because of the G1000, but as you said, you compensate for that by having less fuel on board.  Out here, we never fill the 182s past 50 gallons except for rare special occasions.  50 gallons still gives you 4 to 5 hours of endurance.  You don't even need to fill those 182s to 87 gallons for high bird missions.  You just don't need 7 to 8 hours of endurance for what we do.

[BHartman007]

If you don't have the time to spend a few hours learning the new plane, how were you going to find the time to fly in the first place?


EDIT: This was my post #172. How ironic is that, considering the topic?

[Panzerbjorn]

Transitioning to different aircraft is a good thing.  As pilots it is necessary the we are constantly learning, and every new aircraft we fly has something to teach us.  I personally would not want to fly with someone who refuses to learn how to use "that there newfangled equipment...".  JMHO

Why do you assume the reason would be a refusal?

I'm observing a sitation - I'm in this class myself, but my reasoning right now is that I just don't have time and increasingly not the money.  As I described elsewhere, I have a son entering private school with tuition just above "youch".

I've also seen many pilots enter our squadron, hit that wall and stop.  Its difficult to get it all done and they choose different, less difficult options.  If the CAP response is "we only want pilots who are stubborn enough to get through this", then I think it's a disservice to the organization.  I don't have numbers, but if the ratio of "pilots who join" to "pilots who stay around and fly" is not at least 10:1, I'd be surprised.

Every bit of my transitioning into new aircraft in this organization has been on the Air Force's dime.  I won't presume that you're letting opportunities pass you by, but the system is set up to allow you to utilize training funds.  Out of my last 200-some odd hours of flying time, I've only had to shell out 3.5 hours out of my own pocket.  For any CAP pilot, the most aggravating time is that block of time between your PPL checkride and 100 hours PIC.  During that block of time CAP can't back you by giving you funding.  Once you hit TMP, the doors open.  After you make MP, the doors fling wide open.  If you're in that block of time that you're trying to get 100 hours PIC, I completely feel for you, brother.  I hated that time.

I don't believe the CAP attitude is as much "We only want pilots who are stubborn enough...." as it is "You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink."  For whatever the reason you don't  or can't make that leap, you can't say that it's CAP putting hoops in your way for its own amusement when it is providing opportunities.  Again, I'm proof of that.

[Al Sayre]

Transitioning to different aircraft is a good thing.  As pilots it is necessary the we are constantly learning, and every new aircraft we fly has something to teach us.  I personally would not want to fly with someone who refuses to learn how to use "that there newfangled equipment...".  JMHO

Why do you assume the reason would be a refusal?

I'm observing a sitation - I'm in this class myself, but my reasoning right now is that I just don't have time and increasingly not the money.  As I described elsewhere, I have a son entering private school with tuition just above "youch".

I've also seen many pilots enter our squadron, hit that wall and stop.  Its difficult to get it all done and they choose different, less difficult options.  If the CAP response is "we only want pilots who are stubborn enough to get through this", then I think it's a disservice to the organization.  I don't have numbers, but if the ratio of "pilots who join" to "pilots who stay around and fly" is not at least 10:1, I'd be surprised.

I'm not assuming refusal on your part, but I have seen it from some older pilots.  If they aren't willing to learn to use the new equipment (on the USAF/CAP's dime), I have to wonder what else they aren't willing to learn.  Things like new FAA regulations, local airspace restrictions, TFR's, changes to 60-1 & 60-3, etc. etc. ... 

[Eclipse]

+1 I had one chap who simply said "I'm never flying glass."  He also refused to consider flying a 182 as well.

He has long since moved on, as did a number of his compadres.

There will come a time for all of us when "the next thing" is "too much".  No harm, no foul, but CAP, nor
any other organization that wishes to remain viable, can't stifle progress, or deny the realities of the sector
just to hold the door open for people who aren't even interested in the conversation.

[bflynn]

I'm not assuming refusal on your part, but I have seen it from some older pilots.  If they aren't willing to learn to use the new equipment (on the USAF/CAP's dime), I have to wonder what else they aren't willing to learn.  Things like new FAA regulations, local airspace restrictions, TFR's, changes to 60-1 & 60-3, etc. etc. ...

"I won't" hasn't been my experience with pilots.  It's more like "You've got to be kidding me", then they go do something else.

Seems like a lot people don't see a problem.  Ok.

[Panzerbjorn]

I've seen and felt that too at times.  But it's not usually in response to the complexity of the aircraft. It's typically in response to the requirements imposed to sit in the left seat.  When the GA-8 first arrived, you needed a Commercial rating to fly it. But when you fly it, it really doesn't fly any different than a 182.   For the glass, it DOES require some getting used to because the instrument scan is a bit different, and you also need to develop the muscle memory for the various soft keys.

But the attitude of "You got to be kidding me" when faced with requirements to fly an aircraft you feel capable of flying is different from that attitude faced with an aircraft that may be intimidating or daunting.

[NIN]

"Back in my day, we thought that new artificial horizon was too much of a crutch. But when they took away my yaw string, that was the final straw!"

[NIN]

+1 I had one chap who simply said "I'm never flying glass."  He also refused to consider flying a 182 as well.

He has long since moved on, as did a number of his compadres.

There will come a time for all of us when "the next thing" is "too much".  No harm, no foul, but CAP, nor
any other organization that wishes to remain viable, can't stifle progress, or deny the realities of the sector
just to hold the door open for people who aren't even interested in the conversation.

I hear this every day at work.

"I'm not good with computers"
"I don't know all this techno whizz bang"
"I used to do this with paper"

Replace "techno wizz bang" with "glass" and "paper" with "steam gauges"

its 2015.  do you still use a fountain pen or an ink well?