Higher flying bar to cross now?

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

"I'll never fly one of those new fangled mono-plane things"

[BHartman007]

...do you still use a fountain pen...

Sometimes, yes.

[LSThiker]

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

Knew a doctor that would only sign his name using a fountain pen.  When you offered him a ballpoint, he would refuse it.

[JacobAnn]

"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!"

Good one!  It's all a matter of perspective.  I know some old (non CAP) pilots who won't fly in a radio environment.  They are content with their tail draggers and grass strips.

[bflynn]

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.

My sense is that people fall into two categories - one saying "it's too much at once", the other saying "it's too big of a hassle"...or both.  I know I've seen at least two instructors join and leave without ever flying their first hour.  I've seen ATP pilots join and leave without ever flying.  These certainly aren't people who have a problem with the airplane, it must be the organization.

It's the choice of the organization whether to help people or not.  I'm hearing a lot of not.

I'm done...was hoping to raise awareness of an issue that I perceived, but this doesn't seem to be the right forum.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

*What?  An airplane with an enclosed cockpit?  How can the pilot tell if he's flying straight if he can't feel the wind on his face?  How can he tell if he is at the right speed if he can't hear the wind in the wires?  No way, open cockpit or nothing.

*what's with this Omni stuff?  What's wrong with the ADF and the beacons?  pilots are just getting lazy.  No good will come of this.

*LORAN for Airplanes?  Oh come on.  We have the VOR and the DME and now RNAV is getting affordable.  This is just going to make pilots lazy.

*Dang GPS  What now?  First they take away the ADF, then the LORAN, now they are telling us DME is going away and the VOR's are being shut down.  All replaced by this GPS thingie. 

Aviation is dynamic.  Fluid and ever changing so the aviator is left with but two choices.  Continue to learn, adapt to new systems and concepts, and embrace progress.  The only other choice is to refuse and be shuffled off and become marginalized.  Soon to be the butt of airport jokes and looked on with scorn, pity, or distain.

More and more airplanes are glass cockpit, and every year more and more legacy aircraft are outfitted with Aspen and Garmin PFD's and MFD's.  ADS-B is a fact of life, GPS Navigation is the future.  For many pilots Foreflight, WingX, and Garmin Pilot have already replaced charts, AFD's, plotters, and flight computers.  The proliferation of tablets has made it possible to carry complete aircraft maintenance records, manuals, and logbooks on every flight.  In short the only constant we have is change.

As a side note:  Although I have posted the links in earlier postings, search SATNAV NEWS.  This is a free FAA Online Newsletter on all things GPS.  Very well written, good articles, and addresses the future of Satellite Navigation.

[BHartman007]

I'm done...was hoping to raise awareness of an issue that I perceived, but this doesn't seem to be the right forum.

It's not so much that it's the wrong forum to ask as much as it just isn't as big as issue as you perceived.

Unless I've read this incorrectly, the perceived issue is lack of time and lack of funds to learn to fly glass.
If you don't have the time to fly a few hours to learn the glass, where were you going to find the time to fly the steam gauges? We're talking about an add on, not a new license. As far as paying for training, CAP gives that away. No one in your area willing to take the time to teach you? Surely there's a school that will. A few hours of instruction isn't that expensive, and if it's too much, how were you going to fly in the first place?

The bar may be a little bit higher, but there are people on top of it to help you up.

[lordmonar]

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.

My sense is that people fall into two categories - one saying "it's too much at once", the other saying "it's too big of a hassle"...or both.  I know I've seen at least two instructors join and leave without ever flying their first hour.  I've seen ATP pilots join and leave without ever flying.  These certainly aren't people who have a problem with the airplane, it must be the organization.

It's the choice of the organization whether to help people or not.  I'm hearing a lot of not.

I'm done...was hoping to raise awareness of an issue that I perceived, but this doesn't seem to be the right forum.

I don't know what the issue really is.    Are we painting ourselves into  a corner because we buy advanced tools to do our missions and expect our pilots to know how to use them?     

Or is the problem is that the organization has internal blocks to getting new members in the cockpit and flying missions?

Sure we can go out and buy nothing but C-172s....except in all those places where the 172 is not the right tool for the mission.
Sure we can special order airplanes with nothing but round gauges.....and just ignore all those new and useful tools that make flying the mission easier and safer.

I do agree that we do have an organizational issue when new members seem to run into glass walls when trying to get their Form 5 and get up to speed.    But that was not what you first brought up in your original post.

Complex aircraft with Glass Cockpit is what we fly.    It is the best tool for the job.   If new members (old members for that matter) can't or won't get the training to be qualified to fly them....then thanks for playing.   If new member or old members are trying to get the training but organizationally we are not providing it.......that I agree is a problem.  But for the most part I don't really see it.   Not across the board.   I do see it in squadrons who don't have a plane and recruit members telling them they can fly tomorrow and then not making that happen.   
CAP can work better on making sure there are more instructors and more check pilots.

[FW]

Patrick, you have raised two questions which need answers. IMHO, both issues have validity.  CAP expects (rightly so) pilots to be proficient in operating the aircraft in our fleet, and there are internal blocks which keep all member pilots from being trained and proficient in TAA aircraft.

I think CAP still has a more "subjective" way of handling pilot training and proficiency than "objective" (as far as providing opportunity).  I may be wrong, however no one has come to me in the last 3 years to offer any...

[lordmonar]

Patrick, you have raised two questions which need answers. IMHO, both issues have validity.  CAP expects (rightly so) pilots to be proficient in operating the aircraft in our fleet, and there are internal blocks which keep all member pilots from being trained and proficient in TAA aircraft.

I think CAP still has a more "subjective" way of handling pilot training and proficiency than "objective" (as far as providing opportunity).  I may be wrong, however no one has come to me in the last 3 years to offer any...

I agree Fred.   One of the issues....is that CAP does not have any real ES/Mission goals for pushed to the unit level.

Other then the stated desire to have each aircraft get 200 hours put on them every year.....we don't have any hard training/manning/equipment goals that we can use as a score card at the unit level.

We all sort of know what needs to be done and how many people we need to do it.....but its not written down on paper anywhere.

[Eclipse]

^ You hit it on the head.

Why does Unit A have 6 missions pilots?  Because they felt like it, not because of any mandate or grande plan.
Why doesn't Unit B have any.  Same reason.

Etc., etc.

Starting with mission and purpose, there should be a top-down framework based on needs at the national and local level,
with the Ops people at every echelon always in negotiating mode to serve their customers.

As it is today, the entirety of the situation is random and based on factors completely out of CAP's control. A handful
of pilots who decide to be snow birds or retire can destroy a wing, or even a region's capabilities overnight.

[lordmonar]

^ You hit it on the head.

Why does Unit A have 6 missions pilots?  Because they felt like it, not because of any mandate or grande plan.
Why doesn't Unit B have any.  Same reason.

Etc., etc.

Starting with mission and purpose, there should be a top-down framework based on needs at the national and local level,
with the Ops people at every echelon always in negotiating mode to serve their customers.

As it is today, the entirety of the situation is random and based on factors completely out of CAP's control. A handful
of pilots who decide to be snow birds or retire can destroy a wing, or even a region's capabilities overnight.

Holy Schnosbots!  Eclipse and I can sometimes whole heartedly agree on something!

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Why does Unit A have 6 missions pilots?  Because they felt like it, not because of any mandate or grande plan.
Why doesn't Unit B have any.  Same reason.

I disagree.

Squadron A has 6 mission pilots because sometime in the past or now they had the leadership that created a process and associated Esprit de Corp that attracted and then kept those 6 mission pilots.

Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership.

We have 11 CAP pilots in our squadron with another 5 in training.  Leadership got us there and is keeping us there through three Squadron Commanders.

[Eclipse]

^ Yes, they "felt like it" - there's no grande plan, minimum manning, or ramifications if expectations
aren't met, because there are no expectations. They were self-initiated and self-actualized.

A new CC could well place the emphasis elsewhere and things could change.

Squadron B might just like cadets or AE more, so they don't' "feel like" growing pilots.

From the top down this is absolutely a Leadership issue, but at the unit level,
it's many times simply a choice.

I have argued ongoing that it should not be, and that commanders should not be
allowed to treat the mission like a menu, but until there is command imperative to the
contrary, they can and do.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

^ Yes, leadership "felt like it" - there's no grande plan, minimum manning, or ramificaitons if expectations
aren't met, because there are no expectations. They were self-initiated and self-actualized.

A new CC could well place the emphasis elsewhere and things could change.

Agreed, that why I qualified Squadron B: "Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership."

[Eclipse]

Agreed, that why I qualified Squadron B: "Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership."

No, that's not necessarily true - perhaps the Commander is a good leader and has no interest in ES.
There's a difference (and see my edit above as to how I feel about that).

The choice to have mission pilots does not, in any way, necessarily equal leadership.  It represents
a choice, nothing more.  And further, it could just be random good fortune coupled with stewardship
of those who wander in the door.

Further, if the care and feeding of those pilots is at the expense of a function cadet program, that's no better.

The point Lord and I are making is that it should be a choice, it should be part of a plan, where
everyone has a place, and knows what their role is.

[lordmonar]

Why does Unit A have 6 missions pilots?  Because they felt like it, not because of any mandate or grande plan.
Why doesn't Unit B have any.  Same reason.

I disagree.

Squadron A has 6 mission pilots because sometime in the past or now they had the leadership that created a process and associated Esprit de Corp that attracted and then kept those 6 mission pilots.

Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership.

We have 11 CAP pilots in our squadron with another 5 in training.  Leadership got us there and is keeping us there through three Squadron Commanders.

Sure leadership got you there....and that's a good thing.    But if you dropped to 5......you are not failing.  Because there are no objective standard....just the subjective one that good leaders like your commander, apply to them selves.

What I am saying.....is that because CAP does not have any real plans setting those standards that are communicated to the squadron level......there is no real way of saying is Commander X or Commander Y is effective or not.

And like wise there is nothing to use as a guage to determine if squadron X needs help or not.

And finally one day there will come a mission and maybe there will not be anyone there to answer the call...because not all commanders are like yours.    Not to say that other commanders who can't see the bigger picture are necessarily bad.....just that they lack scope, and that come from lack of training, lack of clear plans and objectives to work towards.

[lordmonar]

I have argued ongoing that it should not be, and that commanders should not be
allowed to treat the mission like a menu, but until there is command imperative to the
contrary, they can and do.

I sort of agree what you are saying.....but I disagree with the implications of what you are applying.

You can't blame the unit level commander for "choosing the missions as a menu" when you know that is exactly what it is.

[a2capt]

We once had 6 active CAP pilots, today, we have none, myself included.

Back when member owned aircraft were not the red headed stepchildren, it was a lot less overhead to remain "current", because you had access to aircraft. In my case, I had access to 10 different ones, could get one at a moments notice, if my own was not available or satisfactory to the mission.

At least now, the policy is pretty well documented, but in the years leading to what we have today, there was a lot of head turning, hearsay and just plain old GOBlins getting in the way.

We went from an organization founded on member contributions to "keep that off my 108!".

So since my ability to remain current in an aircraft that I wouldn't typically operate, and have to go out of the way to use.. or why should I spend ~$100/hr. when on top of that, there's hurdles and hassle tossed in the way by the unit(s) with the aircraft, being "protective", worried that if other members start using "their" airplane, then they'll lose it.

The atmosphere is not as conducive to units without assigned aircraft as it once was, with regards to maintaining readiness/currency.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Agreed, that why I qualified Squadron B: "Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership."

No, that's not necessarily true - perhaps the Commander is a good leader and has no interest in ES.
There's a difference (and see my edit above as to how I feel about that).

The choice to have mission pilots does not, in any way, necessarily equal leadership.  It represents
a choice, nothing more.  And further, it could just be random good fortune coupled with stewardship
of those who wander in the door.

Further, if the care and feeding of those pilots is at the expense of a function cadet program, that's no better.

The point Lord and I are making is that it should be a choice, it should be part of a plan, where
everyone has a place, and knows what their role is.

Agreed.

For our example, and likewise with the other successful squadrons I've observed, is that two Commanders ago, we made a choice, created a plan and executed that plan to have more pilots, more base staff, take part in more exercises, grow, and have more fun.  The last Commander, me, continued that choice, and the new commander is continuing that choice.

Leadership, esprit de corps, purpose.