Training oppurtunity for A9 flights

[Flyboy86]

Do you utilize A9 flight to do training? What I am talking about is setting up a mission where by you need a crew and you plan to do some sort of training as long as you go straight and do not delay your flight to get to your destination. It is an opportunity to work the SAR package in your plane, do radio checks etc.

It seems to me just moving a plane from A to B is a wasted opportunity to do something.

[SARDOC]

There are a couple schools of thought on this.  One is like the one you have, that it would be silly not to conduct some training while on a maintenance flight.   However,  Keep in mind that the money allocated for these flights are for the purposes of maintenance only.   When you start doing other things under the auspices of training you increase the money being spent on these maintenance flights.  We are asked in good faith by the Air Force to be good stewards of their money.  When you start doing other things you are kind of breaching that trust.  If you wanted to to do something that didn't prolong your anticipated flight time at all...like conducting a legal IFR approach I think you would be okay.

[rbrehm]

I'm pretty sure I've recently read a memo through NHQ from the Air Force about "unauthorized training" during Air Force assigned missions (A9 falls into that category) and it being highly frowned upon. Now if it's something that doesn't delay or add time to your flight (like using the radio), I'm sure no one would have an issue, but it would be best to check with your squadron.

[Eclipse]

It seems to me just moving a plane from A to B is a wasted opportunity to do something.

Moving a plane from A to B is all you are authorized to do.

A quick / efficient way to get yourself and your wing in trouble is to start playing games with mission symbols.

[lordmonar]

I'm with Eclipse on this one....it is about accounting.

An A9 flight for maintenance.....not training.....if you do training you need to use the right mission type.

Having said that....if let's say you have no training money......but you got some A9 money.....have wing transfer it over.....and fly your training mission.

The point is not to use money allocated for Mission X for Mission Y.   If you start doing that then you open the door for someone to use say O-ride money to do ES......"heck I had a cadet in the right seat".....which may just lead to out and out fraud.

[Flyboy86]

It seem that we are running scared of tripping over some perceived notion that all we can do is fly the plane from point A to B. Being good stewarts of AF funding also means we do things efficiently to further our goals, one being prepared to do the ES mission.

The memo sent some time ago was to limit repetitive landings during a AF funded mission.

What I am saying here is we have an opportunity do some additional things in the cockpit during the flight that can refresh our memories as how to do that!.

Some time ago I gave a F91 check ride to a pilot that forgot how to use a GX55. He had only flown numerous A9 flights in the previous year. If he had taken a little time during each flight to push button he would have been proficient.

[Flyboy86]

Lets not get lost in the weeds now. The mission symbol allows us to do a certain type of flight. I do not see it as strict thou shall only do X. There is no limitations set for a A9 flight other than to move the aircraft efficiently for A to B. It does not prohibit you from taking any qualified member as a passenger and it does not prohibit you from setting up SAR processes in the avionics.

What I am suggesting is that while officially we call these A9 flights, we also ask crews to do some mock training on the way or from. If I (MP) take an observer and he/she operates the CAP radio I can sign of his task, right?

It is also a way to get IC to do the dispatching, radio calls, briefing and debriefings.

Lets not waste an opportunity unless we are actually directed not to perform some functions on a A9 flight.

[Eclipse]

Some time ago I gave a F91 check ride to a pilot that forgot how to use a GX55. He had only flown numerous A9 flights in the previous year. If he had taken a little time during each flight to push button he would have been proficient.

He should be flying other symbols.  That's the real problem.  We have far too many "hole-burners" - high-time pilots (from a CAP perspective) who don't do much but
MX, xport, and O-rides.  Valuable in the grande scheme, but not from an ES perspective.

The problem with ideas that "value add" is that people start seeing stretching things.  Next thing you know you're running a highbird net during a xport mission,
then you're using MX money to move aircraft before and after missions or o-rides, etc., etc.

There's also the complication factor.  The USAF is authorizing these flights for a specific purpose, with an assumed base-level ORM.  Start doing "other", whatever "other" is, and the ORM begins to
creep up.

[lordmonar]

It is all about accounting........If we can save money by combining two mission profiles......then by all means do so.....but check with wing first to make sure you are using the right mission symbol or you are going to screw up their and USAF's number crunching.

[EMT-83]

As long as you're not putting extra time on the tach, there's absolutely no reason not to train during an MX flight. Putting an MO in the right seat so he can stay sharp on the G1000 is a bad thing how?

[PHall]

As long as you're not putting extra time on the tach, there's absolutely no reason not to train during an MX flight. Putting an MO in the right seat so he can stay sharp on the G1000 is a bad thing how?

Because you can't spend money from bucket A to do B.   It's like crossing the streams, you just don't do it.

[JeffDG]

Provided you're not spending more A9 money than you would otherwise, go for it.

If you're doing an A9 and there's an Observer trainee who needs some planning/radio work on his/her SQTR, it adds nothing to the cost of the mission to take him/her along, or to let them do some mission planning for the flight.

[lordmonar]

As long as you're not putting extra time on the tach, there's absolutely no reason not to train during an MX flight. Putting an MO in the right seat so he can stay sharp on the G1000 is a bad thing how?

Because you can't spend money from bucket A to do B.   It's like crossing the streams, you just don't do it.

Sure you can.....just make sure wing has sign off on it......it is how we CAP types get O-rides on USAF aircraft.  Somewhere deep in the bowels of USAF bean counters...there is a mission number for just CAP O-rides....but there is never any money.....but get permission and we can fly cadets around the sky while someone else pays for it.

Just get permission!

So to the OP........by all means.......get what ever training you can while flying your profile.......get an observer and scanner to ride with you as you ferry the plane from A to B.....just don't add time to the Tach.   If you start flying outside the profile for the mission type......clear it with wing so that they can keep all their red beans in the red box and all their green beans in the green box.

[Eclipse]

Ask your LRADO - he's the person who's going to have the opinion that really matters, and the
one who will have to deal with it it you color outside the lines.

[sardak]

Here is the memo from the CAP-USAF/CC titled "Unauthorized Training on Air Force Assigned Missions."

Mike

[JeffDG]

Here is the memo from the CAP-USAF/CC titled "Unauthorized Training on Air Force Assigned Missions."

Mike

"Second, it is understood that other crew positions may satisfy 'on the job training' when the conduct of this training is coincidental to and does not detract from the mission."

[SARDOC]

IIRC this memo came about because it was discovered that a pilot was conducting a Simulated Engine Failure and gliding into the airport where the Consolidated Maintenance Facility was.

It didn't result in anything bad...but if it had, this flight was an AFAM and the Air Force would have been on the hook to cover the insurance...

[JeffDG]

IIRC this memo came about because it was discovered that a pilot was conducting a Simulated Engine Failure and gliding into the airport where the Consolidated Maintenance Facility was.

It didn't result in anything bad...but if it had, this flight was an AFAM and the Air Force would have been on the hook to cover the insurance...

I thought it was more pilots doing a few extra T&Gs on A9s or A1s to help maintain currency.  In fact, the letter mentions diverting to other airports.

[Eclipse]

^ That's exactly what it was.

[JeffDG]

^ That's exactly what it was.

ID-10-T error...

Seriously...if you want to use an A9 to train up an Observer and/or Scanner, nothing stopping that.  The memo from CAP-USAF/CC specifically contemplates that.

Just don't extend non-A5/A7/A12 flights for additional "training" or proficiency...and A5, do what the IC/OSC/AOBD tells you to...he's managing the budget for that mission!