Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 18, 2018, 07:14:26 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: CAP Pilot Professionalism
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print
Author Topic: CAP Pilot Professionalism  (Read 3677 times)
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,145

« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2018, 10:31:46 AM »

But there's that bunch out there who have trouble acting like "adults" when they're on their own.
They're the one's who get noticed in a bad way and give CAP the rep they have with the General Aviation community.

This.

In my experience, unprofessional pilot behavior is an extension of unprofessional conduct not related to air operations.

An unwillingness to follow regulations, pencil whipping ES and PD requirements, failure to wear a uniform correctly: all behaviors I've seen from pilots that I've refused to fly with. I figure that if they can't get their act together on the ground, why should things be any different in the air?

This.

Seems the problem is not more education or check rides.  Its an "enforcement problem".

This.

A lot of pilots "know better", and refuse to take subtle suggestions that their behavior is potentially causing issues.

This.


Didn't we see a similar memo recently, several months back maybe?
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 618

« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2018, 06:31:30 PM »

This might provide a better look at the motivation:

Quote from: Col Jon Stokes, CAP, Pacific Region Commander
Commanders,

Over the last few years, CAP has seen a number of aircraft mishaps and accidents that were, without a doubt, avoidable.  At least three of these accidents have occurred here in Pacific Region.  Working towards reversing this trend, Maj Gen Smith rolled out his “Institutional Excellence in Mission Accomplishment” goal as part of his “Six Areas of Emphasis” which he introduced at upon taking command last August.   One of the aspects of this goal is to improve aircrew professionalism.  Attached is a memo from Gen Smith outlining this initiative.  Please review and make sure that it is forwarded to all CAP aircrew members including pilots, observers, scanners and airborne photographers.  You should also ensure that it is posted on your websites for future reference.  Let’s all do our part to improve the level of aircrew professionalism in Pacific Region and continue to work towards PCR being the safest region in the nation.

Regards,

Col Jon Stokes, CAP
Pacific Region Commander

It would be interesting to see exactly what mishaps have occurred.  I've seen at least one, and perhaps two CAP glider mishaps where the owning organization (CAP) was not mentioned in the NTSB report, nor was it mentioned in any news report I saw (and I looked).  I'm not aware of any powered aircraft mishaps where CAP's ownership of the involved aircraft is obscured, however that doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. 

IMHO, a lot more transparency by NHQ (Regions and WINGS) about the details of CAP mishaps and near mishaps would be very helpful to focus preventative efforts at all levels (National, Region, Wing, Group, and Squadron) more productively. 
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,335
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2018, 06:48:23 PM »

The off-topic uniform nonsense got moved to its own topic.  ::)
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 374
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2018, 10:12:27 PM »

This might provide a better look at the motivation:

Quote from: Col Jon Stokes, CAP, Pacific Region Commander
Commanders,

Over the last few years, CAP has seen a number of aircraft mishaps and accidents that were, without a doubt, avoidable.  At least three of these accidents have occurred here in Pacific Region.  Working towards reversing this trend, Maj Gen Smith rolled out his “Institutional Excellence in Mission Accomplishment” goal as part of his “Six Areas of Emphasis” which he introduced at upon taking command last August.   One of the aspects of this goal is to improve aircrew professionalism.  Attached is a memo from Gen Smith outlining this initiative.  Please review and make sure that it is forwarded to all CAP aircrew members including pilots, observers, scanners and airborne photographers.  You should also ensure that it is posted on your websites for future reference.  Let’s all do our part to improve the level of aircrew professionalism in Pacific Region and continue to work towards PCR being the safest region in the nation.

Regards,

Col Jon Stokes, CAP
Pacific Region Commander

It would be interesting to see exactly what mishaps have occurred.  I've seen at least one, and perhaps two CAP glider mishaps where the owning organization (CAP) was not mentioned in the NTSB report, nor was it mentioned in any news report I saw (and I looked).  I'm not aware of any powered aircraft mishaps where CAP's ownership of the involved aircraft is obscured, however that doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. 

IMHO, a lot more transparency by NHQ (Regions and WINGS) about the details of CAP mishaps and near mishaps would be very helpful to focus preventative efforts at all levels (National, Region, Wing, Group, and Squadron) more productively.
I am shocked at the lack of open and honest post incident internal reviews and discussion.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,131

« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2018, 10:36:50 PM »



I am shocked at the lack of open and honest post incident internal reviews and discussion.

Some lately have gotten quite a bit if I recall.

An accident with a glider tow, for example.

And the C-182 in Mobile, AL.

Some changes were made after both of those I believe.  IFR mins raised after the latter for one thing.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 670

« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2018, 06:13:21 PM »

I am shocked at the lack of open and honest post incident internal reviews and discussion.

Probably out of fear of feeding the lawyers.
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 618

« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2018, 07:51:40 PM »


Some lately have gotten quite a bit if I recall.

An accident with a glider tow, for example.

And the C-182 in Mobile, AL.

Some changes were made after both of those I believe.  IFR mins raised after the latter for one thing.

As I recall the glider tow accident was REMOVED by the moderator(s), only to be restored after a Regional Commander sent a note down chain to all of his subordinate commanders & aircrew suggesting it be discussed.

The Mobile, Alabama accident discussion could scarcely be described as 'robust' in official conversations I've heard, nor on this forum.  Several mishaps between the two mentioned that resulted fatalities have not been the topic of even that much daylight.

From my perspective as a regular analyst of NTSB reports there is much room for productive discussion (even if somewhat speculative or pre-final report).  Examples abound.

FWIW, I think the changes to FRO procedures previously thoroughly bemoaned and wondered about on forum were very positive.   FWIW, I think the FRO corps would be much more effective if 1) the apponted officers had an aviation background sufficient to be an active and useful foil for the pilot's final decision on whether to launch; and 2) be separated from personal relationships (+ or -) with the PIC by requiring periodic out of unit flight releases.  Like it or not, it's tough for some FROs to say "you're too sick to fly" or ...  other words to that effect. 

I also believe the emphasis on "professionalism" is a good step.  However, IMHO, "professionalism" means we also need more complete information sharing when non-fatal as well as fatal mishaps occur.  For example, I have yet to see an 'official' good deconstruction for air crews of the fatal glider tow mishap, nor the recent non-fatal powered aircraft mishaps... some of which occurred during check rides, others during proficiency flights.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 08:14:05 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,131

« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2018, 10:06:52 PM »


The Mobile, Alabama accident discussion could scarcely be described as 'robust' in official conversations I've heard, nor on this forum.  Several mishaps between the two mentioned that resulted fatalities have not been the topic of even that much daylight.


Grass roots is where its best.  Our Squadron discussed that one in particular, in depth, using the NTSB reports and more, at a couple of our meetings.

Don't wait for things to come down from Hdqs.  Be pro-active locally.  :)

Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,852
Unit: of issue

« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2018, 08:49:36 AM »

It would be interesting to see exactly what mishaps have occurred.  I've seen at least one, and perhaps two CAP glider mishaps where the owning organization (CAP) was not mentioned in the NTSB report, nor was it mentioned in any news report I saw (and I looked).  I'm not aware of any powered aircraft mishaps where CAP's ownership of the involved aircraft is obscured, however that doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. 

IMHO, a lot more transparency by NHQ (Regions and WINGS) about the details of CAP mishaps and near mishaps would be very helpful to focus preventative efforts at all levels (National, Region, Wing, Group, and Squadron) more productively.

I read those NTSB reports and its kind of spotty as to when the "owning organization" is or isn't listed. Often they'll say who the mishap aircraft belongs to, but not always.  I think its more hit and miss due to the person writing the report rather than CAP convincing the NTSB to not list who owns the aircraft (especially considering that thru a cursory glance thru the NTSB database, even if the "owning organization" isn't listed in the preliminary or final report, its still usually listed in the forms and documentation in the the NTSB docket that backs up the report..)

But I wholeheartedly agree that detailed reports of mishaps and such are part of a continuing evolution of our knowledge, training and experience.

As an example: As a flight engineer in the Army, I read "Flightfax" (the Army's monthly safety pub, which includes summaries of accidents) pretty religiously under the belief that I can gain knowledge from the experience of others.  I once read about a mishap in Alaska where a Chinook landed on a DZ following an airdrop mission and a loose parachute got sucked into the aft rotor system, destroying the aircraft. A couple months later during Team Stupid Spirit, we were landing at the DZ in Yeoju following a heavy airdrop. On short final we kicked up an unsecured cargo chute.  My crewchief on the ramp said "Just blew a parachute away to the left," and I immediately told the pilots "go around to the right."  They did, and while the parachute probably would have not been a factor, I wasn't taking that chance. We radioed the ground and had them secure everything in the LZ before we came back in. Without that knowledge of the Alaska mishap 8 years before, I might have ignored my CE's call about the chute, and "what if...".   I also got my hands on the Navy's "Approach" magazine as often as I could. The Navy is *brutal* in their self-assessment of aviation mishaps, and each issue was filled with first-person articles written in the form of "I Learned About Flying From That" from Flying Magazine. Now, substantially, Approach covered blue-water carrier fixed-wing aviation, but you could read these articles and see the chain of events leading up to the mishap or incident, and it helped me as a young, impressionable flight engineer fill in some important gaps in my personal knowledgebase.

As another example: The US Parachute Association publishes incident reports in our monthly magazine "Parachutist."  We're not downplaying the fact that parachuting is series business, and usually these incident reports start out with "The deceased was ..."  (ie. "The deceased was part of an 18-way group exiting a Skyvan from 14,000 ft.." or "The deceased was performing a high performance landing when.."). I look at situations with both me and my students and think "The deceased was .." and insert whats going on, because it forces me to think about the circumstances and challenges. Do I want to be a part of my own incident report? Heck no.  So learn from the experience of others. 

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Cliff_Chambliss
Seasoned Member

Posts: 405

« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2018, 09:18:32 AM »

The Air Force has the HATR Reports.  As the Safety Officer/Assistant Chief Instructor for the Aero Club I would review these reports and often found items of useful information for our monthly safety briefs.  Especially useful were incident reports from other military aero clubs and CAP. 
Logged
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
2d Armored Cavalry Regiment
3d Infantry Division
504th BattleField Surveillance Brigade

ARMY:  Because even the Marines need heros.    
CAVALRY:  If it were easy it would be called infantry.
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,852
Unit: of issue

« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2018, 09:20:33 AM »

Another thing to think about with pilot professionalism:

We are sometimes our own worst enemy here.  CAP members are flying a fairly obviously marked red, white & blue airplane with a special "callsign" and we're all in a uniform that calls us out as CAP folks. We fly into airpatches where we might not normally fly and we're not always familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the place.

Pop quiz:

Do you
a) blunder into the pattern, expecting the locals to recognize your exceptional skill and importance and clear the way; or
b) act like an ambassador from the organization, flying like you've got the FAR/AIM right in front of you, have reviewed the AFD Chart Supplements for that airport, and be a high-speed/low-drag professional aviator representing the rest of us?

Its all too often a) when it really needs to be b).  And it really, really needs to be b).

I'm sure there are plenty of guys in GA who fly their clapped out Cherokee 140 or shiny new Cirrus to some airport, never make a radio call, miss the calm wind runway,  fly the pattern backwards, bounce the thing three times on arrival, taxi too fast on the well-marked closed taxiway, treat the lineboy like dirt and eat all the cookies at the FBO (mmm, cookies). This happens every day. But nobody remembers that guy cuz he's wearing shorts, flip flops and a t-shirt and his plane looks like every other plane.  He flies off into the sunset and the locals go "What a jerkweed that guy was!" but once he's over the horizon, nobody will remember him.

But when a CAP pilot does the exact same thing, we're doing it with a big fat "look at me!" paintjob, decals, callsign and uniforms (even when that uniform is a polo shirt and grey pants). 

As a good friend who is a CAP pilot said: "With CAP flying, maybe we need to make the point a little clearer that every radio call, every approach, every interaction with an FBO, you're representing the entire organization and you may be the one making the impression that lasts for years and years. So don't be a [bonehead]."

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,615

« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2018, 09:42:23 AM »

What are the HATR reports, and how do I get them?



Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 618

« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2018, 11:48:57 AM »

I read those NTSB reports and its kind of spotty as to when the "owning organization" is or isn't listed. Often they'll say who the mishap aircraft belongs to, but not always.  I think its more hit and miss due to the person writing the report rather than CAP convincing the NTSB to not list who owns the aircraft (especially considering that thru a cursory glance thru the NTSB database, even if the "owning organization" isn't listed in the preliminary or final report, its still usually listed in the forms and documentation in the the NTSB docket that backs up the report..)

I could be guilty of sloppy use of our language.  Never happened before.  I don't know why ownership in a few accidents was obscured (it's still easily traceable given the FAA's N-number lookup for those who really feel the need).  My point is and was that only CAP NHQ has complete records of all mishaps, including internal investigations AND the NTSB's sometimes cursory reports.  IMHO, CAP has missed a very real opportunity to enact culture change (if that's a goal) by obscuring the details of some Ops related events and not sharing any useful details of the few others mentioned in pubs like Volunteer Magazine nor the Region/Wing equivalents   that are widely circulated among Members.  Even CAP's Safety Beacon , while well written doesn't offer many specifics or deep insights into Ops mishaps.

Another "IMHO", factor in this apparent blind spot for critical examination and sharing of  important aviation mishap reports may very well because of  the deliberate organizational bifurcation of safety responsibilities within CAP.  Ops looks after ops, while the Director of Safety (and lower level safety officers) look after everything else.  Hence, in the same year a C206 flipped on landing a few years ago - with scant mention of the aircraft mishap on the ops side -  a highly placed Safety Officer sent out a rant on open toed shoes  - later retracted because many female cadets attending a gala CAP sponsored event planned to wear open toed shoes.  IMHO, that bifurcation is alive and well today... to our collective detriment.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 11:59:48 AM by Live2Learn » Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 618

« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2018, 12:54:04 PM »


Quote from: Civil Air Patrol
A Civil Air Patrol Cessna 182 from the Kentucky Wing was involved in an incident at Clarksville Regional Airport in TN this afternoon.  The plane's single occupant, a CAP pilot, is being evaluated at a local hospital. The incident is under investigation.

Found an article about this, according to Lt Col Wilson Polidura, "a thunderstorm took control of the aircraft."

http://clarksvillenow.com/local/small-plane-crashes-at-clarksville-regional-airport/


The AIM offers some relevant advice here:

"7−1−29. Thunderstorm Flying
a. Thunderstorm Avoidance. Never regard any
thunderstorm lightly, even when radar echoes are of
light intensity. Avoiding thunderstorms is the best
policy. Following are some Do’s and Don’ts of
thunderstorm avoidance:
1. Don’t land or takeoff in the face of an
approaching thunderstorm.
A sudden gust front of
low level turbulence could cause loss of control."

Hopefully the accident report will be both informative AND discussed in CAP media.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,542

« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2018, 01:42:12 PM »

This is all over the news today, hard to miss...

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1514646/air-force-directs-one-day-operational-safety-review/

Air Force directs one-day operational safety review

"WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David L. Goldfein directed all Air Force wings with flying and maintenance functions to execute a one-day operational safety review by May 21, 2018.

“I am directing this operational safety review to allow our commanders to assess and discuss the safety of our operations and to gather feedback from our Airmen who are doing the mission every day,” said Goldfein.

After a series of recent aviation mishaps and fatalities, including a WC-130 Hercules crash May 2, the Air Force is taking swift action to ensure the safety of its force. Although safety statistics over the past decade show Air Force Class A and B aviation mishaps trended downward, the Air Force's manned aviation mishap rate increased since the beginning of fiscal year 2018.

During the safety review, commander-led forums will gather feedback from Airmen who execute the Air Force's flying operations and challenge Airmen to identify issues that may cause a future mishap.

“We cannot afford to lose a single Airman or weapons system due to a mishap that could have been prevented,” said Goldfein. “Our men and women have volunteered to give their last full measure for America's security. My intent is to have commanders lead focused forums with their Airmen to help identify gaps and seams that exist or are developing, which could lead to future mishaps or unsafe conditions.”


Logged


THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,859

« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2018, 01:45:25 PM »

This is all over the news today, hard to miss...

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1514646/air-force-directs-one-day-operational-safety-review/

Air Force directs one-day operational safety review

"WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David L. Goldfein directed all Air Force wings with flying and maintenance functions to execute a one-day operational safety review by May 21, 2018.

“I am directing this operational safety review to allow our commanders to assess and discuss the safety of our operations and to gather feedback from our Airmen who are doing the mission every day,” said Goldfein.

After a series of recent aviation mishaps and fatalities, including a WC-130 Hercules crash May 2, the Air Force is taking swift action to ensure the safety of its force. Although safety statistics over the past decade show Air Force Class A and B aviation mishaps trended downward, the Air Force's manned aviation mishap rate increased since the beginning of fiscal year 2018.

During the safety review, commander-led forums will gather feedback from Airmen who execute the Air Force's flying operations and challenge Airmen to identify issues that may cause a future mishap.

“We cannot afford to lose a single Airman or weapons system due to a mishap that could have been prevented,” said Goldfein. “Our men and women have volunteered to give their last full measure for America's security. My intent is to have commanders lead focused forums with their Airmen to help identify gaps and seams that exist or are developing, which could lead to future mishaps or unsafe conditions.”


CAP following suit? You know, being total force and all that....
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,542

« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2018, 02:03:06 PM »

Give an Airman a stand-down day, and he's still there. 

Do it in CAP, and the response ranges from "tree in a forest when no one is there..." to
"Are you nuts? We spent 6 months trying to get these O-rides planned - that's the last time I bother...".

And if it's on a meeting night, you're as likely to have an "open-toe shoe presentation", as anything related
to flight ops (not to mention all the units that have no flight or ES ops to speak of).

Excellence is a multi-year product of leadership, expectations, and ramifications, not a stand-down day.
Logged


THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,859

« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2018, 02:10:50 PM »

Give an Airman a stand-down day, and he's still there. 

Do it in CAP, and the response ranges from "tree in a forest when no one is there..." to
"Are you nuts? We spent 6 months trying to get these O-rides planned - that's the last time I bother...".

And if it's on a meeting night, you're as likely to have an "open-toe shoe presentation", as anything related
to flight ops (not to mention all the units that have no flight or ES ops to speak of).

Excellence is a multi-year product of leadership, expectations, and ramifications, not a stand-down day.

So the answer is "no". I have half a rock that says that it won't even be addressed by CAP leadership at any level. Go Speed Racer....
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
mdickinson
Forum Regular

Posts: 193

« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2018, 02:21:54 PM »

Another thing to think about with pilot professionalism:

We are sometimes our own worst enemy here.  CAP members are flying a fairly obviously marked red, white & blue airplane with a special "callsign" and we're all in a uniform that calls us out as CAP folks. We fly into airpatches where we might not normally fly and we're not always familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the place.

Pop quiz:

Do you
a) blunder into the pattern, expecting the locals to recognize your exceptional skill and importance and clear the way; or
b) act like an ambassador from the organization, flying like you've got the FAR/AIM right in front of you, have reviewed the AFD Chart Supplements for that airport, and be a high-speed/low-drag professional aviator representing the rest of us?

Its all too often a) when it really needs to be b).  And it really, really needs to be b).

I'm sure there are plenty of guys in GA who fly their clapped out Cherokee 140 or shiny new Cirrus to some airport, never make a radio call, miss the calm wind runway,  fly the pattern backwards, bounce the thing three times on arrival, taxi too fast on the well-marked closed taxiway, treat the lineboy like dirt and eat all the cookies at the FBO (mmm, cookies). This happens every day. But nobody remembers that guy cuz he's wearing shorts, flip flops and a t-shirt and his plane looks like every other plane.  He flies off into the sunset and the locals go "What a jerkweed that guy was!" but once he's over the horizon, nobody will remember him.

But when a CAP pilot does the exact same thing, we're doing it with a big fat "look at me!" paintjob, decals, callsign and uniforms (even when that uniform is a polo shirt and grey pants). 

As a good friend who is a CAP pilot said: "With CAP flying, maybe we need to make the point a little clearer that every radio call, every approach, every interaction with an FBO, you're representing the entire organization and you may be the one making the impression that lasts for years and years. So don't be a [bonehead]."

This! Exactly! A hundred times over.
How can we make it so that every check pilot in CAP gets to see this post?
Or maybe every pilot?
 :clap:
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,131

« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2018, 02:47:12 PM »

As much as I hate to say it, get rid of intra-squadron check rides, Form 5s and 91s.  Require it to be someone from another squadron. Another Wing would be better, but a logistical nightmare.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: CAP Pilot Professionalism
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.325 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me