PA Wing grounds pilots??

[Patterson]

So a friend of mine forwarded me the email from the PA Wing Commander, mandating all Pilots, crew and anyone associated with an Airplane in PAWG report to the small airport at State College PA for a "safety briefing".  He has made it mandatory and if the member does not show up that person is grounded until they go to the Wing Headquarters a month later and sit through the same presentation. 

Here is the problem many in PAWG have.... the location is both inconvenient and far away from both the East and Western sides of the State.  It was announced only 12 days from the activity, and has not been explained why it is required.  If a member can not make it they are grounded, and must travel to the Wing HQ (near Philadelphia) to make it up on a specific day in September.  If not they are permanently grounded. 

I have have never heard of such a thing, nor would I ever support an arbitrarily mandatory event like this. 

Does anyone have info on this?  Is this a national thing?? 

Here is the link to the "order".  http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs061/1101935192062/archive/1103630599333.html

[FW]

As I understand the situation, the grounding is in response to several breaches of incident reporting and broken aircraft.  These breaches could have caused injuries to aircrews and damage to property.  One aircraft was flown with a broken landing gear bushing and, another had two bad cylinders which ended up freezing on a maint. flight.  There may be other incidents which prompted the wing commander to order a mandatory safety down day however, I think these incidents would be sufficient. (I'll be participating since I do like to keep current with procedures).

This stuff happens frequently.  Unfortunately, there are always some who wish to cut corners or think it unnecessary to report problems.  This is a shame.

[Patterson]

^ I can understand that, and not being a frequent enough aviator myself, are these items you described the type of things that would be seen during a pre-flight or post-flight??  Or are these the things that are found when doing maintenance in New Jersey??

If it is a reporting problem, someone had to have reported them or they would not be known now?  I do not see this being done in other Wings.  If it were, I doubt it would be handled in this manner. 

[FW]

The problems mentioned should have been found during taxi phase of flight or, upon startup.  A Broken Bushing probably happened after a very hard cross wind landing.  It would have been noticed right away or during taxi at next flight or two.  In any event, the hard landing should have been noted and, an inspection of the aircraft during post flight should have discovered the problem
(as I was informed). The bad cylinders were discovered by the mechanic after engine start during maintanence.  The engine must have been running rough although there was no report (as I was told) of any engine problem.  I wonder if the PIC during the transport did a run up?   
Both problems were found by the mechanic while the aircraft were going through routine maint.  Both should have been reported and, each aircraft should have been grounded prior to a mechanic inspection.

Unfortunately this kind of behavior is found in many wings.  And, yes, this is exactily how a wing/cc should respond to such a problem.  We all need to be reminded of proper procedures from time to time and, our leaders must do everything possible to insure our members and equipment function safely and properly.

[Patterson]

^ OK.  Just my curiosity, as a non pilot.  Thank you Sir!

[Big_Ed]

Thanks Colonel - I appreciate your efforts in educating us. 

[RiverAux]

Seems like lazy wing leadership.  The common sense approach would be to give the presentation a reasonable enough times around the state so that most members could reach it without a major effort.  At the group level, perhaps? 

[Al Sayre]

Sometimes the best you can do is make everyone equally unhappy...

[a2capt]

Well, "You can't fly until you see this presentation" .. so .. fly here to get to it.
(okay. you can fly to here, but no where else)

... or there's I-70 and those crazy drivers that stop at the bottom of the onramps.

[SJFedor]

PA did a safety down day a long time ago when I was still a member up there, but if I remember right, if you couldn't make it to one of the seminars, they provided an online way to complete it.

Good idea, but again, can't say I agree with only holding it in one or two places, cuz PA is a pretty big place.

[FW]

Well, "You can't fly until you see this presentation" .. so .. fly here to get to it.
(okay. you can fly to here, but no where else)

Yes, ironic isn't it...

[JC004]

bahahaha.  What?

I agree with groups.  There are six now (kinda 8, but 6 geographic).  That makes the distance more manageable.  I'm not even sure I see a private company doing this to their employees, let alone a volunteer organization.  Round trip to the middle of the state is a lot of hours for the furthest units, a lot of gas, and a lot of money.  That said, it's not like PAWG is uniquely unconcerned about member money or anything (if they are not reimbursing it).  That seems to be nationwide.

Safety presentations at wing do fix your safety issues, though.  I think.

[truthseeker]

Yet another required Safety Briefing will not fix the problem.  It is just an annoyance and a waste of time for the responsible pilots who do follow the rules and MORE than keep up with safety.  This was ALREADY covered in the PA Wing Pilot Meeting earlier in the year.  The irresponsible pilots will continue to assume the problem is NOT them, and they will continue to be irresponsible pilots.  The only way to solve the problem is to use other tools at our disposal, like No-notice CAPF5's to cull the irresponsible pilots from the rolls.  Also, the two specific issues identified by FW were issues with specific irresponsible pilots in the western part of the state, so why doesn't leadership take steps to fix the obvious STAN/EVAL problems in that side of the state??

[FW]

^Actually, you raise some good points.  It would be a good idea to have "No-notice" form 5 rides from time to time as a way to keep pilots sharp.  It would be also good if the wing could identify the irresponsible parties (they can not in these instances) to specificly direct corrective action. 
I can't speak for the wing commander but, I've had to deal with issues like these.  It's tough to have to be the one who makes the decsions.

[Майор Хаткевич]

It's tough to have to be the one who makes the decsions.

Mainly because the anger ends up being directed at you and not those at fault...

[moleunit]

The only way to solve the problem is to use other tools at our disposal, like No-notice CAPF5's to cull the irresponsible pilots from the rolls.  Also, the two specific issues identified by FW were issues with specific irresponsible pilots in the western part of the state, so why doesn't leadership take steps to fix the obvious STAN/EVAL problems in that side of the state??

So true.  Hitting the problem straight on would seem to be the obvious solution.

[RiverAux]

The only way to solve the problem is to use other tools at our disposal, like No-notice CAPF5's to cull the irresponsible pilots from the rolls.

Something that should be considered for a lot of our ES quals as well. 

[Thrashed]

I had to work one Saturday in August, the safety down day.  I'm grounded.  Of course, I only work one Saturday in September; the make up day.  With a little notice, I could have got those days off.  I guess I'm not flying for CAP anymore.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I had to work one Saturday in August, the safety down day.  I'm grounded.  Of course, I only work one Saturday in September; the make up day.  With a little notice, I could have got those days off.  I guess I'm not flying for CAP anymore.

But at least you have a job in this economy, right?

[Lord of the North]

CAP REGULATION 60-1  paragraph 2-7. Grounding and Mishaps.

c.  Commanders or IC/CMDs exercising this authority shall notify the affected aircrew member in writing within 7 days of the date grounded, including the reason(s) this action was taken. The written notification must include a statement telling the aircrew member that he/she has the right to seek reconsideration of this action under the provisions of paragraph 2-7f of CAPR 60-1. A copy of this notification will be filed with the region commander and all intermediate commanders within 14 days of the grounding.

e.  Once grounded, only a wing or higher commander in the individual's chain of command may reinstate a member to flight status. Commanders may set any condition for reinstatement, including completion of a new CAPF 5, CAP Pilot Flight Evaluation.

f.  A member may submit a written appeal to his/her region commander if he/she remains grounded after 90 days. Such an appeal may only be filed one time and must be filed within one year of the initial grounding. Upon receipt of the appeal, the region commander will appoint a review board of at least three CAP check pilots to review the appeal. The review board will examine the facts of the case and make a recommendation to the region commander. The region commander will issue a final decision within 60 days of receipt of the appeal. All such decisions are final and not subject to review by filing a complaint under CAPR 123-2.

I wonder if any of this has happened?

[RADIOMAN015]

PA wing is a very large wing, one would think that they would have worked on a method to technically link the various groups to broadcast the briefing so as to reduce travel time & expense for the members.   Perhaps also they could record the briefing and those that couldn't attend at the local group, could review & certify via email that they had done this.

RM

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The safety briefing is a Band-Aid solution, at best, that doesn't deal with the real problem, which is that some of us haven't internalized the core values.

If we really live the core values as CAP members, this BS won't happen. We'll be honest with each other. We won't cut corners or cover up our mistakes and misjudgments -- integrity will be more than a buzz word. Excellence in all we do will be more than a saying; it'll be a way of life.

Sounds to me like Col. Lee and the Pennsylvania Wing leadership needs to hit on integrity, service above self and excellence in all we do. If people hold themselves and each other to the core values, this garbage doesn't happen and the need for this sort of rigamarole disappears.

To be fair, this isn't just a Pennsylvania Wing issue. This is an issue in everyone's units, in everyone's wings, in everyone's regions and special activities. If our commanders would gut up and be unafraid of angering people who genuinely suck, and assert the core values as the bedrock of CAP service, we would have the respect for each other and the level of professionalism to which we aspire. If more of our members would stand up and hold each other accountable, with command support, maybe we could attack this problem from two sides.

And maybe broken planes would be reported, and fixed in a timely way, and ready for missions on no notice. Maybe our squadrons would be more efficient, and maybe our dealings with each other wouldn't sometimes have contempt. Maybe cadets would hold more senior members in higher esteem (they can smell a bad senior member a mile away). Maybe Ma Blue would also stop turning her nose up at us.

Whaddya say?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Incidentally, for whatever reason, CAP tacks on a needless fourth core value -- "respect." I say it's superfluous because respect is wholly covered by the three Air Force core values.

I dare speculate that whomever thought adding "respect" to a perfectly good set of core values didn't understand the core values to begin with, or decided to leave his or her own mark on the core values. ("Hey, I added 'respect.' I'm so noble." "No, you're not. You have comprehension issues.")

OK, this post is a jab, I admit. But maybe I can take this discussion down a more constructive avenue -- if you don't live the core values, you ask for this sort of response.

We throw the core values out there, but we don't really teach them. They're not central to our doctrine. They're buzzwords unless they're applied and internalized, starting with new member training and working its way through the ranks.

[JC004]

PA wing is a very large wing, one would think that they would have worked on a method to technically link the various groups to broadcast the briefing so as to reduce travel time & expense for the members.   Perhaps also they could record the briefing and those that couldn't attend at the local group, could review & certify via email that they had done this.

RM

haha.  technology is banned.  The...uh...font on some wing mail over the years has matched the font used for decades.  That is, before there were screens attached... 

I offered many technology-based solutions - document management, project management systems, mapping solutions, databases, etc.  Interest?  Lacking. 

[Thrashed]

CAP REGULATION 60-1  paragraph 2-7. Grounding and Mishaps.

c.  Commanders or IC/CMDs exercising this authority shall notify the affected aircrew member in writing within 7 days of the date grounded, including the reason(s) this action was taken. The written notification must include a statement telling the aircrew member that he/she has the right to seek reconsideration of this action under the provisions of paragraph 2-7f of CAPR 60-1. A copy of this notification will be filed with the region commander and all intermediate commanders within 14 days of the grounding.

e.  Once grounded, only a wing or higher commander in the individual's chain of command may reinstate a member to flight status. Commanders may set any condition for reinstatement, including completion of a new CAPF 5, CAP Pilot Flight Evaluation.

f.  A member may submit a written appeal to his/her region commander if he/she remains grounded after 90 days. Such an appeal may only be filed one time and must be filed within one year of the initial grounding. Upon receipt of the appeal, the region commander will appoint a review board of at least three CAP check pilots to review the appeal. The review board will examine the facts of the case and make a recommendation to the region commander. The region commander will issue a final decision within 60 days of receipt of the appeal. All such decisions are final and not subject to review by filing a complaint under CAPR 123-2.

I wonder if any of this has happened?

Not for me. maybe I'm not "grounded".

[Thrashed]

Just got an email from the wing commander; I'm grounded.

[JC004]

Just got an email from the wing commander; I'm grounded.

Ask for a certificate too.  Just make sure it doesn't have the Triangle Thingy on it.  Actually...maybe you could contest its validity if it HAD the Triangle Thingy since it's not an official symbol of the corporation.  Loopholes!   

[a2capt]

Just got an email from the wing commander; I'm grounded.

You just got one, coincidentally? Or was it sent to all that did not attend?

[JeffDG]

Just got an email from the wing commander; I'm grounded.

Ask for a certificate too.  Just make sure it doesn't have the Triangle Thingy on it.  Actually...maybe you could contest its validity if it HAD the Triangle Thingy since it's not an official symbol of the corporation.  Loopholes!   

The reg just says notified in writing, which e-mail constitutes.  No need for a "certificate".

And, can you quote any regulation that prohibits the use of non-official symbols?

[Eclipse]

There's a difference between "grounded" and "stood down" - grounding is a very specific process and can only be done for very specific reasons - as an example we've had an issue with pilots in 000 - common sense would say you don't fly if you have no command oversight, the regs say differently.

From a practical standpoint DNIF is DNIF, but when a pilot is "grounded" there are very specific steps that need to be accomplished to get his status back, vs. a wing-level stand-down which isn't going to meet the same criteria and happened to be logistically inconvenient for some members.

It's unfortunate it worked out that way, but it is what it is.  Were it me I would be working to try and bring whatever presentation I missed down to my area for the people who couldn't get to it  so I can get my flying status back.  Taking the tack that "I am grounded" as if this was somehow personal may make you feel better but it won't get you back in the air.

[Al Sayre]

CAPR 900-2 Sect A Paragraph 1:

1.  Policy.

The use Civil Air Patrol (CAP) name, seal and the Civil Air Patrol emblem is not permitted except as authorized herein.

And

3. Authorized Use:
a.  In accordance with Federal Statute 36 U.S.C. Section 40306, Civil Air Patrol shall have the sole and exclusive right to the name "Civil Air Patrol."
b.  The Civil Air Patrol name, seal and/or emblem will not be used for personal gain. Additionally, the name, seal and/or emblem will not be used for any commercial purpose, except under licensing agreement as approved by the Executive Director after review by General Counsel. The name may generally be used on:
1)  Corporate vehicles, as prescribed in CAPR 77-1, Operation and Maintenance of Civil Air Patrol Vehicles.
2)  CAP-owned aircraft and member-owned aircraft used for CAP business upon approval of the wing or region commander as appropriate. Such approval will be granted only where its use would reflect favorably upon CAP.
3)  All official CAP publications (through squadron level).
4)  All official CAP web pages (through squadron level).
5)  Official invitations, greetings, and programs at national, regional, and wing levels.
6)  Stationery of any CAP unit or authorized committee.
7)  Membership cards issued by National Headquarters.
8 )  Signs identifying CAP units at all levels. Ensure that signs are attractively painted and well maintained.
9)  Posters and other informational or recruiting materials issued by National Headquarters.
10)  Civil Air Patrol business cards, using the member's official CAP duty title.

Approval from National Headquarters, Public Awareness & Membership Development (NHQ CAP/PM), must be obtained to use the name for any purpose other than those listed above and to use the name in advertisements.

Don't see anything about triangle thingies...

[JeffDG]

CAPR 900-2 Sect A Paragraph 1:

1.  Policy.

The use Civil Air Patrol (CAP) name, seal and the Civil Air Patrol emblem is not permitted except as authorized herein.

And

3. Authorized Use:
a.  In accordance with Federal Statute 36 U.S.C. Section 40306, Civil Air Patrol shall have the sole and exclusive right to the name "Civil Air Patrol."
b.  The Civil Air Patrol name, seal and/or emblem will not be used for personal gain. Additionally, the name, seal and/or emblem will not be used for any commercial purpose, except under licensing agreement as approved by the Executive Director after review by General Counsel. The name may generally be used on:
1)  Corporate vehicles, as prescribed in CAPR 77-1, Operation and Maintenance of Civil Air Patrol Vehicles.
2)  CAP-owned aircraft and member-owned aircraft used for CAP business upon approval of the wing or region commander as appropriate. Such approval will be granted only where its use would reflect favorably upon CAP.
3)  All official CAP publications (through squadron level).
4)  All official CAP web pages (through squadron level).
5)  Official invitations, greetings, and programs at national, regional, and wing levels.
6)  Stationery of any CAP unit or authorized committee.
7)  Membership cards issued by National Headquarters.
8 )  Signs identifying CAP units at all levels. Ensure that signs are attractively painted and well maintained.
9)  Posters and other informational or recruiting materials issued by National Headquarters.
10)  Civil Air Patrol business cards, using the member's official CAP duty title.

Approval from National Headquarters, Public Awareness & Membership Development (NHQ CAP/PM), must be obtained to use the name for any purpose other than those listed above and to use the name in advertisements.

Don't see anything about triangle thingies...

OK, but the triangle thingy is not a logo, as you've made clear.  The "Name" can be used, as you've pointed out "6)  Stationary of any CAP unit or authorized committee".

So, with that, the logo is not an issue.  As the triangle thingy is not a CAP logo, it's not covered by 1).  The name is covered by (3)(b)(6) as authorized in the case at hand.

[JC004]

Just got an email from the wing commander; I'm grounded.

Ask for a certificate too.  Just make sure it doesn't have the Triangle Thingy on it.  Actually...maybe you could contest its validity if it HAD the Triangle Thingy since it's not an official symbol of the corporation.  Loopholes!   

The reg just says notified in writing, which e-mail constitutes.  No need for a "certificate".

And, can you quote any regulation that prohibits the use of non-official symbols?

seriously?

[JeffDG]

seriously?

Yep...not saying it's smart to dilute your brand, but nobody has yet shown me a prohibition.

[SJFedor]

So here's what I'm curious about....

Typically, aircraft allocation is done by number of pilots/mission pilots for each wing. Only have 6 MP's? probably not gonna have many assets.

Since I'm betting PAWG just effectively grounded a lot of their pilots (no statistics, but I'm betting easily 50%), are they gonna start losing planes (again)?

[Johnny Yuma]

Is it me or has PAWG had some major safety issues in the past that got them grounded and a Wing King fired a couple years ago?

[JC004]

seriously?

Yep...not saying it's smart to dilute your brand, but nobody has yet shown me a prohibition.

I was...kidding about a certificate.  I thought a Grounded Certificate might look nice.  You can frame it and such.

900-2 makes itself the authority on the use of the name and the currently authorized logos.  The Triangle Thingy is using the name of the corporation.  900-2 lays out specifically what is used in most cases.  It is not as comprehensive as a style guide, but it is the current authority.  The spirit of the regulation would not seem to imply that "contained herein is the guidance for these logos, but make whatever logos you want and just use them where ever."  The regulation exists to provide guidance on the image of the corporation in the use of its name and logos.  Again, it's limited, but it is the authority. 

The uniform manual doesn't exist to say "Here is the guidance for these uniforms.  If you want to make other uniforms, whatever."  There are deviations like the glider uniform, but that is in regulation elsewhere.

[Patterson]

^ Don't argue with the guy......just make sure he is in the same hole you stick all the "triangle-things". 

[JeffDG]

seriously?

Yep...not saying it's smart to dilute your brand, but nobody has yet shown me a prohibition.

I was...kidding about a certificate.  I thought a Grounded Certificate might look nice.  You can frame it and such.

900-2 makes itself the authority on the use of the name and the currently authorized logos.  The Triangle Thingy is using the name of the corporation.  900-2 lays out specifically what is used in most cases.  It is not as comprehensive as a style guide, but it is the current authority.  The spirit of the regulation would not seem to imply that "contained herein is the guidance for these logos, but make whatever logos you want and just use them where ever."  The regulation exists to provide guidance on the image of the corporation in the use of its name and logos.  Again, it's limited, but it is the authority. 

The uniform manual doesn't exist to say "Here is the guidance for these uniforms.  If you want to make other uniforms, whatever."  There are deviations like the glider uniform, but that is in regulation elsewhere.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the uniform manual is distinguishable.  There are regs that say "Thou shalt wear an official uniform."  That means that the uniforms in the uniform manual are, de facto, exhaustive when operating in a situation where a uniform is mandatory.

900-2 specifically authorizes the use of the name "Civil Air Patrol" on, among other things, Stationary.  It does not say that the name must be incorporated in an official logo.  It also does not say "Thou shalt use an official logo on CAP correspondence or other materials". 

Again, I agree entirely with you with respect to brand dilution, but the regs do not prohibit the TT

[FW]

Is it me or has PAWG had some major safety issues in the past that got them grounded and a Wing King fired a couple years ago?

The wing never had "major safety issues".  However, they did have some major reporting issues to deal with. 
Their wing "king" was fired for logistics issues.  You can read the MARB report in "eservices".

So here's what I'm curious about....

Typically, aircraft allocation is done by number of pilots/mission pilots for each wing. Only have 6 MP's? probably not gonna have many assets.

Since I'm betting PAWG just effectively grounded a lot of their pilots (no statistics, but I'm betting easily 50%), are they gonna start losing planes (again)?

Over 100 pilots showed for the meeting.  I'm sure there will be a way for the rest to get the "message".  I know it will be presented at the wing conf. next month.  Since the wing is flying about 200hrs/aircraft, I don't think they will lose any however...

[Thrashed]

It's unfortunate it worked out that way, but it is what it is.  Were it me I would be working to try and bring whatever presentation I missed down to my area for the people who couldn't get to it  so I can get my flying status back.  Taking the tack that "I am grounded" as if this was somehow personal may make you feel better but it won't get you back in the air.

I haven't taken any "tack", nor do I feel it as any personal attack on me by the PA wing.  I didn't make a mandatory safety day because I work some weekends.  It is only personal in the sense that it personally affects my flying with the CAP. In eServices, its says "suspended". Who cares what you call it?  I can't fly, so I'm on the "ground".  The makeup safety meeting is scheduled on another day of work. Just my luck!

As for missing the flying; I'll be fine.  I get paid to fly 80 hours per month at work.