Initial Flight Training for SMs

Started by Psicorp, May 04, 2007, 09:29:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BillB

Let me give one example that may or may not be off target of this thread. One CAP member used CAP aircraft to earn his instrument, commercial and CFI ratings. This is totally within regulations. He saved a potful of money by not having to rent a plane from the FBO. When the aircraft was transferred to another Squadron, he transferred to the new Squadron to be able to fly the CAP plane.
I spoke to him last week and asked about teaching cadets to fly. He said he'd been asked by his Squadron Commander to do that, but has refused since he now instructs for a local flight school. Being a CFI is not his primary source of income since he has a degree in a medical field.
So the arguement can be made that since he earned the ratings on the cheap building time and training through the use of CAP aircraft, doesn't he owe something to CAP in the form of teaching or flying for CAP? You decide.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

Pylon

I split this discussion from May NEC Live Web Stream & Play-by-Play, as it's becoming it's own discussion.  Discuss agenda item #15 here, and the rest of the NEC meeting there.

...oh, and tone down the bickering.  It's a worthwhile issue to discuss, but let's leave the attitudes at the door.  Thanks.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

MIKE

Might want to move it to Aviation & Flying Activities also.
Mike Johnston

Capt Rivera

Your missing the point. I saw the word reserves. They have the right and obligation to further their aviation experiences as well as provide for their families. So is he instead attacking the way the guard and reserve work? There only so many full time positions on a base. If they are all taken, you fly only when needed and drill a minimum of one weekend a month. This does not put food on the table nor does it pay flight costs for student loans which most reserve pilots have do to the training they go through to make themselves more competitive. By doing this they are doing EXACTLY what they should. His statement said:

without putting in their time.... he should have said they earn jobs using their experience and motivation while still completing their initial commitment of time in service. Again, that is exactly what they should be doing! the two statements are different!


Quote from: arajca on May 07, 2007, 06:23:24 AM
Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 05:49:55 AM
QuoteWhat about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

your words are,-= go straight to the airlines without putting in their time...=- anyone else see the issue with that statement? WITHOUT PUTTING IN THEIR TIME!?! did i make it up? ASSUMPTION? Grow up! You bash an entire group of individuals openly and can't even have an intelligent debate about what you stated. This is almost too easy. Don't worry about me, concentrate on what YOU said and how to fix it. I'm just the guy tired of listening to crap like this.
Scenario:
Jow Blow joins AF Res and gets trained as a C-17 pilot. In doing so, he incurs a service committment of, say, 10 years. Those ten years are his obligation. While not doing drill or two week annual training, Joe Blow signs on with ABC Airlines. ABC hires him because of his military training. Now, he has not completed his obligation (ten years, remember), but he has benefitted from his military training. So, Jow Blow has come into the reserves and straight into commercial fliying without putting in his time.

DNall is not talking about AD pilots leaving the service early to fly for United or someone else. The point being made is that some pilots join the reserves to gain the training and experience to sign on with an airline. The key word here is RESERVES. Skipping that word changes the entire point of the statement.
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

Pylon

*Ahem*  Gentlemen... can you move back to the relavent topic of the discussion?   The horse is dead and thoroughly beaten...
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

Capt Rivera

Quote from: Pylon on May 07, 2007, 12:42:59 PM
I split this discussion from May NEC Live Web Stream & Play-by-Play, as it's becoming it's own discussion.  Discuss agenda item #15 here, and the rest of the NEC meeting there.

...oh, and tone down the bickering.  It's a worthwhile issue to discuss, but let's leave the attitudes at the door.  Thanks.

Pylon would you not say DNALL is looked to as a sort of leader or at least knowledgeable or respect deserving member of these discussion boards? I know thats how I've look at his name, your name and others. That does NOT change what he actually said, even if he meant something different. He could have always recanted.

Anyway: Attitude reflects leadership.
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

flyguy06

Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

I think it's fine if we picked people that prove they're qualified & earn a competititve slot to train from scratch to mission pilot, if they then have a contractual obligation for a number of years that includes regular participation as a MP & active involvement as a staff officer - pretty much a point system. You see what I'm saying here? If you just wanted a pilot's license, it'd be a lot quicker & easier to pay for it, but if you go thru this program you're gong to bust your butt & pay for it in long hard service that's going to absolutely suck if you don't really want to be in CAP & just see the flying as a way of serving.

But if you make someone sign a contract, then you are no longer a volunteer organization.  They are contractually obligated to perform and not volunteering which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be a MP. Everyone that flies in CAP isnt in it to be a MP. You cant make someone be a mission pilot because then thats not volunteering.

flyguy06

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:29:51 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 05, 2007, 05:49:48 AM
Flight training:
1) do the CFIs get paid? Cause they aren't going to fly adults for free. They only fly a handful of cadets for free each year, which honestly works to inspire many times more to pay their own way.


I have met no less then 10 CFI's who were willing to instruct any and everyone who met CAP Regs and FAR's. Their passion to teach or share their knowledge with other members of this great organization even causes them to do ground school lessons, not just cockpit experience.



Those are probably older people who have thousands of flight hours who flight instruct for fun. Ther eare those of us young CFI's and CFI wanna bees who want to flightinstruct for a living and feel like after the trainin that hgoes into becomming a CFI, we deserve to be compensateed for our training and knowledge just like a doctor, lawyer or professional engineer. Sure its ok to take up the occasional student and take him around the pattern once or twice. But a full Private pilot program? i couldnt see doing that for an adult thats capabale of paying. Sure, I love aviation which is why I want to go into the filed but flight instruction is a profession like any other profession and CFI's deserve to be compensated for their knowledge. Its nothing personal,its business. You wouldnt ask a doctor to give you a full blown physical for free unless he was a relative or knew you real well.

The reason Flight Instructors get paid so little now is because people dont view them as professionals. They view flight instructing as a stepping stone to the airlines or an activity that people to intheir spare time and that makes the profession look really bad which is why CFI's get paid so little. CFI's need to stop tasking this and charge what they are worth.

ddelaney103

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

I think it's fine if we picked people that prove they're qualified & earn a competititve slot to train from scratch to mission pilot, if they then have a contractual obligation for a number of years that includes regular participation as a MP & active involvement as a staff officer - pretty much a point system. You see what I'm saying here? If you just wanted a pilot's license, it'd be a lot quicker & easier to pay for it, but if you go thru this program you're gong to bust your butt & pay for it in long hard service that's going to absolutely suck if you don't really want to be in CAP & just see the flying as a way of serving.

But if you make someone sign a contract, then you are no longer a volunteer organization.  They are contractually obligated to perform and not volunteering which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be a MP. Everyone that flies in CAP isnt in it to be a MP. You cant make someone be a mission pilot because then thats not volunteering.

It would be easier to reverse it - set some hoops to jump through before someone can use aircraft for PPT.  Make them have 3 years in, complete lv 2 and have their MO or MS ticket.

CFI's are a tougher matter.  While we know CAP CFI's will teach for free (they already do Power Flight Academy and SM's upgrading to Instrument) I don't think we'll ever have enough for it to be a "I have a friend who's a CFI" based system.

ddelaney103

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:26:26 PM
The reason Flight Instructors get paid so little now is because people dont view them as professionals. They view flight instructing as a stepping stone to the airlines or an activity that people to intheir spare time and that makes the profession look really bad which is why CFI's get paid so little. CFI's need to stop tasking this and charge what they are worth.

There's this guy named Adam Smith: he wrote a book you might want to read.

There are a pile of CFI's and not that many people who want to learn how to fly.  That means the price goes down.  Also, there is the total cost.  Most people aren't willing to pay a lot to learn to fly, or at least much more than the roughly $60/hour wet an aircraft costs to rent.  There's a point where your average student pilot is just going to walk based on cost.

Nowadays, it's getting really tough for your average aviation enthusiast to learn to fly out of your own pocket.

ZigZag911

Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 07, 2007, 05:43:13 PM
There are a pile of CFI's and not that many people who want to learn how to fly.  That means the price goes down. 

This would seem to present a situation in which CAP could negotiate discounted rates for senior members seeking PPT.

This would drum up some otherwise unlikely business for the FBOs & CFIs, and thus should keep them & FAA happy.

I agree with previous posters who felt that there should be eligibility
criteria (minimum 2 years membership, active MO/MS, active participant in home unit) for anyone to take advantage of this benefit.

DNall

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
But if you make someone sign a contract, then you are no longer a volunteer organization.  They are contractually obligated to perform and not volunteering which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be a MP. Everyone that flies in CAP isnt in it to be a MP. You cant make someone be a mission pilot because then thats not volunteering.
Well it's still not for pay. They are signing a contract stating they agree to serve an additional X quality years after completing rating Y, and that a quality year will be determined by this simple TBD point system that indicates level of active contribution beyond flight activities... AND if they fail to meet these conditions than there is a financial penalty, like the full price of what their rating would have cost from a commercial flight school.

I understand everyone isn't aimed at or wanting to be mission pilots. We're talking about people applying for a flight training program that takes them from nothing to MP fopr the purpose of creating mission pilots that remain active on our terms. I also recommended low or no insterest subsidized loans from USAA/AOPA/AFA for select members to get outside training toward their own ends - like not being a MP.

I'm in favor of hoops on the front end to get into such a program. If it's full flight training from ground to private, to inst, to couple hundred hours & Fm91... and that's free or at least at cost (read subsidized) then I think obligation ont eh backside to recoupe our costs is reasonable.

The position of the FAA from what I can tell is that we have no need of training pilots internally. Our members are free to train at local flight schools, and/or we can recruit already qualified pilots at the rating levels we need (that being the original intent). I would counter-argue that the military is not able to get by with such a system, that the type of aviation we do is so diametrically different than general or commercial aviation, and the public safety requirement of consistent well trained & committed crews requires we obligate & train internally.... I don't know, just thinking out loud.


DNall

Quote from: riveraj on May 07, 2007, 02:58:50 PM
Your missing the point......
You misunderstood what I said, and then chose to overreact & draw attention toward this thing you believed brought discredit on a service I love, rather than asking in a PM that I clarify for communicaitons purposes. That wasn't maybe the best choice.

I'm in the reserve component, not attacking it or anything else. I've tried to clarify what I initially said, to point out the context in which it was said, and appologized for not being clear enough for you to understand - apparently only you, but no matter. If you have any further traffic on the matter, please prosecute that via PM.

Back to your regularly scheduled topic....

Pylon

Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 07:11:09 PM
Back to your regularly scheduled topic....

Yes, please.  Create another thread or take it to PMs if you need to discuss this further.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

ddelaney103

It would be problematic to set up a contract for training PP's as the enforcement would be icky.

We'd have to force them to pay back whatever money CAP ponied up for their training.  The image of former members being forced into bankruptcy by CAP lawyers and dept collection staff on the evening news would have your average PAO waking up in a cold sweat.

I wouldn't worry, however - barring some chronic shortage of MP's neither CAP nor USAF is going to waste the money that creating our own MP's from scratch would entail.

DNall

You just run it over to collections & be done with it.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 07, 2007, 07:34:57 PM
I wouldn't worry, however - barring some chronic shortage of MP's neither CAP nor USAF is going to waste the money that creating our own MP's from scratch would entail.
Unfortunate though it is, that's correct. Which is why in practical reality I'd have to advocate for the low/no-interest subsidized loans... USAA would do govt backed loans for this kind of purpose. It's basically like half of an officer commissioning signature loan, but w/ the govt co-signing. That'd work, but I'd still put hoops at the front & requirements at the back.

Overall I'm just a little concerned that someone (govt/CAP/corp partner) is going to aid people in getting rated & then they aren't going to be there when we need them to use that skill for us.

The bogger issue is not the initial dual time, but once they solo, there is NO WAY in hell CAP is going to take the risk mgmt hit to let them keep flying solo to private & beyond to TMP. That's why the TMP & MP requirements are set where they are.

LTC_Gadget

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
>which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization.

Waitaminute! I thought we were going with "Unpaid Professional" or "Quiet Professional."  <running for cover!!>  >:D

Incidentally, who's gonna tell the folks in HQ/PA to change the title of the magazine as well..

Back to your regularly scheduled discourse...

V/R,
John Boyd, LtCol, CAP
Mitchell and Earhart unnumbered, yada, yada
The older I get, the more I learn.  The more I learn, the more I find left yet to learn.

LTC_Gadget

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:26:26 PM
The reason Flight Instructors get paid so little now is because people dont view them as professionals. They view flight instructing as a stepping stone to the airlines or an activity that people to intheir spare time and that makes the profession look really bad which is why CFI's get paid so little. CFI's need to stop tasking this and charge what they are worth.

There's even a disparity in treatment in the industry between line officers and flight instructors.  I have a friend that is a CFII with thousands of hours, and has worked also for a major airline for several years.  He's type-rated in biggest birds.  If he'd taken a line job for at least two years, he'd have been pulling down pilot salary, and if/when he moved to flight instruction, the salary would have followed him.  But because his SO didn't want him to be away from home that much, he went into flight instruction directly, and as a result, makes less than half the salary that the other guys in the office make, doing exactly the same thing. because they're ex-line officers (pilots/1st officers).  Their message is that if you aren't a pilot, you aren't jack...

V/R,
John Boyd, LtCol, CAP
Mitchell and Earhart unnumbered, yada, yada
The older I get, the more I learn.  The more I learn, the more I find left yet to learn.

Capt Rivera

#38
Quote

I have met no less then 10 CFI's who were willing to instruct any and everyone who met CAP Regs and FAR's. Their passion to teach or share their knowledge with other members of this great organization even causes them to do ground school lessons, not just cockpit experience.


Quote
Those are probably older people who have thousands of flight hours who flight instruct for fun. Ther eare those of us young CFI's and CFI wanna bees who want to flightinstruct for a living and feel like after the trainin that hgoes into becomming a CFI, we deserve to be compensateed for our training and knowledge just like a doctor, lawyer or professional engineer. Sure its ok to take up the occasional student and take him around the pattern once or twice. But a full Private pilot program? i couldnt see doing that for an adult thats capabale of paying. Sure, I love aviation which is why I want to go into the filed but flight instruction is a profession like any other profession and CFI's deserve to be compensated for their knowledge. Its nothing personal,its business. You wouldnt ask a doctor to give you a full blown physical for free unless he was a relative or knew you real well.

The reason Flight Instructors get paid so little now is because people dont view them as professionals. They view flight instructing as a stepping stone to the airlines or an activity that people to intheir spare time and that makes the profession look really bad which is why CFI's get paid so little. CFI's need to stop tasking this and charge what they are worth.

Actually most are young and new to the profession. I'm not saying they have to teach. I support them having a choice. The ability to do it if they choose. I believe the nature of the proposal is to open the ability for a CFI to volunteer to teach for free if he or she chooses to in a CAP plane
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

Psicorp

Quote from: flyguy06 on May 07, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
Quote from: DNall on May 07, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
What about military pilots? How many of them are serving their obligation & then leaving for the airlines, heck not even that, how may come in the reserves & go straight to the airlines w/o even putting in their time.

I think it's fine if we picked people that prove they're qualified & earn a competitive slot to train from scratch to mission pilot, if they then have a contractual obligation for a number of years that includes regular participation as a MP & active involvement as a staff officer - pretty much a point system. You see what I'm saying here? If you just wanted a pilot's license, it'd be a lot quicker & easier to pay for it, but if you go Through this program you're gong to bust your butt & pay for it in long hard service that's going to absolutely suck if you don't really want to be in CAP & just see the flying as a way of serving.

But if you make someone sign a contract, then you are no longer a volunteer organization.  They are contractually obligated to perform and not volunteering which is what CAP is. A volunteer organization. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be a MP. Everyone that flies in CAP isn't in it to be a MP. You cant make someone be a mission pilot because then thats not volunteering.

Such contracts are not unheard of, nor do they end the "volunteer" status.   A volunteer fire department I was once a member of offered EMT certification to all those members who were interested once every couple of years.  In order to enroll (the department paid 100% of the cost), members had to sign a contract stating that they would continue to be active members for three years as Firefighter/EMTs.  If they failed to, then they repaid the cost to the department.   It's only fair to the department, who's laying out the capital and investing in it's members.

The same could be done in CAP; the organization invests in a member who's interested in learning to fly and/or gaining ratings. CAP should get something in return for the "free-bee" or discount in the form of service utilizing the knowledge/experience and ratings gained.   This could be spelled out in the contract (i.e. LT Smith wishes to become a Mission Pilot and agrees to serve for three years in that capacity once rating is achieved.  Or, LT Smith wishes to increase his/her rating in order to become a Orientation Pilot and agrees to serve for three years in that capacity once rating is achieved).  Otherwise, CAP should be repaid the market rate.   This is only fair to the organization and to every other member who's dues/taxes fund the aircraft and maintenance, hanger, etc.

At no point are you no longer a volunteer.  You're free to quit at any time; but if you do quit prior to the agreed upon service term, then you owe the organization proportionally.
Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257