Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2017, 09:06:47 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Mission Scanner training question
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print
Author Topic: Mission Scanner training question  (Read 1262 times)
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077
Unit: SI

« on: November 10, 2017, 07:42:53 PM »

I'm getting ready to send this up the chain but I was curious about feedback here:

When I went through the MS training, I got a lot of data out of it as I'm not a pilot. That being said, we did have at least one pilot who was in the training who had to sit through what I believe are a lot of Pilot 101 items that I think are capable of being checked off in advance by virtue of being a pilot. As an example, Task P-2017, Identify and Discuss Major Aircraft Instruments.

CAPR 60-3 states in 2-1 e.

Quote
Waivers of the specialty qualification training requirements specified in paragraph
2-3 must be requested in accordance with paragraph 1-2 of this regulation, be based on
equivalent training received from other agencies and substantiated by appropriate
documentation, and must be coordinated with CAP-USAF prior to approval. NHQ CAP/DO
must approve all such waivers. Broad waivers for known equivalent training will be posted on
the NHQ CAP/DOS website.

With that in mind, does it make sense to identify items where pilots have documented knowledge and streamline these courses for them?

Secondarily, does anyone know where the "broad waivers" are documented on the website are?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2017, 07:48:40 PM »

With that in mind, does it make sense to identify items where pilots have documented knowledge and streamline these courses for them?

Secondarily, does anyone know where the "broad waivers" are documented on the website are?

No and no.

Being a pilot does not automagically mean you know what is necessary to be CAP aircrew. Since no formal training
is required, a pilot, or anyone else so inclined, is free to challenge the SQTR tasks at any time an SET is inclined
to uncap his pen.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 09:04:07 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077
Unit: SI

« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2017, 07:51:36 PM »

With that in mind, does it make sense to identify items where pilots have documented knowledge and streamline these courses for them?

Secondarily, does anyone know where the "broad waivers" are documented on the website are?

No and no.

Being a pilot does not automagically mean you know what is necessary to be CAP aircrew. Since no formal training
is required, a pilot, or anyone else so inclined, is free to challenge the SQTR tasks at any time and SET is inclined
to uncap his pen.

I've yet to meet the pilot that didn't know how to answer the following:

"Evaluation Preparation
Setup: Provide the student access to an aircraft (or a picture or model that shows aircraft instruments).
Brief Student: You are a Scanner trainee asked the basics about aircraft instruments.
Evaluation
Performance measures Results
1. Identify and describe the basic function of the following aircraft instruments: P F
a. Magnetic compass
b. Heading indicator
c. Altimeter
d. Airspeed indicator
e. Attitude indicator
f. GPS
g. Radios
h. Audio panel
i. Transponder"

I'm not saying give them a pass on the entire course. I'm saying that there are items like this that seem like a no-brainer that have nothing to do with CAP aircrew dynamics, just how airplanes work.
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,061
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2017, 08:02:40 PM »

And it takes less than ten minutes to fully complete this task for anyone who knows their way around a cockpit, pilot or not. It's a good review, and insures that everyone meets the standard.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077
Unit: SI

« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2017, 09:20:50 PM »

And it takes less than ten minutes to fully complete this task for anyone who knows their way around a cockpit, pilot or not. It's a good review, and insures that everyone meets the standard.

Ten minutes here, ten minutes on weight and balance, turbulence, etc.

Pretty soon we add up to some significant volunteer time covering items they have proven knowledge of.

Logged
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077
Unit: SI

« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2017, 09:21:26 PM »

And of course, perhaps I am really off base, which is why I was curious what examples there might be of waivers as mentioned in the reg on the national site.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 853

« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2017, 09:22:21 PM »

When I first joined, I asked about these things out of couriosity, and the answer my squadron CFI gave me was ... its the military/CAP way. If a 10,000 hour airline pilot comes in the door and wants to join our squadron, he is treated just the same as some new PPL with 50 hours. Everyone starts at the beginning. Everyone is a rookie. The guy with 10,000 hours still has to wait 5 years before he can wear the Command Pilot Wings even though he may be the best pilot in the Wing. It is, what it is.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,160

« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2017, 09:29:46 PM »

I believe an example of a waiver would be for a pilot with a LE agency who has completed mountain flight training with them could get a waiver for CAP mountain flight training.
Logged
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 105

« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2017, 09:30:45 PM »

When I first joined, I asked about these things out of couriosity, and the answer my squadron CFI gave me was ... its the military/CAP way. If a 10,000 hour airline pilot comes in the door and wants to join our squadron, he is treated just the same as some new PPL with 50 hours. Everyone starts at the beginning. Everyone is a rookie. The guy with 10,000 hours still has to wait 5 years before he can wear the Command Pilot Wings even though he may be the best pilot in the Wing. It is, what it is.

That may well be the epitaph for Civil Air Patrol. 

" It is, what it is. "

R.I.P.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2017, 10:20:08 PM »

I believe an example of a waiver would be for a pilot with a LE agency who has completed mountain flight training with them could get a waiver for CAP mountain flight training.

+1

When I first joined, I asked about these things out of couriosity, and the answer my squadron CFI gave me was ... its the military/CAP way. If a 10,000 hour airline pilot comes in the door and wants to join our squadron, he is treated just the same as some new PPL with 50 hours. Everyone starts at the beginning. Everyone is a rookie. The guy with 10,000 hours still has to wait 5 years before he can wear the Command Pilot Wings even though he may be the best pilot in the Wing. It is, what it is.

That may well be the epitaph for Civil Air Patrol. 

" It is, what it is. "

R.I.P.

So...CAP just hands out ratings to anyone who says they "know" and crosses their fingers?

Liability much?

I'm not going to show a Ranger how to use a compass, but if he knows how he darn sure better be able to show me,
and it should be such a non-effort as to be nothing more then matter of fact.

Also, a "10,000 hour airline pilot" may not have flown a GA plane in a decade.  Want some fun?
Ever seen a poop-hot F16 jock work on remembering techniques for GA airports, normal flight
planning and similar "low and slow".  Those guys are used to drawing a straight line on a map and
and burning ozone like it was free.

You might be surprised how many people who "know"...don't, or need a little refresher time.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 10:23:20 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2017, 10:20:41 PM »

And it takes less than ten minutes to fully complete this task for anyone who knows their way around a cockpit, pilot or not. It's a good review, and insures that everyone meets the standard.

Ten minutes here, ten minutes on weight and balance, turbulence, etc.

Pretty soon we add up to some significant volunteer time covering items they have proven knowledge of.

Proven where?
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,061
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2017, 10:36:28 PM »

I think the big question here is - Where do we draw the line?

I have two examples here, both personal-

I spent 20 years in the Navy as an avionics tech. All that stuff the pilot looks at on the instrument panel fits pretty much into the avionics arena. You have to know what it does to be able to do an op check on it. Does that knowledge qualify me for the task enumerated above?

I spent 20 years in the Navy as an avionics tech. Radios also fall into that arena. Does my experience there give me any advanced standing as a Communicator? I know how to turn them on, change the channel, and do a proper radio check. I can hump 60 pound black boxes with the best of them. Does that qualify me?

Where is the line? A brief review of each part of the applicable tasks ensures that a trainee meets the requirement.

I'll provide "the rest of the story" in a subsequent post, after y'all have a chance to comment.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077
Unit: SI

« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2017, 10:38:25 PM »

And it takes less than ten minutes to fully complete this task for anyone who knows their way around a cockpit, pilot or not. It's a good review, and insures that everyone meets the standard.

Ten minutes here, ten minutes on weight and balance, turbulence, etc.

Pretty soon we add up to some significant volunteer time covering items they have proven knowledge of.

Proven where?

I explained that at the beginning of my post, but here you can have specifics:

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/private_airplane_acs_6A.pdf
Logged
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077
Unit: SI

« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2017, 10:41:46 PM »

I think the big question here is - Where do we draw the line?

I have two examples here, both personal-

I spent 20 years in the Navy as an avionics tech. All that stuff the pilot looks at on the instrument panel fits pretty much into the avionics arena. You have to know what it does to be able to do an op check on it. Does that knowledge qualify me for the task enumerated above?

I spent 20 years in the Navy as an avionics tech. Radios also fall into that arena. Does my experience there give me any advanced standing as a Communicator? I know how to turn them on, change the channel, and do a proper radio check. I can hump 60 pound black boxes with the best of them. Does that qualify me?

Where is the line? A brief review of each part of the applicable tasks ensures that a trainee meets the requirement.

I'll provide "the rest of the story" in a subsequent post, after y'all have a chance to comment.

I'm drawing the line at: The FAA handed these people a flight certificate after they proved knowledge in the areas in question.

Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,061
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2017, 10:43:39 PM »

I asked three questions; you answered one. Are the other two not important?
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 105

« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2017, 10:44:00 PM »

So...CAP just hands out ratings to anyone who says they "know" and crosses their fingers?
Not what was proposed. When someone is an active pilot there are parts of the MS course that they have a license that certifies their knowledge. But you knew that, right?

Also, a "10,000 hour airline pilot" may not have flown a GA plane in a decade.  Want some fun?
Ever seen a poop-hot F16 jock work on remembering techniques for GA airports, normal flight
planning and similar "low and slow".  Those guys are used to drawing a straight line on a map and
and burning ozone like it was free.
And yet that is a non sequiter. Any licensed pilot (and for that matter any Earhart Award honoree) knows the aerospace basics that are covered in MS basic. But again, you knew that, right?
Liability much?
Nope, none. Posit the MS incident where a FAA licensed pilot who was "waived" through the very basics of flight causes a liability BECAUSE of that waiver. Go ahead, I will wait.
Logged
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 105

« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2017, 10:46:23 PM »

I spent 20 years in the Navy as an avionics tech. All that stuff the pilot looks at on the instrument panel fits pretty much into the avionics arena. You have to know what it does to be able to do an op check on it. Does that knowledge qualify me for the task enumerated above?
Nope.
I spent 20 years in the Navy as an avionics tech. Radios also fall into that arena. Does my experience there give me any advanced standing as a Communicator? I know how to turn them on, change the channel, and do a proper radio check. I can hump 60 pound black boxes with the best of them. Does that qualify me?
Nope. A clear non sequiter.
Where is the line? A brief review of each part of the applicable tasks ensures that a trainee meets the requirement.
The FAA license that certifies the actual parts of the course being waived. Q.E.D.
Logged
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077
Unit: SI

« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2017, 11:05:03 PM »

I asked three questions; you answered one. Are the other two not important?

Since they are beyond the line that I drew there was no point in commenting on them.
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,061
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2017, 11:13:52 PM »

I'm trying to address the big picture encompassing all training. Does a private pilot certificate make someone more "special" than other folks who have institutional knowledge in their own specialties? I contend that a brief examination of everyone's qualifications is prudent, to provide better consistency in the training process.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077
Unit: SI

« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2017, 11:23:31 PM »

I'm trying to address the big picture encompassing all training. Does a private pilot certificate make someone more "special" than other folks who have institutional knowledge in their own specialties? I contend that a brief examination of everyone's qualifications is prudent, to provide better consistency in the training process.

And I don't see the point in going down that rabbit hole when it seems like you are at the minimum ambivalent about the entire idea. The reg provides for a waiver protocol; I asked if a nationally recognized certificate issued by a federal agency would cover a narrow scope of SQTRs which are covered directly in the training and are used in daily operations of said operators. There is a 1 to 1 comparison of not just the knowledge of the device but how it is used there along with a federal certification to boot... if we can't agree that this standard meets the bar for a waiver there is literally no point in talking about institutional certifications you may have received for identifying and using equipment, but not while flying.
Logged
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 105

« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2017, 11:29:21 PM »

Does a private pilot certificate make someone more "special" than other folks who have institutional knowledge in their own specialties?
A FAA license that covers exactly what the skill level is seems a reasonable waiver justification, no?
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,061
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2017, 11:31:32 PM »

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2017, 11:37:19 PM »

Does a private pilot certificate make someone more "special" than other folks who have institutional knowledge in their own specialties?
A FAA license that covers exactly what the skill level is seems a reasonable waiver justification, no?

For what?  To fly a plane?  Yes.

Checking...nope, scanners don't fly planes, they have other duties.

I'm trying to address the big picture encompassing all training. Does a private pilot certificate make someone more "special" than other folks who have institutional knowledge in their own specialties? I contend that a brief examination of everyone's qualifications is prudent, to provide better consistency in the training process.

+1

There are 33 tasks on the MS SQTR (if I counted right), and only about 7 have anything to
do with things a current pilot would be exposed to, and many of those are "discussion",
there is no need to even consider "waivers" because they aren't necessary, and without
them they enforce an equal standard.

Further to this, there is zero indication or evidence that this is a retention issue,
and just like grade or staff appointment, I can tell you anecdotally that
most people appreciate the fact that there is an objective standard, because then
>they< know "everybody else" met it to at least the minimum, just like they did.

Anyone with legit experience in CAP knows at least one "experienced guy", who
everybody kinda waived through the line, only to find out later his creds were fake,
outdated, or despite "knowing" still couldn't function in a mission environment.

There is simply no reason CAP needs to allow for "experience", when demonstrating
it is so simple.

Cops still ride with an FTO when they transfer departments, even though they are certified.
Firefighters have probationary periods where they have to prove they know what they know.
Why would CAP be any different for something so simple?

Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 949
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2017, 11:43:08 PM »

In support of the existing process:

Item: I've twice had GT trainees who were former and very recently separated AD military infantry/Marines who confidently stated their ability to waiver GTM standards, only to realize sheepishly that they were "GPS cripples" (their words).

Item: I used to command a unit (two now come to think of it) with CAP members who were highly experienced active duty fixed wing aviators (all 3 tacair branches). A few were TPS/USNTPS grads. Without exception they all requested ZERO accommodation in presenting/challenging the CAP aircrew, and several made comments that they'd learned useful "niche" items in passing. One made the comment that there was a significant challenge in moving from (his words) "heavy iron" to CAP/GA aircraft, and (roughly remembering) "only big balls small brain guys" would try to bull their way through a transition course to save a weekend or two.


Their perspectives, fairly rendered, all dove tailed: don't skip transition/refreshers. If you are proficient, it will go very quickly.


R/s
Spam

PS one more. I was alerted to be the CAP IC ("MC", then) for an actual Eagle Scout (not proverbial but actual) who skipped a land nav class and went out and got lost on a compass course (alone) during a CAP FTX (western MDWG, 1999 or so) requiring approx. 50 people (CAP, park rangers, and APSAR dog teams) to come out after him. Don't Be That Guy... do it by the numbers.


Logged
capip1998
Recruit

Posts: 10
Unit: NY-117

« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2017, 12:14:10 PM »

As is typical for this site, you ask a simple question and get severely lectured. Iíve been a check pilot for years and what our Stan eval team does seems to be very effective and doesnít require cap/usaf approval. When we give a form 5, we also sign off on any sqtr tasks that are covered during the checkride (like the one you mentioned). Thereís no sense in wasting peopleís time by checking this stuff twice. Also, most all check pilots are going to MS evaluators anyways so why not multitask. Just make sure you ask ahead of time so the check pilot can be sure to include the eval and sign off on the sqtr afterwards. This is much easier than asking for a waiver.
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 466

« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2017, 12:23:41 PM »


Ten minutes here, ten minutes on weight and balance, turbulence, etc.

Pretty soon we add up to some significant volunteer time covering items they have proven knowledge of.

FWIW, I've met several pilots who (to put it mildly) are a bit shaky on this thing called "W & B", ditto for turbulence avoidance, performance, instrument errors, etc., etc..  Maybe the low pass over these topics is neither necessary nor helpful... BUT, a good conversation on both and many more potential 'gotchas' in aviation is fodder for a useful pilot proficiency workshop.  I agree that the quickie superficial dip into the topics might be snore time... But I don't agree that a pilot license necessarily means competence in these areas.
Logged
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 105

« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2017, 01:19:51 PM »

As is typical for this site, you ask a simple question and get severely lectured. Iíve been a check pilot for years and what our Stan eval team does seems to be very effective and doesnít require cap/usaf approval. When we give a form 5, we also sign off on any sqtr tasks that are covered during the checkride (like the one you mentioned). Thereís no sense in wasting peopleís time by checking this stuff twice. Also, most all check pilots are going to MS evaluators anyways so why not multitask. Just make sure you ask ahead of time so the check pilot can be sure to include the eval and sign off on the sqtr afterwards. This is much easier than asking for a waiver.

Bravo! Common sense based on relevant experience (not anecdotal BSA stories!)
Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,160

« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2017, 01:27:00 PM »

As is typical for this site, you ask a simple question and get severely lectured. Iíve been a check pilot for years and what our Stan eval team does seems to be very effective and doesnít require cap/usaf approval. When we give a form 5, we also sign off on any sqtr tasks that are covered during the checkride (like the one you mentioned). Thereís no sense in wasting peopleís time by checking this stuff twice. Also, most all check pilots are going to MS evaluators anyways so why not multitask. Just make sure you ask ahead of time so the check pilot can be sure to include the eval and sign off on the sqtr afterwards. This is much easier than asking for a waiver.

Bravo! Common sense based on relevant experience (not anecdotal BSA stories!)
Good idea, but that's not what was asked.

It is easier and far less time consuming to review these tasks than to apply for a waiver.
Logged
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 105

« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2017, 01:40:55 PM »

It is easier and far less time consuming to review these tasks than to apply for a waiver.
That may be the most cogent criticism yet. Have you experience in applying for waivers?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2017, 02:11:49 PM »

As is typical for this site, you ask a simple question and get severely lectured. Iíve been a check pilot for years and what our Stan eval team does seems to be very effective and doesnít require cap/usaf approval. When we give a form 5, we also sign off on any sqtr tasks that are covered during the checkride (like the one you mentioned). Thereís no sense in wasting peopleís time by checking this stuff twice. Also, most all check pilots are going to MS evaluators anyways so why not multitask. Just make sure you ask ahead of time so the check pilot can be sure to include the eval and sign off on the sqtr afterwards. This is much easier than asking for a waiver.

Bravo! Common sense based on relevant experience (not anecdotal BSA stories!)

This message supports properly tasking the member during or after Form 5, nothing wrong
with that, it's good use of resources and time. The point is, the member demonstrated the
skill to the satisfaction of an SET who is willing to stake their house on it.

That's not the same as a waiver or Parker 51'ing the hours.

What's your experience in this regard?  Because those of us here with "relevent" experience
who have had to deal with people who were given the "benefit of the doubt" know it's a bad idea.

It's also difficult to make the case in a courtroom.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 02:22:21 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 949
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2017, 02:20:54 PM »

As is typical for this site, you ask a simple question and get severely lectured. Iíve been a check pilot for years and what our Stan eval team does seems to be very effective and doesnít require cap/usaf approval. When we give a form 5, we also sign off on any sqtr tasks that are covered during the checkride (like the one you mentioned). Thereís no sense in wasting peopleís time by checking this stuff twice. Also, most all check pilots are going to MS evaluators anyways so why not multitask. Just make sure you ask ahead of time so the check pilot can be sure to include the eval and sign off on the sqtr afterwards. This is much easier than asking for a waiver.

Bravo! Common sense based on relevant experience (not anecdotal BSA stories!)

Ouch, baby!   ;)

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Having the experience of actually watching a guy think he could skip the land nav course eval and that he didn't need to be evaluated to standards (thus burdening over a hundred people with an actual SAR mission on being lost) is, I would think, illustrative of a worst case example. Anecdotal, of course. Relevant? I think so.

But, do as you will.


Can we do task evals more efficiently - as suggested by capip1998 - absolutely, great suggestions.

- Spam




Logged
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 105

« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2017, 02:21:14 PM »

Because those of us here with "relevent" expereince
who have had to deal with people who were given the "benefit of the doubt" know it's a bad idea.
I have yet to see any claims of "relevent" expereince (sic) - I have seen talk of boy scouts and ground teams.

Have you ANY experience in asking for waivers?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2017, 02:23:35 PM »

Have you ANY experience in asking for waivers?

I have the relevent experience to know what a bad idea they are, and that
when members start asking about them or for them, it raises other red flags.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 105

« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2017, 02:26:03 PM »

I have the relevent experience to know what a bad idea they are, and that
when members start asking about them or for them, it raises other red flags.
That would be NO then, right?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2017, 02:35:01 PM »

Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,061
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2017, 02:51:00 PM »

Wow. Haven't seen that in a while. Given the turn the conversation has taken, into a measuring contest, it appears relevant.

Click.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Mission Scanner training question
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.156 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me