Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2017, 09:05:34 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 1261 times)
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 0.379 seconds with 20 queries.