New 60-1

[NIN]

Did anybody notice that cadets have to have the ground handling video complete before doing an o-flight?

My CO mentioned that tonight.

[Eclipse]

Probably not a bad idea, though you'll have a bunch scrambling to do it in the hanger.

Maybe the GHV should just be another part of Curry.

[PHall]

Why do passengers need to know how to park the airplane?

[EMT-83]

Not a big deal at all, we've been doing this since just after the GHV came out.

Around here, the passengers push just as hard as the pilots.

[NIN]

I guess my point was that I have a hard enough time getting cadets through the required online training like OPSEC, and one of the complaints in exit surveys of cadets is that they don't get to fly as much is they thought, and now we've just thrown another hoop in front of them.

Are we going to require the customers we bring along for CD missions to take the ground handling video before they can fly with us?

[Cliff_Chambliss]

just another mindless minion at NHQ doing something-anything so he/she can point and say "see what I did"  Whether it makes sense or not is totally immaterial.

I don't care how many videos a person has watched (or not) if I am using their help in moving an aircraft the responsibility is mine and mine alone and I will tell them exactly what to do, how to do it and when to do it.  Watching a video will get no points from me on aircraft handling.

[lordmonar]

just another mindless minion at NHQ doing something-anything so he/she can point and say "see what I did"  Whether it makes sense or not is totally immaterial.

I don't care how many videos a person has watched (or not) if I am using their help in moving an aircraft the responsibility is mine and mine alone and I will tell them exactly what to do, how to do it and when to do it.  Watching a video will get no points from me on aircraft handling.

You would figure that by the time an CAP member was cleared to fly a CAP aircraft he would know how to push it back into a hanger.

Is there a way of gang loading a unit for doing ACH?   Just show the the video in place of the monthly safety brief (every month) and then you are good!

[JeffDG]

just another mindless minion at NHQ doing something-anything so he/she can point and say "see what I did"  Whether it makes sense or not is totally immaterial.

I don't care how many videos a person has watched (or not) if I am using their help in moving an aircraft the responsibility is mine and mine alone and I will tell them exactly what to do, how to do it and when to do it.  Watching a video will get no points from me on aircraft handling.

Well, there's also the fact that the AGH video shows someone doing the absurdly unsafe thing of sticking their head through the prop arc to hook up a towbar, and not as a negative example.

[SunDog]

Some cadets may become senior members eventually - I think it's important to start wasting their time right away, get them indoctrinated early.  Else they may recoil when tasked with "Microwave Oven Safety" or "Hazards of Spork Use".

[Luis R. Ramos]

Cliff, Phall, EMT-

Having cadets watch that video does not relieve you of the responsibility requiring supervision and instruction doing it properly.

But in education, the more times a topic is covered the better it sticks.

If it does not break anything, why complain whether those taking the O Flight are required to take that video? Or do you have plenty on your hands for complaining about something minor like that?



Flyer

[lordmonar]

The point is ....useless, pointless box checking is one of the reasons why people don't like CAP.

The problem is HANGAR RASH.

That is responsible officers are not paying attention to what they are doing.

It is not like they did not know "Pushing the plane into a wall is bad".....they knew that already!

Making cadet passengers or anyone besides mission candidates (MS trainees and above) take the training is just pointless.

Sure the cadets will help push the aircraft.....UNDER THE SUPERVISION of some qualified person.

AGH training has always been usless.

[Eclipse]

You would figure that by the time an CAP member was cleared to fly a CAP aircraft he would know how to push it back into a hanger.

Yes, you would...

...and yet...

the instances of hangar rash, not to mention more serious avoidable mishaps continues to, if not rise, remain constant.

[NIN]

If it does not break anything, why complain whether those taking the O Flight are required to take that video? Or do you have plenty on your hands for complaining about something minor like that?

the larger problem is the myriad of signoffs and requirements for people to do ANYTHING.

Do you think a 12-13 year old cadet knows what he or she is "signing" when they do the NDA? Doubtful.  OPSEC?  Ditto.  Yet I have to get new cadets thru these two hoops (along with, what, the other 18 steps required to get signed in and setup in E-Services) before they can do things in eServices.  And that is pre-supposing that these cadets are technically savvy enough to do so on their own, which assumes "facts not in evidence" sometimes.

Now, before Cadet Timmy can sit with his hands folded in his lap in the airplane, he has to accomplish *yet*another* online "training".  Getting cadets scheduled in and flown is enough of a pain. "Sorry you showed up to fly today, Timmy, but it says here you haven't watched the Aircraft Ground Handling Video and taken the test. So yeah, never mind that we're at a fly day where the plane taxis up and you hardly get an opportunity to even touch it, let alone 'ground handle' it..."

I don't want to be a Negative Nin, but jeez. We keep trying to put butts in seats, and every time we find a good way to do that, a way is found to make it more difficult.  Why?

[vento]

Did anybody notice that cadets have to have the ground handling video complete before doing an o-flight?

My CO mentioned that tonight.

Cite please? I mean where in CAPR 60-1 (9 APR 2014) is the requirement for cadet to comply with the Ground Handling instructions?

Without the cite, I'd say that your CO is very wrong! 

[FlyTiger77]

Did anybody notice that cadets have to have the ground handling video complete before doing an o-flight?

My CO mentioned that tonight.

Cite please? I mean where in CAPR 60-1 (9 APR 2014) is the requirement for cadet to comply with the Ground Handling instructions?

Without the cite, I'd say that your CO is very wrong! 

CAPR 60-1, para 2-1(r) states, in pertinent part: "...[T]he Aircraft Ground Handling Video will be reviewed and its associated test will be accomplished by...cadets participating in cadet orientation flight activities."

I would invite your attention to the bottom third of page 7 of CAPR 60-1 dated 9 April 2014 if you are interested in reading the entire requirement.

[vento]

Did anybody notice that cadets have to have the ground handling video complete before doing an o-flight?

My CO mentioned that tonight.

Cite please? I mean where in CAPR 60-1 (9 APR 2014) is the requirement for cadet to comply with the Ground Handling instructions?

Without the cite, I'd say that your CO is very wrong! 

CAPR 60-1, para 2-1(r) states, in pertinent part: "...[T]he Aircraft Ground Handling Video will be reviewed and its associated test will be accomplished by...cadets participating in cadet orientation flight activities."

I would invite your attention to the bottom third of page 7 of CAPR 60-1 dated 9 April 2014 if you are interested in reading the entire requirement.

Thanks and I stand corrected. 

[FlyTiger77]

Did anybody notice that cadets have to have the ground handling video complete before doing an o-flight?

My CO mentioned that tonight.

Cite please? I mean where in CAPR 60-1 (9 APR 2014) is the requirement for cadet to comply with the Ground Handling instructions?

Without the cite, I'd say that your CO is very wrong! 

CAPR 60-1, para 2-1(r) states, in pertinent part: "...[T]he Aircraft Ground Handling Video will be reviewed and its associated test will be accomplished by...cadets participating in cadet orientation flight activities."

I would invite your attention to the bottom third of page 7 of CAPR 60-1 dated 9 April 2014 if you are interested in reading the entire requirement.

Thanks and I stand corrected. 

It's worth re-reading the entire regulation. There are a lot of changes.

I am glad that I have NEVER overlooked a regulatory change!!!!!!

[EMT-83]

I've asked the question before, but I wonder if there is any evidence that GHV has reduced the frequency of hangar rash?

[lordmonar]

I've asked the question before, but I wonder if there is any evidence that GHV has reduced the frequency of hangar rash?

Not that has been report AFAIK.

[NIN]

I've asked the question before, but I wonder if there is any evidence that GHV has reduced the frequency of hangar rash?

Are you suggesting an evidence-based approach to our training programs?

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Again I state as the Pilot in Command I am IN COMMAND.  The care and feeding of the aircraft and the well being of my passengers is MY RESPONSIBILITY.  I don't care how many videos someone has watched that does not qualify them for anything around the airplane.  I will direct what I want done, who I want to do it, and how I want it done. 

Too many times a video such as this will hold attention for maybe 45 seconds followed by mentally making vacation plans while the rest plays out just so someone can mark a x on a sheet of paper.  The next time the video plays there is a popcorn tossing contest seeing who can "hit" the newest person on the screen first.  The next time the announcement that the video has to be seen is notice of a much needed nap.  Overall just a senseless piece of fluff someone created as a feel good to waste other peoples time.

[SunDog]

Cliff, Phall, EMT-

Having cadets watch that video does not relieve you of the responsibility requiring supervision and instruction doing it properly.

But in education, the more times a topic is covered the better it sticks.

If it does not break anything, why complain whether those taking the O Flight are required to take that video? Or do you have plenty on your hands for complaining about something minor like that?



Flyer

Entered in evidence - why we are slowly fading away. . .

It's not the minor time it takes, it's the annoyance of knowing this (and other SAS) is pointless. Not a deal breaker by itself, just One. More. Item. On. The. Stack. . . Will the last non-OCD member please leave quietly, leaving in peace those remaining, to create and haggle overe administrivia.

[Luis R. Ramos]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

[Eclipse]

Again I state as the Pilot in Command I am IN COMMAND.  The care and feeding of the aircraft and the well being of my passengers is MY RESPONSIBILITY.  I don't care how many videos someone has watched that does not qualify them for anything around the airplane.  I will direct what I want done, who I want to do it, and how I want it done. 

Yes, you are.

Except that many CAP pilots don't view the airplanes with the same pride of ownership and personal responsibility,
and worse, few are ever held responsible when they bang up a $350,000 lifesaving asset.

And when you allow people to work with an air of "you're lucky I showed up at all", it's hard to fix the attitudes.

There's a lot of grumbling and moaning about "uniforms" and "administration", and blah, blah, blah, as if it was
"all somehow tangential and irrelevant to !!FLYING!!"

It's not, and the attention to detail, not to mention the attitude correction these things are supposed to engender
are basically ignored and scoffed at by far too many pilots, to the detriment of all.

When I put on a CAP uniform for anything, I change my attitude and go into "work mode" - same professional
demeanor, same responsibility and personal ownership of problems I cause, or have been given authority to accomplish, etc.,
that I would have if I were getting paid.

However we have FAR TOO MANY pilots and other members who think they "know better", blow through or skip checklists,
proper release briefings, and generally treat CAP flying like it was their recreation day.

We didn't get to the point where asking about the tow bar being attached is on the FRO because there was white
space on the web page, it was because it was becoming a chronic problem nationwide.  We had a couple in my wing
that I'm personally aware of.  Prop strikes, tail strikes, hard landings, and the ever present hangar rash.

Stuff happens, and with the largest privately owned GA fleet, CAP is statistically inclined to have its share of
unavoidable mishaps.  The problem is that most of the ones I've seen were avoidable, and the pilots
ignored procedures, operated with 1/2 attention, or made decisions in favor of expediency vs. safety or common
sense.

And then at the end of the day, in all but the most extreme / expensive cases, the pilots are not in any way
disciplined, and carry on to their next issue, and in some cases, it doesn't take very long.

[SunDog]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

Re-read; I said it wasn't a stand-alone big deal; just a poiintless waste of time, and as someone else noted, an occassional blocker for the mission.  As a PIC I question your judgement and capacity for analysis, if you can make a leap of logic from critcizing a SAS task to the presumption that I can't follow a checklist. You need to understand the diffrence between criticizing a requirment and following a requirement. A mature mind can do both. I did the training, as one of the many SAS tasks required of me to play. I exercise free will to conclude it was a waste of time, and even more so for a cadet.

CAP runs on member's time; wasting it is irresponsible, and generating knee-jerk and ineffective requirements in response to incidents is lame.  By itself, it is minor. But they all add up, and add to the frustration and annoyance factor that makes us less mission capable, and drives members away.

If CAP goes a full year without dinging a plane, we're failures, having erred on the side of excessive caution. Responsible, serious, well trained people can still ding sheet metal - take the lesson learned to heart (and not via a goofy video) and charge it as a cost of doing business.

Every accident is preventable - the cost of doing so is just too high. If NHQ  can't quantify a reduction in incidents resulting from this and other SAS  " training", then they're either lazy, cynical, or just doing CYA for the lawyers.

[Eclipse]

If CAP goes a full year without dinging a plane, we're failures, having erred on the side of excessive caution. Responsible, serious, well trained people can still ding sheet metal - take the lesson learned to heart (and not via a goofy video) and charge it as a cost of doing business.

Every accident is preventable - the cost of doing so is just too high. If NHQ  can't quantify a reduction in incidents resulting from this and other SAS  " training", then they're either lazy, cynical, or just doing CYA for the lawyers.

Wow. 

[Cliff_Chambliss]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.

Flyer

And how quick we challenge each others abilities and skills.  There is a very real difference in meaningful and wasteful.   To question my ability when we have never met nor flown together well let me just say that if you are so quick to form such an opinion then I really don't care for your opinion.  For the record however, anyone who has ever shared a cockpit with me either as a student or crewmember finds out very fast that no quarter is given for skipping checklists or blowing thru procedures or taking shortcuts.  Attention to detail is what seperates the drivers from the aviators.

Eclipse stated:  Except that many CAP pilots don't view the airplanes with the same pride of ownership and personal responsibility,
and worse, few are ever held responsible when they bang up a $350,000 lifesaving asset.

I have often said to my students they should never fly a plane they do not own.  Treat every airplane as if it is your most prized possession.  Own the airplane, take care of it, and if something breaks (and it will), then take charge in getting it reported and fixed.  Be in command and never abdicate your responsibility, duty, and authority as Pilot in Command. 

[SunDog]

Again I state as the Pilot in Command I am IN COMMAND.  The care and feeding of the aircraft and the well being of my passengers is MY RESPONSIBILITY.  I don't care how many videos someone has watched that does not qualify them for anything around the airplane.  I will direct what I want done, who I want to do it, and how I want it done. 

Yes, you are.

Except that many ny CAP pilots don't view the airplanes with the same pride of ownership and personal responsibility,
and worse, few are ever held responsible when they bang up a $350,000 lifesaving asset.

And when you allow people to work with an air of "you're lucky I showed up at all", it's hard to fix the attitudes.

There's a lot of grumbling and moaning about "uniforms" and "administration", and blah, blah, blah, as if it was
"all somehow tangential and irrelevant to !!FLYING!!"

It's not, and the attention to detail, not to mention the attitude correction these things are supposed to engender
are basically ignored and scoffed at by far too many pilots, to the detriment of all.

When I put on a CAP uniform for anything, I change my attitude and go into "work mode" - same professional
demeanor, same responsibility and personal ownership of problems I cause, or have been given authority to accomplish, etc.,
that I would have if I were getting paid.

However we have FAR TOO MANY pilots and other members who think they "know better", blow through or skip checklists,
proper release briefings, and generally treat CAP flying like it was their recreation day.

We didn't get to the point where asking about the tow bar being attached is on the FRO because there was white
space on the web page, it was because it was becoming a chronic problem nationwide.  We had a couple in my wing
that I'm personally aware of.  Prop strikes, tail strikes, hard landings, and the ever present hangar rash.

Stuff happens, and with the largest privately owned GA fleet, CAP is statistically inclined to have its share of
unavoidable mishaps.  The problem is that most of the ones I've seen were avoidable, and the pilots
ignored procedures, operated with 1/2 attention, or made decisions in favor of expediency vs. safety or common
sense.

And then at the end of the day, in all but the most extreme / expensive cases, the pilots are not in any way
disciplined, and carry on to their next issue, and in some cases, it doesn't take very long.

I do not think this word means what you think it means. . .

[arajca]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

Re-read; I said it wasn't a stand-alone big deal; just a poiintless waste of time, and as someone else noted, an occassional blocker for the mission.  As a PIC I question your judgement and capacity for analysis, if you can make a leap of logic from critcizing a SAS task to the presumption that I can't follow a checklist. You need to understand the diffrence between criticizing a requirment and following a requirement. A mature mind can do both. I did the training, as one of the many SAS tasks required of me to play. I exercise free will to conclude it was a waste of time, and even more so for a cadet.

CAP runs on member's time; wasting it is irresponsible, and generating knee-jerk and ineffective requirements in response to incidents is lame.  By itself, it is minor. But they all add up, and add to the frustration and annoyance factor that makes us less mission capable, and drives members away.

If CAP goes a full year without dinging a plane, we're failures, having erred on the side of excessive caution. Responsible, serious, well trained people can still ding sheet metal - take the lesson learned to heart (and not via a goofy video) and charge it as a cost of doing business.

Every accident is preventable - the cost of doing so is just too high. If NHQ  can't quantify a reduction in incidents resulting from this and other SAS  " training", then they're either lazy, cynical, or just doing CYA for the lawyers.

The problem isn't accidents per se, it's accidents caused by negligent behavior on pilots' and crews' parts. Bending a wing because the pilot/crew didn't open the hangar door completely is 100% avoidable at no cost. Ditto with pushing a plane into ANYTHING. That's what the video is addressing. I think CAP realizes accidents will happen. There are somethings that we just can't control, but accidents that happen due to things we can control need to be eliminated such as opening hangar doors completely and making sure the area is clear.

The flying tow bar incident that lead to the grounding of a wing wasn't based soley on that incident. That incident was merely the last in a long series on bad judgement calls by pilots and crews. Also, the bad judgement reportedly exercised by the pilot was to overfly a residential area AFTER it was confirmed the tow bar was attached.

As has been mentioned before, many of these safety programs are a result of incidents CAP has had. If we weren't having avoidable collisions while moving aircraft on the ground, we wouldn't have the GH video.

[Eclipse]

Again I state as the Pilot in Command I am IN COMMAND.  The care and feeding of the aircraft and the well being of my passengers is MY RESPONSIBILITY.  I don't care how many videos someone has watched that does not qualify them for anything around the airplane.  I will direct what I want done, who I want to do it, and how I want it done. 

Yes, you are.

Except that many ny CAP pilots don't view the airplanes with the same pride of ownership and personal responsibility,
and worse, few are ever held responsible when they bang up a $350,000 lifesaving asset.

And when you allow people to work with an air of "you're lucky I showed up at all", it's hard to fix the attitudes.

There's a lot of grumbling and moaning about "uniforms" and "administration", and blah, blah, blah, as if it was
"all somehow tangential and irrelevant to !!FLYING!!"

It's not, and the attention to detail, not to mention the attitude correction these things are supposed to engender
are basically ignored and scoffed at by far too many pilots, to the detriment of all.

When I put on a CAP uniform for anything, I change my attitude and go into "work mode" - same professional
demeanor, same responsibility and personal ownership of problems I cause, or have been given authority to accomplish, etc.,
that I would have if I were getting paid.

However we have FAR TOO MANY pilots and other members who think they "know better", blow through or skip checklists,
proper release briefings, and generally treat CAP flying like it was their recreation day.

We didn't get to the point where asking about the tow bar being attached is on the FRO because there was white
space on the web page, it was because it was becoming a chronic problem nationwide.  We had a couple in my wing
that I'm personally aware of.  Prop strikes, tail strikes, hard landings, and the ever present hangar rash.

Stuff happens, and with the largest privately owned GA fleet, CAP is statistically inclined to have its share of
unavoidable mishaps.  The problem is that most of the ones I've seen were avoidable, and the pilots
ignored procedures, operated with 1/2 attention, or made decisions in favor of expediency vs. safety or common
sense.

And then at the end of the day, in all but the most extreme / expensive cases, the pilots are not in any way
disciplined, and carry on to their next issue, and in some cases, it doesn't take very long.

I do not think this word means what you think it means. . .

It means exactly what it says.

"A quantifier that can be used with count nouns - often preceded by "as" or "too" or "so" or "that"; amounting to a large but indefinite number; "many temptations"; "a good many"; "many directions"; more than a few, more than several."

[SunDog]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

Re-read; I said it wasn't a stand-alone big deal; just a poiintless waste of time, and as someone else noted, an occassional blocker for the mission.  As a PIC I question your judgement and capacity for analysis, if you can make a leap of logic from critcizing a SAS task to the presumption that I can't follow a checklist. You need to understand the diffrence between criticizing a requirment and following a requirement. A mature mind can do both. I did the training, as one of the many SAS tasks required of me to play. I exercise free will to conclude it was a waste of time, and even more so for a cadet.

CAP runs on member's time; wasting it is irresponsible, and generating knee-jerk and ineffective requirements in response to incidents is lame.  By itself, it is minor. But they all add up, and add to the frustration and annoyance factor that makes us less mission capable, and drives members away.

If CAP goes a full year without dinging a plane, we're failures, having erred on the side of excessive caution. Responsible, serious, well trained people can still ding sheet metal - take the lesson learned to heart (and not via a goofy video) and charge it as a cost of doing business.

Every accident is preventable - the cost of doing so is just too high. If NHQ  can't quantify a reduction in incidents resulting from this and other SAS  " training", then they're either lazy, cynical, or just doing CYA for the lawyers.

The problem isn't accidents per se, it's accidents caused by negligent behavior on pilots' and crews' parts. Bending a wing because the pilot/crew didn't open the hangar door completely is 100% avoidable at no cost. Ditto with pushing a plane into ANYTHING. That's what the video is addressing. I think CAP realizes accidents will happen. There are somethings that we just can't control, but accidents that happen due to things we can control need to be eliminated such as opening hangar doors completely and making sure the area is clear.

The flying tow bar incident that lead to the grounding of a wing wasn't based soley on that incident. That incident was merely the last in a long series on bad judgement calls by pilots and crews. Also, the bad judgement reportedly exercised by the pilot was to overfly a residential area AFTER it was confirmed the tow bar was attached.

As has been mentioned before, many of these safety programs are a result of incidents CAP has had. If we weren't having avoidable collisions while moving aircraft on the ground, we wouldn't have the GH video.

Here's what I propose to you, without the stats to support it; CAP pilots have fewer incidents, accidents, and bent aluminum per flight hour than the rest of GA.  I don't know this to be true. I don't think NHQ  has any idea, either, and that should start your eyes rolling. . .

If watching that SAS prevented one handling incident per year, then the training is a waste of time. If it prevented 50 incidents, then it's likely worth the trouble. The organization doesn't appear to have tbe first clue about the effectiveness - somebody bent something, so let's throw another requirement at it and move on.

Every failure to open a hangar door completly is preventable; to say that every failure to do so is negligence is ludicrous. Some cases, sure. . .but many times a sober, responsible, careful person may believe he opened it all the way. May even look at it and still mis-perceive. It's how humans are built.

Hard landing? Cost us a 182 for a while, and the CAP instructor was thrown under the negligence bus. Mistake on his part? Sure, he let the pilot under instruction get a bit too far in the hole. Negligence? No, it wasn't. 

This implication that many of our pilots are loose cannon yahoos is silly. We do got jerks in cockpits. And in vans, GTs, NHQ, legal, and CP.  In my experience, the ratio of good folks to jerks is better in the cockpit. I'm not seeing cavalier behaviour by pilots in my wing, and we're probsbly middle of the pack.  But CAP airplanes move, don't weigh a lot relative to their surface area, react to the wind, aren't particularly robust, and operate often in confined spaces, air and land.

So let's say 30,000 members take the training, 30 minutes each, sit-down to stand-up time. . .15,000 hours invested; Value the time to the organization at $30 per hour? $450,000.00?  Did that save one wing tip, or 50?  Don't waste our time if you don't know. . .

Key here is, it doesn't cost NHQ much, does it? - It comes out of membership's hide.

[Eclipse]

Every failure to open a hangar door completly is preventable; to say that every failure to do so is negligence is ludicrous. Some cases, sure. . .but many times a sober, responsible, careful person may believe he opened it all the way. May even look at it and still mis-perceive. It's how humans are built.

So someone who can't even tell if the door is all the way open should be trusted with flying a plane?

How about "take your time, get a wing-walker, and don't assume?"

I know !!FLYING!!

Considering some of your posts, and the attitude you have about non-optional things you believe are trivial and
therefore can be ignored or fudged, perhaps the the bell is tolling in your vicinity.

You've said you're not renewing, so at least the burden of all these "details" that get between you and !!FLYING!!
will no longer be yours to bear.  You will be free to fly whatever you like, whenever you like, and
just hop in and light the afterburners, door open or not.

We don't need anyone in CAP who thinks a single mishap is in any way "acceptable", or who chooses
to do actuarial math on the costs of wrecking an occasional  plane vs. always paying attention.

[SunDog]

As I've observed before, you are a very selective reader, perhaps intentionally? I don't ignore the rules, and don't ignore the requirements. I didn't claim the previlage to do so.

I said some of them are stupid. Or, more gently put, badly conceived and unsupported by objective measures.

Try to read more carefully, if indeed it's just honest oversight and not setting up a straw man.  You're a better observer than I if you've never been fooled by a shadow, or a trick of perception, and never been alone at midnight on a ramp with deep shadows and bright lights.  Perhaps you could learn to fly, and take my spot. 

No bells tolling; knock on wood, haven't bent anything or hurt snyone yet. Almost 40 years of blind luck, zi guess.

[SunDog]

PS

Drop me a line the year CAP goes mishap free and still serves a worthwhile purpose.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I have a free weekend now as the winds were gusting over 30 knots and we had to cancel our operational mission.

[a2capt]

I have a free weekend now as the winds were gusting over 30 knots and we had to cancel our operational mission.

Karma .. after canceling out on SLS/CLC .. the more attractive flying .. gets cancelled. 

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Must be confusing me with someone else, SLS/CLC was so 2009...

[a2capt]

No, not you, specifically. The events that were on the calendar today.

[a2capt]

..and now..

All,
A few weeks ago, a new CAPR 60-1 was released that required cadets participating in o-rides to complete the aircraft ground handling training  every two years.  Earlier today, a new CAPR 60-1 was released that called into question whether cadets were still required to complete this training.  The current regulation states that "all CAP members who perform duties in the vicinity of CAP aircraft" are required to take the training.  Although cadets are not specifically mentioned in the regulation, it my direction that all CAWG cadets participating in o-rides are still required to take this training and their compliance will be verified immediately prior to flight.  All members, including cadets, must be aware of proper ground handling procedures in order for the wing to operate at the highest level of safety possible.

Regards,

Jon Stokes, Colonel, CAP
Commander, California WingCivil Air Patrol

This thing has been bugging me from one direction .. the way it was worded, and with this edict, that would mean that any passenger needs to watch said video too. Yes, even the politician and teacher getting an orientation flight.

[Eclipse]

..and now..

All,
A few weeks ago, a new CAPR 60-1 was released that required cadets participating in o-rides to complete the aircraft ground handling training  every two years.  Earlier today, a new CAPR 60-1 was released that called into question whether cadets were still required to complete this training.  The current regulation states that "all CAP members who perform duties in the vicinity of CAP aircraft" are required to take the training.  Although cadets are not specifically mentioned in the regulation, it my direction that all CAWG cadets participating in o-rides are still required to take this training and their compliance will be verified immediately prior to flight.  All members, including cadets, must be aware of proper ground handling procedures in order for the wing to operate at the highest level of safety possible.

Regards,

Jon Stokes, Colonel, CAP
Commander, California WingCivil Air Patrol

This thing has been bugging me from one direction .. the way it was worded, and with this edict, that would mean that any passenger needs to watch said video too. Yes, even the politician and teacher getting an orientation flight.

Where are you getting that?

The edict says "members", and the reg says this (Updated 3 May):

Biennially (every second year) the Aircraft Ground Handling Video will be reviewed and
its associated test will be accomplished by all CAP members who perform duties in the vicinity of
CAP aircraft to include, but are not limited to, the following CAP duties: Unit commanders, aircrew
members (CAP Pilots, Mission Scanners, Sensor Operators, etc), mission staff supervising or
actively engaged in aircraft operations (Incident Commanders, Operations Section Chiefs, Air
Operations Branch Directors, Flight Line Supervisors and Marshallers, Mission Safety Officers, etc).
Only CAP personnel that have current Aircraft Ground Handling Training may be authorized to
move or supervise moving aircraft when necessary. Aircraft Ground Handling Training may be taken
any time during a given year and is located on the National Aircraft Ops & Stan/Eval webpage at
http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/aircraft_ops__staneval/.

[Storm Chaser]

I wish the wording was a bit clearer. While the first sentence in that paragraph seems clear from an operational point of view, the question that needs answer is whether cadets participating in Orientation Flights are performing "duties in the vicinity of CAP aircraft". The fact that they now omit the wording regarding cadets participating in Orientation Flights could lead one to believe that they are no longer required to take AGH unless they will assist with moving the aircraft, as stated on the second to last sentence in that paragraph: "Only CAP personnel that have current Aircraft Ground Handling training may be authorized to move or supervise moving aircraft when necessary." I think if their intent was clearly spell out in regards to cadets participating in Orientation Flights, it would avoid members having to read between the lines and, potentially, misinterpreting the intent of the regulation.

[a2capt]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

[PHall]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

Maybe this would be easier for you to understand.


Do the students who ride a school bus have to know how to properly park and secure the bus before they're allowed to ride on it?

[Storm Chaser]

This is exactly what I was referring to. There shouldn't even be a need to debate the meaning of this.

I think that the fact that they removed the previous wording means that cadets only need AGH if they're going to assist in moving the aircraft. I think it's a good idea that cadets take the training and I will encourage the unit commanders in my group to promote and encourage their cadets to take AGH so that they can assist with the aircraft, as needed.

[Eclipse]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

No, it isn't.

The only people in the list above who are members are the cadets. 

CAP Cadets on O-rides routinely push the planes, help with the preflights, they handle the controls during flight as part of the
rides, etc., etc.

Not the case for any above, with the exception of ROTC, and then I'd doubt it happens very often.

The wording is clear - members, and further indicates very specific specialties. If they intended to
include non-members...

1) It would say so.

b) That would be ridiculous.

[a2capt]

Still boils down to the hip shooting premature publishing, constant revising of the regulations is just getting ridiculous.

Not quite as bad as a TFR check before departing on a flight, but darn close. 

[Storm Chaser]

True, but it could also mean that they do listen to the membership and correct issues when they become apparent.

[JeffDG]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

No, it isn't.

The only people in the list above who are members are the cadets. 

Really?

Teacher ORides are AE Members.

Politicians are often Legislative Members

[SunDog]

We flew a mayor and a teacher, both non-members.  The teacher had a couple of our cadets in his class, was curious. The mayor was just a good guy, friend to the airport, etc.

I don't think WMIRS is that well aligned with the rules du jour most of the time anyway.  If it isn't jamming releases for O rides for cadets without the training, then problem solved. Plausible deniability. . . If it is, force little Johnny and Suzy to do the training.  Not like you're gonna let them move the airplane anyway, and it comes out of the cadets quality time, vice yours.

[Eclipse]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

No, it isn't.

The only people in the list above who are members are the cadets. 

Really?

Teacher ORides are AE Members.

Politicians are often Legislative Members

Yeah. Like that actually means anything.
Those are honorary at best and not subject to normal
member rules.

[Garibaldi]

Members performing flight duties: Marshalling, MO, MP, O-ride pilots, MS. Those are the ones who would need to view the video IMO. Anyone who performs WORK RELATED DUTIES in or around an airplane.

Members/non-members taking a RIDE in an airplane: No. The cadets taking an O-ride...why would they NEED to view a video that has nothing to do...wait. I was asked to assist the pilot in moving the plane out of the hangar one time, and I had no idea what to do other than make sure the wings didn't hit the hangar door frame or the door was high enough for the tail to clear. This was about 3 years ago. They MIGHT need to view it just in case they are the first ones there and the pilot needs assistance getting the plane out.

Other folks who get rides in the plane, not so much. If it's the only time they will be around a CAP plane, then no.

I'm sure there are those who would disagree with me and already have.

[JeffDG]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

No, it isn't.

The only people in the list above who are members are the cadets. 

Really?

Teacher ORides are AE Members.

Politicians are often Legislative Members

Yeah. Like that actually means anything.
Those are honorary at best and not subject to normal
member rules.

Based on what?

[Eclipse]

Bases on their status and the regs. They aren't "members" in any way meaningful.

No meetings, no missions, nothing except the very narrow lane afforded by the
category.

[SarDragon]

Legislative members can participate on the same basis as you and I. There have been several article in various media that have talked about this participation. The CSAG agenda also discusses this.

[SunDog]

CAP maintains a "club" aircraft at Joint Base Andrews for national level pols and thier hangers-on;  I beleive membership is restricted to just those people.  Didn't CAP or someone make a big deal about one of them doing some mission flying recently? 

[JeffDG]

And AE Members taking ORides are not only members, but exercising a specific privilege of their membership category.

[Eclipse]

And AE Members taking ORides are not only members, but exercising a specific privilege of their membership category.

Yes, of course, everyone is equal, we're all members in good standing, no expectations of performance or attendance,
one big happy check-writing family.  Hoo-RAH!

Meanwhile, back on Earth-616...

The vast majority of members in the 999 units forget about CAP before the flash bulb cools on their shake-and-take,
assuming they are even personally present for that. 

The majority of AEMs take a ride, some brochures, talk about CAP that Monday, and we never see them again, either.
There are exceptions for everything, thus the term.

Practical reality helps these conversations a lot more then just reading the brochures.

[nomiddlemas]

We dont move the aircraft.  The FBO does all that for us.  We have two airplanes in one hangar so I think its a great idea that the FBO deal with it. 

[SunDog]

We generally don't need to have cadets push or pull.  Not too many occasions where a lot of airplanes are jamned on a ramp anymore. And hangars are not the rule in my wing.

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

I used to recite the USAF mantra of "If you never enter the prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop", but our 182's have that useless, short little tow-bar, so you always have some part of your anatomy in the arc. If there are no witnesses, I don't use it.

[vento]

We generally don't need to have cadets push or pull.  Not too many occasions where a lot of airplanes are jamned on a ramp anymore. And hangars are not the rule in my wing.

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

I used to recite the USAF mantra of "If you never enter the prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop", but our 182's have that useless, short little tow-bar, so you always have some part of your anatomy in the arc. If there are no witnesses, I don't use it.

Have you even watched the ground handling video? That is not what the video says at all. Suggest you to  watch the video one more time, especially at the 11 minutes mark. 

[Eclipse]

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

If the FBO dings the airplane, the FBO is responsible, not the PIC. 
The PIC might not even be in the same zip code when they pull the plane out.

[SunDog]

We generally don't need to have cadets push or pull.  Not too many occasions where a lot of airplanes are jamned on a ramp anymore. And hangars are not the rule in my wing.

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

I used to recite the USAF mantra of "If you never enter the prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop", but our 182's have that useless, short little tow-bar, so you always have some part of your anatomy in the arc. If there are no witnesses, I don't use it.

Have you even watched the ground handling video? That is not what the video says at all. Suggest you to  watch the video one more time, especially at the 11 minutes mark. 

I must have watched it, since I'm getting flight releases - maybe I fell asleep along about where it emphasizes it's bad to shove airplanes into objects?  Honestly, it's lost in the blizzard of administrivia. . .mostly, I just have a care not to bump into things when pushing, pulling, or taxiing airplanes.  I avoid prop arcs, too. . .

[SunDog]

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

If the FBO dings the airplane, the FBO is responsible, not the PIC. 
The PIC might not even be in the same zip code when they pull the plane out.

Not an issue (no/few hanagrs) in my wing. . .more faith in the system than I have, but perhaps you're correct. Still, probably good advice to actually NOT be present when the FBO does the ding.

[PHall]

I just retook the Aircraft Gound Handling online class. Didn't even watch the video and still got an 80% on the test.
It's not Rocket Surgery!!!

[SunDog]

I have heard some members go straight to all the tests, without passing go.  They miss that good info about not skipping rope with downed power lines, or driving across flooded roads, or the safe use of shoe laces. . .some go directly to FAA, AOPA, or other sources for education related to flying activities. 

I bet the GT folks have similiar useful sources about saftety/best practices in their endeavors, to avoid getting squished, bit, hyperthermic, or lost.  Come to think of it, I've had all those things happen to me in an airplane. . .

Yuks aside, CAP has some good training on-line. The safety stuff is mostly noise, though. . .and the avaition stuff is better covered much better by a plethora of other entities.

[Eclipse]

I have heard some members go straight to all the tests, without passing go.  They miss that good info about not skipping rope with downed power lines, or driving across flooded roads, or the safe use of shoe laces. . .some go directly to FAA, AOPA, or other sources for education related to flying activities. 

There is a check box on each test that indicates you have reviewed the materials or presentation.

Integrity and all that...

[JeffDG]

I have heard some members go straight to all the tests, without passing go.  They miss that good info about not skipping rope with downed power lines, or driving across flooded roads, or the safe use of shoe laces. . .some go directly to FAA, AOPA, or other sources for education related to flying activities. 

There is a check box on each test that indicates you have reviewed the materials or presentation.

Integrity and all that...

Doesn't say when you reviewed them.  The same video year after year, yes, I have reviewed the video...two years ago.

[SunDog]

Brilliant! Someone's mild guilt is assuaged!

I have heard some people hesitate (briefly), just for that check-box reason. . .then figure they've already had the equivalent training a zillion times. Not the letter of the law, granted. . .but "Ridiculousness" was coming on shortly, and someone may have needed time to study something useful. Heck, score 80, you must have known enough. . .

[Eclipse]

I have heard some members go straight to all the tests, without passing go.  They miss that good info about not skipping rope with downed power lines, or driving across flooded roads, or the safe use of shoe laces. . .some go directly to FAA, AOPA, or other sources for education related to flying activities. 

There is a check box on each test that indicates you have reviewed the materials or presentation.

Integrity and all that...

Doesn't say when you reviewed them.  The same video year after year, yes, I have reviewed the video...two years ago.

Agreed - knife safety is knife safety, doesn't change much, neither will safe driving tips:

1) Smash the gas pedal to the floor.

B) Move the steering wheel as abruptly as possible.

3) Let the defroster clear the windshield enroute, etc., etc.

Just saying you had to have reviewed it at some point.

[PHall]

The Ground Handling video has not changed since the last time I did the course.
So yes, I could truthfully check the "I have reviewed the material" box with no guilt.

[vento]

We generally don't need to have cadets push or pull.  Not too many occasions where a lot of airplanes are jamned on a ramp anymore. And hangars are not the rule in my wing.

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

I used to recite the USAF mantra of "If you never enter the prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop", but our 182's have that useless, short little tow-bar, so you always have some part of your anatomy in the arc. If there are no witnesses, I don't use it.

Have you even watched the ground handling video? That is not what the video says at all. Suggest you to  watch the video one more time, especially at the 11 minutes mark. 

I must have watched it, since I'm getting flight releases - maybe I fell asleep along about where it emphasizes it's bad to shove airplanes into objects?  Honestly, it's lost in the blizzard of administrivia. . .mostly, I just have a care not to bump into things when pushing, pulling, or taxiing airplanes.  I avoid prop arcs, too. . .

No wonder you didn't know that CAP will NOT throw you under the bus if the FBO is handling the aircraft. You watched but chose not to see...

[SunDog]

I'd say that was a fair assesment. Not sure I "chose" so much as I dozed, but same-same. . .

If the video explcitly states that the FBO can tear a wing off in your prescense, with no repercussions on you (PIC), that's good.  If I was at the airport when the FBO started shoving it out of the hanagr, my knee-jerk reaction would be to be on-hand during the movement, kinda make sure the wingtips and such survived the evolution.  Sounds like a better move is to be out of sight of the action.

If you're not there, you're not there. . .plausible deniability. . .you'd still have to trust in management, I think. Based on observed history, that doesn't come easy for me.  What is written, what is said, does not align with what is done, not often enough. . .

[RiverAux]

constant revising of the regulations is just getting ridiculous.

That may be the first complaint ever seen on CAPTalk about CAP regulations being revised TOO frequently.