"We have met the enemy and it is Us"

Started by Cliff_Chambliss, June 07, 2012, 04:52:30 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CAP_Marine

Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
And a thought - do we have / do we need to better publicize an anonymous safety channel?  Other than the squadron commander, what other channel does a member who is seeing something unsafe have?

Umm... let's see here. There is always the Safety Officer. Seeing as this was a photo recon mission, it was ES, and it is pretty clear that the Safety Officer trumps everybody in the CoC on a mission when it come to safety issues. There is the IC, assuming he/ she was different than the Squadron CC. There is an AOBD and Ops Cheif who both should be very willing and interested to hear such a safety concern. Outside of ES there are STANEVAL folks, Operations Folks and (wait for it...) even an IG, whose very job it is to investigate such actions that fall outside of our rules, guidelines and operating principles. There are these types of folks at sometimes the Group level (not IG), but also at Wing, Region and National, so one has options to take things up the chain of command if one feels that resolution from a lower level is not proper.

You are trying to make a problem out of a system that already has a myriad of fixes.

bflynn

#21
Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2012, 03:19:06 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
And a thought - do we have / do we need to better publicize an anonymous safety channel?   Other than the squadron commander, what other channel does a member who is seeing something unsafe have?

Publicize an anonymous safety channel?
There's no "assumption" to be wrong.  You've made your position perfectly clear, and no one is "misunderstanding" you.

Your assumption is that I believe a system is broken.  I don't know of any systems, so I'm asking questions about their existence and limits.  Apparently you don't know the answers or you would posted it as you normally do.  That's Ok, I don't critically need to know.

My only position in this thread is SAFETY > REPUTATION by such a huge degree that reputation is never even on the table when you're talking safety - and I've stated why with an example.  You're welcome to disagree and you have.

If you think there's anything else, you're bringing it.

And depsite me saying now I'm through trying to have a rational conversation, you'll post something else ...

lordmonar

Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 12:39:44 PMNo, they don't mean the same thing.  But, the mind set of keeping it in house has an issue.

If we don't ask about problems outside of CAP, then we do it inside because we want to protect the reputation of the organization.  But following that logic, you wouldn't raise it outside your wing because you don't want to impair your wing...why make others pay for the mistakes of a few.  And similarly why would you raise it outside your squadron, you don't want to embarrass your squadron by airing dirty laundry.

These are all true.....it is called the chain of command.

If you think your Cadet Flight Segeant is doing something wrong (either bad information, safety violation, violating regs, or what ever)....you don't call the wing commander....you call your Flight Commander....if your pilot on the SAREX is flying too low.....you don't go to your Region Commander....you go to the IC or your Squadron Commander.

Because we a) want to handle problems at the lowest level.  That's what those lower levels are for!  b) we want to protect the reputation of your unit......the National Commander does not need to know that C/SSgt Dumbjohn doesn't know how to do open ranks correctly.

QuoteSo, using your logic to keep it in house, how is someone supposed to know how hight to raise it?  They can bring to the their chain of command, but that's exactly what people did about Col Holland and nothing happened.  Why?  Because when you have the attitude that problem shouldn't be aired above the approriate level, they stop moving up when an individual either decides it isn't a large enough problem to bring highter OR they doubt the problem - whether the problem has been solved or not.
Yep....and as everyone know there was a failure in leadership.......How does someone know how high they need to raise it?  I can't answere that....it is too situaitonal.  But just because squadron X has a failure of leadership and failed to fix the problem.....however.....elevating EVERYTHING to the top of the chain or instantly going outside the organisation is not the answer either.

QuoteYou can't set any limit on where someone discusses a safety issue.
Yes I can.  You will use proper channels.  Your chain of command....all the way up to the National CC, Safety officers, IG.
Going outside the organisation does not allow the organisation the opportunity to fix it.

QuoteAre you a member of that other board and did you see the post and responses? 

The setup - given 80 kts speed with 10 degrees of flaps at near gross weight, and a 60 degree bank angle.  The question was - "Considering the bank angle, are we letting ourselves get too close to a stall at low altitude?"

Your language suggests you've already decided what happened here.  The member was not hotdogging it.  They had a legitimate concern about safety and they were asking the opinion of other pilots because they were more concerned about safety than CAP's reputation.

I understand the situation.  The member was wrong to go outside the organisation for advice.  He should have taken the issue to his squaron/group/wing STAND/EVAL or his safety officers.  I understand he was looking for information....but he should have kept it in-house.

QuoteSome of the responses:
"80 knots indicated airspeed, or 80 knots calibrated airspeed? At 60 degrees bank, it makes a significant difference in stall margin"

"This might fall into one of those "if you need to ask...." sort of deals.  The wisdom of that aside, I am curious why you need a 60 degree bank to take a photo of something? Is that just the way the geometry works out? What about a longer lens from higher altitude/less bank?"

"Is there some reason you can't read the POH? Or hear the stall horn? "

"You can take fine photos without having to do maneuvers like a 60 degree bank from a 182. Why can't the photographer move to the co pilots seat and open the window as you fly by.   There is no cause worth taking extreme risks to accomplish when there are other, safer ways to do the same thing"

All good responses......I wonder what his wing STAND/EVAL would have said.  More importantly I wounder if his wing STAND/EVAL even knows that they are flying that sort of profile.  How can we stop the next CAP Col Hollander if we don't inform our organisation of the problem?

QuoteCAP doesn't get a black eye from this...but more important than that, a CAP scanner/AP now feels justified in challenging his pilot about how the pilot flies and is ready to call "this is stupid".  Would that have happened without getting external validation?  No, I don't think so, people would have said what they said about Col Holland - well, if you're uncomfortable, don't fly with him.
You assume that the system does not work.   That is a wrong attitude.  We must have loyalty to our organisaiton.  That is part of our core value of Integrity.  If we don't work within the system....then we are doing more damage.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
And a thought - do we have / do we need to better publicize an anonymous safety channel?  Other than the squadron commander, what other channel does a member who is seeing something unsafe have?
Squadron Commander
Squadron Safety
Squadron STAND/EVAL
Squadron Operations Officer

Repeat at group/wing/region/national as necessary.

There is always the IG system at each level.

Confidenitalty is not guarenteed (except through IG channels....and his first quesiton should be "have you take this to the appropriate staff officer/commander?).

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

jeders

Quote from: lordmonar on June 08, 2012, 03:49:57 PM
Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
And a thought - do we have / do we need to better publicize an anonymous safety channel?  Other than the squadron commander, what other channel does a member who is seeing something unsafe have?
Squadron Commander
Squadron Safety
Squadron STAND/EVAL
Squadron Operations Officer

Repeat at group/wing/region/national as necessary.

There is always the IG system at each level.

Confidenitalty is not guarenteed (except through IG channels....and his first quesiton should be "have you take this to the appropriate staff officer/commander?).

Not to mention the Hazard Report under the Safety Management System in eServices which does allow for "anonymous" reports. Though why you'd want to be anonymous reporting someone doing something this dangerous, I don't know.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 03:35:45 PMI don't know of any systems, so I'm asking questions about their existence and limits.

You have indicated here that you are a CAP pilot and you are saying you are unaware of any systems to report safety issues or violations of operational regulations?

"That Others May Zoom"

jacksmith60187

From the other forum, this is the "dirty laundry" addressed to a forum of CFIs. Are you guys really worried about asking this question in public? I'm not. Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask, if this person actually saw this happen or was in the airplane when it did.

"A well known volunteer organization I participate in takes photos from 172/182s of ground targets. The usual maneuver is to descend to about 500 feet AGL in slow cruise - one notch of flaps 80 knots - and then do a high bank like sixty degrees while the guy in the backseat takes pictures. The plane will be near max gross weight. Considering the bank angle, are we letting ourselves get too close to a stall at low altitude?"

West_Coast_Guy

Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2012, 03:12:51 PM
Broadcasting partial information on a public form impacts the reputation for all of us negatively.

Are you aware of the fact that Captalk.net is a public forum?

lordmonar

Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 12:12:05 AM
From the other forum, this is the "dirty laundry" addressed to a forum of CFIs. Are you guys really worried about asking this question in public? I'm not. Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask, if this person actually saw this happen or was in the airplane when it did.

"A well known volunteer organization I participate in takes photos from 172/182s of ground targets. The usual maneuver is to descend to about 500 feet AGL in slow cruise - one notch of flaps 80 knots - and then do a high bank like sixty degrees while the guy in the backseat takes pictures. The plane will be near max gross weight. Considering the bank angle, are we letting ourselves get too close to a stall at low altitude?"
Not saying it was not a reasonable question....but it should have been asked of the Wing STAN/EVAL or Safety guys....not the CFIs on some forum.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

jacksmith60187

Suppose it gets asked of the STAN/EVAL guys AND the CFIs on the other forum. Would that be OK?

Eclipse

Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 10:19:38 AM
Suppose it gets asked of the STAN/EVAL guys AND the CFIs on the other forum. Would that be OK?

How about asking the question without the derogatory subject line and leaving out any mention of the organization?

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 10:19:38 AM
Suppose it gets asked of the STAN/EVAL guys AND the CFIs on the other forum. Would that be OK?
No
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

jacksmith60187

Quote from: Eclipse on June 09, 2012, 02:59:02 PM
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 10:19:38 AM
Suppose it gets asked of the STAN/EVAL guys AND the CFIs on the other forum. Would that be OK?

How about asking the question without the derogatory subject line and leaving out any mention of the organization?

I see that the subject line was something like, "Should we be doing this?" - how is that derogatory? And I don't see where the OP ever mentioned CAP. Eclipse - did you even read or have access to the other forum? Are you a pilot?

jacksmith60187


Eclipse

#34
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 12:12:05 AM"A well known volunteer organization I participate in takes photos from 172/182s of ground targets. The usual maneuver is to descend to about 500 feet AGL in slow cruise - one notch of flaps 80 knots - and then do a high bank like sixty degrees while the guy in the backseat takes pictures. The plane will be near max gross weight. Considering the bank angle, are we letting ourselves get too close to a stall at low altitude?"

You don't have to be Monk to narrow that down...

The OP indicated that the word "stupid" was used in the posting.

Whether I am a pilot is irrelevant to this discussion, however I am qualified aircrew and more than familiar with CAP's and GA procedures and
regulations in this regard, not to mention someone who regularly has to deal with the collateral damage caused my this kind of thing when trying to come to agreements with potential customers and other agencies, not to mention recruit quality people.

Final answer here is that is this person posted with a voice that indicated he already knew the answer before making the post.
If he didn't, his answer would be far more expediently and appropriately obtained by asking his chain or people in his unit
who are also aircrew.

If he did, then this was just someone trying to "tell" the world a question.

Either way a bad idea.

Someone who values his membership and CAP's standing in the aviation community would know better then to be doing this kind of thing.
Someone who doesn't value his membership enough, or doesn't understand the term "collateral damage" is not needed in the organization.

Another issue is that the poster stated thing which are simply not true.  We have no idea if his pilot actually performed such a maneuver, but the one indicated is >not< a standard procedure for AP's, or much anything else in CAP.  If it's something being taught as standard where he serves, then corrections need to be made, and they won't get made based on a posting in some aviation forum.

However to characterize the above as a common situation to CAP, shines an unfair negative light on the organization, impacts our reputation, and does so based something that isn't even true.

This isn't about "whistle blowing" - since there's no indication there was any safety violation, investigation, or cover up.

This isn't about transparency.

This is about common courtesy and respect.

"That Others May Zoom"

FW

Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 12:12:05 AM"A well known volunteer organization I participate in takes photos from 172/182s of ground targets. The usual maneuver is to descend to about 500 feet AGL in slow cruise - one notch of flaps 80 knots - and then do a high bank like sixty degrees while the guy in the backseat takes pictures. The plane will be near max gross weight. Considering the bank angle, are we letting ourselves get too close to a stall at low altitude?"

I have no idea why any of us are taking this seriously.  Sounds like a troll to me.  CAP has no SOP which allows this type of photo mission.  CAPR 60-1 prohibits it: "at no time will the pilot allow the aircraft to come within 500 ft. agl unless taking off or landing."  Let's not even go with a very steep bank at low airspeed.  To me, this sounds like total bunk; not that someone would make such a claim but, that anyone would believe it.

jacksmith60187

The OP wrote that "[He] was taught this maneuver at a day long training session for AP. 'Nuff said." and also that  " we were down low, we were slow and we were banking tight to get a good view of the target. . . . This was official training, so it is going on in at least part of our organization."

So he was there and this did happen and the OP claims it was official training.

Eclipse, since you aren't a pilot, I guess it is possible you don't understand just how very dangerous this could be. As an airplane banks, its stall speed increases. When you bank sharply at slower speeds you reduce the stall margin. It is an easy thing for someone to be banking an airplane and then for just a moment allow the bank angle to get to be too much. If that happens and the pilot was also not keeping the airplane well coordinated, then you have a stall/spin from 500 feet. If that happens to a CAP plane, then CAP will be mourning the deaths of three of its members.   

It would be really bad if those members included cadets. And THAT would really screw up our reputation.

Eclipse

Jack, are you even a member? 

"Day long training for AP?"  There is no official training in CAP for AP, nor is there even an SQTR.  There's an empty rating
and a number of draft classes.  That's it.  And the fact that someone posts something on a forum is hardly
evidence that "they were there and it was official training".  For all we know it was third-hand gossip.

If you read my response you will see that I know exactly how potentially dangerous that maneuver would be, and also that it
is >not< taught as an official maneuver by CAP.

The fact that it is not part of CAP doctrine shows the exact reason why a posting like this is inappropriate, because it insinuates
that it is, and I would be willing to bet that while this person felt free to post this publicly, impugning our reputation, he has not
addressed it properly within CAP, which is what needs to be done from a safety perspective.

Just because something is taught under the auspices of CAP, doesn't mean it is appropriate, correct, or "official".

"That Others May Zoom"

jacksmith60187

I have MP, MO, MS, AP and TMP ratings, if you must know.

Your blind faith in the organization is very disturbing.

Let's hope we don't lose an aircrew.

I'm done here.

Yikes.

Eclipse

#39
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 06:25:49 PM
Your blind faith in the organization is very disturbing.

Blind faith?  Seriously?

An anonymous poster makes an accusation of CAP's processes, and we take that as Gospel, but
we raise the >facts< that what was indicated is not what is taught and that's "blind faith"?

You and he are dealing in conjecture, and we're dealing in facts.  At least if the actual poster was here with
full explanation we could judge the veracity of the claims, but you aren't in a position to know if the situation 
is even real.

What's expected in a 91 is public information and easily accessible, in fact everything in our doctrine and curriculum is.
Assuming this really happened, had the poster followed procedure, he would have received immediate information,
and likely seen immediate response to the situation - that proper response being the assurance that was he alleges
occurred was improper and the pilot would receive, at a minimum, remedial training.

Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 06:25:49 PM
Let's hope we don't lose an aircrew.

Yes, let's hope we don't, ever, for any reason.

However the "no good deed goes unpunished" "this is for the good of all" arguments don't fly here, since there's nothing to
be protected against.

"That Others May Zoom"