Flying Club

[CAP Spy]

Just curious if anyone else feel that CAP has become more of a Good Ole Boy flying club.  I know if situations in my wing where someone failed a check ride and they were given another chance with a different check airman and they still failed but then the wing commander signed their Form 5 allowing tem to fly because this person was in the in crowd.  Remember this member may fly your kids one day. I am a check airman within this Wing and I want to warn you all that if you sign them off you are liable for what they do or fail to do in the airplane.  Check with your attorney not CAPs.

[Pumbaa]

Oh this is going to be real fun!

[JAFO78]

Welcome to CAP   

[heliodoc]

To Newbie

Maybe before one goes lawyer and attorney chasing......................

Look at the FAA PTS standards and what is a Form 5 anyway??  It is "elevated BFR" in many peoples interpretations and if CAP check pilots are seeming to "exceed" FAA PTS standards which in 60-1, do not really exist....

What are you check airman really looking for??  What did this individual do to "fail" and then get passed on?

Did you ever hear of a bad day in flying?  You like greased landings rather than FIRM landings?? Did this pilot fly in 17 knots crosswind and then Stan Eval types get all "greenied" up over that??

My man you hav opened up a can of worms, and CAP better ground all its fleet if you get attorneys involved....

Thanks... CAP needs more pilots  maybe every one of em should have a commercial and instrument rating to boot, EH??

It's bad enough to get passed from instructor to instructor and have no Form 5 signatures and really no definite plans of action for "CAP instructor pilots" when individuals fail

Sometimes I look back at my flying at the FBO's and even those kids off to the airlines told me what I ,,  needed to correct issues..

Better define what this individual did and if he had a miserable day flying, how current is the individual?, Is he or she ALLL over the place??  Doesn't know procedure??....rather than start lawyer chasing.....  then you as an check airman and presumably a CFI or CFII had better do your best to assist or devise a plan of action for your members rather than touching off a conflagaration in this forum

OUT HERE, SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DNall]

^ Hey... I don't know this check pilot or the pilot or anyone else in question.

What I know here is a theoretical situation where some pilot somewhere failed a check ride. Then failed again with a different check pilot. Then got signed off by a wing/CC. That's unacceptable.

Quit saying miserable flying day. That's also unacceptable. Yes, people have bad days, and your bad day better be far enough over the minimum standard that you can operate safely and accomplish the mission regardless of circumstances. I don't want to fly with a guy that barely meet the standard on a pretty day. That guy doesn't belong in an airplane as an observer. The guy that can squeak it in under 17kts cross wind after having flown the profile, I'll probably let him fly off my wing.

If he had a bad day & didn't meet the standards, then he needs to retrain to standard & try again at a later date.

If that means CAP doesn't have enough pilots, then we either need to start recruiting or reduce the fleet. What we are never going to do is lower standards or compromise safety so we can stamp someone approved, be that for an individual situation like this or a big picture low number of crews.

I would personally raise this issue to the IG & inform NHQ IG & stan/eval about it. As Reg or Nat/CC I would fire the wing/CC, and suspend the flying privileges of the pilot involved pending investigation.

[heliodoc]

Sweet DNall

I'll quit saying a bad day when even Army pilots tell me they have had a bad day

Then MAKE it requirement that EVERY pilot in CAP meets the FAA Commercial and Instrument standards.

Prove to me that anything MORE exists in 60-1 than FAA  PTS standards

I fly part time as a skydive pilot in envelopes that are near gross weight in hot/hots and I also know MANY airline drivers and other pilots think that CAP has a holier than thou attitude in ALLLL things flying .... isn't so....

I did not state that the pilot should get a pass...... there are plenty of CAP Check pilots that think they are
cops of the air or something.

Never said anything about compormising safety..... just asking what the pilot did and what that check pilot is doing to assist the individual.

Granted these situations are unaccetable, but I personally have flown with some CAP pilots check or otherwise that overreact to different flying situations that they do not "seem to like"  CAP check pilots that do not hold a CFI or CFII don't hold alot of water in my book.  The true professional WILL tell that person what to improve upon, fly and work the problems out.  There are many CAP CFI's that DO NOT even MEET that standard

SOOO  better make it a rule that CAP gets money for a guaranteed 10 hours a month for currency to meet yours or CAP's arbitrary flying rules.  Because even the BEST CAP pilots are prone to mistakes as seen in the past few years with CAP aircrews with more than 1000 hours flight time.  So I would suppose my 600 hours in both paid and non paid cockpits doesn't meet with your approval, huh, DNALL??  I am not the perfect pilot and no CAP pilot is super pilot.  I'll fly with anyone, any day, even the worst Army pilots.

Some bad days in the air learning are better days than sitting on the ground, thinking about flying and how we are gonna jam it to the membership further....

Good idea!!  Get both the IG AND the lawyers involved ...that will really make a proactive organization!!!
Thanks for that helpful solution

[Short Field]

What I know here is a theoretical situation where some pilot somewhere failed a check ride. Then failed again with a different check pilot. Then got signed off by a wing/CC. That's unacceptable.

I have to agree with you!  It is one thing to have a "bad day" and not hit all the numbers just right.  That SHOULD just take another hour or two in the practice area to knock the rust off before you nail it with another check pilot.  However, to have the wing/CC then sign off the Fm 5 after failing two check rides is a bit more than unusual. 

What was not said in the first post was if the wing/CC was a check pilot and/or CFI and if the person passed the Fm 5 ride.  However, to error on the side of avoiding the appearance of command influence, the wing/CC should have used a third check pilot, and then reviewed the results before allowing the person to continue to fly.

[SJFedor]

Sweet DNall

I'll quit saying a bad day when even Army pilots tell me they have had a bad day

Then MAKE it requirement that EVERY pilot in CAP meets the FAA Commercial and Instrument standards.

Prove to me that anything MORE exists in 60-1 than FAA  PTS standards

I fly part time as a skydive pilot in envelopes that are near gross weight in hot/hots and I also know MANY airline drivers and other pilots think that CAP has a holier than thou attitude in ALLLL things flying .... isn't so....

I did not state that the pilot should get a pass...... there are plenty of CAP Check pilots that think they are
cops of the air or something.

Never said anything about compormising safety..... just asking what the pilot did and what that check pilot is doing to assist the individual.

Granted these situations are unaccetable, but I personally have flown with some CAP pilots check or otherwise that overreact to different flying situations that they do not "seem to like"  CAP check pilots that do not hold a CFI or CFII don't hold alot of water in my book.  The true professional WILL tell that person what to improve upon, fly and work the problems out.  There are many CAP CFI's that DO NOT even MEET that standard

SOOO  better make it a rule that CAP gets money for a guaranteed 10 hours a month for currency to meet yours or CAP's arbitrary flying rules.  Because even the BEST CAP pilots are prone to mistakes as seen in the past few years with CAP aircrews with more than 1000 hours flight time.  So I would suppose my 600 hours in both paid and non paid cockpits doesn't meet with your approval, huh, DNALL??  I am not the perfect pilot and no CAP pilot is super pilot.  I'll fly with anyone, any day, even the worst Army pilots.

Some bad days in the air learning are better days than sitting on the ground, thinking about flying and how we are gonna jam it to the membership further....

Good idea!!  Get both the IG AND the lawyers involved ...that will really make a proactive organization!!!
Thanks for that helpful solution

You really seem like you just have a bad attitude towards the CAP flight program in general, as well as the entire organization of Civil Air Patrol. This concerns me.

There aren't (or shouldn't be) any CAP Check Pilots that are NOT CFI's (Ref: CAPR60-1, para 3-2(e). ) The only exception is CAP Mission Check Pilots, which do not evaluate anything other then mission related skills as required on the CAPF 91. These personnel are experienced CAP Mission Pilots, and actually, most are CAP Instructor and/or Check Pilots.

You're honestly bringing up rebuttals to points that no one has made. Dennis made no remarks at all about any form of "arbitrary flying rules". However, your remarks that having a bad day in the air is an OK thing is very, very concerning. I do not want a pilot in the air who's having a "bad day" (read the FAA created I'M SAFE checklist) for a multitude of reasons. If it's anything other then proficiency related, they have no business in the cockpit until they get it settled. If it's a proficiency thing, they need to spend some more time (as much as it takes) with an IP to get themselves back to par. I can't fathom why you would choose to argue this point, as it is the safety of that pilot, that aircrew, that aircraft, and God forbid, anyone on the ground that they may injure/kill as a result of this person having a "bad day".

No one ever said CAP check pilots think of themselves as cops of the air or anything like it. However, they do have a responsibility to ensure that the pilots they endorse to fly are competent and safe pilots and that they can perform flight operations, at a minimum, to the FAA standards of the certificate they hold.

And yes, if there is a Wing/CC approving someone's form 5 when they have clearly failed two form 5 check rides simply because they are buddy-buddy with each other, that does need some looking into. It could be your kid, family member, or friend on that plane when that pilot ends up making a mistake big enough that he cannot correct it in time.

You've got some very hazardous attitudes. If you're truly this burnt out and this disgruntled about the program and organization as a whole, thank you for your service, but please feel free to depart.

[FW]

I just had my Form 5 ride a couple of weeks ago.  It was my 20th Form 5 in 18 years.  And, after 20 form 5 rides and about 9 form 91 rides.  I can say, definitely, no one gives me a break.  And, I wouldn't want them to.  I don't want to break something near and dear to me; and, I don't want to break the aircraft either.  IMHO, anyone who demands a passing grade on a check ride, no matter what the results are, is; well broke.

And, BTW... what standards are we talking about?  We are supposed to be tested to the level we are expected to fly.... no matter what license or rating we hold.  And, I don't think it is allowed for a wing/cc to overrule a failed check ride. The wing/cc can only authorize/mandate additional training before a form 5 is taken again.  But, then, what do I know?

[SJFedor]

 But, then, what do I know?

More then most, sir. 

[Eclipse]

I know if situations in my wing where someone failed a check ride and they were given another chance with a different check airman and they still failed but then the wing commander signed their Form 5 allowing them to fly because this person was in the in crowd. 

First I guarantee that's not how it happened.

Second if by some chance it did, and the only place you are complaining is here, then you're part of the problem.

[Rob Sherlin]

Ouch! I'll stay in the trench and keep my head down on this one.

[Auxpilot]

Here is a quote from the 60-1:

The applicant should be reminded that he/she is required to accomplish the recheck with the same check pilot unless that check pilot agrees to another.

If this is happening, is the original check pilot agreeing to send the applicant to another check pilot?

[Short Field]

^^^^ There you have it - no "shopping" for a check pilot just to pass the ride.

[a2capt]

I know if situations in my wing where someone failed a check ride and they were given another chance with a different check airman and they still failed but then the wing commander signed their Form 5 allowing tem to fly because this person was in the in crowd. 

Is that an "if" or an "of"?

Have your story straight before you make accusations. It really lends more credibility to it.

Sounds like a sour grapes issue to me.

Were you in the back seat during both of these check rides?

Did you see the actual Form 5 report with the S and the U columns filled out?

I can't see any check pilot on their own merit not raising a flag if they are overridden on failure. Certainly not two of them.

Interesting how you came in, created an acct., dropped a bomb on the forum and left.

[CAP Spy]

I know if situations in my wing where someone failed a check ride and they were given another chance with a different check airman and they still failed but then the wing commander signed their Form 5 allowing tem to fly because this person was in the in crowd. 

Is that an "if" or an "of"?

Have your story straight before you make accusations. It really lends more credibility to it.

Sounds like a sour grapes issue to me.

Were you in the back seat during both of these check rides?

Did you see the actual Form 5 report with the S and the U columns filled out?

I can't see any check pilot on their own merit not raising a flag if they are overridden on failure. Certainly not two of them.

Interesting how you came in, created an acct., dropped a bomb on the forum and left.

Well I hate to bring such an issue forward to the membership at large but when I am trying to find out if it is a national issue or alocal issue this was the best place to post it.  As with most CAP pilots most of you do not seem to recognize this as a professional organization.  As a check airman I hold my applicants to the standard of their certificate and ratings.  Then as long as there are no safety items, i generally pass them. I am a full time professional aviator and I dont think that it is too much to ask that a private pilot perform to private pilot standards.  If you do, then you my friend are part of the problem.

And for those that ask yes I saw the form 5 both times that had U's.  And meet with the other Stan/EVAL folks in my WG to discuss options for theindividual.  The WC CC is not a Check Airman nor is he even a pilot.  For thos that feel he was having a BAD DAY remember he was given two opportunities with two different check airman.  So do you really want this pilot flying your cadets who could be your children around.  I think not.  Mr Fedor made some excellent points, thanks. 

I just didnt come here to drop any bomb and leave.  I acame here to see what the general membership nationally felt.  It is obvious that some of you are for the Good Ole Boy Flying Club aspect and that some of you want a professional program. 

As I close I will add that the last time we had a WG CC that allowed a continual problem pilot to stay in the air (meaning the pilot had damaged several aircraft in mishaps on the ground) the pilot finally took the lives of twom of my friends as well as his own when they slammed into a mountain at a near verticle impact attitude.  So for those of you that support what I say thank you, for those that dont I hope you never loss anyone to one of these pilots.  there are more out there than you know about.

[Short Field]

I know of at least one case in our wing in which the crew complained that the PIC was less than capable...  This resulted in the Wg/CC grounding the PIC until the PIC took another Fm 5 checkride with a different check-pilot.  As far as I know, the PIC is no longer flying.   I don't know if the last Fm 5 ride the PIC passed was a result of a "good buddy" or just an exceptionally "good day".  The performance of the check-pilot  giving the last check ride was also reviewed.

We might argue about other things, but at least in my Wing, safety of flight issues are not pencil-whipped or ignored.   Here is some risky advice - make sure you have all your facts right (names, dates, and places) and then elevate the issue.  With any luck there will be no fall-out but you have to be prepared for it.  Very few people are ready to lie to protect someone else's butt at the expense of their own.

[Auxpilot]

Here is the bottom line.

If there is a pilot out there that should not be flying, took two different check rides with two different check pilots, the first of which did not not agree to give up his right to give the subsequent re-check, and the Wing CC, who is not a check pilot signed him off, then anyone who knows about it and fails to report it at the very least is putting his membership in CAP above the need to enforce safety regulations.

That my friends is "flying club" mentality.

I for one would not be posting anonymous details to a blog, I would be shouting foul to anyone who would listen and would not care if I lost my flight privileges or membership as a result.

My kids are my #1 priority and if this is going on I may just end up at a mission on a crew with this clown and he could kill me. Not a chance that I would be willing to take.

If these facts are correct then your only option is to elevate this to the Region CC and demand that this pilot be re-checked by an objective Stan Eval officer. As for the claim that most CAP pilots do not realize that this is a professional organization I say BS! That may be the case in your unit but not in the ones that I have had the experience to fly with.

As a check pilot I have failed substandard pilots and have witnessed others do the same. Never has anyone asked me or anyone that I know to give them a pass, for any reason. If they can fly, they can pass the next check ride, if not, they get more training.

Sorry, there is no wiggle room here. Not doing the right thing makes you as much of the problem as anyone else involved. If you are a professional, you need to act like one and do the right thing.

[a2capt]

Sorry, there is no wiggle room here. Not doing the right thing makes you as much of the problem as anyone else involved. If you are a professional, you need to act like one and do the right thing.

My sentiments exactly.

You came in here with the appearance of a drive-by, the nick you chose, "cap spy", the first post, within seconds of creating the login, is pretty substantial, you offer no real facts other than hearsay. IE, "I saw the two Form 5's, etc" you could have been taken as a pilot themselves protesting their own failure when you saw that someone else got accepted despite multiple failures, etc. You did not elude in the slightest that you were a check pilot, maybe even the one that failed this individual one of the two times.

If this is indeed going on, just like in CPPT, where they ask you about the scenario that could incriminate your unit CC, what are you to do? They also talk extensively about your chain of command. Well, in this case, it's inappropriate to go to your chain of command in the order because that person has the ability to stop the investigation and take retaliation on you. You then go to the next in line.

As a check pilot, you work as an extension of the Wing CC, and since the Wing CC is the next in that portion of the chain of command, you need to go to the next higher HQ with it. Be it StanEval at Region or Region CC. If you believe this is the case as strongly as you say, then why are you hiding being a mask with it?

If you say you saw two Form 5's, I hope they still exist in a file somewhere.  You gotta figure at least one of them does, the pilot file must have a Form 5 in it. It either is as you say or it's been doctored. In either case this requires a higher HQ to intervene at once before facts are changed.

I expect we'll inadvertently find out about what wing this is if there's a sudden Wing CC change announced on the eServices login..

[Auxpilot]

Capt. Fedor,

Your post is chock full of wisdom!

The only thing that I can add to you post is regarding your statement about mission check pilots:

<The only exception is CAP Mission Check Pilots, which do not evaluate anything other then mission related skills as required on the CAPF 91.>

MCP's need to evaluate mission related skills but also need to observe how the MP applicant handles the aircraft when mission related distractions are introduced. Like instrument flying, missions can introduce distractions that can kill a pilot that may otherwise be very competent if not trained properly in dealing with those distractions.

For example, I often ask MP applicants to start a search pattern, then ask them to do something that will monopolize their attention like reprogramming the GPS, then ask them to descend to look at a simulated sighting. This is a real world scenario that could over tax a pilot and lead to something like a stall.

In doing this I am not looking for the applicant to actually do all of these things at once, nor am I judging his ability to fly the airplane within the PTS, but I am looking to see if he has the wisdom to say "hold on there cowboy, one thing at a time." That shows me that the applicant will prioritize his duties in a way that will ensure a safe outcome.

In the world of IFR, the need to multitask like this is a common occurrence but for may VFR only MP applicants it is less likely to be something that they are used to doing. I have witnessed many MP applicants that will program the GPS without ever taking their eyes off of it until the whole task is complete causing the aircraft to be 300' higher, 20 knots slower and 30 degrees off from where they started. Smart mission pilots get a feel for what they are doing and can divide their attention between the various cockpit tasks and actually flying the airplane.


I learned this from another MCP when he was giving me a F91 and have used it ever since.