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.

[CAP Spy]

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.

Aux Pilot

What wing are you part of that allows SAR missions under IFR conditions.  Just curious.  Also, durng such a mission the Observer is suppose to be programming the GPS and the PIC is suppose to be flying nothing more.  So, you are not following CAP guidelines in your F91 checkout.

[winterg]

Maybe CAP needs a new officer position: Inquisitor! To root out what lurks in dark places! Muwhahahahaha

[Flying Pig]

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.

Aux Pilot

What wing are you part of that allows SAR missions under IFR conditions.  Just curious.  Also, durng such a mission the Observer is suppose to be programming the GPS and the PIC is suppose to be flying nothing more.  So, you are not following CAP guidelines in your F91 checkout.

I think the point of having the MP do it is based in reality.  The sad fact is that there are many observers out there who cant.  So who does it default to?  The MP.

[A.Member]

I think the point of having the MP do it is based in reality.  The sad fact is that there are many observers out there who cant. 

Then they should be stripped of their observer rating until they can meet the requirement.   It is part of the qual for the position.  Otherwise they are just a scanner...or dead weight.

[Short Field]

I took my Fm 91 ride at NESA.  It was just me and the evaluator in the airplane.  I had to program the GPS, set the radios, look at the sectional to modify the course, etc, to demonstrate I could do it.  The key to passing was Crew Resource Management - i.e. letting the check pilot read the checklists and fly the airplane when I needed to be heads-down.   

Regretfully, not all of our MOs can run the panel as well as they should.  You can also get a MO who has never seen the model of GPS or types of radios you are using.  Just depends on which airframes he has been flying in.

The NESA check pilot was a stickler for detail - but good.  Too bad Capt Fedor will never be able to pass him on a check-ride...

[DNall]

Maybe CAP needs a new officer position: Inquisitor! To root out what lurks in dark places! Muwhahahahaha

That's called an IG. And I'm not joking.

If yall understood the currency requirements as a part-time military aviator, you'd shut the hell up & do your job to standard w/o complaining, and thank yourself lucky an annual check ride & self-reporting is all you have to deal with.

[winterg]

If yall understood the currency requirements as a part-time military aviator, you'd shut the hell up & do your job to standard w/o complaining, and thank yourself lucky an annual check ride & self-reporting is all you have to deal with.

No kidding.  All I ever hear is, "We're volunteers.  You can't expect people to do that."  Regardless of our "Unpaid Professional" status there is never any justifiable reason to compromise our standards or continually work to maintain the highest standards.

I know I'm not alone in wanting an expanded role for our beloved CAP but I'm just as happy when we perform the missions we have in a professional and safe manner.  Having never served in a CAP unit with an aircraft I do not interact with CAP pilots regularly.  But I'd like to believe I would have the moral fortitude to call shenanigans if I did see improper practices.  As it stands, I probably couldn't pick a Form 5 out of a lineup.

[RAZOR]

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.


WWW.NTSB.GOV    10 AUGUST 2002    N9307X

Rest in peace

[CAP Spy]

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.


WWW.NTSB.GOV    10 AUGUST 2002    N9307X

Rest in peace

Thank you RAZOR.  This is the accident I was refering to.

[NC Hokie]

I took my Fm 91 ride at NESA.  It was just me and the evaluator in the airplane.  I had to program the GPS, set the radios, look at the sectional to modify the course, etc, to demonstrate I could do it.  The key to passing was Crew Resource Management - i.e. letting the check pilot read the checklists and fly the airplane when I needed to be heads-down.

EMPHASIS MINE

I'm just a lowly scanner trainee but I can't believe that I'm the only one to catch this.  Your check-pilot flew the plane?  I guess he forgot that there is no requirement for Observers to have a PPL.  What would he expect you to do if you were flying with one of those on a REDCAP...hand control over to a non-rated individual while you're heads-down?

[Short Field]

Crew Resource Management....  Sure, if I had to have my head down to do something, I would let a non-pilot fly the airplane.  It has to be better than me flying the airplane while I am setting up the GX-55.  However, there are a few caveats:  First, we would be on-course, level, and trimmed out at altitude.   Second, I would have let the MO handle the controls in the past to let them do "straight and level".  Third, I am still PIC - they are just keeping their head out of the cockpit, holding us on course and on altitude while I have my head down for a couple of minutes max.  Fourth, if anything start looking out of line - talk to me!!! 

I use to opearate a well rig in my younger days.  The major sin of too many rig operators was to not teach the rest of the crew how to operate the rig.   Great job security but sucks when the rig starts to chew you up and no one knows how to get it off of you.  Sorry, but three minutes of flying straight and level is not that hard.  Manuvering and landings, whole different story...  Check the following sources - if we let cadets handle the controls, why not senior members?

CAPR 60-1:  Para 2-18(d). Critical Phases of Flight Restrictions. Except during flight instruction, unqualified pilots (including Check Pilots as defined in para 3-2e) will not fly CAP aircraft during critical phases of flight. For the purpose of this paragraph, a critical phase of flight is takeoffs and landings, VFR traffic patterns, instrument approaches, stalls, steep turns, and flight at 1000 ft AGL and below.


CAPP 52-7, page 4, next to last paragraph:  Cadets are encouraged to handle the flight controls except during the critical phases of the flight (like take-off and landing or in an emergency).

[Auxpilot]

Aux Pilot

What wing are you part of that allows SAR missions under IFR conditions.  Just curious.  Also, during such a mission the Observer is suppose to be programming the GPS and the PIC is suppose to be flying nothing more.  So, you are not following CAP guidelines in your F91 checkout.

Spy,

Unless there has been a change to the regulations that I am not aware of, SAR operations under IFR have always been allowed in any Wing. It's not something I advocate unless the pilot is very proficient but it is legal to df an ELT in the clouds.

That being said, SAR under IFR has nothing to do with my post. I mentioned IFR because instrument rated pilots tend to have a better ability to handle multiple tasks at once. CAP mission pilots need to have similar skills because our missions tend to place more demand on the PIC than does a sunday afternoon flight for a hamburger.

Yes the Observer is supposed to be fully qualified and able to operate the GPS. Just because he is supposed to does not mean that he can. What happens on a sortie where an Observer trainee is sitting in the right seat?? What about a two person flight when the Observer is busy on the radio or taking a photo?

My point is that if we test our MP's under the worst of conditions, hopefully they won't someday end up like your two friends. That is why the folks down at Flight Safety put pilots in a simulator with one engine out, gear stuck up, a bird strike and the tail on fire all at once - to train pilots to deal with the most pressing issue first, not get so overwhelmed that they lose control of the aircraft.

Yes I am following the form 91 guidelines. Look at section VII letter H - see where it says "Judgement"? That in my opinion is the most important item on the check ride. This ain't no flying club ya know.

[SJFedor]

I took my Fm 91 ride at NESA.  It was just me and the evaluator in the airplane.  I had to program the GPS, set the radios, look at the sectional to modify the course, etc, to demonstrate I could do it.  The key to passing was Crew Resource Management - i.e. letting the check pilot read the checklists and fly the airplane when I needed to be heads-down.

EMPHASIS MINE

I'm just a lowly scanner trainee but I can't believe that I'm the only one to catch this.  Your check-pilot flew the plane?  I guess he forgot that there is no requirement for Observers to have a PPL.  What would he expect you to do if you were flying with one of those on a REDCAP...hand control over to a non-rated individual while you're heads-down?

First off, there's no such thing as a lowly scanner trainee. You're just an up-and-coming aircrew member. These kinds of questions/concerns are always welcome. It's how we all learn.

No, there isn't a requirement for an observer to hold any aeronautical rating. But there is a requirement for crew resource management. And during a checkride, for a pilot to attempt to manipulate the controls while also programming a system, being heads down in the cockpit, is at a minimum irresponsibile and lacking the core concepts of CRM, and more than likely reckless and dangerous flying. You don't need to be a rated pilot to operate the controls of an aircraft, only a rated pilot to operate them during the critical phases of flight. We may be on a REDCAP, and I ask my MO to take the controls for a minute while I consult a map or take a drink of water or something. Before I do this, I'm going to ensure we're out of the search area, at a safe altitude, in cruise configuration, so that the MO just needs to make sure the oily side continues to face the earth. It's ALL about CRM. Someone trying to take on everything without delegating responsibility leads to task saturation, which can be the first big link in the error chain.

As a Mission Pilot/Mission Check Pilot, I always ensure ALL of my MO trainees, especially the non-pilot ones, get a little bit of stick time to feel the aircraft, how it controls, etc. I almost try to treat the en route phase (to/from a grid at cruise) like I would a cadet orientation flight, showing them how the power changes adjust how the aircraft handles, how to operate certain key systems, etc etc. I do this in addition to highly encouraging them to, at least, attend a pinch hitter course. Because the reality is that we have a lot of older pilots that are up flying our fleet. And it's only a matter of time before one has a stroke or a heart attack or something else that incapacitates them, and I want the person in the right seat, especially if they're a non-pilot MO, to at least know enough about the aircraft to keep it in the air until they can call for help, and hopefully the situation can get resolved as well as possible.

What wing are you part of that allows SAR missions under IFR conditions.  Just curious.  Also, durng such a mission the Observer is suppose to be programming the GPS and the PIC is suppose to be flying nothing more.  So, you are not following CAP guidelines in your F91 checkout.

Spy-

Though in a perfect world, the MP would simply be the "bus driver", the MO would run the panel and be eyes out the right, and the Scanner would be eyes out the left, it's not always like that. The only requirement for an aircrew is that at least one is SAR/DR MP qualified, and the other at least holds an MS trainee rating. It's very possible that the MP could have a plane load of MS trainees, either on a training flight or an actual. So, that's why the MP is required to demonstrate the knowledge of working all the systems that the MO should, in theory, be working. Because the MP isn't just the MP, he's also the one that will be training future MS/MO candidates. They need to know the systems to be able to teach the systems, and the pilot has the ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the flight, including completion of the mission. If the mission can't be completed because no one on that aircraft, the MP or the MO, know how to set the stuff right, they've just wasted time, money, and possibly the likelyhood of whomever we're out searching for still being alive when we find them.

And, don't forget, though there are a lot of tasks that can be delegated to the MO, such as programming the GPS, running the radios, etc, the MO's primary job on a visual search, once we're in the grid, is to have his eyes outside searching. Our probability of detection decreases dramatically if the MO keeps bringing his head into the cockpit to tool around with the radios or adjust the GPS.

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.

Auxpilot-

Thank you!  I fully understand what you're saying, and I only wish to add this.

I stated that we as MCPs only evaluate "mission related skills". What I meant in that is that I'm not evaluating the pilot's performance to PTS standards like a Form 5, I'm seeing that they have the skills to accomplish the mission. Included in that evaluation is the introduction of distractions. What you've described that you do on your checkrides is something I regularly do as well. I believe that distraction is not something to be feared, but embraced, so that we learn to work with it and utilize it to our advantage. Seldom is there a time we go to fly a grid and everything goes hunky dory. I'm infamous for making "sightings" during the expanding square, we break off to go look at it, it comes to be nothing, and then I have the pilot rejoin the expanding square where we broke it off to resume the search. Not a terribly difficult thing to accomplish, but it makes the pilot have to think about a lot of things at once, and it's really, truly a real world scenario.

So, I fully feel what you're saying and I'm in full agreement with it. 

[SJFedor]

If yall understood the currency requirements as a part-time military aviator, you'd shut the hell up & do your job to standard w/o complaining, and thank yourself lucky an annual check ride & self-reporting is all you have to deal with.

No kidding.  All I ever hear is, "We're volunteers.  You can't expect people to do that."  Regardless of our "Unpaid Professional" status there is never any justifiable reason to compromise our standards or continually work to maintain the highest standards.

I know I'm not alone in wanting an expanded role for our beloved CAP but I'm just as happy when we perform the missions we have in a professional and safe manner.  Having never served in a CAP unit with an aircraft I do not interact with CAP pilots regularly.  But I'd like to believe I would have the moral fortitude to call shenanigans if I did see improper practices.  As it stands, I probably couldn't pick a Form 5 out of a lineup.

And I would expect any CAP member, cadet, senior, pilot, ground pounder, commo, whomever, to call shenanigans at ANY time if improper practices are seen. You just may save someone's life by that, because all it takes is one interdiction anywhere along the error chain to break it.

[RAZOR]

The way CAP I.G. system is used by those individuals in positions of authority take it as an insult to their leadership skills rather than a tool to identify discrepancies and repair deficiencies. CAP Members are reluctant to file complaints for fear of retaliation/35-3 actions and this prevents the system from working as designed. To often I hear CAP Members say "if it doesn't affect me then I don't care . Allegations like these that are not investigated WILL lead to an accident and potentially loss of life. The chain of events needs to be broken in cases like these. I will give Mr Fedor :clap: on this one.

SPY, you need to report this. You just might save someones life by doing so. :clap:

[Rob Sherlin]

  Being a Scanner/Observer is something I am looking into. I am also studying all I can to get my license myself. I may be wrong, but it seems that any member of an aircrew should know enough to be able to "babysit" the controls for a minute or two if the pilot has to do something. just because of the fact that when your around certain things long enough, you learn things whether it's your official task or not. I think it would also fall on the pilot (as well as others) to know who can handle what. The way I see it.....you're a team...and one of the main things of making a team work, is knowing what each member is capable of....that's just the way I see it.

[CAP Spy]

The way CAP I.G. system is used by those individuals in positions of authority take it as an insult to their leadership skills rather than a tool to identify discrepancies and repair deficiencies. CAP Members are reluctant to file complaints for fear of retaliation/35-3 actions and this prevents the system from working as designed. To often I hear CAP Members say "if it doesn't affect me then I don't care . Allegations like these that are not investigated WILL lead to an accident and potentially loss of life. The chain of events needs to be broken in cases like these. I will give Mr Fedor :clap: on this one.

SPY, you need to report this. You just might save someones life by doing so. :clap:

I can not agree with you more RAZOR.  Fortunatley thi shas been turned into a complaint.  The main purpose of this post was to get folks on a National Level thinking and you hit the problem on the nose, if it does not affect them they don't care and it keeps going.  You also hit it on the nose when you say they IG system does not work.  This incident is already being cleaned away.  Paperwork has already dissappeared.  It has been funy to see that more people on here think that this was an okay event and very few agree that it needs to be resolved.  I am afraidn CAP as a whole is headed toward deactivation and our SAR turned over the the USCG Aux.  Planes and all.

[NC Hokie]

This incident is already being cleaned away.  Paperwork has already dissappeared.

If this is true, you have a moral and professional obligation to report this to the next higher authority, whether that be region, NHQ, or Congress.

[Rob Sherlin]

  If this person is being allowed to fly by someone without that person passing a checkride by an authorized individual....it should be reported and delt with. If it was felt the checkride was unfair and that person was asked to do things that were uncalled for, then let them disput that (we weren't there). but, I too, think it should not just be swept under the table. If it were just a bad day, or an unfair check ride, then that person should be able to pass with someone else at a different time.

 Can you imagine the CHAOS that would arise if this happened on the FAA level?

[Auxpilot]

The way CAP I.G. system is used by those individuals in positions of authority take it as an insult to their leadership skills rather than a tool to identify discrepancies and repair deficiencies. CAP Members are reluctant to file complaints for fear of retaliation/35-3 actions and this prevents the system from working as designed. To often I hear CAP Members say "if it doesn't affect me then I don't care . Allegations like these that are not investigated WILL lead to an accident and potentially loss of life. The chain of events needs to be broken in cases like these. I will give Mr Fedor :clap: on this one.

SPY, you need to report this. You just might save someones life by doing so. :clap:

I can not agree with you more RAZOR.  Fortunatley thi shas been turned into a complaint.  The main purpose of this post was to get folks on a National Level thinking and you hit the problem on the nose, if it does not affect them they don't care and it keeps going.  You also hit it on the nose when you say they IG system does not work.  This incident is already being cleaned away.  Paperwork has already dissappeared.  It has been funy to see that more people on here think that this was an okay event and very few agree that it needs to be resolved.  I am afraidn CAP as a whole is headed toward deactivation and our SAR turned over the the USCG Aux.  Planes and all.

I smell a rat here.

[Short Field]

It has been funy to see that more people on here think that this was an okay event and very few agree that it needs to be resolved.  I am afraidn CAP as a whole is headed toward deactivation and our SAR turned over the the USCG Aux.  Planes and all.

I just reviewed all the posts and didn't see where anyone said it was an okay event.  You got some discussion about it being a bad flying day - but no one said the person didn't have to do it again and actually pass the Fm 5.  Also no one say it was OK for the non-pilot wing/CC to just sign-off the Fm 5.

If you think the wing IG is covering up the event, submit your complaint directly to National - with names, places, aircraft IDs, and dates.   I have seen complaints sent directly to National that were unsigned and didn't contain much event information.  The complaints were quickly acted upon and the results provided to all the wing members.  The last was just this year accusing a senior wing member of damaging an aircraft.  The IG system does work.  If the wing covers it up, raise it to region, then national.  Do not think for one minute that National Headquarters, the USAF, or the membership at large condones this behavior. 

[Rob Sherlin]

  No, I agree, no one ever said it was an OK event. But, just in my last post, I did say that the said person who failed should be made to do it again.....it's the ONLY right way to do it.

  Sorry...I meant to state that (thought I did)....but, I'm in agreement.....That person should go through a proper check ride and approval, and not be allowed to go any further in any other way.

[Rob Sherlin]

  Sorry...I was going to stay out of this one in the beginning.................

  The person who authorized all this after the "testee" failed should be reported....BOTTOM LINE! The "testee" should be allowed to go through a checkride again with another person if so warrants (if that person claims an "unfair" checkride after so many...then there's something going on, and if that person feels it's necessary, should dispute it). The point here is that someone approved someone after failing a standard. That is wrong! That should be reported!

[Auxpilot]

The way CAP I.G. system is used by those individuals in positions of authority take it as an insult to their leadership skills rather than a tool to identify discrepancies and repair deficiencies. CAP Members are reluctant to file complaints for fear of retaliation/35-3 actions and this prevents the system from working as designed. To often I hear CAP Members say "if it doesn't affect me then I don't care . Allegations like these that are not investigated WILL lead to an accident and potentially loss of life. The chain of events needs to be broken in cases like these. I will give Mr Fedor :clap: on this one.

SPY, you need to report this. You just might save someones life by doing so. :clap:

I can not agree with you more RAZOR.  Fortunatley thi shas been turned into a complaint.  The main purpose of this post was to get folks on a National Level thinking and you hit the problem on the nose, if it does not affect them they don't care and it keeps going.  You also hit it on the nose when you say they IG system does not work.  This incident is already being cleaned away.  Paperwork has already dissappeared.  It has been funy to see that more people on here think that this was an okay event and very few agree that it needs to be resolved.  I am afraidn CAP as a whole is headed toward deactivation and our SAR turned over the the USCG Aux.  Planes and all.

Now that this is an open IG investigation I don't suppose that there is any problem with names and dates being published here. My guess is that there is either a lot more to this story than is being told, or there is some other motive for running this up the flagpole.

[CAP Spy]

The way CAP I.G. system is used by those individuals in positions of authority take it as an insult to their leadership skills rather than a tool to identify discrepancies and repair deficiencies. CAP Members are reluctant to file complaints for fear of retaliation/35-3 actions and this prevents the system from working as designed. To often I hear CAP Members say "if it doesn't affect me then I don't care . Allegations like these that are not investigated WILL lead to an accident and potentially loss of life. The chain of events needs to be broken in cases like these. I will give Mr Fedor :clap: on this one.

SPY, you need to report this. You just might save someones life by doing so. :clap:

I can not agree with you more RAZOR.  Fortunatley thi shas been turned into a complaint.  The main purpose of this post was to get folks on a National Level thinking and you hit the problem on the nose, if it does not affect them they don't care and it keeps going.  You also hit it on the nose when you say they IG system does not work.  This incident is already being cleaned away.  Paperwork has already dissappeared.  It has been funy to see that more people on here think that this was an okay event and very few agree that it needs to be resolved.  I am afraidn CAP as a whole is headed toward deactivation and our SAR turned over the the USCG Aux.  Planes and all.

Now that this is an open IG investigation I don't suppose that there is any problem with names and dates being published here. My guess is that there is either a lot more to this story than is being told, or there is some other motive for running this up the flagpole.

Well there is an official Wing IG inspection going on now and the person who filed the complaint ask that those of us involved to not talk about it any more till the investigation is over.  I will try to post what happens.

[DNall]

It's appropriate that public comment not occur from people that do know, or speculation by those that don't, while an investigation is going on. That only hampers the process. If it is not conducted with integrity or published transparently, then by all means there will be significant further comment.

Events like this compromise the hard work and skill of all our members in & out of the air. It requires swift & decisive action to find the problems & correct them so this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

[Trung Si Ma]

If it is an active investigation you may not talk about it.

From the CAP IG Complaint Investigating Officers Guide (Revision 1, 1 Feb 08) read in script for a taped interview :

"You are requested not to divulge the nature of this investigation or the questions, answers, or discussions included in this interview with anyone except a chaplain or your counsel (if you have one) unless authorized to do so by the Appointing Authority, higher authority, or me.

If anyone should approach you regarding your testimony or the matters discussed here, you are required to report it immediately to me or (state the name of the IG and the Appointing Authority) "

Mods - I believe that this topic should be locked until the investigation is complete.

[bosshawk]

If locked, it may be a long time before you hear anything about the investigation.  I filed an IG complaint in CAWG and it took five months for solution.  Things do not move quickly in CAP.