Sometimes we can be our own worst enemies. I would ask that all members take a moment and think before acting rashly. If unsure about something, ask the Chain of Command or the Stan Eval folks, or even ask here. However, we should be careful airing dirty laundry, complaints, or asking "Is this stupid?" on other aviation forums.
Last week and into this week there has been a thread on another well known aviation forum asking "Is this Stupid" concerning the photo flight profile for a CAP Form 91. I don't know if the poster misunderstood or was given wrong information but some of what he did say was at odds with the MART and the Operational Mission Inflight Guide.
However, he says the SOP of a well known volunteer organization says for a photo mission.... is this stupid?. The way he explained the situation is indeed stupid and as it would not take a mental giant to connect the dots pointing back to CAP, a number of pilots and others (potential members) now have yet another impression of the stupid things we are alledged to do. Hold on for a moment while I take aim at my other foot.
It's hard enough to recruit new members as it is without making it seem as if the organization practices unsafe activities.
Agree completely, but likely falling on the deaf ears of those who would do such things.
And I think it's pretty clear on that other board that the guy is talking about CAP.
He was describing a maneuver for doing a photo ID pass where the pilot flew 500' AGL at 80 kts, 10 degrees of flaps, then banked the airplane 60 degrees to the left so a photographer can take a picture. I agree, that's completely stupid, against regulations and we shouldn't be doing that.
An ID pass as described by the aircrew reference text is a higher altitude maneuver, 2500-4000 AGL and used by the photographer as a planning picture, so it ought to be whatever the photographer wants it to be.
As to whether or not to talk about these things outside - The kind of thinking that says "don't air dirty laundry" is the same thinking that led Col Holland to crash a B-52 by doing a steep bank turn at low altitudes on his fin flight 18 years ago. CAP doesn't need to hide things, we need to air them - sunlight is the best disinfectent. I would rather see CAP with a black eye than with a hidden problem that doesn't get addressed and results in fatalities. I'd rather CAP be open about a problem with a flying maneuver so that we can share it as an example to others of what not to do and why.
A true safety culture doesn't hide what is embrassing, it exposes it so that everyone can be embarassed about it and not do it.
+1
Quote from: bflynn on June 07, 2012, 06:51:14 PMA true safety culture doesn't hide what is embrassing, it exposes it so that everyone can be embarassed about it and not do it.
You're making the assumption that the poster had a clue what he was talking about, and/or characterized the circumstance properly.
There's a difference between transparency in operations and spouting nonsense in an attempt to paint an organization in in a negative light. Random members posting what they "think" happened isn't transparency.
Further, posting the issue in a public forum where the majority of the members will have no idea what CAP SOP's are, won't serve anyone involved, except again to paint the organization in a negative light. Hopefully some people there pointed out that what was indicated was in no way a standard procedure for CAP, and it likely either a misunderstanding of the poster, or a lapse in judgement of the pilot.
Neither is an indication of any systemic issue in CAP as a whole.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2012, 07:53:29 PM
You're making the assumption that the poster had a clue what he was talking about, and/or characterized the circumstance properly.
As I read the original post and commented on it on that other board, I have first hand experience in whether or not I could judge that he had a clue.
He did however ask his questions to the subsection of the forum where one asks questions to flight instructors. Seems like he has a legitimate interest in getting a professional opinion.
Like in all things....we have a responsiblity to question and report any actions we think are illegal, unsafe or agains the regs.
We have a duty to our organisation to keep our dirty laundry in house as much as possible.
The guy on the other board.....may not know the regs....he may just be a back seater still learning how things are supposed to done....saw something fishy and asked his "expert" friends on another board.
We see that all the time here on CT.
As I have stated before.....your CoC is your friend 99% of the time.
"As I have stated before.....your CoC is your friend 99% of the time. "
And that other 1% of the time they fill out form 2B.
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 07, 2012, 11:17:25 PM
"As I have stated before.....your CoC is your friend 99% of the time. "
And that other 1% of the time they fill out form 2B.
That is true of any system.
The question is.....do you have the moral fortitude to risk the 1% and fight the good fight to help fix it.
Think of all those bad officers we have had to deal with in the last 10 years or so.....how many of them would have been eliminated if someone just stood up and said "No....I'm not playing that game"?
HSNBDN would have been gone when he was just a wing commander......just to name one off the top of my head.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2012, 10:38:56 PMWe have a duty to our organisation to keep our dirty laundry in house as much as possible.
I would say that we should not have dirty laundry.
But if we do, get it out in the open by whatever means are necessary. Trying to hide it in the proper channels just says that you're afraid of the wrong people finding out. Is your fear of embarassment greater than your dedication to safety?
Quote from: bflynn on June 08, 2012, 02:38:19 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2012, 10:38:56 PMWe have a duty to our organisation to keep our dirty laundry in house as much as possible.
I would say that we should not have dirty laundry.
But if we do, get it out in the open by whatever means are necessary. Trying to hide it in the proper channels just says that you're afraid of the wrong people finding out. Is your fear of embarassment greater than your dedication to safety?
I disagree. Keeping things in house is not the same as trying to hide anything.
If you and your wife have a fight.....you don't do it out on your front lawn....you try to work it out in private.
Using proper channels is the only way for our leaders to find out and deal with problems.
The main reason why we have these problems.....and the reason whey airing dirty laundry is such a PITA is because those who can/should be fixing it usually don't know about it until they get a call from their wing commander wondering why Cadet Soandso is calling the National IG over something his flight commander did!
In this case....we got some guy harming CAP's reputation (intentionally or unintentially) on an aviation message board........I wonder if his commander/group commander/wing commander are aware that someone is out hot dogging it outside of regulations and outside of safety rules.
So the message is.....Don't play with CAP those bozos will get you killed.......when we already have channels to deal with it.....and will deal with it (usually) if they are aware of it.
Then we, CAP, can be open and above board about it. Yes Capt Maveric was out hot dogging.....yes, it was reported.....yes we grounded him and he will remain grounded until such time as he proves to us that he can be trusted to follow all the published regulations and safety standards.
No one likes to be back doored.
Now.....if you report it in channels........and nothing happens......then that's a different story.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 08, 2012, 03:41:33 AMKeeping things in house is not the same as trying to hide anything.
No, 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.
So, 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.You can't set any limit on where someone discusses a safety issue.
Are 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.
Some 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"
CAP 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.
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?
There is no way I would even try to make a blanket statement that would apply to every wing. However, in Alabama we are very blessed with an outstanding wing staff in the Emergency Services and Stan Eval sections. Alabama Wing goes beyond the NHQ minimum requirements in the initial and annual recurrent training and appointment of CAP Instructor Pilots, Form 5 Check Pilots, and Form 91 Check Pilots.
Should I as an instructor or check pilot, get a question I am not sure of, I can pose it up to the Wing Staff and know I will get a correct answer in short order. Should a pilot feel they have been told something not quite right or unsafe, that pilot has the right to challenge the instrutor/check pilot, and/or ask the wing staff directly.
Again, this is for the Alabama Wing and mileage may differ at other wings.
However, addressing CAP practices (and follies) real or imagined to groups outside is seldom the answer and makes as much sense as asking the shoe shine boy income tax questions.
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?
CAP makes it very very to every member that they have multiple avenues for reporting unsafe situations or people violating regulations.
If this was really a burning question, it could have been posted without the derogatory language, and with no allusion to the organization
involved. This wasn't a situation where it was characterized as a safety issue that was ignored, and therefore must now be shown the light of day,
this was someone who decide he was going to "tell" everyone a question.
Anyone so unfamiliar with, or distrustful of, the system he's sworn to abide, should question why he's involved at all.
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?
The existance of one.
If you email safety@capnhq.gov, is that protected? Or does the fact that you initiated the conversation get back down to the member that you're asking the question about? Someone who may or may not be in a position of authority and may or may not resent being questioned about their flying skill.
The process is the process, work it or move on.
Broadcasting partial information on a public form impacts the reputation for all of us negatively.
The above contact is only one of several channels, however if you can't stand by your opinions and concerns, do you think spray painting them
on a wall in a public place will get better reaction?
Again, if you think so little of the process and the people put in place to work it, why be involved at all?
Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2012, 03:12:51 PM
Again, if you think so little of the process and the people put in place to work it, why be involved at all?
Your assumptions are wrong, therefore your recommendation of correction is wrong.
There's no "assumption" to be wrong. You've made your position perfectly clear, and no one is "misunderstanding" you.
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.
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 ...
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.
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?).
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.
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?
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?"
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?
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.
Suppose it gets asked of the STAN/EVAL guys AND the CFIs on the other forum. Would that be OK?
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 09, 2012, 06:11:46 PM
"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.
There is official training for AP. There is a task guide and SQTR. The SQTR is dated Mar 10, so it's been around for a while.
Quote from: SarDragon on June 09, 2012, 08:00:39 PMThere is official training for AP. There is a task guide and SQTR. The SQTR is dated Mar 10, so it's been around for a while.
All of that is still draft, or at a minimum not properly implemented.
I know that NESA has a curriculum, but there is currently no way to sign off taskings in eServices. The SQTR is literally blank.
Eclipse, you are quite misinformed. Perhaps you aren't really a CAP member as I would expect that any real CAP member could have looked this up in eServices just as easily as I just did.
From eServices, Airborne Photographer has 9 F&P tasks, 10 advanced tasks and two exercise participation tasks. Along with prerequisites and commander approvals. But of course if you were qualified aircrew (but not a pilot) you would have known this.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 09, 2012, 09:21:23 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on June 09, 2012, 08:00:39 PMThere is official training for AP. There is a task guide and SQTR. The SQTR is dated Mar 10, so it's been around for a while.
All of that is still draft, or at a minimum not properly implemented.
I know that NESA has a curriculum, but there is currently no way to sign off taskings in eServices. The SQTR is literally blank.
You might want to check on things before you make such bold statements. I don't know how long it's been there but there most definitely is a full AP SQTR in eServices. I think it has been there for several months.
Quote from: ß τ ε on June 09, 2012, 09:48:19 PMYou might want to check on things before you make such bold statements. I don't know how long it's been there but there most definitely is a full AP SQTR in eServices. I think it has been there for several months.
UGH - it's ADIS that doesn't have the SQTR, not AP.
My mistake doesn't change this discussion.
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 09:42:06 PM
...I would expect that any real CAP member could have looked this up in eServices just as easily as I just did.
Just as a "real" CAP member would know that the maneuvers indicated in the OP are not standard procedure for CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 09, 2012, 09:54:11 PM
Quote from: ß τ ε on June 09, 2012, 09:48:19 PMYou might want to check on things before you make such bold statements. I don't know how long it's been there but there most definitely is a full AP SQTR in eServices. I think it has been there for several months.
UGH - it's ADIS that doesn't have the SQTR, not AP.
My mistake doesn't change this discussion.
UGH - from your 15,000 postings, I don't think anyone would ever be able to tell you anything.
UGH.
15,193.
Thank you very much.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 09, 2012, 09:59:02 PM
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 09:42:06 PM
...I would expect that any real CAP member could have looked this up in eServices just as easily as I just did.
Just as a "real" CAP member would know that the maneuvers indicated in the OP are not standard procedure for CAP.
I don't doubt that the OP and the person on the other forum was taught that.
CAP does not do a good job of QCing their training....the resources, regs and policies are there....and we all know that members violate them all the time.
Okay......it is our duty to report them up the chain of command. We should keep it in house......until we have exhalsted all interal channels before going out side.
I don't think it is trolling...I think it was someone who was exposed to something outside their comfort zone and experince...so the sought advice....all well and good......but he should have sought that advice with in CAP channels.
Well, I can just wonder what would have happened if it was brought to Eclipse' attention...
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 10:34:15 PM
Well, I can just wonder what would have happened if it was brought to Eclipse' attention...
The specific issue would have been addressed immediately and directly.
The aircrew would have been interviewed, and if the circumstances warranted it, disciplinary action taken as appropriate, up to and including
grounding the pilot and requiring remedial training and possibly a new F5/91.
Discreetly, professionally, and not posted in a forum.
What would
you suggest?
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 10:34:15 PM
Well, I can just wonder what would have happened if it was brought to Eclipse' attention...
He would have forwarded up the chain. I disagree on a lot of his stances....but I have no doubt about his integrity nor his ability to follow up and admit when he is wrong.....as he did in this place.
Continued attacks on his character are not going to win you any point here.
Quote from: jacksmith60187 on June 09, 2012, 05:54:23 PM
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.
I've heard of the maneuver described before. But it was never intended to be a 60 degree bank, nor ever performed at low altitude. And it's outside of 60-1 to fly at 500' for a photo mission.
In any case, on the original topic - why do you all think this member felt it necessary to ask other pilots this question rather than asking in house? I didn't take that his intent was to denigrate CAP, other than he knew a pilot who, in his opinion, was flying dangerously. Yet, he hesistated to call knock it off...why?
That's a rhetorical question...the reason is that we still have work to do on making a safety culture primary in flight crews.
Quote from: bflynn on June 10, 2012, 02:52:28 AM
In any case, on the original topic - why do you all think this member felt it necessary to ask other pilots this question rather than asking in house? I didn't take that his intent was to denigrate CAP, other than he knew a pilot who, in his opinion, was flying dangerously. Yet, he hesistated to call knock it off...why?
Fear of retailiaton and the Infamous 2B perhaps?
The USCG Auxiliary's last fatal crash, about 10 years ago, involved a pilot known to be dangerous to the air crews but no one reported him. Why? He controlled all the flight assignments for the district. He was 'in' if not part of the Auxie Sky Gods (how they saw themselves) who ruled the Auxie District air program at the time. New air crew were warned to stay away from him, which is how the crews protected themselves. Althouhg the Aux does not have the eqivalent of a 2B, complaining about the errant pilot would have gotten you no where, several tried it and found themselves without air assingments.
It took the Sky God 'buying the farm' to bring the reign of the Sky Gods to an end - at least for a while.
And part of what he did and other Sky Gods in the Aux did was fly below 500', a direct violation of the program rules. So I don't have a problem believing what the CAP member reported was true and understand why he posted it where he did.
I'm with you....I understand the why......it was still wrong.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2012, 10:12:27 PMWe should keep our dirty laundry in house.
Is that an appropriate attitude for a taxpayer-funded organization?
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2012, 04:12:12 PM
I'm with you....I understand the why......it was still wrong.
How do you feel about discussing such issues on Captalk.net?
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 10, 2012, 04:49:15 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2012, 10:12:27 PMWe should keep our dirty laundry in house.
Is that an appropriate attitude for a taxpayer-funded organization?
Yes.
The army NCOs said: Don't let the bs hit the brass. And they are completely taxpayer funded. We aren't.
There is a time and place for taking things externally, from all evidence here, it should have been kept in house.
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 10, 2012, 04:49:15 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2012, 10:12:27 PMWe should keep our dirty laundry in house.
Is that an appropriate attitude for a taxpayer-funded organization?
No, it isn't.
As a pilot, I can say that CAP has a lot of good CFIs - but it most certainly does not have all of the best. It is completely appropriate for this person to ask piloting related questions of expert flight instructors wherever they may be. The OP's post was a completely legitimate attempt to get professional opinions as a reference point of comparison with what he had apparently been told by CAP.
I will take the opinions of red board CFIs over non-pilot "qualified aircrew" any day.
Quote from: RRLE on June 10, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
Quote from: bflynn on June 10, 2012, 02:52:28 AM
In any case, on the original topic - why do you all think this member felt it necessary to ask other pilots this question rather than asking in house? I didn't take that his intent was to denigrate CAP, other than he knew a pilot who, in his opinion, was flying dangerously. Yet, he hesistated to call knock it off...why?
Fear of retailiaton and the Infamous 2B perhaps?
The USCG Auxiliary's last fatal crash, about 10 years ago, involved a pilot known to be dangerous to the air crews but no one reported him. Why? He controlled all the flight assignments for the district. He was 'in' if not part of the Auxie Sky Gods (how they saw themselves) who ruled the Auxie District air program at the time. New air crew were warned to stay away from him, which is how the crews protected themselves. Althouhg the Aux does not have the eqivalent of a 2B, complaining about the errant pilot would have gotten you no where, several tried it and found themselves without air assingments.
It took the Sky God 'buying the farm' to bring the reign of the Sky Gods to an end - at least for a while.
And part of what he did and other Sky Gods in the Aux did was fly below 500', a direct violation of the program rules. So I don't have a problem believing what the CAP member reported was true and understand why he posted it where he did.
The poster did express concerns over repercussions from "good old boys."
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 10, 2012, 04:49:15 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2012, 10:12:27 PMWe should keep our dirty laundry in house.
Is that an appropriate attitude for a taxpayer-funded organization?
It the appropriate attitidue for any organisation.
You MUST use the proper channels to TRY to resolve issues.
The organisation can't fix things if they don't know about them.
The organisation is harmed when simple things are reported to outside agencies instead of within channels.
The organisaiton has to work hardere....because not only do they have to solve the initial problem...then they have to solve it again and again as each one of those outside agencies "gets concerned" again and again. Then the organisation has to work harder to repair the damage.
This is NOTHING....NOTHING about cover ups, or hideing our short falls. This is about proper managment of problems with in an organisaiton.
You handle problems at the lowest level. But in order for the right person to handle the problme they have to know about it.
If proper channels have been followed and it still has not been resolved....by all means shout it from the roof tops, call the cops, do what ever need to be done to fix it......but that is ONLY after you have followed proper channels.
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 10, 2012, 04:58:08 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2012, 04:12:12 PM
I'm with you....I understand the why......it was still wrong.
How do you feel about discussing such issues on Captalk.net?
If the issue...is a specific....."My commander is a PITA" or "They are teaching pilots to fly 500'" sort of discussions....then I tell them to report it up the chain...and to refrain from talking about any more.
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 10, 2012, 05:57:32 PM
Quote from: RRLE on June 10, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
Quote from: bflynn on June 10, 2012, 02:52:28 AM
In any case, on the original topic - why do you all think this member felt it necessary to ask other pilots this question rather than asking in house? I didn't take that his intent was to denigrate CAP, other than he knew a pilot who, in his opinion, was flying dangerously. Yet, he hesistated to call knock it off...why?
Fear of retailiaton and the Infamous 2B perhaps?
The USCG Auxiliary's last fatal crash, about 10 years ago, involved a pilot known to be dangerous to the air crews but no one reported him. Why? He controlled all the flight assignments for the district. He was 'in' if not part of the Auxie Sky Gods (how they saw themselves) who ruled the Auxie District air program at the time. New air crew were warned to stay away from him, which is how the crews protected themselves. Althouhg the Aux does not have the eqivalent of a 2B, complaining about the errant pilot would have gotten you no where, several tried it and found themselves without air assingments.
It took the Sky God 'buying the farm' to bring the reign of the Sky Gods to an end - at least for a while.
And part of what he did and other Sky Gods in the Aux did was fly below 500', a direct violation of the program rules. So I don't have a problem believing what the CAP member reported was true and understand why he posted it where he did.
The poster did express concerns over repercussions from "good old boys."
I understand. Again....we can't fix that if we don't know about it. If we allow some people's lack of integrity to stiffle our integrity....they win.
Looks like someone cross-posted this thread over there...
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?"
Actually the Mission Aircrew Text Vol. III (airborne photographer) p. 123. recommends an even slower speed (75 knots) so long as it isn't lower than that aircraft's published best angle of climb. Also 10 degree of flaps.
As to the angle of bank, how would you even take a decent photo from 60 degrees. You'd basically be taking a shot looking straight down, which is rarely useful for what we do. The manual mentions 10 degrees which is probably usually about right.
At one time we were being trained that we could briefly descend down to no lower than 500'. The current regulation could be interpreted that way due to the qualifier "sustained" at the beginning of the applicable clause and the implication in the last sentence that there are situations other than takeoff and landing when flying between 500-1000 feet is allowed. Of course, then how long can you go down that low before it becomes "sustained" flight?
CAPR60-1:
Quotee. Sustained flight below an altitude or lateral distance from any object of 1,000 ft during the day or 2,000 ft at night is prohibited except for take-off and landing or in compliance with air traffic control (ATC) procedures (such as IFR flight). At no time will the pilot allow the aircraft to come within 500 feet of terrain or obstructions unless taking off or landing.
I vaguely recall there being a more specific clause in a prior 60-1 allowing this, but very well could be wrong.
If the intention is to only allow flight below 1,000' when taking off or landing they need to clarify this regulation a bit more.
Adding on a bit to what RiverAux posted above. Several places in Vol III of the MART the altitude specified for photo missions is stated as no lower than 1,000 ft AGL.
Also for the Birds Eye View the manual states an even higher altitude may be required.
Looking at the Vx for the C-172, (72-74 KIAS), C-182R (59-66 KIAS), and the C-182T (65-68 KIAS) it would seem a competent pilot should be able to safely fly at 75 KIAS and a bank angle of 10 deg. However, holding full opposite rudder and the resulting uncoordinated flight may be discomforting without training and practice. Even so, there is no logical reason to be at 500 ft AGL and in a 60 deg bank, and at 75 Kts.
As for posting in the other forums, my original thought was that if there was a legitimate concern, there are enough CAP Instructors and Stan Eval Check Pilots here that the question should have started here. If the poster felt he/she needed to go outside CAP, I would they rather gone to the SAFE (Society of Aviation and Flight Educators) or NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors). Both these organizations are made up of professional flight instructors, and both have a number of Master Instructors available for serious questions.
Not 'attacking' the Red Board, but membership is open to any AOPA member in any of the forum subject pages, so whatever answer/ advice could just as easily come from someone unable to spell airplane on 3 out of 5 try's as from a real instructor who knows what they are saying.
They should not have brought it here to CAPTALK......IT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO WING SAFETY and/or STAND/EVAL!
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2012, 10:41:55 PM
They should not have brought it here to CAPTALK......IT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO WING SAFETY and/or STAND/EVAL!
Sorry, you are correct.
Cliff
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on June 10, 2012, 11:11:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2012, 10:41:55 PM
They should not have brought it here to CAPTALK......IT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO WING SAFETY and/or STAND/EVAL!
Sorry, you are correct.
Cliff
Who should they have brought it to then?
The only argument here is what was the proper channel.
There is NO.......NO justification to take it outside of channels unless/until all inside channels have been taken. END OF STORY.
If you are not using CAP channels.....then you are part of the problem.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2012, 11:59:44 PMWho should they have brought it to then?
I think he was agreeing with you.
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 11, 2012, 01:09:55 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2012, 11:59:44 PMWho should they have brought it to then?
I think he was agreeing with you.
You know.....that's what happens when your dyslexia kicks in and you are in a hurry!
My appologies........:)
If we take the poster's statement as-is, I don't see a problem with asking about it on the other forum if they were really interested in hearing people's opinions about whether this technique (whether sanctioned by CAP or not) was safe.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 11, 2012, 01:15:51 AM
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 11, 2012, 01:09:55 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2012, 11:59:44 PMWho should they have brought it to then?
I think he was agreeing with you.
You know.....that's what happens when your dyslexia kicks in and you are in a hurry!
My appologies........:)
No hit no foul ;)
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 10, 2012, 05:01:05 PM
There is a time and place for taking things externally, from all evidence here, it should have been kept in house.
So that still begs the question why it wasn't.
I'm still of the opinion that getting external validation of whether or not something is safe is never wrong. CAP cannot act in a void in the world of safety, we need external ideas too.
What I'm seeing is that the person doesn't trust those around him to give an objective answer. When someone is deeply involved and cares deeply, sometimes they mistake honest questions for insubordination.
We see that here on an almost daily basis.
Actually, there's a better question - why is anyone in CAP teaching pilots to execute high bank angles at low speed and low altitude? We do know what one result of this combination is, right? If you took that lesson to the FAA, they'd tell you straight away that it IS a stupid thing, stop doing it and correct any previous teaching.
Quote from: bflynn on June 07, 2012, 06:51:14 PM
A true safety culture doesn't hide what is embrassing, it exposes it so that everyone can be embarassed about it and not do it.
The intention of bringing a safety issue to the front is to prevent someone else from getting hurt or mitigating a future issue. It should never be about embarassing any individual or organization. If that is the intention then the individual who is the safety leader needs to change their profession.
I don't believe the original poster's intent was to embarass CAP - he seemed genuinely concerned for safety. I believe the idea that he was attempting to embarass CAP was brought up by individuals here.
BTW, it seems a good time to inject some aviation education -
the issue with the maneuver as described is
1) (Regulation) it requires a zero tolerence of not exceeding the maximum 60 degree bank angle authorized by the FAA
2) (Regulation) It was executed at 500 ft Above Ground Level (AGL), which is in conflict with CAP regulations
3) (Safety) It is a high bank angle at a low speed, which risks a stall. A stall at low altitude is frequently fatal because there is not enough altitude to recover.
Given a particular bank angle, you can roughly calculate what the new stall speed is. Vso, or the stall speed in the normal flying configuration, in a Cessna 172 is 48 knots. When you bank, that speed goes up because your wings are not providing lift straight down anymore, so there isn't as much vertical lift to hold the airplane up. The new stall speed is computed by the formula
sqrt(1/(cos(bank angle))) * Vso. In this case,
the cos(60) = .5, so 1/cos(60) = 1/.5 = 2
The sqrt(2) = 1.4
1.4 * Vso = 1.4*48 = 67.
See, math IS important... ;)
At 60 degrees, the airplane is still flying.
The trouble is, that starts to go up very quickly with bank angle. If the pilot rolls just 10 degrees further to 70, the stall speed goes up to 82.
I'll note there was also 10 degrees of flaps in the equation which adds a more little margin - stall speed with 10 degrees of flaps is around 43, so sqrt(1/cos(70)) * 43 = 73.
There's still a margin of error. But the margin is only 7 kts and 10 degrees of bank. To me, that is flying too close to edge of the envelope. We don't need to do that.
Someone genuinely concerned with safety will address it up the chain of command. That's the only way anything will be done about it. Otherwise, it's just some random person ranting on a random forum making the organization look bad because one person did something questionable.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 10, 2012, 08:25:53 PM
CAPR60-1:
Quotee. Sustained flight below an altitude or lateral distance from any object of 1,000 ft during the day or 2,000 ft at night is prohibited except for take-off and landing or in compliance with air traffic control (ATC) procedures (such as IFR flight). At no time will the pilot allow the aircraft to come within 500 feet of terrain or obstructions unless taking off or landing.
I vaguely recall there being a more specific clause in a prior 60-1 allowing this, but very well could be wrong.
If the intention is to only allow flight below 1,000' when taking off or landing they need to clarify this regulation a bit more.
As I understand the intention of this reg, it's that you fly 1,000' AGL. If you see something on the ground that you need to investigate further, you can drop down to 500' for a quick look, but you cannot remain at 500' AGL for a sustained period of time.
I don't think we should be publishing procedures (like in the MART) that have routine operations (like photography) occurring below 1,000' AGL. On training missions where I'm the OSC or AOBD, I tend to include a restriction to 1,000' AGL in my briefings. I don't think going down to 500' is justified on training missions for the most part.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 11, 2012, 01:58:08 PM
I don't think we should be publishing procedures (like in the MART) that have routine operations (like photography) occurring below 1,000' AGL. On training missions where I'm the OSC or AOBD, I tend to include a restriction to 1,000' AGL in my briefings. I don't think going down to 500' is justified on training missions for the most part.
Is it published there? If so, then I think everyone agrees it needs to be stricken. I looked at the AP Aircrew Reference and did not see anything directing this kind of maneuver.
If you want an overhead shot, the best place to get it from is 2500-4000' AGL.
Quote from: bflynn on June 11, 2012, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 11, 2012, 01:58:08 PM
I don't think we should be publishing procedures (like in the MART) that have routine operations (like photography) occurring below 1,000' AGL. On training missions where I'm the OSC or AOBD, I tend to include a restriction to 1,000' AGL in my briefings. I don't think going down to 500' is justified on training missions for the most part.
Is it published there? If so, then I think everyone agrees it needs to be stricken. I looked at the AP Aircrew Reference and did not see anything directing this kind of maneuver.
If you want an overhead shot, the best place to get it from is 2500-4000' AGL.
Well, the April 2010 version of the Operational Mission Inflight Guide (http://nesa.cap.gov/Documents/MAS%20Uploads/Operational%20Mission%20InFlight%20Guide%20APR%202010.pdf (http://nesa.cap.gov/Documents/MAS%20Uploads/Operational%20Mission%20InFlight%20Guide%20APR%202010.pdf))
The attached graphic is on page 104, and indicates a 2,000' AGL pass, a 1,000' AGL pass and a 500' AGL circle around the target.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15513.0;attach=4701)
Good find...
I know the publish date on this is Apr 2010, but this is not consistent with the AP Aircrew Reference Text, which states that a circular imaging flight pattern must be > 1000' AGL. (http://nesa.cap.gov/Documents/MAS%20Uploads/CAP%20Aerial%20Photography%20Reference%20Text%20Rev%20Apr10.pdf (http://nesa.cap.gov/Documents/MAS%20Uploads/CAP%20Aerial%20Photography%20Reference%20Text%20Rev%20Apr10.pdf) page 104) Given the topics, I'll call the specific text to be the correct one and follow the AP reference rather than the more generic pilot reference.
Who owns the document you referenced?
Additionally, 500' AGL + 1/2 mile (2500') circle is at the wrong angle for good photography, this gives a base about five times the height or roughly a ten degree angle downward. We normally use 1/4 mile away + 1000 AGL to give about a 45 degree angle.
Regardless, in neither text does it require a 60 degree bank at 500' to get an overhead shot. In fact, your reference even says the ID photo should be from a mile away, looking north. It also states that over the photo area, the AP becomes the mission commander.
It occurs to me that the answer to this not certain, but we all do understand that FAA mandated minimum altitude is 500 ft above the tallest obstacle within 2000', right? And 1000' above the tallest obstacle in built up areas (marked in yellow on an aviation chart)? So if you're over the forest at 500 AGL, you're only 450' above the standard FAA 50' tall trees and can be violated for flying too low.
Quote from: bflynn on June 11, 2012, 06:55:05 PMWho owns the document you referenced?
A link to it appears on the Web site of the National Emergency Services Academy, if that's any help:
http://nesa.cap.gov/mascurr.htm (http://nesa.cap.gov/mascurr.htm)
QuoteIt occurs to me that the answer to this not certain, but we all do understand that FAA mandated minimum altitude is 500 ft above the tallest obstacle within 2000', right?
It's 500 AGL in other than congested areas, except that in sparsely populated areas and over open water, it's 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure (14 CFR 91.119(c)).
QuoteAnd 1000' above the tallest obstacle in built up areas (marked in yellow on an aviation chart)?
My understanding is that the yellow indicates areas that appear lighted at night, which does not necessarily include all areas that the FAA and NTSB consider to be congested.
QuoteSo if you're over the forest at 500 AGL, you're only 450' above the standard FAA 50' tall trees and can be violated for flying too low.
Since a tree is not a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure," I would say no.
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 11, 2012, 07:50:59 PM
My understanding is that the yellow indicates areas that appear lighted at night, which does not necessarily include all areas that the FAA and NTSB consider to be congested.
That's correct...I have an NTSB case somewhere on point.
But the "congested area" also includes "an open air assembly of persons", so flying low over a beach, or ever 3 farmers talking in the middle of a field, can trigger the 1,000' rule!
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 11, 2012, 07:50:59 PM
Since a tree is not a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure," I would say no.
True, but towers of 199' or less do not need to be reported or charted, and they certainly do constitute "structures" for this rule.
I have a database of elevations that I sometimes use, and will go 1,200' above the highest terrain, or 1,000' above the highest tower (whichever is greater) for a sector altitude. (I get towers from the FAA Digital Obstruction File)
One of these days, I'm going to build a table of the "sector altitude" based on the above for every CAP grid...down to the ABCD level.
I'd be careful of making broad statements about the best altitude and angle for photography. It all depends on the nature of the target and what exactly needs to be shown. If I'm trying to photograph a single building I will probably need a different altitude and angle than if I'm trying to photograph a dam.
It's interesting that the mission aircrew reference text for AP (Vol. 3) states, on page 120, that the minimum altitude for taking images is 1000 agl: There is no reference for decending below this altitude for any reason.
The 500 agl reference, IMO, is a mistake. It violates 60-1, which is the CAP pilot's bible. It's commedable that Jeff brought it to light and, I agree with Bflynn that it should be ignored. This should be fixed. I'm kind of surprised no one has said anything about it. Maybe a call to Mr. Desmaris at NHQ? :o
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 11, 2012, 07:50:59 PM
QuoteSo if you're over the forest at 500 AGL, you're only 450' above the standard FAA 50' tall trees and can be violated for flying too low.
Since a tree is not a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure," I would say no.
My mistake - I mixed up two sections. I should look up the reference before trying to quote it.
91.119 (b) says "obstacle" in congested areas.
91.119 (c) says surface in other than congested, except where over water where is becomes person, vessel, vehicle or structure. So you're prefectly legal flying along 1' over that 499' tall tree...
As to the NESA reference, this afternoon I sent an email pointing out the conflict to the generica NESA contact point. But if anyone knows the specific individual, that would be a more direct path.
Quote from: bflynn on June 12, 2012, 02:37:51 AM
91.119 (c) says surface in other than congested, except where over water where is becomes person, vessel, vehicle or structure. So you're prefectly legal flying along 1' over that 499' tall tree...
Until something happens, at which point they'll get you on 91.13(a), Careless or reckless operation.
Can someone point me in the direction of the original post in the aviation forum that started this?
As a former Wing PAO, I'm interested from a PAO/PIO standpoint.
I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999, is as he/she is not a member of IL-999
Quote from: Snake Doctor on June 12, 2012, 12:09:44 PM
I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999, is as he/she is not a member of IL-999
....Now THERE'S a shock. Gotta love 'pretend world'.
Really. Stir things up while hiding.
Another of the CT trolls?
Quote from: PWK-GT on June 12, 2012, 05:39:40 PM
Quote from: Snake Doctor on June 12, 2012, 12:09:44 PM
I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999, is as he/she is not a member of IL-999
....Now THERE'S a shock. Gotta love 'pretend world'.
I was going to post the "You Got Served" or It's On!, but really, not cool.
If you want to hide/not show your unit, fine. But don't put in a fake/incorrect one.
Of course, given that all 14 (to date) posts are in this topic, I'm willing to bet any "cross posting" was done by someone more present there than here. :)
The plot thickens...
Quote from: usafaux2004 on June 12, 2012, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: PWK-GT on June 12, 2012, 05:39:40 PM
Quote from: Snake Doctor on June 12, 2012, 12:09:44 PM
I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999, is as he/she is not a member of IL-999
....Now THERE'S a shock. Gotta love 'pretend world'.
I was going to post the "You Got Served" or It's On!, but really, not cool.
If you want to hide/not show your unit, fine. But don't put in a fake/incorrect one.
Of course, given that all 14 (to date) posts are in this topic, I'm willing to bet any "cross posting" was done by someone more present there than here. :)
To a certain extent, perhaps someone who doesn't have a ton of experience interacting with Legislative Squadrons might just think that IL-999 is a "made up" unit number.
But easily verified whether a unit is real or not.
We've seen cadets bounce in here from XX-1008, when they really just meant XX-108. That's fine, it's a simple mistake.
But when people put something like USA-HI-123, chances are they should have just left the unit spot blank.
It looks like here today gone tomorrow.
Quote from: Snake Doctor on June 12, 2012, 12:09:44 PM
Can someone point me in the direction of the original post in the aviation forum that started this?
Here it is:
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=81888 (http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=81888)
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 12, 2012, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: Snake Doctor on June 12, 2012, 12:09:44 PM
Can someone point me in the direction of the original post in the aviation forum that started this?
Here it is:
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=81888 (http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=81888)
It's only accessible if you are a member.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on June 12, 2012, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: PWK-GT on June 12, 2012, 05:39:40 PM
Quote from: Snake Doctor on June 12, 2012, 12:09:44 PM
I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999, is as he/she is not a member of IL-999
....Now THERE'S a shock. Gotta love 'pretend world'.
I was going to post the "You Got Served" or It's On!, but really, not cool.
If you want to hide/not show your unit, fine. But don't put in a fake/incorrect one.
Of course, given that all 14 (to date) posts are in this topic, I'm willing to bet any "cross posting" was done by someone more present there than here. :)
OK, OK, try not to get severe abdominal cramps over this. I changed it. It was just a placeholder. Sheesh.
Thanks, yes I found that out!
Quote from: jeders on June 12, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
It's only accessible if you are a member.
I'm confused then. I logged off of both the forum and AOPA when I tested the link, but maybe there was a cookie stored anyway.
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 12, 2012, 09:56:02 PM
Quote from: jeders on June 12, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
It's only accessible if you are a member.
I'm confused then. I logged off of both the forum and AOPA when I tested the link, but maybe there was a cookie stored anyway.
Must be, I can't get on, and don't feel like making yet another login. :)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on June 12, 2012, 10:26:01 PM
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 12, 2012, 09:56:02 PM
Quote from: jeders on June 12, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
It's only accessible if you are a member.
I'm confused then. I logged off of both the forum and AOPA when I tested the link, but maybe there was a cookie stored anyway.
Must be, I can't get on, and don't feel like making yet another login. :)
When I tried it again just now it did ask me to log in. I probably got my browsers mixed up. I've been logging in here with Firefox, and when I logged out before, I was probably using Internet Explorer. Sorry for the confusion.
Apparently the thread that people are complaining about being public is less public than this one. ;)
You don't need to create another login with AOPA, if you have a membership # already, that's the login.
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 13, 2012, 03:28:30 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on June 12, 2012, 10:26:01 PM
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 12, 2012, 09:56:02 PM
Quote from: jeders on June 12, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
It's only accessible if you are a member.
I'm confused then. I logged off of both the forum and AOPA when I tested the link, but maybe there was a cookie stored anyway.
Must be, I can't get on, and don't feel like making yet another login. :)
When I tried it again just now it did ask me to log in. I probably got my browsers mixed up. I've been logging in here with Firefox, and when I logged out before, I was probably using Internet Explorer. Sorry for the confusion.
Apparently the thread that people are complaining about being public is less public than this one. ;)
It's public to a potential pool of members.
Quote from: a2capt on June 13, 2012, 07:51:22 AM
You don't need to create another login with AOPA, if you have a membership # already, that's the login.
True, but Jeders is apparently correct that you have to be a member to read it.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on June 13, 2012, 02:22:42 PM
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 13, 2012, 03:28:30 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on June 12, 2012, 10:26:01 PM
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on June 12, 2012, 09:56:02 PM
Quote from: jeders on June 12, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
It's only accessible if you are a member.
I'm confused then. I logged off of both the forum and AOPA when I tested the link, but maybe there was a cookie stored anyway.
Must be, I can't get on, and don't feel like making yet another login. :)
When I tried it again just now it did ask me to log in. I probably got my browsers mixed up. I've been logging in here with Firefox, and when I logged out before, I was probably using Internet Explorer. Sorry for the confusion.
Apparently the thread that people are complaining about being public is less public than this one. ;)
It's public to a potential pool of members.
Hence the "wink" smiley.
More "dirty laundry"?
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=82040 (http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=82040)
Here's the opening post, for those who aren't AOPA members:
QuoteActual quote from the safety officer at the morning safety briefing at a recent SAREX:
"Anybody can say, 'knock it off' if they see a problem - but there *better* be a problem."
So are we going to just drill every other forum now for more non issues? That won't help anyone.
For the record I agree with that Safety Officer allegedly quoted, as would most other members.
Me too. I've had my fair share of whiners throwing down a flag just because they don't like their assignment, the mission, etc., that they were well briefed on prior to departure, and had every opportunity to not go. I can certainly see the angle of attack on that statement, from both viewpoints.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 13, 2012, 04:34:58 PM
So are we going to just drill every other forum now for more non issues?
If you're concerned that I might be "drilling" for stuff like this, the answer is no. It's just something I ran across that seems relevant to the issues raised here.
QuoteThat won't help anyone.
I think discussing issues can help people.
QuoteFor the record I agree with that Safety Officer allegedly quoted, as would most other members.
A2capt mentioned people just not liking their assignment, so I can see that there is a legitimate concern that the "knock it off" option not be taken lightly. At the same time, safety is often a judgement call, leading to differences of opinion. Maybe the "knock it off" option needs to be supplemented by an option to say "I have safety concerns about this" for situations that aren't clear cut.
That seems like what the quote says...
I read it as: Don't cry wolf.