"We have met the enemy and it is Us"

[West_Coast_Guy]

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."

[lordmonar]

We 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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[lordmonar]

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. 

[jacksmith60187]

Looks like someone cross-posted this thread over there...

[RiverAux]

"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:

e. 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.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

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.

[lordmonar]

They should not have brought it here to CAPTALK......IT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO WING SAFETY and/or STAND/EVAL!

[Cliff_Chambliss]

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

[lordmonar]

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.

[West_Coast_Guy]

Who should they have brought it to then?

I think he was agreeing with you.

[lordmonar]

Who 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........

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Who 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 

[bflynn]

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.

[James Shaw]

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.

[bflynn]

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.

[Spaceman3750]

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.

[JeffDG]

CAPR60-1:

e. 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.

[bflynn]

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.