I've never seen any statistics but it would seem to me that when we have "funded" training for Mission Pilots the priority should be to keep those pilots trained that are also Instrument Flight Rules qualified.
I realize there's some long term member Mission Pilots that are only VFR qualified, but it seems to me that as funding becomes tight wings are going to have to prioritize who will get what training.
One is severely limited by just having mission pilots that are VFR qualified only. However they can be used effectively for cadet orientation flights, since cadets get more out of flying in fair weather rather than in the clouds!
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on October 04, 2009, 02:31:29 PM
I've never seen any statistics but it would seem to me that when we have "funded" training for Mission Pilots the priority should be to keep those pilots trained that are also Instrument Flight Rules qualified.
I realize there's some long term member Mission Pilots that are only VFR qualified, but it seems to me that as funding becomes tight wings are going to have to prioritize who will get what training.
One is severely limited by just having mission pilots that are VFR qualified only. However they can be used effectively for cadet orientation flights, since cadets get more out of flying in fair weather rather than in the clouds!
RM
Kinda hard to do visual grid search when you can't see the ground!
We do very little electronic search in IFR conditions. Mostly because there is no demand for it.
I can't think of a single IFR mission we have flown in the last four years.
I have been on several missions where CAP aircraft have flown IMC to position for a search.
Quote from: Short Field on October 04, 2009, 03:17:58 PM
I can't think of a single IFR mission we have flown in the last four years.
Well seems to me on your way or returning for a particular mission the aircraft could encounter IFR conditions (which would require diverting around weather or RTB). I don't see why we want to limit ourselves with the least qualified mission pilots. Of course than it would be self fulfilling limitation, IF there's no IFR qualified mission pilots available. Comments I've heard in the past is "it isn't fun" to fly in IFR conditions. I'm even heard about an exercise that was cancelled (which was a weather relocation exercise) due to bad weather (IFR conditions) ;D >:(
Oh yea, BTW, when is the last time any CAP wing has actually had a practice mission during IFR conditions to find an ELT with appropriate coordination with ground teams. Shouldn't we be training in all possible scenarios? (and there have been actual missions in the past where CAP has flown in IFR conditions only and has isolated an ELT signal)
RM
We have several missions here in Texas that requires our pilots to fly Night IMC... So Id say there is a huge need for IFR Qualified and PROFICIENT Pilots in CAP.
I've seen no evidence that anyone's training budgets have been cut back so much that this sort of limitation would make any sense.
ORM limits the amount of IFR we can fly at all.
Common sense and ORM limit the training we fly in IFR.
Only a small percentage of real-world missions can be flown in IFR, since we're still mostly a visual search organization, and a secondary / tertiary responder so anything beyond an ELT in a storm with a high POD and a lot of people on board waits for morning.
Far less of our pilots are IFR rated than VFR (which is fine, based on the first three above).
Otherwise, good plan.
The OP asked if we should provide IFR rated MPs with priority funding for training at the expense of non-IFR rated MPs. Based on the operational missions I have seen in the last four years - I can't see a reason for it. Then you toss in the fact that funding is based on total number of MPs and MOs - the non-IFR rated MPs would be subsidizing additional training for IFR rated pilots at the expense of their training. Considering that I have had to leave airplanes sitting on the ground on missions due to no MPs and have had no missions that needed a IFR rated MP in the last four years - it is a bit hard to justifiy this proposal.
If you are serious about the need for more IFR rated MPs, then I could support a proposal to assist non-IFR rated MPs in upgrading to IFR rated pilots.
I agree with the premiss here. Instrument rated pilots are, in general, better pilots than non-IFR flyers. I see no problem with prioritizing funding to go to the IFR MPs first.
As a non-pilot, I see a problem with this idea.
If you keep bumping VFR pilots in favor of IFR pilots, you're going to run out of pilots. Not every pilot in CAP has the time or money to become IFR pilots.
Quote from: arajca on October 04, 2009, 07:38:40 PM
As a non-pilot, I see a problem with this idea.
If you keep bumping VFR pilots in favor of IFR pilots, you're going to run out of pilots. Not every pilot in CAP has the time or money to become IFR pilots.
+1, how about spending that money getting VFR to IFR if the need for IFR is so great?
I think the OP has it backward
A VERY good idea.
I think you would find that those who say they have only seen VFR missions are not Instrument rated.
And I can't count all the missions that were not flown because the pilot was either not Instument rated or he was not current, and was uncomfortable flying in Marginal VFR.
And it would provide an incentive to VFR only pilots to get Instrument rated.
The pilot who is Instrument qualified and current is safer. So the idea is a very good one to promote Safety.
Quote from: DG on October 04, 2009, 08:06:50 PM
I think you would find that those who say they have only seen VFR missions are not Instrument rated.
Facts are facts, it doesn't matter what your rating is. As a IC trying to man missions, I look at all MPs. If we had ever had a requirment for a IFR flight, I would have pulled from the IFR rated MPs.
Quote from: DG on October 04, 2009, 08:06:50 PM
The pilot who is Instrument qualified and current is safer. So the idea is a very good one to promote Safety.
And we would be even safer if we only used CFIIs? The last three major dings I am aware in our Wing all involved CFIs and/or ATPs.
Quote from: DG on October 04, 2009, 08:06:50 PM
A VERY good idea.
I think you would find that those who say they have only seen VFR missions are not Instrument rated.
And I can't count all the missions that were not flown because the pilot was either not Instument rated or he was not current, and was uncomfortable flying in Marginal VFR.
And it would provide an incentive to VFR only pilots to get Instrument rated.
The pilot who is Instrument qualified and current is safer. So the idea is a very good one to promote Safety.
I'm with you a 100%
As I mentioned recently, getting my instrument rating is a priority for many reasons, with safety right at the top.
We've actually had to shorten a Sarex because we didn't have enough IFR rated pilot to get the aircraft home with weather that was predicted to move in. Not really bad weather but would take us under VFR minimums.
I've always hoped the CAP would fund instrument ratings and maybe continuing IFR proficiency flights. I won't hold my breath.
You never know what future missions we may be tasked with which could benefit from more IFR pilots
Quote from: blackrain on October 04, 2009, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: DG on October 04, 2009, 08:06:50 PM
A VERY good idea.
I think you would find that those who say they have only seen VFR missions are not Instrument rated.
And I can't count all the missions that were not flown because the pilot was either not Instument rated or he was not current, and was uncomfortable flying in Marginal VFR.
And it would provide an incentive to VFR only pilots to get Instrument rated.
The pilot who is Instrument qualified and current is safer. So the idea is a very good one to promote Safety.
I'm with you a 100%
As I mentioned recently, getting my instrument rating is a priority for many reasons, with safety right at the top.
We've actually had to shorten a Sarex because we didn't have enough IFR rated pilot to get the aircraft home with weather that was predicted to move in. Not really bad weather but would take us under VFR minimums.
I've always hoped the CAP would fund instrument ratings and maybe continuing IFR proficiency flights. I won't hold my breath.
You never know what future missions we may be tasked with which could benefit from more IFR pilots
And there's your "Catch 22", we don't fund IFR ratings because we don't have a real need for them.
Now, if we had a "mission" where IFR flight was a fairly common occurance, then IFR training would be a much higher priority.
We're talking about getting the most bang for our training bucks here folks.
+1 :clap: We need more MPs who know how to and will fly good mission profiles. These same missions train our MSs and MOs. Not much use for a MS on a IFR training mission - and the non-pilot MOs are out of luck as well since the right seat needs a safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood.
Quoteit would seem to me that when we have "funded" training for Mission Pilots the priority should be to keep those pilots trained that are also Instrument Flight Rules qualified.
This is really a special case of a more general question: "Should CAP invest more or less equally in all pilot assets or should it emphasize investment in its more valuable assets?"
An instrument rating is an indicator of a more valuable asset, as is a Commercial or an ATP. Someone flying over 100 hours per year is probably a more valuable asset than someone who is flying 20. Total flight hours is also an indicator, though not all hours are the same. (I am thinking about "dual-given" being not the same as flying freight in hard IFR and ice.) The subjective judgment of check pilots, should CAP ever recognize the value of judgment, would also be an indicator as would be MP experience and demonstrated skills.
So -- invest in the winners or invest in all, hoping that additional low-value assets will become high value assets as a result? Personally, I think the answer is obvious though not very egalitarian.
BTW, a flight doesn't have to involve hard IFR for an instrument rating to be valuable. I can pop through a 1500 AGL scattered or broken deck VFR and fly on top without worrying about things closing up on the other end, where a VFR pilot is stuck scud-running and dodging radio towers. Which is safer? I can also file on a nice day and forget worrying about MOAs, airspace, etc. and have ATC tasked with separation (not that I don't look out the window!). Again, safer.
Quote from: airdale on October 07, 2009, 02:52:15 PM
So -- invest in the winners or invest in all, hoping that additional low-value assets will become high value assets as a result? Personally, I think the answer is obvious though not very egalitarian.
The reality is that most wings don't have the hard-numbers of pilots, period, to start making a subjective call as to who is more "valuable".
Further, its this mentality which has led some wings to have a pilot's club where only a small number of pilots can ever get near an aircraft - you start deciding which pilots are most valuable and then by the nature of that decision, those pilots will get more hours and support than the new guys, making it very difficult to ever jump on the ride.
The fact remains that our primary flight missions are during daytime VFR conditions, followed by night VFR, with the need for IFR coming a far third in most areas, and then usually for aircraft movement in advance of VFR missions when things clear up. Many wings are barely capable of performing even those
types of missions.
Like everything else in CAP, before we can start fine-tuning who gets priority training, we need to be far exceeding on the basic mission.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2009, 03:15:34 PM
Further, its this mentality which has led some wings to have a pilot's club where only a small number of pilots can ever get near an aircraft
:clap: When we got a new C182 with the G1000 in our Wing, the "elite" pilots (i.e. trainers) were very vocal in their belief that only "professional" pilots should fly the G1000 and the rest of us should just plan on being scanners.
QuoteThe reality is that most wings don't have the hard-numbers of pilots, period, to start making a subjective call as to who is more "valuable".
Even with only two employees, any competent manager should be able tell you which one is more valuable and how he/she wants to invest in each.
QuoteFurther, its this mentality which has led some wings to have a pilot's club where only a small number of pilots can ever get near an aircraft - you start deciding which pilots are most valuable and then by the nature of that decision, those pilots will get more hours and support than the new guys, making it very difficult to ever jump on the ride.
Agreed. The way that is handled in The Real World is that in addition to evaluating value, you also evaluate potential. Then part of your investment goes into potential in order to develop value. Potential is just another kind of value -- sort of "future value."
QuoteThe fact remains that our primary flight missions are during daytime VFR conditions, followed by night VFR, with the need for IFR coming a far third in most areas, and then usually for aircraft movement in advance of VFR missions when things clear up. Many wings are barely capable of performing even those types of missions.
An instrument rating may not be the most important criterion in determining value. Probably "availability for missions" is also an important criterion, as are many other considerations. (Side note re night VFR: The US is the exception internationally in not requiring an instrument rating or at least an additional endorsement for night flying. IMHO all night flying is either instrument flight or has a very high potential to be.)
QuoteLike everything else in CAP, before we can start fine-tuning who gets priority training, we need to be far exceeding on the basic mission.
I don't know about "far exceeding" but if you don't have enough qualified pilots then obviously that has to be a priority. That isn't antithetical to the "value" notion, it just recognizes that if you don't have enough qualified pilots then the "value" of even the weakest pilots goes up and merits investment.
We can use training funds for whatever purpose CAP-USAF allows us.
We have more than enough funds to go around (last I checked) and, from what I remember, we need to put MORE hours on our aircraft.
If CAP feels a need to train more mission pilots for IFR then, I'm sure we could find a way to do it. Our aircraft are more than capable for IFR flying and, I will go on a limb and say we have more than enough MPs who would like to "upgrade" and/or stay current. ;D
Quote from: cap235629 on October 04, 2009, 07:40:46 PM
+1, how about spending that money getting VFR to IFR if the need for IFR is so great?
I think the OP has it backward
CAP's fundamental mission is to take pilots who are
qualified and current.
And use CAP funds to get them evaluated in CAP airplanes and trained to fly CAP taskings.
Quote from: arajca on October 04, 2009, 07:38:40 PM
As a non-pilot, I see a problem with this idea.
If you keep bumping VFR pilots in favor of IFR pilots, you're going to run out of pilots. Not every pilot in CAP has the time or money to become IFR pilots.
In today's reality, a VFR pilot who has no intention of working on the Instrument rating is a liability we can not afford.
Airspace flight restrictions and rules are such that a VFR pilot who has no intention of working on the Instrument rating should stay at their home airport.
Quote from: FW on October 07, 2009, 05:02:20 PM
If CAP feels a need to train more mission pilots for IFR then, I'm sure we could find a way to do it. Our aircraft are more than capable for IFR flying and, I will go on a limb and say we have more than enough MPs who would like to "upgrade" and/or stay current. ;D
CAP is on top of this issue.
CAPR 60-1 Para. 2-8. Pilot Training.
a. CAP cadets and qualified SAR/DR mission pilots are authorized to use CAP airplanes for flight instruction toward any FAA certificate or rating.
Quote from: DG on October 07, 2009, 09:16:27 PM
Quote from: arajca on October 04, 2009, 07:38:40 PM
As a non-pilot, I see a problem with this idea.
If you keep bumping VFR pilots in favor of IFR pilots, you're going to run out of pilots. Not every pilot in CAP has the time or money to become IFR pilots.
In today's reality, a VFR pilot who has no intention of working on the Instrument rating is a liability we can not afford.
Airspace flight restrictions and rules are such that a VFR pilot who has no intention of working on the Instrument rating should stay at their home airport.
You're kidding, right? Where are you flying that IFR such a necessity?
Most of our VFR pilots spend the majority of their time in and around ORD's class B, including a couple of airports where if you miss the approach with a tailwind you're getting intercepted.rports where if you miss the approach with a tailwind you're getting intercepted.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2009, 09:33:10 PM
Quote from: DG on October 07, 2009, 09:16:27 PM
Quote from: arajca on October 04, 2009, 07:38:40 PM
As a non-pilot, I see a problem with this idea.
If you keep bumping VFR pilots in favor of IFR pilots, you're going to run out of pilots. Not every pilot in CAP has the time or money to become IFR pilots.
In today's reality, a VFR pilot who has no intention of working on the Instrument rating is a liability we can not afford.
Airspace flight restrictions and rules are such that a VFR pilot who has no intention of working on the Instrument rating should stay at their home airport.
You're kidding, right? Where are you flying that IFR such a necessity?
Most of our VFR pilots spend the majority of their time in and around ORD's class B, including a couple of airports where is you miss the approach with a tailwind you're getting intercepted.
Anyone who flies near or through today's flight restrictions airspace and refuses to file an IFR flight plan or be one who is looking to work on their instrument rating is either incompetent over-the-hill, or a fool, and we do not need those pilots flying for CAP.
Not when we have so many IFR pilots or VFR pilots working on IFR, which we do in our wing. We are not looking to exclude VFR pilots but we encourage and support those mission pilots who want to work on their instrument rating.
To do otherwise is the stuff that gives CAP a bad reputation. You say you are in ILWG?
By the way, are you even a pilot?
Quote from: DG on October 07, 2009, 09:57:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2009, 09:33:10 PM
Quote from: DG on October 07, 2009, 09:16:27 PM
Quote from: arajca on October 04, 2009, 07:38:40 PM
As a non-pilot, I see a problem with this idea.
If you keep bumping VFR pilots in favor of IFR pilots, you're going to run out of pilots. Not every pilot in CAP has the time or money to become IFR pilots.
In today's reality, a VFR pilot who has no intention of working on the Instrument rating is a liability we can not afford.
Airspace flight restrictions and rules are such that a VFR pilot who has no intention of working on the Instrument rating should stay at their home airport.
You're kidding, right? Where are you flying that IFR such a necessity?
Most of our VFR pilots spend the majority of their time in and around ORD's class B, including a couple of airports where is you miss the approach with a tailwind you're getting intercepted.
Anyone who flies near or through today's flight restrictions airspace and refuses to file an IFR flight plan or be one who is looking to work on their instrument rating is either incompetent over-the-hill, or a fool, and we do not need those pilots flying for CAP.
Not when we have so many IFR pilots or VFR pilots working on IFR, which we do in our wing. We are not looking to exclude VFR pilots but we encourage and support those mission pilots who want to work on their instrument rating.
To do otherwise is the stuff that gives CAP a bad reputation. You say you are in ILWG?
By the way, are you even a pilot?
He lives in Chicago. ORD is O'hare. One of his subordinate units has an aircraft based there.
I don't know where that "elite" pilot BS comes from in CAP about the G1000
Those GOB's ought to be _ _ _ _ lucky they are not paying 145 to 165 per hour at the FBO with a C172 w/ G1000
Do know where these clowns come from when some in the current Wing I am in CAN NOT or refuse to fly with others other than their good buddies.
Loosing IFR skills in CAP is also a waste when once you are checked out in another Wing and they say one is competent and then doing ANOTHER 25 hours to get checked out in the current wing
"Elite" pilots?? Especially CFI's in CAP who do not choose to instruct or do not FINISH Form 5's on same day and are current themselves in G1000.......there not elite or EVEN Pro pilots and to insinuate that CAP not cover IFR training especially in a ship that is going 21 st Century on CAP's fanny, is basically bad business if all you do is VFR in this ship.
NOTHING wrong with currency in both round dial or glass.....its just the clowns who do not want to work with the other G1000 pilots..... Instructors who fall in this category...U know who U are!!
Quote from: davidsinn on October 07, 2009, 11:20:45 PM
He lives in Chicago. ORD is O'hare. One of his subordinate units has an aircraft based there.
So...we have no persec anymore at all?
I'm capable of engaging him directly if warranted, and if I want to tell him where I live (which is
not Chicago BTW) I can do that as well. Everyone here knows who I am.
My being a pilot is irrelevant to this conversation, but I was frankly moving on, because when pilots start exhibiting the "you just don't understand if you're not a pilot" behavior, there's no talking to them.
Quote from: DG on October 07, 2009, 09:57:00 PM
Anyone who flies near or through today's flight restrictions airspace and refuses to file an IFR flight plan or be one who is looking to work on their instrument rating is either incompetent over-the-hill, or a fool, and we do not need those pilots flying for CAP.
Well, I am a pilot. Not a great pilot but enough of a pilot to recognize the above statement as bordering on intellectual gibberish. I'm not sure what
"flight restrictions airspace" is but I will admit it sounds scary and we should stay faaar away. Unless, of course, we are operating in restricted airspace with the proper notifications and permissions from the relevant agencies which is not uncommon in CAP operations.
Like Bob and his boys, our sq. operates under, around and sometimes in what is arguably the busiest airspace on the planet. It is fair to say that probably 99% of that mission and training activity is conducted VFR. Works just fine.
Are IFR skills and capabilities important? Of course they are and I would hope the organization would develop underwritten upgrade training programs. Maybe get some sort of contractual service agreement in return from the pilot for the training. Might really help with future mission profiles but regardless, the VFR Mission Pilot will be useful for most of our flying most of the time I think.
Quote from: DG on October 07, 2009, 09:57:00 PM
Anyone who flies near or through today's flight restrictions airspace and refuses to file an IFR flight plan or be one who is looking to work on their instrument rating is either incompetent over-the-hill, or a fool, and we do not need those pilots flying for CAP.
So tell us what you really think about VFR pilots in CAP.... Should the VFR pilots expect to see their MP rating pulled if you ever get in charge?
Ya DG
What is wrong with VFR only pilots in CAP?? Are you also saying anyone working on their INST is incompetent also??
Do not need those pilots in CAP? Who put in charge of the flying program? I can not even ATTEMPT to say that with my 800+ PLUS INST and A&P..... you telling me if I dropped my IFR this year and went with VFR only in CAP......CAP wouldn't need me
WOW, DG...I could not even call some of these folks over the hill. Besides what over the hill to you?? 40?
Quote from: aveighter on October 08, 2009, 12:08:49 AM
Well, I am a pilot. Not a great pilot but enough of a pilot to recognize the above statement as bordering on intellectual gibberish. I'm not sure what "flight restrictions airspace" is but I will admit it sounds scary and we should stay faaar away.
An FDC NOTAM will be issued to designate a temporary flight restriction (TFR). The NOTAM will begin with the phrase "FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS" followed by the location of the temporary restriction, effective time period, area defined in statute miles, and altitudes affected. The NOTAM will also contain the FAA coordination facility and telephone number, the reason for the restriction, and any other information deemed appropriate. The pilot should check the NOTAMs as part of flight planning.
Some of the purposes for establishing a temporary restriction are:
Protect persons and property in the air or on the surface from an existing or imminent hazard.
Provide a safe environment for the operation of disaster relief aircraft.
Prevent an unsafe congestion of sightseeing aircraft above an incident or event, which may generate a high degree of public interest.
Protect declared national disasters for humanitarian reasons.
Protect the President, Vice President, or other public figures.
Provide a safe environment for military or space agency operations.
Provide homeland security.
{...waiting for IFR wings/medal thread...}
Quote from: MSgt Van on October 08, 2009, 01:36:54 PM
{...waiting for IFR wings/medal thread...}
:clap: The proper uniform is the most important aspect of this whole issue. :clap:
;D
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2009, 11:36:06 PM
being a pilot is irrelevant
What would the Air Force say?
Does the Air Force have commanding officers of flying units who are not pilots?
Can you be a Wing Commander of an Air Force flying wing if you are not a pilot?
Should we be concerned about commanders who are not pilots?
Apparently, the view in some CAP wings (ILWG?) is that being a pilot is irrelevant.
It just seems to me that it's pretty clear that we ought to prioritize funds to go to the most qualified personnel first. In most cases there will be plenty of money for all. We have to value pilots as critical assets in CAP. With the best pilots we have getting first dibs on further training. The priority should be as follows:
ATP Pilots
CFI-I Pilots
CFI-A Pilots
*Commercial Multi & Single Pilots (just for the extra knowledge and skill needed to obtain multi rating)
*Commercial Single Pilots
Instrument Rated Pilots (* = assuming commercial pilots have earned their instrument rating)
Private Pilots pursuing IFR rating
Private Pilots
(sub-prioritize each by flight hours flown over the past year)
Non-pilots who have joined in the conversation here need to realize that there is a substantial difference in experience, skill and knowledge required to obtain the next higher certificate.
I for one, believe it is entirely relevant to the conversation here, as to whether or not you are a pilot. Non-pilots lack the frame of reference that pilots have here. Thats not to say your opinion is irrelevant in any way. It is interesting to hear what non-pilots think here. I would just suggest you identify yourself as a non-pilot if you have a suggestion on this subject.
I think we can all agree that no matter what the activity (Actual missions, O-rides, SAR-ex, etc..), we want the best pilots we have available occupying the left seats as pilot-in-command.
So the low mission-hour IFR pilot is more valuable than the high mission-hour VFR pilot?
I think it would become a management nightmare that would result in people standing around arguing over who has the most hours, and the highest ratings. So if I have the same ratings as someone else, do I get to train more because I have more hours? What if a guy has more hours than me, but I am actually employed as a pilot and he is just a weekend warrior? Do I go to the back of the line BECAUSE I have an employer who already pays for my training?
I think its fine. In my experience, not enough people show up to training as it is. If you rely on CAP to stay current, maybe you should take a back seat to those who dont. Would that work out?
Quote from: arajca on October 08, 2009, 06:11:27 PM
So the low mission-hour IFR pilot is more valuable than the high mission-hour VFR pilot?
Put the high mission-hour VFR pilot in the right seat as observer and the more qualified IFR pilot in the left seat as PIC.
Problem solved, the guy with experience flying CAP missions is still in the plane and the better pilot is PIC.
We need to keep emotions out of it and just stay logical. Yes the high mission hour VFR only pilot may have his feelings hurt, but we want the best, most qualified pilot in there as PIC. Plain and simple.
So we don't want non-pilot observers either. IFR pilots get the left seat, VFR pilots get the right seat, and the non-pilots sit in the rear. Problem solved...
Quote from: MooneyMeyer on October 08, 2009, 06:26:05 PM
Quote from: arajca on October 08, 2009, 06:11:27 PM
So the low mission-hour IFR pilot is more valuable than the high mission-hour VFR pilot?
Put the high mission-hour VFR pilot in the right seat as observer and the more qualified IFR pilot in the left seat as PIC.
Problem solved, the guy with experience flying CAP missions is still in the plane and the better pilot is PIC.
We need to keep emotions out of it and just stay logical. Yes the high mission hour VFR only pilot may have his feelings hurt, but we want the best, most qualified pilot in there as PIC. Plain and simple.
And you just bumped the non pilot observer so you can have two pilots where only one is needed. Does it really help our mission capability to have better ratings for our pilots? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend training money on the guy actually carrying out the mission instead of the guy that just drives the bus? The guy putting eyeballs on the ground is the whole point isn't it?
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 08, 2009, 06:15:08 PM
I think it would become a management nightmare that would result in people standing around arguing over who has the most hours, and the highest ratings. So if I have the same ratings as someone else, do I get to train more because I have more hours? What if a guy has more hours than me, but I am actually employed as a pilot and he is just a weekend warrior? Do I go to the back of the line BECAUSE I have an employer who already pays for my training?
I think its fine. In my experience, not enough people show up to training as it is. If you rely on CAP to stay current, maybe you should take a back seat to those who dont. Would that work out?
Your right, it would become difficult when there are several pilots with the same certificates with an IFR rating available. At that point, if its unclear who has flown the most hours over the previous year, just make it a judgement call by the commander.
Yes. You would get first priority in training over someone equally qualified if you have flown more hours over the past 1 year period than them. In all likelihood as an employed pilot, you would have more hours over that one year pilot than the weekend warrior.
The line of priority should be just as I've described. When not enough people show up for training there should be plenty of training dollars to go around to everyone. This only becomes an issue when you have too many pilots and not enough $$$ / planes.
It is entirely irrelevant whether you rely on CAP to stay current for the purpose of this topic. We're talking about funding priority here. The best pilots should come first. You can always use a CAP airplane to stay current on your own (substantially discounted) dime.
So put CAP money with the pilots with the most experience and training so they get more experience and training. Ignore the pilots with less experience and training so they get further behind the "elite" pilots.
Great team building plan you have there.
Oh wow guys. For safety reasons I would much rather have a pilot in the right seat than a non-pilot any day. In my opinion pilots make for much better observers anyways. By the fact they are pilots they pretty much already possess much of the skills required anyways.
Jeesh, I'm just saying put the best, most qualified (in terms of mission safety first) personnel in the airplane. Anyone can look out the window, pilots are especially good because the FAA requires us to have good eyesight.
To call pilots "bus drivers" is like calling a surgeon an auto mechanic.
Quote from: Short Field on October 08, 2009, 06:44:55 PM
So put CAP money with the pilots with the most experience and training so they get more experience and training. Ignore the pilots with less experience and training so they get further behind the "elite" pilots.
Great team building plan you have there.
They're not going to fall behind. Like many have mentioned here, we usually don't get enough pilots at a training exercise. All that I've suggested is just for the rare event that we have too many pilots and not enough planes / $$$.
This is about completing the mission in the safest manner possible. You can do plenty of team building exercises on the ground.
You want the best pilot in the left seat. I see where you're coming from and I agree with you up to that point. You're forgetting that the whole point of the mission is to put an observer over the grid. Why not put your best observers in the right seat? By best I mean the guys that only do MO and not MP first and MO only when they can't fly left seat.
From a Law Enforcement SAR standpoint, we have a pilot and observer crew. In our case, the observer usually is not a pilot, nor is preference given to observers who may be pilots. However, its a requirement that all pilots must have been experienced observers first.
Quality vs. quantity, I agree, but we still need the quantity. We are not below the standard on 1 pilot, 1 observer crews. Outside of the military, pretty much every SAR organization is 1 and 1....and 1 in back in our case. ;D
If you want safer crews, then you need to spend the money inversely on the chain that Lt. Meyer has suggested.
More experience can and will lead to greater proficiency. Giving preference to high time pilots accomplishes nothing for increasing the CAP mission capable pilot ranks.
High time and advanced ratings does not equal "safest". If a CAP pilot is not safe, he should not be flying - period.
From the Sentinel:
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat
Agreed with Short Field
Notice the most accidents/incidents were with "Check pilots, IP's and MSN Check pilots at the
helm of some of these missions.
So giving monetary priority training SHOULD be in the PROFICIENCY of the CAP Check gods.
Where I have been there has been entirely TOO much time spent on the paralysis of the accident / incident paralysis that a number of CAP line pilots just do not want to fly until the CAP "corporate culture" starts being more down to earth rather than some feared corporate flying organization.
So I do not agree with Mr Meyers assertion that CFI I and A's get the priority money until they can PROVE that they can prevent these problems before addressing the other CAP line pilots.
Some CAP CFI's just do not have enough time instructing and some or most of the "regular" CAP pilots are being penalized for those Pro pilots.
SOOO there is one "pilots" feeling on the subject....The CAP CFI is apparently not God this year!!!
Okay, well it's obvious most of you disagree with the way I've suggested we prioritize funding for MPs. But, what's a better alternative? Can anyone suggest a priority structure that's better than our current (those with the most political connections in CAP get flights first) structure? Should we go by rank or seniority? Does anybody have a productive suggestion?
In general, those with advanced ratings and high time are without a doubt safer. The quote you used from the Sentinel does not put into context that a much higher percentage of the total flight hours is amassed combined by check pilots, instructors, and MCPs. Only 16 were PIC, perhaps if more of them had been PIC that number would be smaller.
By the way, an Air Force pilot / rep at the national boards this year had dinged up (hangar rash) one of our planes a week earlier. Everyone makes mistakes.
Why not approach it from a training perspective.
Funds should be prioritised to create a pool of IFR rated commerical pilots. Lower level pilots get trainig, and CFI's/II's get profficency from conducting the trainig.
Make that your foccus and your will have a larger pool of current profficient pilots who will operate at the higher level that you desire.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 08, 2009, 07:42:15 PM
From a Law Enforcement SAR standpoint, we have a pilot and observer crew. In our case, the observer usually is not a pilot, nor is preference given to observers who may be pilots. However, its a requirement that all pilots must have been experienced observers first.
Is this based on cost? The non-pilot observer gets paid less?
So, does the pilot get paid more? If the pilot is paid the same as the non-pilot observer, would they use a second pilot, who also is qualified as an observer?
Should we pay our pilots more?
If not, if they are paid the same, should we always use the second mission pilot, who also is qualified as an observer?
Those of you who are looking at the two pilot model should check out the Coast Guard Auxiliary format.
http://www.cgaux.org/response/AirOps/ (http://www.cgaux.org/response/AirOps/)
They break pilots down into three catagories
Aircraft Commander
Have more than 1000 flight hours as PIC.
• Possess a current instrument rating.
• Have been checked out in SAR procedures by an Auxiliary IP/FE.
Aircraft commanders may fly any operational mission and conduct aircraft facility
inspections, when authorized.
First Pilot
Have more than 500 flight hours as PIC.
• Have been checked out in SAR procedures by an Auxiliary .
First pilots may fly any operational mission
Co-Pilot
Co-pilots are pilots with more than 200 flight hours as PIC. Co-pilots may only fly within gliding distance from the shore and on specific types of missions.
Quote from: DG on October 08, 2009, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 08, 2009, 07:42:15 PM
From a Law Enforcement SAR standpoint, we have a pilot and observer crew. In our case, the observer usually is not a pilot, nor is preference given to observers who may be pilots. However, its a requirement that all pilots must have been experienced observers first.
Is this based on cost? The non-pilot observer gets paid less?
So, does the pilot get paid more? If the pilot is paid the same as the non-pilot observer, would they use a second pilot, who also is qualified as an observer?
Should we pay our pilots more?
If not, if they are paid the same, should we always use the second mission pilot, who also is qualified as an observer?
The unit is only slotted for a certain number of pilots. Not everyone in the unit is a pilot. And just because you have a Commercial Pilots license does not mean that you are a unit pilot. We have two observers who have their helo ratings, but in order to move up to being a pilot, there needs to be an opening. Thats the reason. And in order to be selected as a unit pilot, you need to have been a successful Observer, and it usually goes by seniority.
My intention in bringing up that LE scenario was because the argument for prioritizing training dollars was safety. We are very safe and dont fly two pilot crews.
On a side note, thats why our pilots are not civilians. Because a civilian cant be an Observer since the observer actually handles calls and occassionaly points their gun at people. And to be a pilot, you need to have been an observer first.
Quote from: Short Field on October 08, 2009, 07:57:55 PM
From the Sentinel:
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat
And your point is what?
Let's be wary since "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
In many cases, more than one check pilot was on board.
And would it have been much worse, if the check pilot had not been there to save it?
I will grant you, I know of one or two check pilots who may not be as good as some of our VFR only pilots.
But generally speaking, our check pilots are better than our VFR only pilots.
God help us, if that is not so.
What can we reasonably conclude from these facts?
I would like to suggest that what we can conclude is that the flying we do is serious business. It is dangerous. Flying low and slow to perform our mission tasking always calls for us to be the best we can be. Flying in congested air space. Flying in special flight restrictions air space. Flying with cadets. Flying with non-pilot mission observers ans scanners who are trusting their safety to us. All of our flying is very serious business.
VFR only pilots who are not interested in being the best we can be should not be called. VFR pilots who are not interested in working on their instrument rating are not the best they can be.
VFR only pilots should not be given the same training if you have someone who is instrument rated or who is working on or planning to work on their instrument rating.
CAP formally recognizes this for the GA-8 and the G1000 program.
Let's all recognize it, and work together to be the best we can be.
Mr Meyer
I do not nor do I pretend to know the answer to this CAP predicament. There could be any number of ways to do it, including a modified or an exact version of yours.
I do realize that a number of folks make mistakes and CAP assertions that their new safety program is going to eliminate ALLLLLLLL accidents or incidents. That is NOT a real world scenario, whatsoever. Folks at the NHQ, Wing, Group, or Sqdn level can preach the elimination of all accidents and incidents through what ever means, electronic or otherwise.
But I have gotten off track with this subject. It is just time the CAP NHQ makes a traveling fun show to every Wing and PUT on a course equivalent to the Army Aviation or USAF Safety School. FIND a way...if NHQ has to put on a $1000 per Wing Safety Officer Course, then do it.....yeah yeah yeah the Wing Safety Officer will complain he has to take Vacation....I had to when I went to it in 1999. But it will drive home the facts BETTER than any CAP online video ,anywhere.
It is time for CAP to face the REAL world of training and start paying for it through grants and get a grant writer to do it. There always talking the Wing ought to do it. WELLLL here is one NHQ gets issued the tasking order and hopefully it will be a 1AF tasking order that CAP had better get a march on with!! >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 08, 2009, 08:42:51 PM
Why not approach it from a training perspective.
Funds should be prioritised to create a pool of IFR rated commerical pilots. Lower level pilots get trainig, and CFI's/II's get profficency from conducting the trainig.
Make that your foccus and your will have a larger pool of current profficient pilots who will operate at the higher level that you desire.
I think there's a general misunderstanding here. The training we're referring to at say a SAR-ex event, isn't flight training. It's mission training. I don't know about you guys but I've never at a funded training op gone out and done stalls and steep turns.
This why we should prioritize the way I suggested. We're not trying to train better pilots. We're trying to train pilots to perform better at missions. I believe our best pilots (those w/ advanced ratings and high time) will be the best at performing the mission when it's time if they get the priority in funding.
If I go down, I want the best pilots looking for me. If you have a 200 hr private pilot and a 3500 hr ATP both starting with no CAP experience and we spend the same amount of money on each for mission training to get them their MP. I think the ATP will be more likely to find me because they'd be better at multi-tasking and flying a more precise grid.
Ok, I see what you are talking about.
Here are a few quick questions. Is prioritization needed. how many dollars/pilot are available? If pilots took advantage of the trainig is there even a nead to draw lines in the sand?
Now I understand better
There ought to be BETTER MP training at every Wing SAREX
YEP I do not recall stalls and steep turns at a funded exercise unless it was a Form 5 which a NUMBER of us more junior (newer with less than 5 yrs MP experience) are always getting overrun by those 30 yrs GOB MP's who do not possess ANY mentorship skills. That is where a lot of the correction needs to be done
You a 30 yr MP?? Meet your 5 yr or less MP wannabe.......train 'em!! Don't want to do it or want to fly with your buddies?? BACK IN THE CHAIR... back at the sign desk taking training from the MSA!!
Maybe check all the records from the SAREX's...check on those MP's who are not training or sharing the knowledge...freeze them out of the FREE flying UNTIL they produce 5 MP 's a year
Just saying.... >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
QuoteOkay, well it's obvious most of you disagree with the way I've suggested we prioritize funding for MPs. But, what's a better alternative?
Most here seem to be saying that there is no need for prioritizing funding in the first place since we don't appear to have a problem with having way more pilots than needed to fly a particular training mission.
I think most agree there isnt a problem. SO find an alternative to what?
QuoteIs prioritization needed?
Of course. Unless a resource is so abundant that it doesn't matter if it is wasted, it should be allocated based on some sort of return on investment assessment. This is not CAP; this is Management 101.
And, having been away from the computer for maybe 24 hours and now reviewing this conflagration, it seems to me that there is an implicit acceptance that investments ought to be made according to the recipient's value to CAP. That, in essence, was the OP's proposal.
The argument seems to be mostly about how to determine value. From the perspective of a commercial/instrument rated MP and AOBD:
1) Pilot ratings alone don't do it. For example, availability for missions has to be considered. Is an ATP who is always out of town more valuable than a private-rated retired person who can always be counted on to turn out when the bell rings? I don't think so.
2) Potential value and the future of the organization has to be considered. A young and enthusiastic pilot working on advanced ratings is more valuable than an elderly instrument-rated pilot who has trouble keeping a medical.
3) Fairness is important, especially considering the volunteer nature of the organization. You can't attract new members if you implicitly tell them that the organization really isn't interested in developing them as assets.
So ... bottom line IMHO is that any prioritization will necessarily be subjective and will consider many things, including ones that have been mentioned here.
But admit that it's important and do it. Don't continue with the GOB Flying Club model or continue to pretend that (scarce) resources shouldn't be allocated in a thoughtful way just because the allocation is hard to do or can't be done perfectly.
How about prioritizing based on total participation: meetings attended, SAR and SAREX participation, Mission Base duties when not flying, etc. I saw something from VAWG about what pilots needed to have done in the previous year to get a funded Fm5 and was impressed. I see some people in the unit ONLY when they show up for a funded Fm5 ride.
Quote from: DG on October 08, 2009, 08:52:03 PM
CAP formally recognizes this for the GA-8 and the G1000 program.
GA-8 requires 300 hrs PIC and a insturment rating. The G1000 requirement is the same as for steam guages except you need training and a Fm5 in the G1000.
QuoteHow about prioritizing based on total participation: meetings attended, SAR and SAREX participation, Mission Base duties when not flying, etc.
Very reasonable things to consider.
More Management 101:
1) You get what you measure.
2) You get what you reward.
Quote from: Short Field on October 08, 2009, 11:30:51 PM
Quote from: DG on October 08, 2009, 08:52:03 PM
CAP formally recognizes this for the GA-8 and the G1000 program.
GA-8 requires 300 hrs PIC and a insturment rating. The G1000 requirement is the same as for steam guages except you need training and a Fm5 in the G1000.
The G1000 program is aimed at instrument pilots who are qualified and current.
VFR only pilots are not the right stuff to check out and fly our G1000 a/c.
Quote from: DG on October 08, 2009, 08:52:03 PM
Quote from: Short Field on October 08, 2009, 07:57:55 PM
From the Sentinel:
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat
And your point is what?
Let's be wary since "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
From these facts, there could be as few as 22 aircraft. If more than one check pilot was on board.
DG, are you so intellectually deficient that you can't comprehend the plain meaning of the text? 40 planes boy, 40. And all 40 with some manner of crew with advanced ratings or qualifications. Not too long ago in our area a whole plane load of fellows flew themselves into the side of a mountain on the way to a mountain flying training event. Look it up and marvel at the accumulated experience and ratings of that poor crew.
Judgment and skill are not automatically a function of ratings.
Tragedy and ratings are not inversely proportional as a matter of course.
Around here we have mountains. Operating aircraft in those mountains at low altitude in maneuvering flight, oftentimes relatively heavy at 90kts in the heat and turbulence that characterizes over half of our year requires judgment and skill. We don't do it IFR. We are often looking for someone who tried to do it IFR. Your underlying assertion that the VFR pilot is automatically less skilled and qualified for most of what we do is absurd on it's face.
Much of what you write has an air of lunacy about it. I don't think you are a pilot. You don't speak through your writing like a pilot would.
Quote from: aveighter on October 09, 2009, 12:03:32 AM
Quote from: DG on October 08, 2009, 08:52:03 PM
Quote from: Short Field on October 08, 2009, 07:57:55 PM
From the Sentinel:
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat
From these facts, there could be as few as 22 aircraft. If more than one check pilot was on board.
DG, are you so intellectually deficient that you can't comprehend the plain meaning of the text? 40 planes boy, 40. And all 40 with some manner of crew with advanced ratings or qualifications. Not too long ago in our area a whole plane load of fellows flew themselves into the side of a mountain on the way to a mountain flying training event. Look it up and marvel at the accumulated experience and ratings of that poor crew.
Judgment and skill are not automatically a function of ratings.
Tragedy and ratings are not inversely proportional as a matter of course.
Around here we have mountains. Operating aircraft in those mountains at low altitude in maneuvering flight, oftentimes relatively heavy at 90kts in the heat and turbulence that characterizes over half of our year requires judgment and skill. We don't do it IFR. We are often looking for someone who tried to do it IFR. Your underlying assertion that the VFR pilot is automatically less skilled and qualified for most of what we do is absurd on it's face.
Much of what you write has an air of lunacy about it. I don't think you are a pilot. You don't speak through your writing like a pilot would.
My point is that many times there are two or more check pilots on board.
Obviously, I did not make it simple enough as that did not communicate to you.
Sometimes, we have three check pilots on board.
If you look at our accident statistics, many have more than 1 CP on board. That is not reflected in the stats given.
When the 2 or more CP's on board the G1000 that went in at night with Ed Lewis and the NVWG CC, 2 check pilots were on board.
Ed gave me my Form 5 in the GA-8 at Mojave. If we had had damage on that flight, there were 3 CP on board. You would recognize the name of the 3rd CP.
As a chief check pilot evaluator, many of my flights have more than 1 CP on board.
My assertion is absurd on its face? An air of lunacy? You should be more personable with how you speak. I don't need to tell you that. You already know it.
Quote from: DG on October 08, 2009, 03:30:51 PMWhat would the Air Force say?
Does the Air Force have commanding officers of flying units who are not pilots?
Can you be a Wing Commander of an Air Force flying wing if you are not a pilot?
Yes and yes.
There have been a number of Flying Squadron Commanders, Operations Group Commanders and Flying Wing Commanders in the Air Force who were not pilots.
They were
Navigators.
Quote from: PHall on October 09, 2009, 12:18:12 AM
Quote from: DG on October 08, 2009, 03:30:51 PMWhat would the Air Force say?
Does the Air Force have commanding officers of flying units who are not pilots?
Can you be a Wing Commander of an Air Force flying wing if you are not a pilot?
Yes and yes.
There have been a number of Flying Squadron Commanders, Operations Group Commanders and Flying Wing Commanders in the Air Force who were not pilots.
They were Navigators.
Phil,
But they weren't "real pilots", its only us guys who sit up front who count. Those who sit in the back (and sideways) should be quiet, while us true aviators work. >:D
PS-My post is in jest
CAP is a organization of many different types of pilots, of varying skill levels. They all serve a purpose and, fill a niche in CAP. We shouldn't be pushing anyone aside but, training them up.
Be it funding for their instrument rating or, just plain, good ol' proficiency flights. We have too many pilots out there that only get 20-30hrs of stick time a year. IMHO, you need a minimum of 5-10hrs/month to maintain proficiency. They should spend time both practicing grid skills/basic airmanship, period! You don't know how many CAPF5/91's I have given where you can tell the applicant doesn't fly that much.
PS- Excuse me while I go back to studying my limitations, memory items, maneuvers, profiles and, systems; I have my 6 month ride in the torture chamber (simulator) on Monday
QuoteVFR only pilots are not the right stuff to check out and fly our G1000 a/c.
Wow. I guess we are in the presence of a superior being here. (and yes, I am Form 5/Instruments in the G1000)
1) It is quite possible to use the G1000 VFR and gain advantage from its capabilities. The NEXRAD WX and Strikefinder, for example, are huge assets. I'd guess that 95% or more G1000 CAP flying is VFR and most of the little instrument flying that is done is hood time. It does not take an IA rating to use the G1000 on CAP missions.
2) The availability of an autopilot is a significant safety enhancement for any pilot, though I will admit that the KAP-140 is not the easiest box in the world to deal with. But understanding it has little or nothing to do with whether one has an IA rating or not.
3) Sure, a lot of the G1000 capability is really oriented towards the strong suit of the airplane, which is long-haul cross country flight under IFR. But that's capability that is unused in most CAP flying anyway. (And a reason that the unnecessarily fat and complex G1000 182s are a stupid airplane for CAP to be buying, but that is another thread.)
I just went back and looked up the Sentinel article. It did mention my point of more than 1 CP on board. Short Field did not include that part.
Here is the full text as it appeared in the Sentinel.
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat (NOTE: Some of these mishaps had more
than one check/instructor pilot on board).
Check/mission check/instructor pilots were involved in 33 accident or
incidents, runway excursions, blown tires; 27 of these incidents, such
as, tail strikes, hard landings, high flares, etcetera, could have been
prevented by the check pilot or IP taking charge of the situation.
Thirteen check pilots/IPs were involved in taxi incidents, taxiing
between parked aircraft, running into parked aircraft, taxiing short cuts
across the grass at night. Eight were involved in propeller ground
damage incidents, ladders hit, chocks and rocks picked up, taxiway
lights hit, cones hit, etc. while 21 were involved in hangar related
incidents.
Quote from: airdale on October 09, 2009, 12:48:31 AM
QuoteVFR only pilots are not the right stuff to check out and fly our G1000 a/c.
Wow. I guess we are in the presence of a superior being here. (and yes, I am Form 5/Instruments in the G1000)
1) It is quite possible to use the G1000 VFR and gain advantage from its capabilities. The NEXRAD WX and Strikefinder, for example, are huge assets. I'd guess that 95% or more G1000 CAP flying is VFR and most of the little instrument flying that is done is hood time. It does not take an IA rating to use the G1000 on CAP missions.
2) The availability of an autopilot is a significant safety enhancement for any pilot, though I will admit that the KAP-140 is not the easiest box in the world to deal with. But understanding it has little or nothing to do with whether one has an IA rating or not.
3) Sure, a lot of the G1000 capability is really oriented towards the strong suit of the airplane, which is long-haul cross country flight under IFR. But that's capability that is unused in most CAP flying anyway. (And a reason that the unnecessarily fat and complex G1000 182s are a stupid airplane for CAP to be buying, but that is another thread.)
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The VFR flying you are doing in your G1000 is being done by an instrument pilot.
That much we are saying the same thing.
But I can't say that about all the rest. Here in the northeast, we fly the G1000 in IMC, a lot.
QuoteCheck pilots, instructor pilots or mission check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they were damaged.
I'm not getting the point here. Obviously, IPs and check pilots spend more time in the airplanes than most other CAP pilots. Until I see an accident
rate (per hour flown) I have no idea whether these guys are safer or more dangerous than the average CAP pilot. And for training accidents, I would want to compare the CAP accident rate to national statistics before drawing any conclusions.
QuoteThe VFR flying you are doing in your G1000 is being done by an instrument pilot.
But it doesn't have to be! I included the credential only to make the point that I understand the box and can comment with at least a little credibility on whether the lowly and ignorant VFR pilots that you look down upon should be permitted to fly it or not.
BTW, what is the opposite of having the right stuff? Unstuffed? Stuffless?
Quote from: airdale on October 09, 2009, 01:14:11 AM
QuoteCheck pilots, instructor pilots or mission check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they were damaged.
I'm not getting the point here. Obviously, IPs and check pilots spend more time in the airplanes than most other CAP pilots. Until I see an accident rate (per hour flown) I have no idea whether these guys are safer or more dangerous than the average CAP pilot. And for training accidents, I would want to compare the CAP accident rate to national statistics before drawing any conclusions.
QuoteThe VFR flying you are doing in your G1000 is being done by an instrument pilot.
But it doesn't have to be! I included the credential only to make the point that I understand the box and can comment with at least a little credibility on whether the lowly and ignorant VFR pilots that you look down upon should be permitted to fly it or not.
BTW, what is the opposite of having the right stuff? Unstuffed? Stuffless?
It is remarkable what you can learn about someone here on CAPTalk.
Stuff that "right stuff"
There are plenty of VFR only pilots flying the G1000 and not all are current instrument rated...some are on their way to updates and getting IFR Form 5'd.
But what about that "current" ICL about the G1000 CAP "Training plan"
Seems like ALOT of the Right Stuffers aren't even complying with the PROPER Cessna or even FITS training plan
Sounds like alot of the Right Stuffers are following even the basics of the FITS program, eh?
Why would an ICL come out against that??
Sounds like ALOT of made up stuff by CAP in their interpretations of the FITS program.
Long haul capability of the G11000? Sometimes can not get out of the 25 NM area 'cuz the Right Stuff CFI's don't have "enuf" time to X countries
So there is alot of confusion who those"Right Stuff" Check Pilots are or even Right STuff CFI's
AND
if there are THAT many CP's flying around together....its no wonder some Wing can not get a CP
They are too tired to fly with anyone else oTHER than check pilots
Is that what we are to gather here?
OR Is it that only the CP's get to fly around and then we CAP line pilots get to read this HOGWASH about the "Right Stuff"
See where I am going with this??? CP flying with CP's ......how many CP's does it take to fly a G1000 around
You getting my general drift about the RIGHT STUFF commentary.
CP's HAD BETTER get a formal training plan together ...The whole CAP now has had 5 years to work thee bugs out of the G1000 program....How come the FBO's seem not to have the problems CAP has
AND why the ICL about the G1000 Mr CP?? What does THAT indicate to "Pro CAP pilots" who can not even get the basics taught the field.
You can guess I strong feelings toward this... I had to do 20 additional hours in the G1000 in the current Wing when I came from another Wing who had its _ _ _ _ together where I had my initial... Want to know my feelings about CP's who can not ID or plan a checkride.... Your logic about Right Stuff is completely flawed..So get over that Right Stuff stuff. Most CAPers do not even qualify for the Astronaut Corps ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Doesn't sound like CAP has a STANDARDIZED G1000 training program as of yet..
DO NOT EVER tell me about CAP RIGHT STUFF anymore MR DG ..... IT IS BS
Quote from: DG on October 09, 2009, 12:54:05 AM
I just went back and looked up the Sentinel article. It did mention my point of more than 1 CP on board. Short Field did not include that part.
If having a more advanced rating made you safer, then we should be seeing next to zero incidents compared to PPLs with no advanced ratings. If that data was out there, it would surely be posted and it is not.
Quote from: DG on October 08, 2009, 11:58:24 PM
The G1000 program is aimed at instrument pilots who are qualified and current.
VFR only pilots are not the right stuff to check out and fly our G1000 a/c.
That is the attitude of some of the GOBs around here too. I am glad National disagrees with you.
CAPR 60-1:
(4) Cessna Nav III G1000 Airplanes – In addition to other requirements:
(a) Complete the CAP Cessna G1000 transition syllabus for VFR operation.
(b) For instrument operating privileges in G1000, complete the CAP Cessna G1000 transition syllabus for Instrument operation. To remain current for instrument privileges in G1000 airplanes, a pilot must take an Instrument Proficiency Check using a G1000 airplane or the pilot must complete three of the approaches required for ongoing FAA Instrument currency in a G1000 airplane.
(c) For flight instructor privileges in G1000, complete the CAP Cessna G1000 transition syllabus for Flight Instructors that is given by a Cessna factory trained instructor.
(d) G1000 check pilots must be Cessna factory trained or have provided a minimum of 15 hours dual instruction in G1000 equipped airplanes.
I am in agreement with Short Field, DG
Got any more fun facts CAP can not bring to the table about its "safer" flight program? Look at the advanced ratings some CAPers have had with accidents even a former X-15 driver. READ the facts presented in all the military safety periodicals....CAP pilots, at any time, could be one of those stats, God forbid. Your assertion the higher rated pilots are safer JUST DOES NOT hold water.
CAP needs a outside source to gather data before it is EVEN relevant to be called FACTS
Ive seen and heard about our program here in my current Wing...most all the problems zeroed in and around CP and CFI's....give 'em a call ..you can find my PM and the State I am located in
There are days I wonder why I stopped back into CAP at all....nothing has much changed since 30 years ago...just guys thinking they got the Right Stuff with fancier toys that haven't go a TRUE STANDARDIZED training program after 5 yrs ...got it?
Your comments are recorded. And overall will be helpful when it comes to who is called to do what and where.
For the record, we should all work to be the best we can be, and anyone who refuses to move beyond VFR only status does not have the energy or ability we are looking for.
I don't know why, but I was unable to communicate, in spite of several different attempts.
My point either did not get through, or was rejected because of deep seated bias.
Maybe it is a matter of energy and ability.
Maybe it is a difference in meteorological conditions in the northeast. Where many missions don't go when VFR only pilots are assigned the task and can't fly or choose not to fly in marginal VFR.
The comment by the Colganair pilot comes to mind. Just before they crashed and burned in BUF, she said that she had more IMC her first day on the job than 1600 hours flying in the southwest.
Great DG
The simple fact of the ColganAir FO's comments are just that ....meteorological....THAT Is recorded
With that in mind, CAP OUGHT to be required to PAY for that IMC training to get all up to speed and not just a selected few. How many CAP CFI's and CP's have the TRUE IMC experience....bet most of em are like the Colgan FO, huh? This is why I argue the point. CAP has no real standardized training program or if there is one for the G1000, it is haphazard, at best. THAT CAP G1000 page, on the NHQ website HAS NOT changed much since 2005, not even the forum board. So how much creedence should I put in that if NHQ can not even keep a "training website." up to date. AGAIN, it is time 1AF takes CAP to task for a program with aircraft that at around 475K and starts making CAP ACCOUNTABLE for more serious training in the G1000. Then MAYBE somebody could take your proposals more seriously. If you can not take a program seriously and KEP IT UPDATED then what good is it?
If your area is heavy IMC, then train for it.
If folks do not feel up to it (IMC flying in searches) then they be doing IM SAFE as FAA would like pilots to consider
Is there a problem with that or do you think that pilot who choose NOT to fly IMC searches are less of a pilot than you??
DG, your writing on this topic is more reflective of a wild "flight of ideas" than any cogent line of reasoning. You don't have the "sound" of someone who actually has flying experience.
You're a "Chief Check Pilot Evaluator"? What does that even mean? You evaluate Chief Check Pilots? You're the Chief of Check Pilot Evaluators?
You have no credibility. I think you are merely another internet poseur.
(http://www.smileyshut.com/smileys/new/Food/eating-popcorn-03.gif)
I was not going to post in this thread, but I just can't shut up anymore.
IFR vs VFR, check pilots, Instructors and "right stuff".
Seems like all pilot categories have been covered here in this thread.
Furthermore, it seems as if you want to fly safe in CAP, DON'T fly with and instructor or check pilot... ;D.
But in all seriousness, the point is not if the pilot is IFR, VFR, ATP or Commercial (however, right stuff might be accurate). Just because a guy flies a 737 between New York and Seattle several times a week doesn't necessarily make him a good SAR pilot. It's a whole different way of flying. Which pilot do you think is better, the one with a 1000 hours, or the one with a 1000 hours including a 1000 or more landings?
Personally, I'm a former Air Force pilot (fighters) and when I joined CAP I thought it was going to be a breeze and (as a cocky fighter jock) I even thought I could show "those private pilots" how to really fly. However, I decided (luckily) to give the whole thing a more humble approach and listen, learn and observe first.
Good thing I did! The very first thing I realized was that I had to "brush off" my VFR skills to even be able to fly as a SAR pilot. It's true that an instrument rating improves a pilots skills, but that's mostly for low-time pilots. SAR flying demands exceptionally good VFR skills that you easily forget if you fly IFR all the time.
The only times we need IFR in CAP is for ELT searches in bad weather, some occasional transports and sometimes to fly to/from the search area. The rest of our flying is in VFR conditions.
Many of the CAP pilots I admire and who would be my first choice to come and look for me (if I go down) are VFR only pilots. But, they are very experienced SAR pilots and that's what matters for us. Would it help if they got an IFR rating? Of course, but that would be just to get them to the search area in bad weather (providing the search area is in VMC or they couldn't search anyway).
Our job is to save lives. Our priority is our mission more than "fancy flying".
To do this, we need to make sure ALL our aircrew members receive the best possible training for this mission and this type of flying. Notice I said "all aircrew members".
Some of the best observers I have flown with are non-pilots but darn good observers. The key is crew resource management. Without that, it doesn't matter what rating we have as individuals.
The biggest problem I see in CAP (both air and ground) is the mindset. Many members are focused in flight hours, the latest radios and how many antennas there are on the ground team vehicle. Instead we need to think MISSION. Do we have what we need to accomplish our task? Do we have the training we need?
Ask yourself, if one of your family members were missing, would you send yourself out to search?
By focusing our training on our mission we can get ALL our ES members proficient and feel confident that we can do what we claim we can do,
Don't take me wrong, I don't discourage anyone from getting an instrument rating. It's a good and very useful rating and improves piloting skills, but to prioritize our training money for that is wrong. If I was to recommend any changes in the training, it would be to extend the training for mission pilots to make sure they have even more experience from mission before they go out on a real search as PIC.
Just my 2 cents....
Thanks Capflyer
A "bit" more eloquently put than I
I have been to close at this particular Wing with TOO many transition of Stan Eval folks here in this State who claim to be professional CAP CFI's ..... some are...most are not
I have my INST rating but have not used in CAP enough to warrant the IFR search argument, just more the argument of the G1000 program that the CFI's up here really do not have a handle on...but CLAIM they do...
Thanks for the post!
Quote from: Capflyer on October 09, 2009, 03:44:43 PM
I was not going to post in this thread, but I just can't shut up anymore.
IFR vs VFR, check pilots, Instructors and "right stuff".
Seems like all pilot categories have been covered here in this thread.
Furthermore, it seems as if you want to fly safe in CAP, DON'T fly with and instructor or check pilot... ;D.
But in all seriousness, the point is not if the pilot is IFR, VFR, ATP or Commercial (however, right stuff might be accurate). Just because a guy flies a 737 between New York and Seattle several times a week doesn't necessarily make him a good SAR pilot. It's a whole different way of flying. Which pilot do you think is better, the one with a 1000 hours, or the one with a 1000 hours including a 1000 or more landings?
Personally, I'm a former Air Force pilot (fighters) and when I joined CAP I thought it was going to be a breeze and (as a cocky fighter jock) I even thought I could show "those private pilots" how to really fly. However, I decided (luckily) to give the whole thing a more humble approach and listen, learn and observe first.
Good thing I did! The very first thing I realized was that I had to "brush off" my VFR skills to even be able to fly as a SAR pilot. It's true that an instrument rating improves a pilots skills, but that's mostly for low-time pilots. SAR flying demands exceptionally good VFR skills that you easily forget if you fly IFR all the time.
The only times we need IFR in CAP is for ELT searches in bad weather, some occasional transports and sometimes to fly to/from the search area. The rest of our flying is in VFR conditions.
Many of the CAP pilots I admire and who would be my first choice to come and look for me (if I go down) are VFR only pilots. But, they are very experienced SAR pilots and that's what matters for us. Would it help if they got an IFR rating? Of course, but that would be just to get them to the search area in bad weather (providing the search area is in VMC or they couldn't search anyway).
Our job is to save lives. Our priority is our mission more than "fancy flying".
To do this, we need to make sure ALL our aircrew members receive the best possible training for this mission and this type of flying. Notice I said "all aircrew members".
Some of the best observers I have flown with are non-pilots but darn good observers. The key is crew resource management. Without that, it doesn't matter what rating we have as individuals.
The biggest problem I see in CAP (both air and ground) is the mindset. Many members are focused in flight hours, the latest radios and how many antennas there are on the ground team vehicle. Instead we need to think MISSION. Do we have what we need to accomplish our task? Do we have the training we need?
Ask yourself, if one of your family members were missing, would you send yourself out to search?
By focusing our training on our mission we can get ALL our ES members proficient and feel confident that we can do what we claim we can do,
Don't take me wrong, I don't discourage anyone from getting an instrument rating. It's a good and very useful rating and improves piloting skills, but to prioritize our training money for that is wrong. If I was to recommend any changes in the training, it would be to extend the training for mission pilots to make sure they have even more experience from mission before they go out on a real search as PIC.
Just my 2 cents....
A HUMBLE Fighter Pilot!!!!!!!!!! I think their is something mentioned in Revelations about a humble fighter pilot and a sign of the end of days. >:D
Seriously it was a good post. Any aircraft can kill any pilot if you're not on top of things. Remember Scott Crossfield...........
No doubt the vast majority of CAP missions are VFR but I view an IFR rating (yes kept current and the commitment that entails)kind of like an insurance policy and not unlike an ejection seat in a fighter. May not be needed all that much but when it is it can make all the difference. I'm not even refering to multiple approaches to minimums either.
Each squadron is different with different pilot skill sets (with the pilot roster changing too as time goes on). Maybe more VFR mission training in one squadron makes sense or pursuing instrument training would in another. Also different VFR pilots may be closer to getting the rating than others and that could make the case to get them finished up. Let each Wing King in consultation with each squadron commander make the call how to allocate the funds.
As for the G1000 maybe it will take me 1000 hours with to really understand it. ;D Even our guys who went to the class keep learning new things all the time.
Quote from: DG on October 09, 2009, 12:31:05 PM
anyone who refuses to move beyond VFR only status does not have the energy or ability we are looking for.
Mouse in your pocket? My energy level is down but it is because I just finished a 10 hr duty day. One 3.5 hr photo mission followed by too many hours trying to unhose a mission base screw-up on the IMU and WMIRS. Ability? Don't think so. Take your insturment rating and then follow me as I do a full stop landing and then take-off in my 182 from a less than 500' strip.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 04, 2009, 04:18:22 PM
ORM limits the amount of IFR we can fly at all.
Common sense and ORM limit the training we fly in IFR.
Only a small percentage of real-world missions can be flown in IFR, since we're still mostly a visual search organization, and a secondary / tertiary responder so anything beyond an ELT in a storm with a high POD and a lot of people on board waits for morning.
Far less of our pilots are IFR rated than VFR (which is fine, based on the first three above).
Otherwise, good plan.
I am NOT disagreeing that VFR pilots are valuable (I am one), but there is some incorrect information here that needs to be corrected. In KY, the majority of real mission hours (hundreds of hours) are for rooftop communications. Flying in IMC during and/or en route on these missions is a very common occurrence. Without actually counting, I would bet more of these are flown under IFR flight plans than VFR.
Also, I just checked the FRO report and 61% of active pilots in the Wing are IFR rated.
Having said that, if there are any VFR pilots who are not seeking their IFR rating (for whatever reason), and you are safe, and willing to donate your valuable time to CAP, you are welcome to come fly in our Squadron.
Also, I am a VFR pilot with over 200 hours in the G1000.
Quote from: DG on October 09, 2009, 12:31:05 PMFor the record, we should all work to be the best we can be, and anyone who refuses to move beyond VFR only status does not have the energy or ability we are looking for.
You've made this assertion several times, and offered nothing but your opinion to back it up. Please come up with some evidence to support your statement, or accept that it's simply your opinion -- which everyone is free to disagree with.
I don't know where you live, but in the mountainous states, an instrument ticket is next to useless. Save for a very narrow window in Spring and Autumn, IMC in these parts will almost always be accompanied by either icing conditions or convective activity -- which wise pilots avoid. And anyone who flies in IMC over mountains in a piston single is a fool.
I agree with the sentiment that all pilots should be working to improve their skills, but for most CAP pilots, the skills sharpened in training for a commercial ticket are more applicable to CAP flying -- which is almost universally VFR, not IFR. In the mountains, I don't care how well you can track a localizer or nail the inbound timing of a hold; I want to know that you can max-perform that aircraft if the need arises, and have the good judgment to avoid situations where such a need will exist.
As to funding priorities, Lt Hess has it right: low-time, inexperienced mission pilots should be the priority for training funds, not the old hands with gobs of experience. The high-timers need very little practice to keep sharp, while the newbies need to be seasoned through extra practice and training to GET sharp. We owe that much to those who will fly with them.
<-- Commercial Pilot, ASEL/AMEL/Instrument Airplane; SAR/DR Mission Pilot; CAP Senior Pilot
Thanks for the support of us low timer mission pilots, Mustang.
I FULLY AGREE there ought to be mandatory mentoring of all low timers with high time MP's
They don't want to do it?? They get to serve coffee and doughnuts at mission base and check 101 cards and vehicles in
How does that grab the "Pro Mission Pilot" who doesn't mentor??
Quote from: heliodoc on October 18, 2009, 10:45:59 PM
I FULLY AGREE there ought to be mandatory mentoring of all low timers with high time MP's
They don't want to do it?? They get to serve coffee and doughnuts at mission base and check 101 cards and vehicles in
How does that grab the "Pro Mission Pilot" who doesn't mentor??
The Senior Mission Pilots I know go out of their way to mentor low time MP's.
And to teach them in the first place so they can qualify as MP.
What's this about mandatory? Telling people what they have to do. Is it needed in your Wing? Maybe because of a mentality of forcing people or telling the what they have to do.
Is that how you deal with people?
"They don't want to do it?? They get to serve coffee and doughnuts at mission base and check 101 cards and vehicles in. How does that grab the "Pro Mission Pilot" who doesn't mentor??"Did you ever think that is why you are having trouble?
Me having trouble?
Without going into detail...Our Wing has had many malfunctions over the last 2 years after I had shown up from a Wing with approx 10 acft and the current one with approx 20 acft.
Due to the fact that a number of MP's and MP Check Pilots are facing unemployment and the former Stan Eval folks took it upon themselves to "teach through negative motivation" there are a few of us that are in limbo until the new method of Stan Eval gets stood up.
Our Wing may not be like yours DG, there probably are approx 1/2 dozen MP CP around right now and I have not personally gotten current as of yet due to the other issues that are necessary to keep a functioning flying sqdn up. I just signed up to be the SO of the Sqdn and I am following the US Army Safety School methodology of getting things BOTH on the air and ground side. So I have forgone my MP quals for bit.
Some of this type of additional duty you will not see in many squadrons and some you will.
This Wings problem has been you had to be somebody's buddy in order to fly OR when you do call and leave messages to plan a flight, some "Professional CAP MP and CFI's" do nt return phone calls...UNPROFESSIONAL
I call em as I see em.....If the Senior MP do not want to mentor.... Go serve coffee and BS
Might be too much for you DG...... there's an old motto that CAP and SOME CAP folks do not adhere to too often ...... DO NOT WASTE PEOPLES TIME. If MP do not want to fly with someone... then they ought to have the professionalism and reasons that that are not flying with an individual
Enough said on my part...too blunt for some CAPers ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: heliodoc on October 19, 2009, 05:03:47 PM
Without going into detail...Our Wing has had many malfunctions over the last 2 years after I had shown up from a Wing with approx 10 acft and the current one with approx 20 acft.
Due to the fact that a number of MP's and MP Check Pilots are facing unemployment and the former Stan Eval folks took it upon themselves to "teach through negative motivation" there are a few of us that are in limbo until the new method of Stan Eval gets stood up.
This Wings problem has been you had to be somebody's buddy in order to fly OR when you do call and leave messages to plan a flight, some "Professional CAP MP and CFI's" do nt return phone calls...UNPROFESSIONAL
Wow. Sorry to hear that. We don't have that in our Wing.
Priority should be in the following order: mission check pilots, SAR/DR mission pilots, check pilots, instructor pilots, transport mission pilots, and then cadet orientation pilots.
Quote from: DG on October 21, 2009, 03:54:49 AMPriority should be in the following order: mission check pilots, SAR/DR mission pilots, check pilots, instructor pilots, transport mission pilots, and then cadet orientation pilots.
Ok, I'll bite: why?
That way the ones who don't need the training get it.
Quote from: Mustang on October 21, 2009, 05:44:10 AM
Quote from: DG on October 21, 2009, 03:54:49 AMPriority should be in the following order: mission check pilots, SAR/DR mission pilots, check pilots, instructor pilots, transport mission pilots, and then cadet orientation pilots.
Ok, I'll bite: why?
Guidance from CAPR 60-3
Quote from: DG on October 21, 2009, 01:19:18 PM
Quote from: Mustang on October 21, 2009, 05:44:10 AM
Quote from: DG on October 21, 2009, 03:54:49 AMPriority should be in the following order: mission check pilots, SAR/DR mission pilots, check pilots, instructor pilots, transport mission pilots, and then cadet orientation pilots.
Ok, I'll bite: why?
Guidance from CAPR 60-3
Nice try, but that paragraph (CAPR 60-3, para. 3-5a(2)(h), for those keeping score at home) pertains specifically to funded Form 5/Form 91 checkrides only, and it's obvious that the intent here is to keep the most experienced folks legal to perform missions. It says nothing about funded training or proficiency priorities though, only checkrides.
The closest thing to guidance is para. 3-5a(2), which states:
Quote"...wing/region commanders will prioritize available training funds to meet the wing/region's most critical training requirements..."
What that means is that wing/region commanders determine their own funded training priorities. One could argue, however, that the most experienced pilots don't require training and thus aren't the most critical training requirement(s).
Are you quoting CAPR 60-3, para 3-5a(2)h? That paragraph is only about priority on reimbursed Fm 5 and Fm 91 checkrides. Checkrides are not training flights but evaluations of training.
However, it is nice to see that 60-3 places a higher priority on a MP getting a checkride than a check pilot or instructor pilot.