Disappointing. I learned today, as I was applying for the CAWG Mission Check Pilot Course, that CAWG up'd the requirements to being a CFI. No longer in CAWG can experienced Mission Pilots be Form 91 mission check pilots. You now need to be a CFI as well to do F91's. Do other wings have this requirement as well? National says, "If your not a CFI but are an experienced Mission Pilot with at least 25 sorties and who has your unit commander's recommendation, the course allows you to apply for Mission Check Pilot (MCP) status." but CAWG says if you want to do it here, you also need to be a CFI.
Rob
Sorry to hear...errrrr read about that.
Hey, I looked at the CAWG and my Wing 60-1 supplements. Both are very different. Your Wing spells it out in the supplement and my Wing does not address the need for a CFI for MCP.
I always realized that the Wing CC's can tighten the regs where they feel. But this one is clearly different. The mission 2 years ago set a new standard?
I am enrolled in a CFI wannabe class.....to get my FIA and FOI done. After those tests, it's going to approach 5K to finish the total deal not to mention the additional 400 to 500 dinero for the DPE or free if I can file in with a FAA DPE
Wonder if your Wing CC understands this limiting factor? You would think common sense would prevail, given the fact of your everyday operational experience (helo, SAR, LE) that there would be a little leeway. I have met some 25 to 200 hour CFI's I do not even think would come near the "CAP MCP status." the mere holding of a CFI certificate DOES NOT guarantee a "experienced", let alone a CAP MCP with a newly minted CFI, the worldly knowledge of either. How many hours is your Wing defining of a CFI that can issue/ eval the F91?
But if I expected or suggested that....there would be a hubaloo on CAPTalk....somebody would be dressing me down for suggesting somebody would be getting over on everyone else in CAP ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 23, 2010, 08:15:49 PM
Disappointing. I learned today, as I was applying for the CAWG Mission Check Pilot Course, that CAWG up'd the requirements to being a CFI. No longer in CAWG can experienced Mission Pilots be Form 91 mission check pilots. You now need to be a CFI as well to do F91's. Do other wings have this requirement as well? National says, "If your not a CFI but are an experienced Mission Pilot with at least 25 sorties and who has your unit commander's recommendation, the course allows you to apply for Mission Check Pilot (MCP) status." but CAWG says if you want to do it here, you also need to be a CFI.
Should we be improving our Stan Eval Program?
Particularly for Older Pilots?
One way would be to require our Mission Check Pilots to be CFI's.
It appears that California Wing has voted yes.
If California Wing is making this requirement for safety reasons, will other Wings be criticized if they do not make such a requirement? If it will improve safety, will a Wing be liable if there is an accident and the Mission Check Pilot was not a CFI?
I personally know of at least two instances where new Mission Pilots applied for Mission Check Pilot, and were approved, where their 25 sorties included A9 maintenance transport sorties and A15 cadet orientation sorties because they argued these are A symbol AFAM "mission sorties."
Our mission pilot flying is challenging and can be dangerous. Flying low and slow, with the demands on us from the challenge of performing mission tasks and mission communications, requires the best of our training and ability by pilots who are qualified and current and capable.
Shouldn't we have Mission Check Pilots who are at least as qualified as our Check Pilots?
Should we be improving our Stan Eval Program?
One way would be to require our Mission Check Pilots to be CFI's.
Or there is the flip side.
Has there been any evidence of issues arising solely because the Form 91 check pilot was not a CFI? In other words, issues/accidents/whatevers of applicants that had a non-CFI Form 91 check pilot vs. the ones that did?
Or is this more GOB action, to thin the ranks and keep it to themselves?
Certainly, moving that into the realm of CFI's does up the anti, I'll admit that I do think 25 missions is fairly easy to reach if one applies themselves and does not sound like a whole lot of experience in terms of rating others, but then again, a newly minted CFI and 25 missions could be just as worthless experience wise, where as a many year mission pilot with lots more than 25 missions under their belt ..
But of course, there is the commanders recommendation there, too, and the current commander has decided to screen based on CFI's as well.
Now, does this also mean any of the existing ones now get dropped?
CAP has made keeping up with things, particularly flying, so [darn]ed loaded with hoops and hurdles, it's not even funny anymore. Between all the recurring safety briefings, videos, web pages to click a box on, which ones expire, which don't, when which ones do, and then they compound it with "oh, that one expires now".
OMG.
Just STOP IT.
Quote from: a2capt on February 25, 2010, 05:08:09 PM
Or is this more GOB action, to thin the ranks and keep it to themselves?
At the Mission Aircrew School at NESA, after a MP trainee demonstrates he can fly the airplane (first flight), the Mission Check Pilot sits in the back seat so he can instruct both the MP trainee and the MO trainee. The evaluations are done from the back seat as well. Remember - we are talking about Fm 91s and Mission Check Pilots, not Fm 5s and Check Pilots.
I brought that up in my wing and the check pilots were in shock. The biggest comment was "what if I need to take the controls from the pilot". My comment was that if the Fm 5 Check Pilots were doing their job, it shouldn't be an issue. Besides, if the Mission Check Pilot is afraid to fly in the back seat with a pilot why are we allowing MOs and MSs to fly with the same pilot?
I am with Flying Pig and a2capt on this deal
When there is DEFINITIVE proof that a CFI rating is needed for the Form 91, I will then believe it
When there is DEFINITIVE proof that a CFI is an inherently "better pilot" by virtue of certificate only, I will then believe it
When there is DEFINITIVE proof that a CFI is a "safer pilot" than than the others in CAP, I will then believe it.
There have been a few incidents /accidents where I am from, that there were CAP CFI's on board when issues arose, not going to name incidents or names ...CAP folks who want to hunt that info down can.
There are numerous incidents in the REAL world where the FAA is coming back on CFI's due to the lack of training issues during different phases of flight training.
CAP can do whatever it wants..usually not always in the interest
CAP's sudden interest in a "safety program" in the last 1.5 yrs is a testament to other organizations (paid other wise) with an already established safety program(s) is more proof that more folks in CAP are practicing reactive rather than proactive approaches to the the program.
When a safety program arises out of financial losses, loosely, it is some proof than an organization is being reactive rather than proactive
If you have career CFI's, then there may be some merit to this deal. But by virtue of CFI alone to do Form 91's, welll..
Folks using maintenance test flight and cadet o-rides ought to know better....where does EVEN fit into a Form 91, huh?
The addition of a CFI certificate is not going to guarantee "safety." Might want to get the FAA on that safety call there, buddy. 'Cuz after all CAP is operating in the National Airspace System last time I checked, not the "CAP Airspace System."
But this is CAPTalk........where excess in an already regulated industry and more CAP regulation on top of already written regulation, WILL guarantee safety in all realms. GUAROOOONTEED, right?
I think the reasoning all along has been that since Form 5s are done by CFI rated check pilots, CAP is already assured of the MP trainee's fundamental ability to fly the aircraft.
A mission CP is really the 'evaluator' (SET) for SAR/DR Mission Pilot rating...if Form 5s are being done rigorously, Form 91s are a very different situation..in fact, many CFI CPs who do Form 5s but are not very experienced MPs would probably not be suitable MCPs.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 25, 2010, 05:58:41 PM
I think the reasoning all along has been that since Form 5s are done by CFI rated check pilots, CAP is already assured of the MP trainee's fundamental ability to fly the aircraft.
A mission CP is really the 'evaluator' (SET) for SAR/DR Mission Pilot rating...if Form 5s are being done rigorously, Form 91s are a very different situation..in fact, many CFI CPs who do Form 5s but are not very experienced MPs would probably not be suitable MCPs.
Now look here, between your statement above, and Short Field's post about the MCP sitting in back after initial eval at NESA, I think we are in serious danger of having an outbreak of COMMON SENSE here in CAP.
That cannot happen.
I mean, the next thing you know we might be less dysfunctional and more mission capable.
The very thought...
Thom
I heard from one of CAWG check pilots that the rule is being suspended. I would check on that to make sure.
Well, I am a CAWG Mission Check Pilot and I haven't heard anything about the rule being suspended. In fact, I sent a very long email to the Wing Stan/Eval Officer yesterday, giving him about a thousand well-chosen words about why it was a bad idea looking for a problem.
Would you rather envision a 3,000 hr commercial pilot with over 300 hours of mission search time in the Sierras doing the 91 or the 700 hr CFI, with no Sierra search time and 500 hours of instruction given at a flat land flight school do the 91 for a Mt -qualified MP? The 3,000 hour pilot simply doesn't want to be a CFI, but has mentored six or eight very successful CAP MPs, one of whom was the CAWG Stan/Eval Officer at one time. The new CFI with no search time will be of little value on a 91 in a grid that I use for my 91s: it has 9-10K ft terrain in it.
But what do I know? I am not a CFI.
There really has to be standardization ACROSS all of CAP .......ALL
There apparently is no common sense when there is 52 different ideas running around CAP
If this rule is or gets suspended...then good! Common sense finally did prevail
Again PROOF needs to be PRODUCED by CAP that Form 91 MCP are inherently better with a CFI certificate than those without
PROOF in writing! CAP really needs ALOT of help NATIONWIDE and that needs to addressed by NHQ Stan Eval. Then need to reign in these guys who establish more rules and really start establishing a TRUE training network to establishing a UPDATED Specialty Track(s) and Regional training Centers not just NESA.
There is already enough folks in CAP ready to bail...just on account of some "new Programs" CAP and upper echelon CAP types seem to "envision." The envisioning is already blurry enough when plenty o people running programs amok!
Quote from: bosshawk on February 25, 2010, 06:42:14 PM
Well, I am a CAWG Mission Check Pilot and I haven't heard anything about the rule being suspended. In fact, I sent a very long email to the Wing Stan/Eval Officer yesterday, giving him about a thousand well-chosen words about why it was a bad idea looking for a problem.
Would you rather envision a 3,000 hr commercial pilot with over 300 hours of mission search time in the Sierras doing the 91 or the 700 hr CFI, with no Sierra search time and 500 hours of instruction given at a flat land flight school do the 91 for a Mt -qualified MP? The 3,000 hour pilot simply doesn't want to be a CFI, but has mentored six or eight very successful CAP MPs, one of whom was the CAWG Stan/Eval Officer at one time. The new CFI with no search time will be of little value on a 91 in a grid that I use for my 91s: it has 9-10K ft terrain in it.
But what do I know? I am not a CFI.
Put it another way, would you rather have the 700 hour CFI, who has a commercial license (required to be a CFI) and an instrument rating (required to be a CFI) and has passed a difficult, difficult check ride with the FAA, or the 250 hour newly minted mission pilot who has only a private license and who flew 25 mission sorties which mostly were A9 maintenance transports and/or A15 cadet O-flights.
The Mission Check Pilot is evaluating pilot skills in a challenging flight environment. For example, if the ELT search with a wing null is evaluated properly, it includes putting the airplane in a steep turn for multiple revolutions, and doing so while focusing on a very faint signal, and all at 1500 feet AGL. In a real search, that could also include doing it at night.
What we do as Mission Pilots is More challenging than the routine Form 5.
If Im not mistaken, O-Flights and Maintenance Flights aren't qualifying. They are 25 MISSION sorties. If a Sq Commander is signing someone off and counting cadet o-flights and maintenance flights, shame on them. And Mission Check Pilots are required to PASS the check pilot course. You don't just get assigned as a mission check pilot. So if you attend the course, and you don't cut it, see you next year and you can try again. There are CFIIs who don't pass the check pilot course. The course should be where they determine if you can cut it or not.
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 25, 2010, 09:23:43 PM
If Im not mistaken, O-Flights and Maintenance Flights aren't qualifying. They are 25 MISSION sorties. If a Sq Commander is signing someone off and counting cadet o-flights and maintenance flights, shame on them.
Most Squadron Commanders are non-pilots. And she doesn't know the difference.
So what about when the students apply to the course? Is there no screening done at the course?
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 25, 2010, 09:56:17 PM
So what about when the students apply to the course? Is there no screening done at the course?
I assume you mean the CAP NCSC.
In our Wing, they only consist of a series of lectures. No flying. No evaluation.
The only chance they could get evaluated is on their Form 91. They go to a buddy or a Santa Claus, who signs them off, and who is not a CFI.
In a number of these, they did the initial Form 91 ELT search, and never put out a practice beacon. And when questioned about that, they said there is nothing in the regs that requires it.
Can you believe it?
Might as well do the whole Form 91 as an oral. No flying.
And most squadron commanders are non-pilots, so they just click it through.
Ahhh, I see. So the CFI standard was put in because the training sucks and has no oversight. I get it.
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 26, 2010, 12:35:05 AM
Ahhh, I see. So the CFI standard was put in because the training sucks and has no oversight. I get it.
That sounds like a fair assessment.
A wing should only have enough Mission Check Pilots to accomplish the mission. By that I mean if your wing has 25 mission pilots you shouldn't need 10 mission check pilots. I Mission Check Pilot should be the best of the best and only designated to those that have demonstrated their abilities to the wing or group Stan/Eval officer. That would be the Mission Check Pilot Examiner. There should only be a very limited few of them in the wing.
It would also be nice if at least one of them has been to NESA. Might help get away from the "oh, we done with the Fm 5, do I need to sign you off for the Fm 91 as well?) mentality.
Just a couple of comments:
CAWG is not the only wing in PCR that has this rule. It has been in effect for several years in other PCR wings and was put into effect mid year last year in CAWG.
Existing Mission Check Pilots were grand-fathered and were not effected by this rule.
This was put into place by a genuine concern for safety of operations during training and checking. Not to 'keep the misssions' to a select few.
A CFI should be able to recognize a deteriorating situation sooner than a non-CFI. Of course, there will always be exceptions but I believe that generally that will be true. They should also be more adept at handling the aircraft from the right seat should that be necessary. Again, there will always be exceptions but generally that should be true.
The supplement also requires that the Mission Check Pilot attend an NCPSC every four years. This was done to try and ensure that MCP's have the latest information and statndards regarding pilot evaluation. Never having to attend a seminar or a continuing educational event and being a check pilot don't seem to be very compatible.
Quote from: Short Field on February 26, 2010, 03:35:51 AM
It would also be nice if at least one of them has been to NESA.
Pffft. NESA does not have the market cornered on mission flying expertise. Not by a longshot.
Could be, but they keep it very well hidden in my part of the country. Let's see - senior mission pilot identifies the location of the crash site to the ground team by using a radial and distance to a VORTAC. Not one of the three crewmembers on the search aircraft could operate the GX-55 or, apparently, identify the crash site on a map and read the coordinates. Who is signing this MP off every two years????
^^^
lesseee here now..
1) a GOB?
2) How often is GX 55 given at the local level? Again, NESA does not have the market cornered on the GX55 either. This stuff goes stale if not used every couple of weeks to a months.. Something the FAA FOI calls......disuse. Some of these problems could be solved, but there are some CAPers out there screamin "ain't got the time" of even as far as to say it should only be training of this kind if the Wing puts in out once a year....this stuff requires monthly, if not, quarterly attention. To say it does not, is TOTALLY irresponsible
3) Generally see alot of MP's that can not even teach this stuff to the new MS /MO's. CAP again needs standardization for all training...guaranteed this happens all over
4) Maybe CAP should require MP to be CFI's also, huh? For more of that "safety card" ::) ::) ::) ::)
^^^ forgot how to use the checklist in the airplane....or just didn't care to be bothered with it. What was sad was the fact there were THREE people in the airplane and we still couldn't get a set of coordinates for the target...
^^^
Yep Another training issue CAP is famous for
I suppose the 3 were all pilots, too?
^^^^
;D