Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 25, 2019, 07:59:30 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Time in Type Requirements
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Time in Type Requirements  (Read 7046 times)
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2007, 12:24:42 AM »

Quote
you just got to leave well enough alone.

Ahh, the new motto of the CAP safety program.....

Frankly, although CAP flies an awful lot of hours the difference between being below the GA rate and above it is only 1 fatal accident per year.  I bet if someone did the time to actually do some actual statistical tests there is a good chance there actually isn't any real difference between our rate and GA even if ours is slightly lower based on the raw numbers. 
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,680

« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2007, 12:46:13 AM »

Even so.

The question is are we doing enough?

Again I am not a flier...but in my squadron at least we take safety seriously.  The CAPF 5 rides are done and pilots get their proficiency flights.  And safety and leadership is not afraid to talk to pilots who are showing lack of judgement or questionale judgement.

Beyond that what else can you do?

If it really is a time in type issue...then let's see some numbers and see what can be done.

Is is really a "problem" not a big enough one that I would want to divert NHQ's attention from issues that really need to be fixed.

I don't really know one way or the other.  I don't have the trend numbers.  One trend they did see in the last safety briefing is that most of the accidents were by pilots who only had level I training.  They pushed to the squadrons that maybe that might be a problem.  Although that may also be a non related problem. 
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2007, 12:51:54 AM »

The presentation posted earlier had a slide on that issue.  I thought it was interesting as well.  Hard to see it as a direct relationship though since the senior member levels have nothing to do with flying. 

However, if we assume that those with only Level 1 are more likely to be newer members then you might say that the CAP "safety culture" might not have had time to sink in with them.  However, I would want to see bars added on the graph showing overall CAP pilot senior member levels.  For example, maybe most accidents involve Level 1 pilots because most of our pilots have only completed Level 1.  Need some more data to assess this aspect. 
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,680

« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2007, 02:11:00 AM »

The presentation posted earlier had a slide on that issue.  I thought it was interesting as well.  Hard to see it as a direct relationship though since the senior member levels have nothing to do with flying. 

However, if we assume that those with only Level 1 are more likely to be newer members then you might say that the CAP "safety culture" might not have had time to sink in with them.  However, I would want to see bars added on the graph showing overall CAP pilot senior member levels.  For example, maybe most accidents involve Level 1 pilots because most of our pilots have only completed Level 1.  Need some more data to assess this aspect. 

However...the assumption that just because a pilot only has level 1 is new...may be an erroneous assumpt....as is the assumption that "the CAP safety culture" is any better than the rest of the worlds.

I'm not arguing with you...I am just discussing the pit falls of safety analysis via statistics.  They may may point out safety issues....but you have to be very careful that you are not chasing ghosts in the data.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2007, 04:03:35 AM »

That is why I said, "if we assume".... I can't think of any logical reason they would look at senior member levels except as some sort of substitute for time in CAP.  Would be simpler to look in CAPWATCH and see how long they've been in.  Its actually a bad assumption (which they made) since at least according to an old Wing database I've got that shows that over 40% of LV1 members have been in more than 6 years. 
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2007, 04:43:31 PM »

So, I just started a topic and then realized I had more or less brought up the same issue last winter.  Since we've gained a lot of new members since then, anyone want to comment on my proposal that we take time-in-type into account in our mission pilot qualifications?
Report to moderator   Logged
SoCalCAPOfficer
Forum Regular

Posts: 197

« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2007, 08:53:34 PM »

Who is going to pay for the extra hours you would like to see for time in type?
I know CAP isnt going to pay for it.   So you are asking the member to pay $80-$90 an hour for an extra 300 or so hours before they can become a mission pilot.
Thats $24,000.00 minimum.   Now what new member is going to come into CAP and stay when they have maybe a 100 hours at best and you say they need another 300 hours in type to be a mission pilot and by the way its only going to cost you about $25,000.00 and two to three years time if you fly a lot.

If it isnt broke, dont try and fix it.  We have a good safety record which has been put in place over many years of experience in flying.
Report to moderator   Logged
Daniel L. Hough, Maj, CAP
Commander
Hemet Ryan Sq 59  PCR-CA-458
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2007, 09:20:04 PM »

So another vote for the "leave well enough alone" safety strategy. 

The facts are not conclusive on this issue and I am very interested in seeing what the Nall Foundation finally comes up with and I'm not proposing any specific program changes right now. 

But, are you saying that even if they come up with absolute proof that accident rates are significantly higher among those with low time-in-type that CAP shouldn't even consider doing anything about it? 

As mentioned earlier, there has been very little real change in CAP's safety record for some time, so if we want to make it better (which we all should), we shouldn't just close our minds and accept that we're going to have a few fatal accidents every year no matter what. 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 09:25:12 PM by RiverAux » Report to moderator   Logged
SoCalCAPOfficer
Forum Regular

Posts: 197

« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2007, 09:53:51 PM »

RiverAux, I appreciate what you are trying do do here.   However, that being said you still didn't answer where the money is going to come from for all these extra hours.   There are many things in life that could be made safer, however you always have to look at the cost to benefits ratio.   Its like the environmental movement, of course things can be made better, but at what cost?  Do we sacrifice our economy for a fly or a rat?  Sometimes we do, but does it make good sense?

Do not get me wrong, I am not equating our members lives to that of flies and rats.   However, the world can never be made completely safe no matter how much money is thrown at it.   Asking for higher hours in type is asking for money. There is a point where the negative out weighs the good.
Report to moderator   Logged
Daniel L. Hough, Maj, CAP
Commander
Hemet Ryan Sq 59  PCR-CA-458
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2007, 11:28:55 PM »

I didn't put out any specific numbers for a minimum time-in-type standard that I might recommend.  Given that the jury is still out on how big a factor this is in accidents, it is a bit premature. 

However, since you insist, if I had to make a decision based on what is available now, I would probably be a little conservative and want something like 25 hours of time-in-type within the 1 or 2 years previous to a mission pilot application.  This wouldn't be anything more than a nod towards addressing the issue but then again, we don't have firm data yet.

Lets say that at some point we do find out that accident rates are significantly higher for pilots with less than some given amount of time-in-type (say 100 hours).  If the data is there, I wouldn't have a problem making that a requirement to become a mission pilot. 

Who would pay?  As with most CAP pilots, they themselves would pay for the majority of their flying time prior to becoming a CAP mission pilot.  Might it keep some people out?  Most definetely.  But, if we've got firm safety stats to back up such a reg, I don't mind. 

Now, I don't know how typical this is, but I rarely see any low-time (less than 200 hours) pilots come into CAP who ever work their way up to mission pilot status.  There seems to be 2 main groups -- those that come into CAP with 200+ hours and generally become mission pilots within a reasonable period of time, and those with less than 200 hours who mostly serve as Observers and occassional Transport Pilot duties.  But only about 1 out of 5 of the low-timers ever become mission pilots. 

Now, I don't think we would lose very many high-time pilots who join the program if we had a 25-hour time-in-type requirement.  That would not take very long for an active pilot to meet, either on their own dime or doing transport pilot work.  Now, if the numbers supported, and we instigated something like 100 hours time in type, that probably would make a difference.  Hard to say how much since as far as I know, we don't have any numbers in CAP right now on how much time in type our pilots have.  That would have to be analyzed as part of the regulation setting process to see what the potential impact would be. 
Report to moderator   Logged
SoCalCAPOfficer
Forum Regular

Posts: 197

« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2007, 12:35:27 AM »

RiverAux  25 hours time in type is reasonable.  To transition to the 182 we used to require 10 hours and 25 landings in the 182.  Now we require either a High Performance Endorsement or completing the CAP Transition Course requirements which are higher than just 25 landings.   While the present system is adequate,  if the statistics supported it,  25 hours in type would not be an unreasonable request.
Report to moderator   Logged
Daniel L. Hough, Maj, CAP
Commander
Hemet Ryan Sq 59  PCR-CA-458
MidwaySix
Recruit

Posts: 33

CAPblog
« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2007, 02:06:56 AM »

Sorry...

25 hours? I don't buy it. The statistcs don't support it.

I may be talking out of school, but...

Low time pilots can have a better safety record than high time pilots in CAP. The trending that I've been seeing shows that the guys bending firewalls are not young guys w/ light logbooks.

The generalizations that I can make from the acident statistics specific to CAP are:

1. Having a CFI onboard significantly increases the chance of having an incident.
2. Folks screw the pooch on landing.
3. Age. (sorry guys, but when's the last time you read about a guy <50, broking a CAP airplane?)

Time in type is not the problem. The new standard in 60-1 is adequate... (and far higher than minimums you'll find in GA operations.)

A reg here will not save us. But regular training, and currency in the airplane just might.

- M6
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2007, 02:44:41 AM »

Midway, which group of CAP statistics are you using?

The 2006 safety briefing cited earlier says that the age group responsible for the most mishaps was 51-60 (30%) which was twice as high as the percentage for pilots over 70.  Unfortunately, they didn't match that with a slide showing how much flying was done by pilots in different age groups (I'm sure CAP doesn't even have this data--but maybe it should). 

From the same dataset, the largest share of mishaps are caused by pilots with less than 300 hours.  The group responsbile for the next highest percentage of mishaps is those with over 3000 hours.  But, again they didn't get all the stats necessary to tell whether that is a significant fact or not. 
Report to moderator   Logged
MidwaySix
Recruit

Posts: 33

CAPblog
« Reply #33 on: September 03, 2007, 03:08:18 AM »

More guys in that age group are flying.

There aren't all that many guys (in comparison) flying north of 70.

What I'd like to see is incidents per 1000 hours flown, broken down by age range.

That being said, there are always execptions to the rule. I fly with guys who are older, but they still got the skillz. I have plenty to learn from them.

Some even use terms like "sh*t hot" in regular conversation. (totally a bonus)

-M6
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #34 on: September 03, 2007, 05:57:22 AM »

I agree that the presentation given in 2006 actually raised more questions than it answered in this whole area.  However, it would take a pretty big effort to really gather the data needed to analyze accidents by time-in-type or age since that isn't something currently tracked.  Basically you would need to get detailed histories on several thousand CAP pilots and then track how much time they spend flying CAP plane by type.  Even then you would need several years of data to have a big enough sample size of accidents/mishaps to have it mean much.  While the data might be useful, I'm not sure the manpower it would take to gather it could be found.  Probably will need to wait on the detailed report on time-in-type from the Air Safety Foundation and work from there. 
Report to moderator   Logged
aveighter
Forum Regular

Posts: 199

« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2007, 12:23:09 AM »

There is a big bunch of folks out there that crunch numbers for a living (and a profit) to avoid crunching airplanes and they do a pretty good job of it.  They drive the pilot qualification standards, for the most part, in civil aviation.

Its the aviation insurance industry, perhaps you've heard of it.  Now, can we pick another non-issue to pontificate about? 

I know, how about all the pilots with no GTM experience get together and lecture the ground pounders about something.
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2007, 01:41:37 AM »

And the number crunchers at AOPA Air Safety Foundation have identified this as an issue worth more study and I think they have more than a little credibility on the subject.  I didn't make it up. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Time in Type Requirements
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.049 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me