The 200 hour per aircraft goal

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Clearing Authority:  Did you preflight the aircraft?
Pilot:  Sure Did:
15 minutes later the plane runs off the side of the runway across a ditch (small one) and stops in the grass.  Rudder Gust Lock and Remove Before Flight Banner still in place and very visible. 
Clearing Authority:  Did you preflight the plane?
Pilot:  Yep.
5 minutes later suck a wheel chock into the prop prop bent. 

Safety Meeting Notes:  Anytime a towbar is attached to an airplane the other end should be in your hand.  Anytime a towbar is on the flight line it needs to be in your hand. 
  Question:  How far will a Cessna 172 prop sling a towbar?

A very human trait is people tend to hear what they want or expect to hear, and often say what they think the listener wants to hear.  We can not legislate common sense or responsibility. 

The Civil Air Patrol has a great aviation safety record and the real credit for that belongs to the members.  Maybe the hoops, jumps, etc. weed out many lesser pilots prone to short cuts.  Is there room for improvement?  Of course there is, but lets look for meaningful and achievable goals. 

Annual written tests:  The present airplane test is a joke.  I believe it was created by the AOPA sometime back in the 1970's.  Really, how many pilots actually take the test more than once?  I would guess many have kept the answers and just fill out a new answer sheet every year.   The tests all need to be make/model with an airplane specific component.  Keeping good boys and girls honest, review the test every two years.

60-1 Test:  The 60-1 test is pretty good but could have wing/local components added.  Using the Air Force Aero Clubs as an example.  Air Forces Services prepares and distributes a 35 question  written test based on the AF Aero Club Guidance, AIM, and FAR's.  Each aero club then adds an additional 15 questions based on the local conditions.  Separate tests for VFR flight and IFR.

Will new tests eliminate "tow bar tossing"?  No.  Neither is an FRO asking tow bar removed?  Chocks removed?  Are your emotions in check?  is your underwear clean?

Do we mandate a "Supervisor of Flying" for every airplane every day and have the SOF (FRO) visibly check and insure the pilot has in fact dotted the i's, crossed the t's and jumped thru the correct number of hoops? 

Civil Air Patrol IS NOT FUN FLYING.  Civil Air Patrol is Flying Mission Training, flying mission proficiency, flight crew training.  Anyone looking for fun flying needs to rent from an FBO or join a club somewhere.  As all CAP Flying is crew training and/or crew proficiency the entire crew neds to be involved in all preflight checks.  Mandate all aircraft pre-flight checks will be a shared crew activity, a crew member reading the item challenge and the pilot performing and reading back the response:  Observer:  "Wheel Chocks and Tow Bar Removed".  Pilot:  holding up the tow bar and chocks  "Removed".

[SunDog]

And If I can't get a release until I'm at the airport, then I also won't be bothering you again.

I am not a pilot or FRO, but I am really having a hard time understanding this mentality.  What is so hard about having to call for a release when you're actually ready to go flying?  Are you afraid that you'll get to the airport and be denied or be unable to reach a FRO?

Hi NC Hokie - Yes, that's about it. My practice is to get the release before leaving the house - the drive can be an hour, or even two. Given the state of WMIRS and eServices, you don't know what may be gacked logistically. One FRO saved me the trouble of the drive, since he happended to know the airplane wasn't at the airport.  That happens rather more than you would think.

If it was just the phone calls, no worries. Four is way too many, and the FRO isn't adding any value to my safety or efficeincy after the first conversation (my opinion, YMMV) . CAP wants to know where the airplane is, and that's cool, makes sense. If it's a real mission, I'll be on the phone witrh the IC serveral times anyway, no problem.

Not to embaraass anyone, but when I heard the "tow bar" question the first time, I cracked up! I thought the FRO, a pilot I know well, was joking!  That has to hurt safety credibility, when your pilots are laughing at it, doesn't it? It's been the butt of jokes for weeks in my Wing. . .

I have never had a FRO ask me if I did a preflight - then again, almost every FRO I use is a pilot. Sometimes an IC isn't a pilot, but they leave the airplane driving to the grunts, and are handling the bigger picture. I mean, what would you expect me to say: "Gee, I'm glad you mentioned that! I forgot!" or, "Gee, I intentionally omitted that, but since you brought it up, I'll admit I'm in violation and ground myself!". Or lie to you and and say I did it, then feel bad and slink over to chcek the oil, after all?

I think the corporate culture and peer pressure in CAP assures that very, very few airplanes are launched withiout a pre-flight. And when one happns, a stupid question before hand isn't gonna prevent it. . .

Picking some goofy item for additional, unwarranted attention, is dumb, and it's distracting, and worse, it makes the program look stupid to the pilots, and they lose respect for it. Hey, if we've had a rash of tow-bar take-offs, I stand corrected, and yield the floor. But if it was just one. . .

[Eclipse]

Not to embaraass anyone, but when I heard the "tow bar" question the first time, I cracked up! I thought the FRO, a pilot I know well, was joking!  That has to hurt safety credibility, when your pilots are laughing at it, doesn't it? It's been the butt of jokes for weeks in my Wing. . .

It's not so funny when you're writing a 78 and suspending a pilot who is, thankfully, still alive.  This is not a joke, nor is it
imaginary, it's based on far too many incidents, as is the need for the RBF streamers on the tails hooks because of far too many
unreported tail strikes.

Hey, if we've had a rash of tow-bar take-offs, I stand corrected, and yield the floor. But if it was just one. . .

It's not just one.

[Ned]

. Hey, if we've had a rash of tow-bar take-offs, I stand corrected, and yield the floor. But if it was just one. . .

I've been briefed on at least two in the last year.

[SunDog]

I stand corrected. Thank you.  I'm sorry I laughed, but in my defense, I wasn't the only one. O.K., I'm smiling now, too, since no one got hurt. . .it was just so off the wall, such a weird item to pick out of the basket. Maybe if it been control locks, or fuel caps. . .

I think (hope) the pilots did a preflight, and believed they'd looked at the nose wheel. Or events evolved in such a way that the bar was attached after the pre-flight, maybe to drag it out of a hangar? Maybe they were distracted then? (not a snark about another FRO call, I mean really, like a call from home, etc.)

So, say something about the hassle factor, then? Or all is well, everything we're doing makes sense, is a good use of time, effort vs reward? Nowhere to reduce the bureacracy, lighten the load, still keep it safe? The survey from the aformentioned Wing's pilots is an anomaly, just pilot griping, with no merit? Not worth NHQ's time and $$$ to explore why pilots are drifting off?

Automating part of the release procedure isn't worthy of $$$$? Quarterly saftey currency isn't frequent enough? Thicket of thorns that is our web-based systems is good enough?

Not being cavalier, and I am happy those pilots are safe, but doing an occasional 78 is better then never doing one - boats are safe in harbor, but that's not what boats are for.   I'm trying to say, in my clumsy way, that at some point, the ROI doesn't justify the cost. Driving away your crews is counter-productive, IF your efforts aren't yielding improvement in mishap percentage.  Accept that someone will occasioanlly make an honest, non-negligent mistake. The wind will be a little beyond their capabilities; we'll overlook a cowl plug. Leave a seat-belt hanging out (confession). 

If we aren't making truly making things safer AND we're discouraging pilots, we've hit the lose-lose box in the matrix.  Can't we look (metrics, surveys, analysis) and see if what we're doing makes sense? If NHQ has done that, then get off top-dead-center and share it with us! Gain some credibility. No Power Points, though, please.

Maybe we find it's better to concentrate on the real killers, like VFR into IMC, or cross-controls on final, or head down-and-locked in the glass instead of scanning for traffic? Maybe we're doing really bad stuff and just barely getting away with it? And perhaps spend less time on keyboards and cell phones?

[Eclipse]

Maybe if it been control locks, or fuel caps. . .

Seen 78's on those in the last year as well.

Maybe we find it's better to concentrate on the real killers, like VFR into IMC, or cross-controls on final, or head down-and-locked in the glass instead of scanning for traffic? Maybe we're doing really bad stuff and just barely getting away with it? And perhaps spend less time on keyboards and cell phones?

First, why would these be mutually exclusive?

Second, when there is a demonstrable trend or hazard, then steps will likely be taken there as well.  We can spend all day
trying to find "other" that is just as bad or worse as the things we are already trying to remediate, but in the mean time,
we should take the issues we already have issues with seriously and stop trying to prove how much we "know better".

[A.Member]

Again, I love to see non-pilots with nothing but pure conjecture tell pilots why they're wrong about not flying more.  It's laughable.

As for the comments on things like tail rings, if National was serious about the issue, they'd do install something like tail-ring guards - many flight schools use these for this very same reason.   Putting a remove before flight tag does not prevent the issue from occuring.  Go visit an FBO and look at the tail-rings on any of the tri-cycle gear aricraft (Diamonds have skid plates).   I'd bet nearly all have been ground down or have some indication of a strike.  Whether it's due to hangar rash, new pilot training, or old pilot training, stuff is going to happen.   The only way to prevent is to not have airplanes at all. 

Short of that, the best thing to do is have a culture that supportive of openness and reporting.  That's not our approach today.   Today, the first knee jerk reaction is to ground someone or everyone.  Perhaps, there are times when that's justified but not most.

[Eclipse]

The "no idea" is strong in this one...

Again, I love to see non-pilots with nothing but pure conjecture tell pilots why they're wrong about not flying more.  It's laughable.

So I guess facts and experience just have no bearing in your reality?

As for the comments on things like tail rings, if National was serious about the issue, they'd do install something like tail-ring guards - many flight schools use these for this very same reason.   Putting a remove before flight tag does not prevent the issue from occuring.  Go visit an FBO and look at the tail-rings on any of the tri-cycle gear aricraft (Diamonds have skid plates).   I'd bet nearly all have been ground down or have some indication of a strike.  Whether it's due to hangar rash, new pilot training, or old pilot training, stuff is going to happen.   The only way to prevent is to not have airplanes at all.

Yes, "stuff happens" which is an interesting attitude to take when it's not your plane.  However "stuff happening", like tail strikes, isn't the issue.  The issue was they went unreported.  You can treat something like that anyway you want. A lot of us in CAP tend to think bouncing the tail off the ground on landing is a relatively big enough deal to at least mention it, you know, rather then leave it for the next guy.  Prop strikes, too.  Yes, those happen, unreported.  That's a new engine for you non-pilots who need a little help with that.

Short of that, the best thing to do is have a culture that supportive of openness and reporting.  That's not our approach today.   Today, the first knee jerk reaction is to ground someone or everyone.  Perhaps, there are times when that's justified but not most.

Yes, a reported incident gets the pilot grounded, until things are investigated, and then in 99% of the cases everyone moves on and CAP eats the repair cost.
That's unreasonable?

[SunDog]

Maybe if it been control locks, or fuel caps. . .

Seen 78's on those in the last year as well.

Maybe we find it's better to concentrate on the real killers, like VFR into IMC, or cross-controls on final, or head down-and-locked in the glass instead of scanning for traffic? Maybe we're doing really bad stuff and just barely getting away with it? And perhaps spend less time on keyboards and cell phones?

First, why would these be mutually exclusive?

Second, when there is a demonstrable trend or hazard, then steps will likely be taken there as well.  We can spend all day
trying to find "other" that is just as bad or worse as the things we are already trying to remediate, but in the mean time,
we should take the issues we already have issues with seriously and stop trying to prove how much we "know better".

Come on, Man! They ain't mutually exclusive, and I didn't say they were. I said "less time" on less catostrophic stuff. And I  didn't say I knew better, but I did say it is clearly, transparently, grostesquely apparent that pilots believe CAP is way, way overweight when it comes to bureacracy, and that it APPEARS some self-examination and house cleaning is in order.

Man, I keep asking in ths thread, and the questions you, Ned, etc., are not anwering remain the same- you think what we have in place is an efficient, logical, member/pilot friendly method of qualifying pilots and suporting saftey in our flying? You believe, as managers and leaders, that the current system isn't wasting meaningful amounts of our time, and putting us at somewhat greater risk by doing so?

Eclipse, you said earlier, in another post, that it was up to me to make the time for the hoops - but I ain't made of minutes. If they aren't available, and I can't cut some out, then I don't fly CAP. Lather, rinse, repeat for the entire pilot cadre.  Look at the average hours drop.

Snapshots of individual errors mean nothing, much. Ned has metrics? Share 'em, Ned! Publish the positive impact of calling the FRO four times; we understyand that's a tough measure to quantify, and you will get plenty of slack from us for having to make SOME subjective conclusions. We aren't pouting, and we aren't prima donnas.

If you think what we have we have is good, quiute sound, and works fine, and taking a look at it isn't worth the resources to do so, then say that.  Give me an affirmative, and I'll fold my tent - we don't have anything else to talk about on the topic of flying hours or bureacracy.

[Eclipse]

...you think what we have in place is an efficient, logical, member/pilot friendly method of qualifying pilots and suporting saftey in our flying? You believe, as managers and leaders, that the current system isn't wasting meaningful amounts of our time, and putting us at somewhat greater risk by doing so?

Well, in that respect I can only speak for my wing and the system as nationally published, and in those respects, I can say, unequivocally, "yes".
What I personally see is a lot of pilots somehow able to negotiate the minefields and gateways with little drama, and then far too many who are armed with
excuses, many of whom seem prone to personal drama or other challenges in addition to not being able to somehow negotiate  the "bureaucracy".

But I also reject that term, since I don't see a whole lot in the process which isn't the minimal reasonable baseline information of "who, what, where, and when".

If your wing is top-heavy with GOBs, or flying is a closed club, well then pick up a staff position and work to fix it, but don't blame the system itself, which,
warts and all, it pretty simple, and generally works, "good enough" if not great.

I also don't buy this assertion that release requirements and similar, even if they are "bureaucracy", are "increasing risk". If you're so pressed for "minutes"
that being asked about ORM or a tow bar is too onerous to accommodate, then maybe you're too pressed to be flying that day.

Life is choice and CAP is not for everyone.  If you don't have the "minutes", you simply don't.

[Eclipse]

There are a myriad of reasons CAP flying hours have been challenged the last several years, primarily:

1) Funding challenges, both real and imagined, due to the issues with the Federal budget and CAP appropriation.
We have lost at least 1-2+ months the last two fiscal years due to budget panics - that's 10%+ of the calendar
we can never get back, not to mention the ancillary consequences of misinformed members who continued to labor under
the idea that we had no funding.  As you say minutes are limited.  This impacts both CAP and member funded flying
because of MX.

Fix - Front-loading the budget so we can still pay for gas if sequestration hits.  That or other funding streams
that allow us to continue operations even when USAF funding is cutoff.  We also need to stop the "chicken little"
reactions, as they cause more long-term ripples that question viability, then the actual splashes of the real funding problems.

2) We are locked in a churn cycle and not growing the aircrew and staff cadre.
Individuals will always have their availability ebb and flow.  As an organization, we can't allow that to impact operations.
If one member has no more "minutes", then someone else can step up, but when we continue to depend on a shrinking and
aging pool, there's only one way that spiral will flow.

Fix - recruiting as a mission not an afterthought.

2a) People and the calendar don't scale.  As said, the aircrews only have so many flying hours per month, yet
as the pool gets smaller we keep the same expectations.  This forces members to have to make choices between
mission, professional development, other activities, and non-CAP activities.

Fix - recruiting as a mission not an afterthought.

None of this has anything to do with "bureaucracy", except in as much that we don't have enough experienced staff
to mentor our members in what is ultimately a pretty straightforward and simple system of qualification and mission
operations, so members are forced to "figure it out on the fly".  Not fair to anyone.

Fix - recruiting as a mission not an afterthought.

[jeders]

I'm beginning to think recruitment is important. Oh well, we'll just leave that for later.

[A.Member]

Again, I love to see non-pilots with nothing but pure conjecture tell pilots why they're wrong about not flying more.  It's laughable.

So I guess facts and experience just have no bearing in your reality?

This from the guy that just one page earlier, after having someone explain why he doesn't fly much with CAP anymore, took exception and tried telling us how it is.  Brilliant.   Thanks for being part of the problem.

As for the comments on things like tail rings, if National was serious about the issue, they'd do install something like tail-ring guards - many flight schools use these for this very same reason.   Putting a remove before flight tag does not prevent the issue from occuring.  Go visit an FBO and look at the tail-rings on any of the tri-cycle gear aricraft (Diamonds have skid plates).   I'd bet nearly all have been ground down or have some indication of a strike.  Whether it's due to hangar rash, new pilot training, or old pilot training, stuff is going to happen.   The only way to prevent is to not have airplanes at all.

Yes, "stuff happens" which is an interesting attitude to take when it's not your plane.  However "stuff happening", like tail strikes, isn't the issue.  The issue was they went unreported.  You can treat something like that anyway you want. A lot of us in CAP tend to think bouncing the tail off the ground on landing is a relatively big enough deal to at least mention it, you know, rather then leave it for the next guy.  Prop strikes, too.  Yes, those happen, unreported.  That's a new engine for you non-pilots who need a little help with that.

It's nice to see that the following comment was completely lost on you, despite being quoting it in your subsequent quip:

Short of that, the best thing to do is have a culture that supportive of openness and reporting.

Short of that, the best thing to do is have a culture that supportive of openness and reporting.  That's not our approach today.   Today, the first knee jerk reaction is to ground someone or everyone.  Perhaps, there are times when that's justified but not most.

Yes, a reported incident gets the pilot grounded, until things are investigated, and then in 99% of the cases everyone moves on and CAP eats the repair cost.
That's unreasonable?

In some cases that is the correct approach.   In many, the response is indeed unreasonable to a point that it promotes our  current culture; one of silence and fear that drives pilots away.  How hangar rash is addressed is a notable example. 

But you just go ahead and keep believing these aren't real issues; you've got all the answers...carry on, all is well.   

[Ned]

Sundog,

you have been expressing your unhappiness with the various systems since you joined CAPTalk.

I don't think anyone in CAP has ever said that we have the "efficient, logical, member / pilot friendly method of qualifying pilots and supporting safety in our flying" (to use your words.)

And I have not been disputing you on this, except to note that the stakeholders and decision makers in these areas do indeed use metrics and data when reaching their decisions.  I know that because they show me the data, and I know these are highly qualified folks.  I get periodic comprehensive briefings on our safety and know that they perform a great deal of trend analysis (which is why I remember the multiple tow bar incidents.)

I have personally buttonholed our senior safety folks and asked that we share additional data with the members and stakeholders and strongly asked them to shift our safety program (or at a minimum the non-flying portion thereof) to an evidence-based approach.  (IOW, if you cannot support the notion that having every member watch a Powerpoint and take a 10 question test each month measurably increases safety, then perhaps we should find an education program that does.)

But our safety program's underpinnnings are more complex than most imagine, starting with the Statement of Work (basically our agreement with the Air Force on how we do business) that specifically requires the CAP safety program to be based on Air Force safety directives (see section 8.1).  Restated, our safety program has to mirror the AF's "as determined by HQ, CAP-USAF."  You have indicated that you are a former AF flyer, so I suspect you would agree that the military's pilot qualification, flight release, and safety procedures can often be descripted as bureaucratic and time consuming.  If CAP's procedures are based on the AF's procedures, it can hardly be suprising if ours are similarly preceived.  Being tied to AF safety programs reduces our agility to innovate for a volunteer-rich environment.

So even if CAP safety agreed with me on this (and I'm not sure they do), they/we can't unilaterally change our safety program.

So my questions to you are: 

1.  Other than being excessively bureaucratic and time consuming, what specifically is wrong with our FR process?  Exactly how should it be improved without compromising accountability or safety?
(Note: I'm not in any way suggesting that bureauocracy or wasting anyone's time is unimportant, but the odds of achieving significant change in the system go up significantly if we can point to other factors.  Remember, I'm a volunteer just like everyone else here.  I get that time is valuable.)

2.  How specifically should we change our pilot qualification program?

3.  How specifically can we further enhance flying safety?


Remember, if I just go back and tell the hard working folks on the volunteer national staff and our corporate team "hey, the pilots think there is too much hassle and bureaucracy in our FR procedures," it is unlikely to produce much change from staffers who sincerely believe that they have done the best they can to balance efficiency with safety.

But if I can ask about why one or more specific procedures should not be adopted (or omitted), I will get better answers to my questions.


Finally, maybe it's just me but

We aren't pouting, and we aren't prima donnas.

seems at least a little inconsistent with

[If you answer supporting the status quo] I'll fold my tent - we don't have anything else to talk about on the topic of flying hours or bureacracy.

Thank you for your service, both here and in the armed forces.

Ned Lee

[RiverAux]

I think that this may be one of the few times in the history of CAPTalk where a thread that had been dead for almost half a year (and only got 7 responses the first time around) is necroposted and then goes on for 6 pages.

Of course, it veered wildly off track from the proposal that started the thread, bu still a worthwhile discussion.

[FW]

This month's issue of AOPA Pilot has a very good editorial on why GA's safety record is not as good as other segments of the pilot population.  The number one reason was GA not acting as a cohesive group.  GA pilots, as a whole, are free to be as proficient as they wish.  They are not subjugated by rules; other than the FAA regulations, and personal goals. 

CAP pilots, a subgroup of GA pilots, do a better job of being proficient and safe.  However, I don't think I've ever seen such a compilation of incidents, hanger rash, collisions, and other such mishaps than in CAP.  I think many CAP pilots have that "rental car" mentality.  More regulation, process and education has not fixed this additude.  There must be a different way. 

I understand what the SOW says, however we are not the Air Force.  Our safety program does not appear to have been successful at making CAP pilots safer. I would argure that it has only reduced flying hours.  If so, we need to go back to the drawing board. 

I have dealt with this issue (in varying degrees)  over the last 20 years. and have noticed a trend that I don't think can be fixed by legislation.  "We" need a different way to think.

[SunDog]

Oh man, Ned, well said. . .thank you, much appreciated! Give me a little time to order my thoughts, and put some coherent words together?  I'll answer your very fair and coegent questions as best I can, from my optic. I did use the FR as a micro-example, but I won't limit the rsponse to FR only.

And yep, I've howled about systems - grant me a little grace, and credit for motive - please note that I joined CAPTalk a LONG time after joining CAP, and was driven here at least in part by honest frustration, accumulated over some years.

How if I come back with a realistic scenario? A walk through the qual, mission, and release process, what I've hit, or know other pilot's have hit? Not the grim outlier, once a year crater, but not the cool-breeze, all went well, either? With some suggestions for consideration?

[SunDog]

Ned, me again; I got all excited, didn't finish - 24 hours, O.K.? Other duites call right now, but I promise. . .

And about "folding my tent" - I meant I'd shut up about it if you guys were real, true believers, and just stop kicking on a closed door. No pout intended, just no reason to keep hurting my foot. . .

[SunDog]

Hi Ned!

First, a couple of prerequisite assumptions? CAP, via WMIRS, knows:
The hours a pilot has flown in CAP,
The aircraft the pilot has flown, and dates of the sorties.
The pilot quals,
The open sorties by aircraft,
The proposed launch and return times.
The landing airport for the aircraft, from the last completed (not cancelled) sortie.
The avionics in the airplane,
Should have the W&B data. Maybe not on W&B, but should. . .
The aircraft Tach hours as last recorded.

FR "as-is", B12 mission: Seven (7) phone calls, eight ( web site visits.
WMIRS isn't really a flight release tool - it just records the event; it's used to blast an email to a FRO(s), and back to the PIC. So, from scratch, we reserve the aircraft in AircraftClubs.com. This time of year, I need to confirm the airplane is actually parked where it's usually based. That takes two phone calls, but only two, because I know who to call, from experience. If I don't know who to call, I can't retrieve a phone number from eServices for anyone outside my squadron, so I'm making several more calls. But let's just say it's only two calls. I find out, in fact, the aircraft isn't there, but another 182 has been swapped with it, and is parked in the original aircraft's spot. Back to AircraftCLubs.com, cancel the original res, and add the new one. One more web hit.

Dang, system says I ain't safety current. Watch a video on lightening safety. Or, just jump to the test and wing it.

And this one is insidious – none of our 182's are configured alike, and I mean they are VERY different. Does it have a G400? GX55? GX60? A weird DME/VHF combo box? One-of-a-kind comm Panel? Why yes, this one does! Sit and study panel for 15 minutes, until you know and remember where the engine instruments are, how to work the comm panel, and the xpdr – please note the VFR button on the xpdr, which is equivalent to a suicide switch in the DC FRZ, by the way. But I digress. . .again, I know who to call to ask about the avionics, so it's just one call.

For practical purposes, many of us contact an FRO first, to alert him the email is coming, and to know he's there to act on it. We then enter (or complete) the WMIRS entry, and call him back. Kill a little time, refresh or re-enter WMIRS, confirm the release is in. Do NOT rely on the return email, because it doesn't always arrive, or arrives but WMIRS doesn't reflect the release. Click into and do the 104. Note that WMIRS does NOT populate the crew quals or the aircraft equipment.

Within four hours of original FRO contact (I know, the four hour rule isn't hard, but many/most FRO treat it as such) I'm at the airport. Make another call to the FRO, because he wants one.

Open the aircraft book, determine the airplane has just enough time remaining to make the ferry to the 100 hour. What happened here? WMIRS doesn't require that tach hours be entered. Heck, I've forgotten and left it off a few times.

But, I can squeeze in three times around the pattern and leave enough time on it for the ferry. Call the FRO back? Umm. . .maybe. . . but probably not. Oh, wait. It was B12 – yep, call him, because the profile isn't happening. He's a nice guy, and mods the WMIRS entry for you, to C17. Unless he went out for milk and bread. Which he did. Is the FBO open, computer available? Yes! Can I mod the mission symbol on a released flight? I dunno, actually – if so, that's cool. If not, either go home, or cancel the sortie, add a new one, and call another FRO. . . and if I do fly, call the FRO, tell him I'm down safe.

A bad day? Sure. Way outside the norm? No, it's not. And while not USUALLY this bad, it can also be much worse, and for a new guy it could have killed his cell phone battery. Remember this is just the CAP FR piece. Nothing about the email dance to get the B12 approved, or the FAA paper/electron chase.


FR fantasy scenario. Two web site hits, one home safe phone call.
I enter the sortie in AircraftClubs.com and WMIRS. I have already identified a short list of "favorite" FROs in my profile. They all get the email blast. First one to the release wins. I get a text that I'm released , if that's how I've indicated I want my releases, or an email, if I prefer.

Now, the radicalization: reward us for recent CAP flying experience and total CAP time. If I have 250 CAP hours, and I'm instrument rated, flown 20 CAP hours in the last 90 days, then drop the required personal phone call to the FRO. The email/text is it. Go fly! (modify the hour requirements however it makes sense – these are off the top of my head)

If I'm a 100 CAP hour TMP, have me talk to someone, sure.

Here's what I should get from the automated systems, WMIRS, whatever:
ACCURATE tach hours/time remaining.  Remind me/require me to enter the ending tach time.

Check the last completed sortie, landing airport, and compare it to the home-of-record base for the aircraft. If it landed somewhere OTHER than home base, WARN me, with a pop-up, like WMIRS does with total tach time, or if I try to dual schedule over another sortie's tine period.

Give me a list/link of the avionics, a picture of the panel.  My Wing has the DF equipment listed in AircraftClubs.com.  Not much use to the MP, really. Please don't tell me the Wing should cover that – they haven't, and if NHQ collects minutia that serves NHQ needs, they can collect some operational useful info for guys driving the airplanes.

Link to the W&B. If CAP doesn't have that data for every aircraft, then collect it from the Wings. And update it when a change is made. Yeah, yeah, the numbers in the airplane are the official ones. Only the airplane is 30 miles from me, and I need to SWAG a CG, to decide if I can have a MS in the back. Save him a long drive, too.

Allow me, as a MP, to "down-shift" the symbol, like drop a B12 to a C17, even after the release, without re-engaging with the FRO or WMIRS before flying. Picture no cell signal, no FBO computer. Assumes the FRO who can release a "B" can also release a "C".  CAP trusts me with the airplane; trust me with accounting, too.

Allow FRO's, IC's, and Aircrew to "opt in" for publishing their phone contact info, in an OBVIOUS place. While not included in the horror story above, I have been assigned crew members from other squadrons by a real busy Air Ops, who then assumes I know who these guys are, and how to reach them. I can find an email in eServices, but not a phone. So I'm calling around to track these folks down.  An IC took pity on me once, gave me direction on finding IC contact info – that wasn't exactly intuitive. . .

Safety currency: go to once a quarter, instead of monthly. In busy season, I may fly quite a few days (CAP) in a month. Now I have to take most of an evening away from home for a 10 minute Power Point on downed power lines? Is it of some value? A little. Maybe. Not much, certainly not worth the time it cost me. I can go on-line, save the drive, or use a non-CAP event. But then I'm back in eServices (where no one wants to be) hacking away at a bad interface, hoping I get it right, and someone in my chain of command remembers to approve it. If not, back on the phone/email trail of tears.

Summary:
I respect the USAF imposed constraints. So, be leaders, pitch a better way. That's what senior management is there for. Make a case to USAF, press the point. And let us know you're doing it. We all know it could take a while. Let us know you are trying?

Systems (WMIRS, eServices) are there to collect info for management. Only incidentally are they constructed for rank-and-file convenince. That's reality for any organization. For USAF members, or corporations, the use can be mandated. But we aren't employees. If we don't buy in sufficiently, if we are put-off, or frustrated, we can bolt. Hours drop, we participate less. 

If nothing else here makes sense, how about this; consider CAP the same way we think of the local Volunteer Fire Department. That model is MUCH closer to our reality than the USAF model.  CAP pilots have other options. We can't pay bonuses to retain people hat are otherwise fed-up.

And think of CAP member's time as NHQ's money – you should want us to spend what time we have available on tasks of real value – yeah, yeah, I know, Unit Inspections, and downed power line briefings have SOME value. But CAP needs to figure out some priorities, because our time budget is not unlimited.

I may have misstated something here, or be unaware of a common work-around. Could be plenty detail to critique – but keep the big picture in mind – we want pilots to fly more, and the FR process is part of the problem. After I take my lumps on this one, let's kick around getting/staying qual'ed, etc.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Now I have to take most of an evening away from home for a 10 minute Power Point on downed power lines? Is it of some value? A little. Maybe. Not much, certainly not worth the time it cost me. I can go on-line, save the drive, or use a non-CAP event. But then I'm back in eServices (where no one wants to be) hacking away at a bad interface, hoping I get it right, and someone in my chain of command remembers to approve it.

Are you saying you don't want to go to a meeting, but you go for the 15 minute safety brief?