CAP/CC Start of Term Report August 15 2014

[Panzerbjorn]

I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations.  Yes, internally we need more pilots.  However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well.  There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.

And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.

The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused.  Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give.  My hunch is that this will not go away.

My hope is that there will be emphasis on helping the VFR F5 pilots get the required hours needed for TMP and MP.  Therein lies the challenge, in my own opinion.  We have pilots that come in with brand new PPLs with 50 or 60 hours of PIC, all excited to help and make use of their PPLs in what we do.  Currently, we look at them and go "We'd love to help you out as soon as you hit 100 hours of PIC, and then only on a limited basis until you reach 200 hours PIC." That span between 50 hours PIC and 200 hours PIC is a very frustrating time for CAP pilots unless you happen to be sitting on a small mound of cash.

I personally look forward to seeing how the emphasis on getting back to pilot basics and helping our pilot community grow will take place.

[JeffDG]

I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations.  Yes, internally we need more pilots.  However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well.  There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.

And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.

The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused.  Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give.  My hunch is that this will not go away.

My hope is that there will be emphasis on helping the VFR F5 pilots get the required hours needed for TMP and MP.  Therein lies the challenge, in my own opinion.  We have pilots that come in with brand new PPLs with 50 or 60 hours of PIC, all excited to help and make use of their PPLs in what we do.  Currently, we look at them and go "We'd love to help you out as soon as you hit 100 hours of PIC, and then only on a limited basis until you reach 200 hours PIC." That span between 50 hours PIC and 200 hours PIC is a very frustrating time for CAP pilots unless you happen to be sitting on a small mound of cash.

I personally look forward to seeing how the emphasis on getting back to pilot basics and helping our pilot community grow will take place.

Good points.  I'm one of those folks who joined sub 100h PIC, and I'm in the TMP area now at 145.  30 more to MP trainee (175 let's you become a trainee!) are two ways that you can react to "Sorry, you don't have the hours to be an MP."  One is to just leave the organization as you can't do the thing you joined to do.  The other is to say "Well, if I can't do that, what can I do?" then jump on every opportunity to learn other jobs as you can with enthusiasm.

Personally, I took the latter approach.  I quickly worked up the "Staff" side of the equation, being a 2nd Lt AOBD, and a 1st Lt. IC (briefly...IIRC, I was a month or two short of Capt TIG at the time!).   The problem now is, I go to SAREXs and instead of building my hours towards MP by flying a nice highbird (and let me tell you, that's the best job ever in the South in the summer!  90+ on the ground becomes more pleasant at 9,500' for sure.), I'm on the ground either acting as staff, or helping train the staff.  Not a big deal to me, the mission's getting done, and ultimately, the reason I joined CAP was to help the mission get done...if the best place for me to do that is in mission base, so be it.

Now, the issue's been identified, how do we fix it?  That's a question I've thought long and hard about, and don't have an answer.  Every answer I come up with I'm afraid to suggest, as it would seem self-serving (ie. it would personally benefit me...)

For example:  Could we subsidize TMPs to get their Instrument Ratings in CAP aircraft?  The regulations permit it...non-MPs can get additional ratings with Wing Commander approval, and that's a minimum of 15 hours of instrument instruction required.  It would be helpful to the mission, as even TMPs sometimes have to punch through a cloud layer to do a transport of highbird mission...truth be told, an Instrument Rating would be of more use to a TMP than an MP in many situations, as you can't do a visual search in instrument conditions, while you can happily fly a highbird in or above an overcast layer, and you can transport through clouds just fine (assuming no convection or icing of course).

[Panache]

The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused.  Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give.  My hunch is that this will not go away.

Then just limit the opportunity to those SMs who have been active (as opposed to just sending in a check) for n years.  Or set some other pre-requisites. 

[Panzerbjorn]

Then just limit the opportunity to those SMs who have been active (as opposed to just sending in a check) for n years.  Or set some other pre-requisites.

Yes, that is a solution.  Then the next challenge you have is finding CFIs who are willing to donate between 40 and 65 hours of instruction time to a Senior PPL student.  It's already difficult enough finding instructors that are willing to donate that much time and lost revenue to MPs going after advanced ratings.  In my own experience, I find plenty of CFIs who are willing to donate that time and lost revenue to cadets.  But generally the attitude is different towards Seniors and getting their PPLs.  Now, if you allow CFIs to charge for their services to Seniors getting their PPLs in CAP aircraft, then you change the game completely.  But I personally don't believe it'll ever happen that way.

[JeffDG]

The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused.  Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give.  My hunch is that this will not go away.

Then just limit the opportunity to those SMs who have been active (as opposed to just sending in a check) for n years.  Or set some other pre-requisites.

Pretty much what it is for non-MPs that are seeking additional ratings...need Wing Commander approval, and a member who is just "taking" and not contributing anything are far less likely to receive Wing Commander approval.  Fill a job that the Wing needs and Wing Commander approval is likely to be forthcoming.

[NIN]

Yes, that is a solution.  Then the next challenge you have is finding CFIs who are willing to donate between 40 and 65 hours of instruction time to a Senior PPL student.  It's already difficult enough finding instructors that are willing to donate that much time and lost revenue to MPs going after advanced ratings.  In my own experience, I find plenty of CFIs who are willing to donate that time and lost revenue to cadets.  But generally the attitude is different towards Seniors and getting their PPLs.  Now, if you allow CFIs to charge for their services to Seniors getting their PPLs in CAP aircraft, then you change the game completely.  But I personally don't believe it'll ever happen that way.

I have three CFIs & one CFI-trainee in my unit. No problem there.

And a 172.

I'm a 30+ year member. I'm not going away soon.

[Mitchell 1969]

I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations.  Yes, internally we need more pilots.  However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well.  There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.

And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.

The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused.  Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give.  My hunch is that this will not go away.

There was another reason which is still valid.

CAP giving flight instruction to seniors was perceived as depriving FBOs of potential students. That's especially problematic where FBO support is being sought by CAP, such as use of meeting space, pilots lounge, tiedown and fuel discounts. It's tough competing with the FBO for flight training and then trying to partner with that FBO.

[Panache]

I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations.  Yes, internally we need more pilots.  However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well.  There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.

And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.

The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused.  Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give.  My hunch is that this will not go away.

There was another reason which is still valid.

CAP giving flight instruction to seniors was perceived as depriving FBOs of potential students.

As it stands now, pilot training is too expensive and out of reach for me.  I simply do not have the disposable income for it.

Now, if I was to get discounted training through CAP and got my PP license, I would be more likely to use (and pay for) the services offered at a FBO.

[FW]

We will never be in the business of competing with FBO flight schools, however we should help those member pilots who wish to actively serve. With Air Force support, and hopefully, financial ability, CAP will keep a highly trained, competent, proficient, and safe flying cadre.  This can be done, not only through subsidizing advanced training for MPs, but by offering flight "scholarships" to those senior members willing to become mission pilots.  This idea was first brought to the table in 2001 by Gen Bowling.  Maybe it is time to revisit this?

[NIN]

We will never be in the business of competing with FBO flight schools, however we should help those member pilots who wish to actively serve. With Air Force support, and hopefully, financial ability, CAP will keep a highly trained, competent, proficient, and safe flying cadre.  This can be done, not only through subsidizing advanced training for MPs, but by offering flight "scholarships" to those senior members willing to become mission pilots.  This idea was first brought to the table in 2001 by Gen Bowling.  Maybe it is time to revisit this?

ab initio Mission Pilot training?

[JeffDG]

We will never be in the business of competing with FBO flight schools, however we should help those member pilots who wish to actively serve. With Air Force support, and hopefully, financial ability, CAP will keep a highly trained, competent, proficient, and safe flying cadre.  This can be done, not only through subsidizing advanced training for MPs, but by offering flight "scholarships" to those senior members willing to become mission pilots.  This idea was first brought to the table in 2001 by Gen Bowling.  Maybe it is time to revisit this?

ab initio Mission Pilot training?

Sometimes it's better to catch folks early before they develop bad habits.  Much easier to train "good" habits than try and train folks out of bad ones!

[NIN]

Sometimes it's better to catch folks early before they develop bad habits.  Much easier to train "good" habits than try and train folks out of bad ones!

That was kind of my point.  Primary students trained by CAP folks ab initio might be more comfortable in a CAP-specific flying environment (things like sterile cockpit, slow flight maneuvers, etc) right from the start.

I train skydiving students. I do it in a way that involves jumping from 13,500 from your very first jump. Full-on freefall ab inito.

I learned via static line, where you make very small incremental increases to your altitude and free fall time. Sort of the reverse.

Can't tell you how many of my students, when it is time to do their 5,500 & 3,500 ft "hop & pop" jumps (part of their license progression, usually around jump 9-12), lose their minds about how "low" they're jumping.

My first 8-10 jumps were from 3,000 to 5,500 ft.  5,500 ft ain't low.  If you're trained from day one with it, its no big deal.

( I flipped out a little when, after 6 static line jumps, I went and did AFF, and they opened that door at 13,500.  Whoa! ) 

[LSThiker]

Can't tell you how many of my students, when it is time to do their 5,500 & 3,500 ft "hop & pop" jumps (part of their license progression, usually around jump 9-12), lose their minds about how "low" they're jumping.

When I went to Airborne, we had a few that could not grasp the altitude (Jump 1:  1250 ft; Jumps 2-5:  800ft "1250ft").  They thought that was too low.

I guess low is always relative. 

[A.Member]

Call me less than impressed (it looks like a hastily thrown together presentation) but nonetheless it's good to see some strategic thought taking place and being shared. So kudos on that.  I heard one goal shared was to reduce regs by 1/3rd (a very welcome change if it can be accomplished).  Will we ever see a follow up/status on progress?  Will actions from NHQ align with this? We'll see.

[Garibaldi]

Can't tell you how many of my students, when it is time to do their 5,500 & 3,500 ft "hop & pop" jumps (part of their license progression, usually around jump 9-12), lose their minds about how "low" they're jumping.

When I went to Airborne, we had a few that could not grasp the altitude (Jump 1:  1250 ft; Jumps 2-5:  800ft "1250ft").  They thought that was too low.

I guess low is always relative. 

Low, to me, would be:

"One thousand, Two thousand, Three thous---" splat.

[LSThiker]

Low, to me, would be:

"One thousand, Two thousand, Three thous---" splat.

Yeah.  It has been a long time, but if I remember the numbers correctly, at 800ft, you have 2.4 seconds to activate your reserve chute while at 1250ft, you have 4.9 seconds.