O-flight substitute?

[Briank]

Hard to come up with a good subject for this one.  :-)

I'm sure this has come up in the past, certain parts of the regs are very clear, but finding all available options requires a deeper knowledge than I have yet attained with my very limited experience.  Cadets are also a new thing to me, having been until very recently in a Senior only flight.

Cadets that have exceeded the age for O-Flight, but despite having been in CAP for years never managed to get an O-Flight are out of luck for the standard AF funded O-Flight obviously.  However, what other opportunities exist for them to get in the air/experience flight (and do any of the options also allow control manipulation)?

It seems that going through Mission Scanner training could be a way to at least get some training and air time in a light airplane.  However, with them being a cadet, the CPP might make that tricker?  It seems like you could have a single cadet training as MS in back seat if 2 seniors were in the front.  It sounds like you can't have a Senior in the back and a cadet up front though (unless the parent exception can be applied there), so possibly no front seat experience of any kind this way.  I understand it to be that there's absolutely no control manipulation is this scenario either.

Flight instruction is an obvious one as well (and the CPP seems clear on how that works), but is the cadet required to pay, or can someone else pay for them?  Unless I missed it, it's the full cadet age limit, not the shorter "under 18" o-flight limit.  Is flight instruction reserved for those that are SURE they want to fly, or can it be done to "try it and see" by a cadet that's not sure yet (normally a cadet should have had an o-flight so that they could have already decided if they wanted to pursue flight instruction).

I presume that non-AF funded O-flights are not a thing as I can't find any references to anything along those lines.

Other thoughts?

[Bayareaflyer 44]

Nothing wrong with cost-sharing a flight on a C mission.

[Eclipse]

It seems that going through Mission Scanner training could be a way to at least get some training and air time in a light airplane.  However, with them being a cadet, the CPP might make that tricker?  It seems like you could have a single cadet training as MS in back seat if 2 seniors were in the front.  It sounds like you can't have a Senior in the back and a cadet up front though (unless the parent exception can be applied there), so possibly no front seat experience of any kind this way.  I understand it to be that there's absolutely no control manipulation is this scenario either.

Flight operations is the one place the 2-up rule does not apply.  In fact in gliders, and for Powered 7, it's required to be 1-1, and on Powered 7, the cadet is in the right seat.

There is no reason a cadet who is an MS-T couldn't sit right seat for training.  The usual position for a scanner is back seat, and when there's only one,
behind the pilot, but that's not a rule, that's a duty-based preference.  If CPT is a concern, then being 1-1 but in the back seat doesn't hurt.

Most (all?) wings are running monthly funded A13 proficiency sorties and this would be exactly what that is intended for.  Of course you would need to concentrate on the mission profiles, not the O-Ride profiles, but that's not likely to make any difference and you can familiarize the MS-T in the same ways you would a cadet on an O-ride, in fact you should.

If you see the other related thread, if the cadet is not an MS-T, then it would be transport, but I believe they could still go, however in that case I believe the pilot would have to be an
Instructor pilot, since it wouldn't be a SAR-DR profile (as if it was, the cadet would have to be an MS-T).

Bear in mind, being an MS-T means the FAM / Prep is done, not just the pre-reqs.   I have this exact issue right now, and the cadets eyes got a little
wide when he saw how bit F/P is for MS-T.  It's not hard, just a fair number of tasks.

Considering the retention issues, this is something else NHQ should wrk on canonizing funded aircrew flight training for cadets to encourage them
to continue flying after they are 18 years old.  There is no downside to it beyond some actuary's labeling of the gas money.

[Spaceman3750]

A12 has a transport profile. The pilot is at least a TMP and ballast is allowed.

BTW, the reg doesn't make a distinction between an MP on a SAR profile and an MP boring holes in the sky.

[Eclipse]

A12 has a transport profile. The pilot is at least a TMP and ballast is allowed.

BTW, the reg doesn't make a distinction between an MP on a SAR profile and an MP boring holes in the sky.

Correct, but the nuance here is a situation where a non-MP / non-O-ride pilot building hours wanted to take
a cadet for a dino-burning hole.  I think it would be allowed, 1-1, but only if the pilot is a CAP instructor pilot.

[Spaceman3750]

A12 has a transport profile. The pilot is at least a TMP and ballast is allowed.

BTW, the reg doesn't make a distinction between an MP on a SAR profile and an MP boring holes in the sky.

Correct, but the nuance here is a situation where a non-MP / non-O-ride pilot building hours wanted to take
a cadet for a dino-burning hole.  I think it would be allowed, 1-1, but only if the pilot is a CAP instructor pilot.

I don't get that from the OP at all but in that case you're probably right.

There is a symbol, B15, for a non-AF funded o-ride. Consult with your DO (or regs, not sure if there's anything in 60-1 about it) to find out if over-18 self-funded is permissible on this symbol.

[Eclipse]

I just meant in general, don't think it's an issue with OP, either.

[Briank]

A12 has a transport profile. The pilot is at least a TMP and ballast is allowed.

BTW, the reg doesn't make a distinction between an MP on a SAR profile and an MP boring holes in the sky.

Correct, but the nuance here is a situation where a non-MP / non-O-ride pilot building hours wanted to take
a cadet for a dino-burning hole.  I think it would be allowed, 1-1, but only if the pilot is a CAP instructor pilot.

That's my thought too as the way I read it was that 1-1 was only allowed for instruction (which would require an IP of course).

Thanks for all the info.  It's kind of complicated as we don't have any nearby airplanes anymore in our Wing, and as a result o-flights haven't been happening locally like they should (having to meet transport distance minimums provides some challenges).  Some cadets have been able to get o-flights at encampment, but others either have not been able to go, or have gone as staff and therefore not been eligible for an o-flight.

We do have an IP as well as an o-flight qualified TMP and an airplane nearby, but they're in another Wing (being just a couple miles from a state border can be a bit awkward for CAP operations I'm finding out).  I've worked my way through all the things I need to do for inter-Wing operations now (so that I can finally get my own Form 5 ride scheduled).  Now trying to get all the details worked out for the cadets that have been effectively left out of flight operations.

[Eclipse]

Thanks for all the info.  It's kind of complicated as we don't have any nearby airplanes anymore in our Wing, and as a result o-flights haven't been happening locally like they should (having to meet transport distance minimums provides some challenges).  Some cadets have been able to get o-flights at encampment, but others either have not been able to go, or have gone as staff and therefore not been eligible for an o-flight.

If this is becoming an impediment, you'd be right to push back on this - the wing has requirements (or at least hard shoulds) about providing
o-ride opportunities, and if you're able to put three cadets into a plane, there should be no issues with approving the transport money,
especially if the wing has general availability issues or is short of pilots and / or planes, since if this is the case they probably
aren't burning the money at the right rate anyway.

Also, IMHO, expecting cadets and parents to drive 1-2 hours to meet a plane when that same plane can come to them
in 15 minutes isn't acceptable, even if it makes your o-ride coordinator's life "easier".  Their time isn't less valuable just because it
makes the wing's spreadsheet easier to complete, and that sort of thing is guaranteed to be a retention factor.

In addition to that, CAP planes can land at >any< airport (or at least most), including grass strips.  Just because a plane isn't based there,
doesn't mean it wouldn't work better for everyone.

[Luis R. Ramos]

New York City, anyone?



My cadets have to travel to Farmingdale, about 30 to 45 minutes.



Expect / ask our pilots to land at JFK or LaGuardia airports...

Time on the ground waiting for departure clearance would be like 2 hours! And taking off or landing in the wake of those big boys...?

The reaction will be...

        

[TIger]

If you have a certified flight instructor, they can instruct in the civil air patrol airplane, but the member must pay the maintenance cost and fuel.  Instructor could not be reimbursed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Eclipse]

If you have a certified flight instructor, they can instruct in the civil air patrol airplane, but the member must pay the maintenance cost and fuel.  Instructor could not be reimbursed.

This will / would also require specific Wing approval as such.

Only mentioning because it's not a slam-dunk in some wings.

[Panzerbjorn]

If you have a certified flight instructor, they can instruct in the civil air patrol airplane, but the member must pay the maintenance cost and fuel.  Instructor could not be reimbursed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Just a caveat on that to ensure clarity.  You have to be a CAP Instructor Pilot to give instruction in a CAP airplane.  You can't just be a member pilot who happens to be a CFI and give instruction in a CAP airplane.

[Briank]

Also, IMHO, expecting cadets and parents to drive 1-2 hours to meet a plane when that same plane can come to them
in 15 minutes isn't acceptable, even if it makes your o-ride coordinator's life "easier".  Their time isn't less valuable just because it
makes the wing's spreadsheet easier to complete, and that sort of thing is guaranteed to be a retention factor.

In addition to that, CAP planes can land at >any< airport (or at least most), including grass strips.  Just because a plane isn't based there,
doesn't mean it wouldn't work better for everyone.

The distance/cadets required ratio is part of the funding thing.  I don't have the formula off the top of my head, but works out to 6 cadets have to be available at the furthest unit from the closest airplane.  That's doable for a couple units, but some of the closer ones may not even be able to come up with more than 2, so I'll have to get that information again and work it up for them.  Those may have to drive part way or something.  Plenty of airports around here, every county has at least one decent paved strip and most that I'm familiar with have more.

Our O-Flight requirements definitely include a paved strip, and IIRC, we don't have any operations approved for grass strips currently.  I'll have to check on that again, maybe flight instruction from a grass strip is OK?  I'm thinking not though.  I think my brain is full, information is falling out as fast as it's going in anymore.  Sigh.

[Alaric]

New York City, anyone?



My cadets have to travel to Farmingdale, about 30 to 45 minutes.



Expect / ask our pilots to land at JFK or LaGuardia airports...

Time on the ground waiting for departure clearance would be like 2 hours! And taking off or landing in the wake of those big boys...?

The reaction will be...

        

How about Westchester airport, or Teterboro?

[THRAWN]

New York City, anyone?



My cadets have to travel to Farmingdale, about 30 to 45 minutes.



Expect / ask our pilots to land at JFK or LaGuardia airports...

Time on the ground waiting for departure clearance would be like 2 hours! And taking off or landing in the wake of those big boys...?

The reaction will be...

        

How about Westchester airport, or Teterboro?

Or Linden, Lincoln Park, Caldwell, Morristown, TTN.....lots of places in the Garden State....

[Eclipse]

Our O-Flight requirements definitely include a paved strip, and IIRC, we don't have any operations approved for grass strips currently.  I'll have to check on that again, maybe flight instruction from a grass strip is OK?  I'm thinking not though.  I think my brain is full, information is falling out as fast as it's going in anymore.  Sigh.

"Our"? Meaning your wing's?

My wing has no issue with grass strips and in fact runs a bivouac every year focused at one, including o-rides for cadets camping there as well.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Alaric, Thrawn-

Those places are farther than Farmingdale Apt...

[THRAWN]

Alaric, Thrawn-

Those places are farther than Farmingdale Apt...

And you're not going to wait for a few hours to get clearance. There is balance in the force....

[Briank]

"Our"? Meaning your wing's?

My wing has no issue with grass strips and in fact runs a bivouac every year focused at one, including o-rides for cadets camping there as well.

Correct.  Paved field was one of the requirements given to me by the Wing O-Flight Coordinator.  I didn't think too much of it, the paved only restriction is standard for airplane rental too.  Surprised to hear that other places allow it.