New ORM form for aircrew

[Eclipse]

Now called Tactical Risk Management (TRM) - this was nes to me mid-mission when an aircrew member brought it to our attention.

www.cap.gov/documents/Apr_07_AIF_TRM_.Pdf

Note, it does not have a form number, which is odd in itself.

Does anyone know if there is a new official ground ops form?

[mikeylikey]

Did you notice it actually has the copywrite mark on the lower right corner.  (Not that I am adding anything to this thread of importance, just a curious incidental notice).

[Eclipse]

yes - and printer registration marks, which is unusual as well.

It was apparently "sneaked" into the new AIF and has different values than the old one.

[scooter]

Too bad National doesn't send out an email to all the wings when they change a form that is required to be in every aircraft. It seems they rely on word of mouth.

[IceNine]

Yeah, something here smells fishy

We have this document that was not publicized, and is required to be in the aircraft?  It was never posted on the new section of e-services, or sent out to the membership.  And I can't find it referenced in any of the regulations.

Are we sure that this is legit?  And if so where is the supporting documentation?

[sardak]

Here's the link to the Aircraft Information File (AIF) that shows the form.  It goes behind Tab 10.  The updated page is dated 14 March 08.  Hmmm.  Just noticed the form Eclipse linked to is PDF and is different than the Word version in the AIF.  That's not good.

CAP AIF

Mike

[Frenchie]

If you look at the form, everything says Suggested values.

If you just go with the suggested values, winds of 15 kt = 5 points and winds of 16 kt = 50 points.  So I don't know that it's a big deal that the values are different since common sense dictates there should be interpolation anyway.

[SarDragon]

Did you notice it actually has the copywrite mark on the lower right corner.  (Not that I am adding anything to this thread of importance, just a curious incidental notice).

Try copyright next time.

[Eclipse]

My Wing DO indicated this was, in fact, the new form, included with the AIF last year.  The problem is that most pilots use ORM forms from a stash at mission base, not the one from the AIF, and certainly there was no mention of this formally to non-pilots.

K-SARA-SARA.

I'm still waiting on word from my Wing's DOS as to whether there is a new Ground form.

Also, if we're going to change the nomenclature from "Operational" (ORM) to "Tactical" (TRM), as it appear the Army and others are doing, then more should be made of this than a random form in a file many members never see.

[mikeylikey]

Did you notice it actually has the copywrite mark on the lower right corner.  (Not that I am adding anything to this thread of importance, just a curious incidental notice).

Try copyright next time.

Wow, thanks.....I am usually very good about spelling and grammar.  One slip on my part in the past 1,000 posts.  Sorry to get your panties in a bind.  At least I am one who presses the "spell-check" button.  Why don't you go after those that don't even do that. 

Did it make you feel better to bring my mistake to the attention of everyone?  Just remember I don't hate you, even if you hate me.   

[pixelwonk]

You guys have serious angst.  Please work it out via PM or not at all.

[airdale]

The tone I get here is that people are taking this thing seriously.  If so, I wonder how many are pilots.

Decision matrices like this were, in my memory, first popularized as management tools by consultants Keppner-Tregoe maybe 20-30 years ago.  Their primary value is in the process of developing the row items and the score weightings.  It helps a group discover what the really important factors are in a decision.  The final score is often irrelevant, serving primarily as a sanity check on people's gut opinion(s).

This sheet turns the whole thing on its head and could lead the unwary into believing that a number can replace informed judgment.  And the pilots with the least experience and hence the poorest judgment will be the ones most likely gulled.

50 negative points for a 15 knot wind straight down the runway?  No consideration of time in type or IA rating?  What about instrument proficiency?  (Not FAA currency!)  No consideration of who is flying right seat and what their capabilities are?  Autopilot or no autopilot?  Fuel issues?  I could easily list another 10 items ...

I understand why this type of thing is attractive to bureaucrats.  For every complex problem, there is a simple solution.  ...  Usually wrong.

If some bureaucrat wants me to fill that sheet out  I guess I will do it and let them make their machinations over it, but I will make my go/no-go decision based on a much broader assessment of the situation.