Mission Pilot Designation -- IFR Rated Priority Funded Training?

[DG]

From the Sentinel:
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat

And your point is what?

Let's be wary since "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

In many cases, more than one check pilot was on board.

And would it have been much worse, if the check pilot had not been there to save it?

I will grant you, I know of one or two check pilots who may not be as good as some of our VFR only pilots.

But generally speaking, our check pilots are better than our VFR only pilots.

God help us, if that is not so.

What can we reasonably conclude from these facts?

I would like to suggest that what we can conclude is that the flying we do is serious business.  It is dangerous.  Flying low and slow to perform our mission tasking always calls for us to be the best we can be.  Flying in congested air space.  Flying in special flight restrictions air space.  Flying with cadets.  Flying with non-pilot mission observers ans scanners who are trusting their safety to us.  All of our flying is very serious business.

VFR only pilots who are not interested in being the best we can be should not be called.  VFR pilots who are not interested in working on their instrument rating are not the best they can be.

VFR only pilots should not be given the same training if you have someone who is instrument rated or who is working on or planning to work on their instrument rating.

CAP formally recognizes this for the GA-8 and the G1000 program.

Let's all recognize it, and work together to be the best we can be.

[heliodoc]

Mr Meyer

I do not nor do I pretend to know the answer to this CAP predicament.  There could be any number of ways to do it, including a modified or an exact version of yours.

I do realize that a number of folks make mistakes and CAP assertions that their new safety program is going to eliminate ALLLLLLLL accidents or incidents.    That is NOT a real world scenario, whatsoever.  Folks at the NHQ, Wing, Group, or Sqdn level can preach the elimination of all accidents and incidents through what ever means, electronic or otherwise.

But I have gotten off track with this subject.  It is just time the CAP NHQ makes a traveling fun show to every Wing and PUT on a course equivalent to the Army Aviation or USAF Safety School.  FIND a way...if NHQ has to put on a $1000 per Wing Safety Officer Course, then do it.....yeah yeah yeah the Wing Safety Officer will complain he has to take Vacation....I had to when I went to it in 1999.  But it will drive home the facts BETTER than any CAP online video ,anywhere.

It is time for CAP to face the REAL world of training and start paying for it through grants and get a grant writer to do it.  There always talking the Wing ought to do it.    WELLLL here is one NHQ gets issued the tasking order and hopefully it will be a 1AF tasking order that CAP had better get a march on with!!

[MooneyMeyer]

Why not approach it from a training perspective. 

Funds should be prioritised to create a pool of IFR rated commerical pilots.  Lower level pilots get trainig, and CFI's/II's get profficency from conducting the trainig. 

Make that your foccus and your will have a larger pool of current profficient pilots who will operate at the higher level that you desire.

I think there's a general misunderstanding here. The training we're referring to at say a SAR-ex event, isn't flight training. It's mission training. I don't know about you guys but I've never at a funded training op gone out and done stalls and steep turns.

This why we should prioritize the way I suggested. We're not trying to train better pilots. We're trying to train pilots to perform better at missions. I believe our best pilots (those w/ advanced ratings and high time) will be the best at performing the mission when it's time if they get the priority in funding.

If I go down, I want the best pilots looking for me. If you have a 200 hr private pilot and a 3500 hr ATP both starting with no CAP experience and we spend the same amount of money on each for mission training to get them their MP. I think the ATP will be more likely to find me because they'd be better at multi-tasking and flying a more precise grid.

[isuhawkeye]

Ok, I see what you are talking about. 

Here are a few quick questions.  Is prioritization needed.  how many dollars/pilot are available?  If pilots took advantage of the trainig is there even a nead to draw lines in the sand?

[heliodoc]

Now I understand better

There ought to be BETTER MP training at every Wing SAREX

YEP  I do not recall stalls and steep turns at a funded exercise unless it was a Form 5 which a NUMBER of us more junior (newer with less than 5 yrs MP experience) are always getting overrun by those 30 yrs GOB MP's who do not possess ANY mentorship skills.  That is where a lot of the correction needs to be done

You a 30 yr MP??  Meet your 5 yr or less MP wannabe.......train 'em!!  Don't want to do it or want to fly with your buddies?? BACK IN  THE CHAIR... back at the sign desk taking training from the MSA!!

Maybe check all the records from the SAREX's...check on those MP's who are not training or sharing the knowledge...freeze them out of the FREE flying UNTIL they produce 5 MP 's a year

Just saying....

[RiverAux]

Okay, well it's obvious most of you disagree with the way I've suggested we prioritize funding for MPs. But, what's a better alternative?

Most here seem to be saying that there is no need for prioritizing funding in the first place since we don't appear to have a problem with having way more pilots than needed to fly a particular training mission. 

[Flying Pig]

I think most agree there isnt a problem.  SO find an alternative to what?

[airdale]

Is prioritization needed?

Of course.  Unless a resource is so abundant that it doesn't matter if it is wasted, it should be allocated based on some sort of return on investment assessment.  This is not CAP; this is Management 101.

And, having been away from the computer for maybe 24 hours and now reviewing this conflagration, it seems to me that there is an implicit acceptance that investments ought to be made according to the recipient's value to CAP.  That, in essence, was the OP's proposal.

The argument seems to be mostly about how to determine value.  From the perspective of a commercial/instrument rated MP and AOBD:

1) Pilot ratings alone don't do it.  For example, availability for missions has to be considered.  Is an ATP who is always out of town more valuable than a private-rated retired person who can always be counted on to turn out when the bell rings?  I don't think so.

2) Potential value and the future of the organization has to be considered.  A young and enthusiastic pilot working on advanced ratings is more valuable than an elderly instrument-rated pilot who has trouble keeping a medical.

3) Fairness is important, especially considering the volunteer nature of the organization.  You can't attract new members if you implicitly tell them that the organization really isn't interested in developing them as assets.

So ... bottom line IMHO is that any prioritization will necessarily be subjective and will consider many things, including ones that have been mentioned here.  But admit that it's important and do it.  Don't continue with the GOB Flying Club model or continue to pretend that (scarce) resources shouldn't be allocated in a thoughtful way just because the allocation is hard to do or can't be done perfectly.

[Short Field]

How about prioritizing based on total participation:  meetings attended, SAR and SAREX participation, Mission Base duties when not flying, etc.  I saw something from VAWG about what pilots needed to have done in the previous year to get a funded Fm5 and was impressed.  I see some people in the unit ONLY when they show up for a funded Fm5 ride.

[Short Field]

CAP formally recognizes this for the GA-8 and the G1000 program.

GA-8 requires 300 hrs PIC and a insturment rating.  The G1000 requirement is the same as for steam guages except you need training and a Fm5 in the G1000.

[airdale]

How about prioritizing based on total participation:  meetings attended, SAR and SAREX participation, Mission Base duties when not flying, etc.

Very reasonable things to consider.

More Management 101:

1) You get what you measure.
2) You get what you reward.

[DG]

CAP formally recognizes this for the GA-8 and the G1000 program.

GA-8 requires 300 hrs PIC and a insturment rating.  The G1000 requirement is the same as for steam guages except you need training and a Fm5 in the G1000.

The G1000 program is aimed at instrument pilots who are qualified and current.

VFR only pilots are not the right stuff to check out and fly our G1000 a/c.

[aveighter]

From the Sentinel:
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat

And your point is what?

Let's be wary since "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

From these facts, there could be as few as 22 aircraft.  If more than one check pilot was on board.

DG, are you so intellectually deficient that you can't comprehend the plain meaning of the text?  40 planes boy, 40.  And all 40 with some manner of crew with advanced ratings or qualifications.  Not too long ago in our area a whole plane load of fellows flew themselves into the side of a mountain on the way to a mountain flying training event.  Look it up and marvel at the accumulated experience and ratings of that poor crew.

Judgment and skill are not automatically a function of ratings.

Tragedy and ratings are not inversely proportional as a matter of course. 

Around here we have mountains.  Operating aircraft in those mountains at low altitude in maneuvering flight, oftentimes relatively heavy at 90kts in the heat and turbulence that characterizes over half of our year requires judgment and skill.  We don't do it IFR.  We are often looking for someone who tried to do it IFR.  Your underlying assertion that the VFR pilot is automatically less skilled and qualified for most of what we do is absurd on it's face.

Much of what you write has an air of lunacy about it.  I don't think you are a pilot.  You don't speak through your writing like a pilot would.

[DG]

From the Sentinel:
From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat

From these facts, there could be as few as 22 aircraft.  If more than one check pilot was on board.

DG, are you so intellectually deficient that you can't comprehend the plain meaning of the text?  40 planes boy, 40.  And all 40 with some manner of crew with advanced ratings or qualifications.  Not too long ago in our area a whole plane load of fellows flew themselves into the side of a mountain on the way to a mountain flying training event.  Look it up and marvel at the accumulated experience and ratings of that poor crew.

Judgment and skill are not automatically a function of ratings.

Tragedy and ratings are not inversely proportional as a matter of course. 

Around here we have mountains.  Operating aircraft in those mountains at low altitude in maneuvering flight, oftentimes relatively heavy at 90kts in the heat and turbulence that characterizes over half of our year requires judgment and skill.  We don't do it IFR.  We are often looking for someone who tried to do it IFR.  Your underlying assertion that the VFR pilot is automatically less skilled and qualified for most of what we do is absurd on it's face.

Much of what you write has an air of lunacy about it.  I don't think you are a pilot.  You don't speak through your writing like a pilot would.

My point is that many times there are two or more check pilots on board.

Obviously, I did not make it simple enough as that did not communicate to you.

Sometimes, we have three check pilots on board.

If you look at our accident statistics, many have more than 1 CP on board.  That is not reflected in the stats given.

When the 2 or more CP's on board the G1000 that went in at night with Ed Lewis and the NVWG CC, 2 check pilots were on board.

Ed gave me my Form 5 in the GA-8 at Mojave.  If we had had damage on that flight, there were 3 CP on board.  You would recognize the name of the 3rd CP.

As a chief check pilot evaluator, many of my flights have more than 1 CP on board.

My assertion is absurd on its face?  An air of lunacy?  You should be more personable with how you speak.  I don't need to tell you that.  You already know it.

[PHall]

What would the Air Force say?

Does the Air Force have commanding officers of flying units who are not pilots?

Can you be a Wing Commander of an Air Force flying wing if you are not a pilot?

Yes and yes.

There have been a number of Flying Squadron Commanders, Operations Group Commanders and Flying Wing Commanders in the Air Force who were not pilots.

They were Navigators.

[flynd94]

What would the Air Force say?

Does the Air Force have commanding officers of flying units who are not pilots?

Can you be a Wing Commander of an Air Force flying wing if you are not a pilot?

Yes and yes.

There have been a number of Flying Squadron Commanders, Operations Group Commanders and Flying Wing Commanders in the Air Force who were not pilots.

They were Navigators.

Phil,

But they weren't "real pilots", its only us guys who sit up front who count.  Those who sit in the back (and sideways) should be quiet, while us true aviators work.   

PS-My post is in jest

CAP is a organization of many different types of pilots, of varying skill levels.  They all serve a purpose and, fill a niche in CAP.  We shouldn't be pushing anyone aside but, training them up. 

Be it funding for their instrument rating or, just plain, good ol' proficiency flights.  We have too many pilots out there that only get 20-30hrs of stick time a year.  IMHO, you need a minimum of 5-10hrs/month to maintain proficiency.  They should spend time both practicing grid skills/basic airmanship, period!  You don't know how many CAPF5/91's I have given where you can tell the applicant doesn't fly that much.

PS- Excuse me while I go back to studying my limitations, memory items, maneuvers, profiles and, systems; I have my 6 month ride in the torture chamber (simulator) on Monday

[airdale]

VFR only pilots are not the right stuff to check out and fly our G1000 a/c.

Wow.  I guess we are in the presence of a superior being here.  (and yes, I am Form 5/Instruments in the G1000)

1) It is quite possible to use the G1000 VFR and gain advantage from its capabilities.  The NEXRAD WX and Strikefinder, for example, are huge assets.  I'd guess that 95% or more G1000 CAP flying is VFR and most of the little instrument flying that is done is hood time.  It does not take an IA rating to use the G1000 on CAP missions.

2) The availability of an autopilot is a significant safety enhancement for any pilot, though I will admit that the KAP-140 is not the easiest box in the world to deal with.  But understanding it has little or nothing to do with whether one has an IA rating or not.

3) Sure, a lot of the G1000 capability is really oriented towards the strong suit of the airplane, which is long-haul cross country flight under IFR.  But that's capability that is unused in most CAP flying anyway.  (And a reason that the unnecessarily fat and complex G1000 182s are a stupid airplane for CAP to be buying, but that is another thread.)

[DG]

I just went back and looked up the Sentinel article.  It did mention my point of more than 1 CP on board.  Short Field did not include that part.

Here is the full text as it appeared in the Sentinel.

From 1 June 2007 until 31 December 2008, 81 CAP aircraft were
damaged due to pilot error. Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission
check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they
were damaged. Sixteen were the PIC, 22 were in the right seat and the
other 2 were in the back seat (NOTE: Some of these mishaps had more
than one check/instructor pilot on board).
Check/mission check/instructor pilots were involved in 33 accident or
incidents, runway excursions, blown tires; 27 of these incidents, such
as, tail strikes, hard landings, high flares, etcetera, could have been
prevented by the check pilot or IP taking charge of the situation.
Thirteen check pilots/IPs were involved in taxi incidents, taxiing
between parked aircraft, running into parked aircraft, taxiing short cuts
across the grass at night. Eight were involved in propeller ground
damage incidents, ladders hit, chocks and rocks picked up, taxiway
lights hit, cones hit, etc. while 21 were involved in hangar related
incidents.

[DG]

VFR only pilots are not the right stuff to check out and fly our G1000 a/c.

Wow.  I guess we are in the presence of a superior being here.  (and yes, I am Form 5/Instruments in the G1000)

1) It is quite possible to use the G1000 VFR and gain advantage from its capabilities.  The NEXRAD WX and Strikefinder, for example, are huge assets.  I'd guess that 95% or more G1000 CAP flying is VFR and most of the little instrument flying that is done is hood time.  It does not take an IA rating to use the G1000 on CAP missions.

2) The availability of an autopilot is a significant safety enhancement for any pilot, though I will admit that the KAP-140 is not the easiest box in the world to deal with.  But understanding it has little or nothing to do with whether one has an IA rating or not.

3) Sure, a lot of the G1000 capability is really oriented towards the strong suit of the airplane, which is long-haul cross country flight under IFR.  But that's capability that is unused in most CAP flying anyway.  (And a reason that the unnecessarily fat and complex G1000 182s are a stupid airplane for CAP to be buying, but that is another thread.)

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The VFR flying you are doing in your G1000 is being done by an instrument pilot.

That much we are saying the same thing.

But I can't say that about all the rest.  Here in the northeast, we fly the G1000 in IMC, a lot.

[airdale]

Check pilots, instructor pilots or mission check pilots were crewmembers on 40 of those aircraft at the time they were damaged.

I'm not getting the point here.  Obviously, IPs and check pilots spend more time in the airplanes than most other CAP pilots.  Until I see an accident rate (per hour flown) I have no idea whether these guys are safer or more dangerous than the average CAP pilot.  And for training accidents, I would want to compare the CAP accident rate to national statistics before drawing any conclusions.

The VFR flying you are doing in your G1000 is being done by an instrument pilot.

But it doesn't have to be!  I included the credential only to make the point that I understand the box and can comment with at least a little credibility on whether the lowly and ignorant VFR pilots that you look down upon should be permitted to fly it or not.

BTW, what is the opposite of having the right stuff?  Unstuffed?  Stuffless?