Put the old pilots out on the ice floe

As it should be Short Field

Some of our Form 5 have draaaaaaged in for months at a time OR very little or no feed back from the "check pilot."

Some of these guys could explain there way to anything ad when a pilot is "having a bad day" there is no such thing a checklist to go over the things needing help.  Now I am not saying that the Form 5 should be a giveaway or anything of the sort.

But the adversarial ways some so called check pilots have on responding to either phone calls or issues leave me to believe that in my Wing we have check pilots who ought not have the responsibility of doing rides.  The Form 5, the WHOLE Form 5 process, with some of the folks in my Wing, make it really more than it is and the most of those folks do not even approach, as really understanding the Form 5 unless it becomes more than 10 / 100 mile drive a thon to go meet up with these so called CAP
professionals, who may call themselves professionals, wasting peoples time.

Now I do understand the issues of pilots not being ready for checkrides, but really a rusty pilot can be brought up to speed fairly quickly, and should no where approach 10 hours even of the pilot puts in 4 hours a month...now I am sure we can go round and round about that..

But I am for NOT wasting prople time ...as I was informed at an interview today as a Citizen Corps Coordinator for a major State operation
They are not interested as in organization to waste peoples time ...CAP ought to take the clue.

I can state this with authority as many others can. Waste my time doing a Form 5, which ought not be different than a BFR, is an embarassment to CAP as so called professional pilots.

AND I do know how CAP loves to brag about its professionalism...

I am having a hard time understanding what heliodoc is trying to say. Is he saying check pilots aren't giving enough instruction? Because check rides are not instructional flights. Check rides are tests where the prospective pilot demonstrates (1) an understanding of CAP procedures for flight operations, and (2) flying competency necessary to perform CAP flight operations like orientation flights and SAR mission training.

A pilot who fails a check ride should only need a copy of the form 5 to see what parts he/she failed. It is not incumbent on the check pilot to hand hold the prospective pilot and go through and explain how to do those things the pilot failed.

A form 5 is not a BFR.

Let me try to clear things up...

Sometimes the check pilot is the pilot (sometimes) flying with the prospective Form 5 candidate is that is instruction prior to the Form 5, so maybe the check pilot is confused in his or her capacity.

CAP orientation flight are just that. We are entrusted to fly cadets and seniors, both.  So the word competency rings true for both the CAP and civilian world when it comes to that part of flight instruction.  If I am not mistaken, CAP orientation flights ARE somewhat instructional, so tell me the difference of CAP orientation flights and the first few hours of flight instruction?  There is where I have the problem with CAP.... our standards are "tighter" some people claim.  I have done o rides and they are not that big of a deal for either the cadets ir me as a commercial pilot.  Being a skydive pilot,  I give some instruction on how an airplane flies to those who are interested, does that make me less competent than a CAP pilot??  One can find plenty of incompetence everywhere, including CAP.  Do not think for one minute that, CAP pilots, check or otherwise, are the ace of the flying bases!!

But then CAP orientation pilots are not all CFI's.  So is CAP saying, because they fly a 6 hour cadet syllabus, they are more proficient than CFI's?  I beg to argue that.

I get the idea that CAP check pilots are not to hand hold the prospecrtive pilot.  Then they ought not be training CAP pilots prior the Form 5.  Then in that case, it appears that a check pilot can not be bothered by the general CAP membership after the flight,  is that how I am to understand that?  Then with that reasoning, is a CAP check pilot then,  not a mentor pilot?

I also understand  the Form 5 is not a BFR, it is an eval...got it...then why is being credited by the Wings Program?  I know CAP and FAA went together on it, and for lack of better terms, it does amount to a BFR if it getting credited as such.

But I believe in mentorship in CAP flight operations..a commodity found in very few "younger" CAP pilots or check pilot who are in the capacity to instruct BEFORE the Form 5.  Those that do true mentoring in CAP are few and far between for an organization that seems encourage flying or flight operations.

Maybe when one becomes a CAP check pilot or a CAP pilot with ooooodles of hours, they think they are done mentoring whether or not Form 5 's are being conducted.  I also know that CAP check pilots are not flying to some CAP "standards of flight"...they are going by FAA PTS standards which are flown according to the certificate held.  With professional DPE's there is a little "slop" for lack of better terms,and if one can recover from the offending issue, before the DPE gets involved, then it is a safe ride

So in CAP, these Form 5's should not be viewed as adversarial, they are an eval that at the end of EVERY Form 5, a discussion ought to take place other than just handing the Form 5 pilot a Form 5 and saying , "Good Day!"

That sound like too much to do??

What???

As an O-Ride pilot, and non-CFI, I can say CAP O-flights ARE IN NO WAY INSTRUCTIONAL

Form 5 Check Pilots perform CAP's most basic check ride to the standard of the certificate held.  Its up to you the pilot to get the necessary instruction or mentoring BEFORE the Form 5.  The Form 5 is a go/no-go. 

Got it , Rob

But reading CAPP 52-7   demonstrate , show, let the cadet handle the aircraft

Like I said earlier, "somewhat instructional."

Plus all the CAPP 52-7 wording revolving around the word syllabus and syllabi...in the educators world (spell teacher or flight instructor) it still spells instruction when the words demonstrate and show appear


I'll stand down on my Form 5 commentary  NOT on the syllabus and CAPP 52-7...

Syllabus usually come under the heading "instruction."


Not arguing with you, Rob.  This one I have a background on...

Let me try to clear things up...

Sometimes the check pilot is the pilot (sometimes) flying with the prospective Form 5 candidate is that is instruction prior to the Form 5, so maybe the check pilot is confused in his or her capacity.

CAP orientation flight are just that. We are entrusted to fly cadets and seniors, both.  So the word competency rings true for both the CAP and civilian world when it comes to that part of flight instruction.  If I am not mistaken, CAP orientation flights ARE somewhat instructional, so tell me the difference of CAP orientation flights and the first few hours of flight instruction?  There is where I have the problem with CAP.... our standards are "tighter" some people claim.  I have done o rides and they are not that big of a deal for either the cadets ir me as a commercial pilot.  Being a skydive pilot,  I give some instruction on how an airplane flies to those who are interested, does that make me less competent than a CAP pilot??  One can find plenty of incompetence everywhere, including CAP.  Do not think for one minute that, CAP pilots, check or otherwise, are the ace of the flying bases!!

But then CAP orientation pilots are not all CFI's.  So is CAP saying, because they fly a 6 hour cadet syllabus, they are more proficient than CFI's?  I beg to argue that.

I get the idea that CAP check pilots are not to hand hold the prospecrtive pilot.  Then they ought not be training CAP pilots prior the Form 5.  Then in that case, it appears that a check pilot can not be bothered by the general CAP membership after the flight,  is that how I am to understand that?  Then with that reasoning, is a CAP check pilot then,  not a mentor pilot?

I also understand  the Form 5 is not a BFR, it is an eval...got it...then why is being credited by the Wings Program?  I know CAP and FAA went together on it, and for lack of better terms, it does amount to a BFR if it getting credited as such.

But I believe in mentorship in CAP flight operations..a commodity found in very few "younger" CAP pilots or check pilot who are in the capacity to instruct BEFORE the Form 5.  Those that do true mentoring in CAP are few and far between for an organization that seems encourage flying or flight operations.

Maybe when one becomes a CAP check pilot or a CAP pilot with ooooodles of hours, they think they are done mentoring whether or not Form 5 's are being conducted.  I also know that CAP check pilots are not flying to some CAP "standards of flight"...they are going by FAA PTS standards which are flown according to the certificate held.  With professional DPE's there is a little "slop" for lack of better terms,and if one can recover from the offending issue, before the DPE gets involved, then it is a safe ride

So in CAP, these Form 5's should not be viewed as adversarial, they are an eval that at the end of EVERY Form 5, a discussion ought to take place other than just handing the Form 5 pilot a Form 5 and saying , "Good Day!"

That sound like too much to do??

 

I don't understand this at all.

O-Flights are 100% instructional.  That's what they exist for.  It doesn't matter if the cadet is at the controls or the pilot, the cadet is being "instructed" on the material in the syllabus.  See 52-7, 20. Cadets should "handle the controls" after the pilot demonstrates the procedure. The O-flight motto is, "Safe, fun, educational."  How is it educational if you don't instruct?  It may not be "flight instruction" like a normal lesson with a CFI, but it sure is close.

The cadets on my O-flights get a lot of time "handling the controls".

4-2. ORIENTATION FLIGHTS. The Cadet Orientation Flight Program is designed to introduce youth to general aviation through hands-on orientation flights in single engine aircraft and gliders. The program is limited to current CAP cadets under 18 years of age. Cadets aged 18 and older may still participate in military orientation flights.

[...]

c. A successful orientation flight will include at least 80% of the syllabus objectives found in CAPP 52-7, Cadet Orientation Flight Syllabus. Every flight will conform to the syllabus and be consistent with safety. Orientation flights will not be credited toward any pilot ratings (solo, private pilot, etc.).

Orientation flights are educational, not instructional. They are not designed to teach cadets how to pilot an aircraft, but rather to contribute an understanding of how aircraft fly. There is some ambiguity there, but not much.

Heliodoc, it sounds like some of your check pilots aren't doing things right. That sucks. I think CAP has a difficult problem where they NEED to hold check pilots accountable, but then if they did that then perhaps a lot of people wouldn't want to be check pilots any more.

As an O-Ride pilot, and non-CFI, I can say CAP O-flights ARE IN NO WAY INSTRUCTIONAL

Form 5 Check Pilots perform CAP's most basic check ride to the standard of the certificate held.  Its up to you the pilot to get the necessary instruction or mentoring BEFORE the Form 5.  The Form 5 is a go/no-go.

This is true. I am an IP but not a Check Pilot. So, a lot of new CAP pilots wil fly with me and I think they are ready, I wil send them to the check pilot. usually It takes one or two flights.

On another note, Too many Check pilots think they are DPE's. A form 5 is NOT an FAA checkride for a certificate. most chekpilots arent trained like DPEs and should be acting like DPE's They should make sure the pilots is in accordance to their certificate.

Thanks  N Harmon

I would say its the 20% in power overiding 80% that need the help in their capacities as check pilots, I can not accuse all.  But there are definitely some issues in my Wing that need addressing and quite possibly some shakeup counseling.

That 's why I am reducing some of my CAP flying to allow those monkeys to keep on keeping on. But I will be there to remind them as a thorn. 

I'd rather fly with professionals that know their place in life in CAP and fly on the commercial market especially G1000...'cuz here in CAP  land MOST do not get the FITS program let along any thing else instructional or check pilotdom.  After 5 or 6 years of the G1000 being on the scene, some folks just do not get it!

So there is my chip...I will fly with someone else than CAP  when I can during this layoff.  I would spend good money with someone who really understands the process of instruction vs evaluation, although some know the difference in CAP.  This has been addressed in my Wing..but there are some GOB's in the system that NEED to stop 10 hour stretches of Form 5 and trying obscure information just to watch someone scramble for information.  What needs to happen is a real pilot continuation program leading to the Form 5  and not just sources on the NHQ websites that have "Form 5 prep" and more one to one which some of us candidiate CFI's are propsing to do in iur sqdn that has DRIVEN away as many as 5 CFI's already 'cuz they have witnessed and heard the goofiness of what goes on other than a ride to FAA PTS standards...which a Form 5 with 60-1 added in..There are problems with lack of standardization in CAP and even the sharper cadets can see this

As far as instruction per the CAPP 52-7..its instruction...just that no one is gaining loggable time except the O ride pilot

Educational vs instructional we can round and round.... when there's a syllabus involved stating demo and show it.  Its instructional as well as educational

A check ride is analogous to a driving test.

The motor vehicle department inspector is along for the ride to determine that the test taker can operate the car in a safe, legal manner and maintain control of the car while driving. That's all. MV examiners don't give driving lessons -- driving school instructors do.

A CAP CP is there solely to determine that the pilot taking the check ride can operate the aircraft, on the air and on the ground, in a safe, controlled manner -- meeting FARs, CAP regs, and so forth.

If the pilot needs refresher or proficiency training (before or after), ideally the IP should be someone other than the check pilot.

O-Flights are 100% instructional.  That's what they exist for.  It doesn't matter if the cadet is at the controls or the pilot, the cadet is being "instructed" on the material in the syllabus.  See 52-7, 20. Cadets should "handle the controls" after the pilot demonstrates the procedure. The O-flight motto is, "Safe, fun, educational."  How is it educational if you don't instruct?  It may not be "flight instruction" like a normal lesson with a CFI, but it sure is close.

The cadets on my O-flights get a lot of time "handling the controls".

Knowing what you do in your day job, you have probably forgotten more about flying than I will every know.  However, I think its the terms used.  If CAP O Flights were "instructional" you would need to be a CFI to do them.  They are for orientation.  OFlights cannot be used as time.  In aviation terms,  education, orientation have a much different meaning than "instruction".  I know its semantic.  When I do O-FLights, yes, I believe I do instruct the cadets.  But in a legal/FAA sense, I am not "instructing" anyone.  When I do OFlights, the cadet is on the controls with me from start up to shut down.  Once at altitude, they are usually the one flying with me poised at the ready to grab-a-hold. 

Well, since we are already wayyyyyy off the topic, guess I wil add too it.

The above statememnts is exactly why I advocate that O ride pilots that are aso CFI's should allow the cadets to sit in the left seat. According to the FAR, the PIC of an aircraft can be the PIC from any seat in the aircraft. As a CFI, I am actually more comfortable flying from the right seat since that is what I do on a daily basis. i dont fly fromthe left too often. In fact, CAP flying is only time I fly from the left seat.

The powers that be need to seriously re look that rule

I think it should be up to the CAP CFI.  To expect that a CAP CFI basically be forced to act as a CFI evertime they get in the plane is a little much.  I think the O-Ride program is actually pretty good as is.

Just because you fly in the right seat doesnt mean you are "acting" as a CFI. When I take my friends flying. I will fly in the right seat because again, that is the seat I am most comfortable flying from. I can fly from the left seat. but I am used to flying right seat so I fly from the right most of the time weather instructing or not.

What needs to happen is a real pilot continuation program leading to the Form 5  and not just sources on the NHQ websites that have "Form 5 prep" and more one to one which some of us candidiate CFI's are propsing to do in iur sqdn

I so agree with this.    The lack of a credible Form 5 prep program is hurting the intake and Form 5 success of many squadrons (Let's not even talk about the F91).  When I joined there was much mention about you need to prepare for the Form 5 but no resources where provided, CAWG went on restricted funds, and I had to provide a rental Cessna 182 for the Form 5.  If I was not so tenacious, and found the Form 5 online course (can't we do better than this) in a Google search, printed flash cards from the AOPA ASF, found the mysterious CAPF60-1, and flew my A** off to get ready, I would be still sitting on my A** doing GTM3 and wearing a BDU uniform (Have the UDF and working on the GTM3 and BDU's so don't flame me ).  And then if it wasn't for NESA, forget about Mission Pilot.

So my mission (heh) is to help the other pilots in our unit and group through the Form 5, and onwards to the MP rating.

I've been there; it's a real safety and liability issue that CAP really has to address. It means a two pilot mission crew for obvious reasons with the observer in back doing scanner duties and hopefully one of pilots doesn't have a hearing problem. I've flown in some of those circumstances and it's really tough on the whole crew.

Also, I've also seen those situations where the older guys really drag their feet getting Form 5s done because they already know they're going to fail something.

Besides, airline pilots already have age requirements.

Comparing CAP with the airlines... That's not a good comparison!

The problem with this ageism question is that the population is greying out.  Restricting pilots on age alone is going to put a serious crimp in our pool of available pilots in the decades ahead.

However, in 20 years our SAR platform, could be radically different!! In that case, when I'm 80 I want the option to fly a CAP drone, through VR, from the comfort of my wheel chair :O

I still would like to see data that would support, and justify, such a draconian action!
I have yet to see any evidence that "old pilots" are causing a disproportional number of "incidents".