Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:41 pm
Eric:
THANK YOU!
Ever consider running for General Staff?
Old Shep
THANK YOU!
Ever consider running for General Staff?
Old Shep
Qualifications
Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:08 am
Eric,
No offense taken, and your clarifications of what you said are very enlightening- I wasn't really paying attention and now have a different picture of the situation with pilot proficiency in the CAF. I should definitely learn more about the CAF proficiency procedures.
Since I don't have as much experience with airplanes, I probably can better describe some medical experiences that I have had that can elucidate my opinions on recency and recurrency. In another life, I was a medic in the Army. At that point, the US Army decided that electric and non-electric firing systems, P-factors, CARVER, Dash-2 forms, and other niceties were no longer my specialty. After training at Fort Sam and Fort Bragg, I went forth, well trained and full of eagerness to prove my skills. The starting of an IV is one of those benchmarks by which a person in my then chosen profession was assessed. And I was hot. I got an IV in a 5 year old kid with a seizure while the ambulance was bouncing down a dirt road, while the 20 year veteran next to me said, "Wow." I knew I was hot. I didn't miss. I got called to do difficult sticks on kids, old people, and dogs. I was good. I did them all the time, all day, all night. I did at least 10 a week and I think that is what made me good. Now fast forward about 7 years. I had a hiatus from sticking people with IV's for about 3 years. So I go back, and I am Forgotten Field's worst nightmare when it comes to IV's. I am working a job in which I get to stick an IV once every two weeks. So it takes me about a year (and some volunteer time in a clinic) to get good enough again to be able to say, with a 99% accurate statement, that I am okay at sticking IV's.
Now looking back at those two times, as relates technical skills, I have a few opinions about recency and recurrency. And this definitely is how I think about flying the L-5. First, you have to be doing the skill repetitively and with short enough intervals between the times you use the skill so that the subsequent executions build a muscle and mind memory that grows and doesn't seem like a new experience. Second, you need objective critique of the execution of that skill which builds the next time you use the skill into a persistent continuation of development of mastery of that skill. Third, in the case of anomalies of use of that skill, you must be sensitive enough of the steps involved to pinpoint where you have gone wrong. Regularity, Progression, Overload, Balance, Specificity- I think you may have heard that somewhere before.
Maybe comparing IV sticks to flying an airplane is a stretch, but here is what I am thinking. An IV stick is a relatively simple procedure of changing the spatial orientation of two tubes- the IV cannula and the vein of the patient. I'm not a dumb guy, and I'm pretty handy with mechanical things. But if it takes me 26 sticks, plus another 25 or so to get down a relatively easy spatial orientation procedure, what does it take with flying?
I'm surprised that people don't discipline themselves to take the 1.5 hours a month. I heard that the 1.5 hours were available, but didn't know that it was only the cost of fuel for the flight. I was under the impression that there was a further cost to the flight operation. I can't believe that someone, and even someone very experienced, wouldn't feel compelled to fly at least 1.5 a month, and especially if they intended to fly the airplane to a show or with passengers. I don't think it's a good idea to blow off that 1.5 hours of time.
As for other pilots flying the airplanes, I personally know two people who are relatively high time pilots, loads of tailwheel experience, with valid medical certificates, who would love to fly a warbird. If I had the money, I'd buy them a sponsorship and flight hours before I'd buy them for myself because of their advanced skill levels, and because I think they are good guys. Why am I not a member? I'm still buying the L-5, still trying to educate myself, buying a new house in a few months, two boys, etc. So it's just not the right time for me now. Hopefully that will change. A T-6 within driving distance of Baltimore or wherever I am at some future point would definitely influence my decision.
Thanks again Eric, SUA SPONTE
No offense taken, and your clarifications of what you said are very enlightening- I wasn't really paying attention and now have a different picture of the situation with pilot proficiency in the CAF. I should definitely learn more about the CAF proficiency procedures.
Since I don't have as much experience with airplanes, I probably can better describe some medical experiences that I have had that can elucidate my opinions on recency and recurrency. In another life, I was a medic in the Army. At that point, the US Army decided that electric and non-electric firing systems, P-factors, CARVER, Dash-2 forms, and other niceties were no longer my specialty. After training at Fort Sam and Fort Bragg, I went forth, well trained and full of eagerness to prove my skills. The starting of an IV is one of those benchmarks by which a person in my then chosen profession was assessed. And I was hot. I got an IV in a 5 year old kid with a seizure while the ambulance was bouncing down a dirt road, while the 20 year veteran next to me said, "Wow." I knew I was hot. I didn't miss. I got called to do difficult sticks on kids, old people, and dogs. I was good. I did them all the time, all day, all night. I did at least 10 a week and I think that is what made me good. Now fast forward about 7 years. I had a hiatus from sticking people with IV's for about 3 years. So I go back, and I am Forgotten Field's worst nightmare when it comes to IV's. I am working a job in which I get to stick an IV once every two weeks. So it takes me about a year (and some volunteer time in a clinic) to get good enough again to be able to say, with a 99% accurate statement, that I am okay at sticking IV's.
Now looking back at those two times, as relates technical skills, I have a few opinions about recency and recurrency. And this definitely is how I think about flying the L-5. First, you have to be doing the skill repetitively and with short enough intervals between the times you use the skill so that the subsequent executions build a muscle and mind memory that grows and doesn't seem like a new experience. Second, you need objective critique of the execution of that skill which builds the next time you use the skill into a persistent continuation of development of mastery of that skill. Third, in the case of anomalies of use of that skill, you must be sensitive enough of the steps involved to pinpoint where you have gone wrong. Regularity, Progression, Overload, Balance, Specificity- I think you may have heard that somewhere before.
Maybe comparing IV sticks to flying an airplane is a stretch, but here is what I am thinking. An IV stick is a relatively simple procedure of changing the spatial orientation of two tubes- the IV cannula and the vein of the patient. I'm not a dumb guy, and I'm pretty handy with mechanical things. But if it takes me 26 sticks, plus another 25 or so to get down a relatively easy spatial orientation procedure, what does it take with flying?
I'm surprised that people don't discipline themselves to take the 1.5 hours a month. I heard that the 1.5 hours were available, but didn't know that it was only the cost of fuel for the flight. I was under the impression that there was a further cost to the flight operation. I can't believe that someone, and even someone very experienced, wouldn't feel compelled to fly at least 1.5 a month, and especially if they intended to fly the airplane to a show or with passengers. I don't think it's a good idea to blow off that 1.5 hours of time.
As for other pilots flying the airplanes, I personally know two people who are relatively high time pilots, loads of tailwheel experience, with valid medical certificates, who would love to fly a warbird. If I had the money, I'd buy them a sponsorship and flight hours before I'd buy them for myself because of their advanced skill levels, and because I think they are good guys. Why am I not a member? I'm still buying the L-5, still trying to educate myself, buying a new house in a few months, two boys, etc. So it's just not the right time for me now. Hopefully that will change. A T-6 within driving distance of Baltimore or wherever I am at some future point would definitely influence my decision.
Thanks again Eric, SUA SPONTE
Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:20 pm
EDowning wrote:Forgotten Field wrote:I know there are a lot of guys out there with multiple thousands of hours in aircraft that would be good matches for flying the CAF fleet on a regular basis in a professional capacity. Was this ever considered, and if so, what came up in discussion?
Of course any of these qualified pilots are able to apply to fly anything the CAF has already. The sponsorship cost to fly any of the CAF airplanes is ridiculously low (too low) in my opinion. At 10,000 to sponsor a fighter, 5000 to sponsor a bomber and even less for other types, payable in payments, few people that are highly qualified would be excluded because of sponsorship cost. Another point to be considered, you don't have to fly or be a pilot to sponsor an airraft. If one feels strongly about the preservation or maitenance of a particular type, contact a wing an set up a sponsorship. You will have exactly the same input and voice as a "flying sponsor".
I personally think that there should be an additional annual contribution required in addition to the initial amount of the sponsorship, my experience in the business world has taught me that the more "buy in" required of someone, the more serious the individual is about doing everything they can to maximize their investment.
THe current structure allows a sponsor/pilot to fly a certain amount per month (@ 1.5 hours) for nothing more than the cost of fuel. Very few CAF pilots actually do this. I would make this mandatory. If one is unwilling or unable to commit to this, perhaps some other hobby should be considered
Went to the CAF website, could not find anything that speaks to becoming an: aircraft flying or non-flying sponsor, costs, qualifications, aircraft available, etc...
Since, the dialogue has already been opened would like to find out more about participating in this regard. I think many on this forum have the time and skill set to pursue this level of sponsorship.
PMs are welcome for contact info, but, I feel all would be interested in this subject.
Warren
Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:07 pm
Warren_C wrote:
I will be happy to EMAIL a copy of the 28 page PDF document that covers all of the qualifications for flying any class of the CAF's airplanes to you. I would post it all but it is to large to put in a post. I think you will be impressed with the detail and checks and balances of the process. I think many who are unfamiliar with the process, believe that the CAF has some lame "wink and a nod" process, but it couldn't be farther from the truth.
Basically, for a fighter, one needs a commercial instrument, 2000 hrs PIC, 1000hrs tailwheel, 200 in an AT6 and pass two separate T6 check rides with designated CAF check airmen, pass 2 separate board interviews and be approved by the General Staff. After that the Sponsor money ($10,000 for a fighter) comes into play. This is only a synopsis, but will give the general public a basic idea.
ANYONE who has an interest can EMAIL me at Email4eric@aol.com and I will respond with a full copy of the PDF regulation that explains it all in detail.
Thanks for your interest.
Went to the CAF website, could not find anything that speaks to becoming an: aircraft flying or non-flying sponsor, costs, qualifications, aircraft available, etc...
Since, the dialogue has already been opened would like to find out more about participating in this regard. I think many on this forum have the time and skill set to pursue this level of sponsorship.
PMs are welcome for contact info, but, I feel all would be interested in this subject.
I will be happy to EMAIL a copy of the 28 page PDF document that covers all of the qualifications for flying any class of the CAF's airplanes to you. I would post it all but it is to large to put in a post. I think you will be impressed with the detail and checks and balances of the process. I think many who are unfamiliar with the process, believe that the CAF has some lame "wink and a nod" process, but it couldn't be farther from the truth.
Basically, for a fighter, one needs a commercial instrument, 2000 hrs PIC, 1000hrs tailwheel, 200 in an AT6 and pass two separate T6 check rides with designated CAF check airmen, pass 2 separate board interviews and be approved by the General Staff. After that the Sponsor money ($10,000 for a fighter) comes into play. This is only a synopsis, but will give the general public a basic idea.
ANYONE who has an interest can EMAIL me at Email4eric@aol.com and I will respond with a full copy of the PDF regulation that explains it all in detail.
Thanks for your interest.
Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:21 pm
Thanks for your help with this, Eric.
Gary
Gary
Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:24 pm
Eric: Thanks for your support. I would like to correct one small thing though. There IS a requirement for the active flying sponsors on a given a/c to assist with the ongoing expenses of the a/c. So, the pilots do have continuing "skin in the game", if the aircraft doesn't "pay its own way" or there are high costs in a given year.
Now, having the active pilots pay an assessment for costs of the a/c is really up to the Unit or sponsor group, so I'm sure that there are units that earn $$ from the ride programme, or Heritage Flights, or whatever else that don't have to ask the pilot sponsors to make continuing contributions.
And, FF, the 1.5 hours a month comes with the flying sponsorship, and is only the cost of ga$. Most of our pilots are religious about taking the 1.5 hrs and flying to keep sharp. Ask Norm or TR for more info.
Now, having the active pilots pay an assessment for costs of the a/c is really up to the Unit or sponsor group, so I'm sure that there are units that earn $$ from the ride programme, or Heritage Flights, or whatever else that don't have to ask the pilot sponsors to make continuing contributions.
And, FF, the 1.5 hours a month comes with the flying sponsorship, and is only the cost of ga$. Most of our pilots are religious about taking the 1.5 hrs and flying to keep sharp. Ask Norm or TR for more info.
Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:30 am
Jase wrote:
You are of course correct about the requirement to provide additional financial assistance with a sponsored airplane, but how it is enforced/implemented varies greatly from wing to wing.
As for the 1.5 monthly proficiency flying, I participated in a wing safety seminar in which Bob Stenavic (SP?) the CAF Safety officer showed stats that were taken from the CAF national flight logs that showed very, very few of the units/pilots were flying those periods. That is the only info I have to go on. Bob posts on here from time to time, maybe he can clarify.
Eric: Thanks for your support. I would like to correct one small thing though. There IS a requirement for the active flying sponsors on a given a/c to assist with the ongoing expenses of the a/c. So, the pilots do have continuing "skin in the game", if the aircraft doesn't "pay its own way" or there are high costs in a given year.
Now, having the active pilots pay an assessment for costs of the a/c is really up to the Unit or sponsor group, so I'm sure that there are units that earn $$ from the ride programme, or Heritage Flights, or whatever else that don't have to ask the pilot sponsors to make continuing contributions.
And, FF, the 1.5 hours a month comes with the flying sponsorship, and is only the cost of ga$. Most of our pilots are religious about taking the 1.5 hrs and flying to keep sharp. Ask Norm or TR for more info.
You are of course correct about the requirement to provide additional financial assistance with a sponsored airplane, but how it is enforced/implemented varies greatly from wing to wing.
As for the 1.5 monthly proficiency flying, I participated in a wing safety seminar in which Bob Stenavic (SP?) the CAF Safety officer showed stats that were taken from the CAF national flight logs that showed very, very few of the units/pilots were flying those periods. That is the only info I have to go on. Bob posts on here from time to time, maybe he can clarify.
CAF
Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:56 pm
One point Eric raised is sponsor money. I do agree that a pilot will tend to take better care of a plane is it is his or at least he has a major financial stake in it. Things like taxiing with minimum braking, giving enough time for the engine to warm up on start up,especially the radials, or for a water cooled plane, shutting down if ground idle time gets too long. I have seen non owners flying Spitfires continue to taxi when I was almost certain they were above normal engine temp or leaving the air filter door open. There has to be an intelligent medium for sponsor money, if you get it too high it becomes too exclusive a club. We should encourage the many $1000 donors as well as the few very large ones.
In the past, it seems to me there has, at times been a attitude that did not welcome new sponsors. Some years ago after the Midland move , one of the fighters was displayed at the hangar and did not have a sponsor for some badly needed maintenance. I had not yet spent all my money on planes so I went over to take a look. At that time I was a CAF life member, owned and was checked out in several warbirds, CAF formation rated by Archie, and had 500 hours of fighter time, about 2000 total. I do not, however, have 200 in T-6. I don't wear a CAF uniform, just personal taste, and I do look younger than my age (thankfully). But the old guy in CAF greys was not friendly, had no interest in involving the public and told me I could not sit in the cockpit. It was actually a good deal because it saved me a lot of money which I spent on my own planes. I did recently talk to the squadron with Red Nose and got a better reception, but I don't have spare money now.
In the past, it seems to me there has, at times been a attitude that did not welcome new sponsors. Some years ago after the Midland move , one of the fighters was displayed at the hangar and did not have a sponsor for some badly needed maintenance. I had not yet spent all my money on planes so I went over to take a look. At that time I was a CAF life member, owned and was checked out in several warbirds, CAF formation rated by Archie, and had 500 hours of fighter time, about 2000 total. I do not, however, have 200 in T-6. I don't wear a CAF uniform, just personal taste, and I do look younger than my age (thankfully). But the old guy in CAF greys was not friendly, had no interest in involving the public and told me I could not sit in the cockpit. It was actually a good deal because it saved me a lot of money which I spent on my own planes. I did recently talk to the squadron with Red Nose and got a better reception, but I don't have spare money now.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Braking
Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:45 am
Things like taxiing with minimum braking,
Bill,
Not to deflect the discussion here, but your note reminded me of something Tom Reilly told me about the B-25, "You don't need brakes to taxi a B-25- that's why God gave you two engines."