Okay, this is not part of my master plan to end the AuxAir program, but an honest question about how it is run.
There appear to be a whole lot of "levels" of qualification in the program both for non-pilots as well as pilots. To quickly (and yes, not completely, summarize their background) Observer (guy who looks out the window) Aircrew (Observer with some extra quals) Co-Pilot (200 hr PIC) First Pilot (500 hr PIC) Aicraft Commander (1000 hr PIC time)
Observer and Aicrew quals don't seem to make much difference, but there are some restrictions on what the pilots can do based on their ratings. For example, a co-pilot can't fly more than gliding distance from shore.
Now, CAP does have rating levels (Observer, Senior Observer, Master Observer, etc for pilots also) based on CAP time in that slot, but they don't have any meaning in terms of what missions you fly. There are some restrictions on which missions some CAP pilots can fly, but they are based on whether you are commercial or instrument rated rather than on your PIC time (except for the Transport pilot rating).
So, do you think the AuxAir classifications are helpful in any way? If so, why?
Because they mirror the qualifications of the regular USCG. The same designations of co-pilot, first pilot, and aircraft commander exist -- with corresponding limitations in mission capability for the active duty USCG pilots. With the program oversight, training, and management coming from the AIRSTA, it only makes sense to follow the same model. Most of the operational differences for the pilot exist between the co-pilot and first pilot level. In order to fly SAR cases, one must be at least a First Pilot -- for good reason. A 200 hour co-pilot may not be within a comfort/capability level to take on an off-shore mission 25 miles out at 300 feet AGL -- searching for a PIW (not something the CAP pilot is faced with). The 500 hour minimum provides an added margin of experience, and is smart decision. I might add that in order to hold the Aircraft Commander designation, the pilot must hold an Instrument rating.
As far as the differences between Observer and Air Crew -- they can be significant. Two different syllabuses in use. Observers serve a mission function, but may not have the experience and skills necessary to take on more responsibilities in a CRM sense. Most of my air crew are capable of pinch hitting a landing if necessary -- my observers are not.
It looks like alot of what the CAP pilot can do is based upon hours as a PIC...
The thing is that I've always been a little bit skeptical of using PIC time as a stand-in for experience when related to the sorts of low-level flying done by both organizations.
Of course you want your pilots to have a basic level of experience and both organizations seem to have decided on 200 hours for that.
But, it seems to me that the type of flying and the planes being flown are much more critical to their ability to do CAP or AuxAir missions. Say a former airline pilot comes in with 20,000 hours but only 200 are in small single engine airplanes and that was 25 years ago. Sure, they'll have to get checked out in the airplane, but is that the guy you want to be with at 500-1000' AGL?
Now with regards to AuxAir, just what is the advantage of the Aircraft Commander qualification? If it is only to mirror the CG, I suppose that is ok, but not really necessary.
Another consideration is recent experience. I had a standing rule when I was flying that I did not penetrate clouds unless I was currently getting twenty hours a month. Not instrument time, but cockpit time. I wanted to be totally comfortable and at ease in the environment before I added the additional stress of instrument flight. For comparison, I have 13,000 hours total time, 6,000+ Pilot in Command, and well over a thousand in single engine complex light aircraft (mostly C-210). I did not rely on my total experience, but on my recent experience, because there is no way to judge memory deterioration.
Now with regards to AuxAir, just what is the advantage of the Aircraft Commander qualification? If it is only to mirror the CG, I suppose that is ok, but not really necessary.
A particular first pilot may well have over 1000 hours PIC -- but if he/she is not IFR rated (and they should maintain a current IFR proficiencies), they'll not be designated an Aircraft Commander.
Aircraft Commander may fly any operational mission and conduct aircraft facility inspections, when authorized.
Well, but you can have First Pilots that are IFR rated as well.
As best I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong), First Pilots can fly any mission that an Aircraft Commander can fly, so why the need for the additional qualification level? The only difference I see is that all Aircraft Commanders are IFR and any particular First Pilot may or may not be IFR rated.
If the First Pilot is IFR rated -- but has less than 1000 hrs PIC, they'll not be an Aircraft Commander. So yes, a benefit of the Aircraft Commander designation is that you immediately know that particular pilot has an IFR rating, has completed the appropriate syllabus, and has a minimum of 1000 hours PIC -- rather than a First Pilot with an IFR rating who could be a 501 hour pilot. Though proficient, there is a difference in experience-based skill levels in a 201 hour pilot a 501 hour pilot, and a 1000+ hour pilot. Always learning (any pilot that tells you they know everything is to be avoided), the experiences afforded only by accumulated time as a PIC do make a difference.
Why all the interest and concern on your part? Are you advocating that an intermediate step is somehow a waste? Would eliminating a step result in any benefit? Or, is this yet another non-existent problem worthy of some "fix"? I'm not aware of anyone in the AUXAIR program in my area who feels slighted or somehow hindered by the designations as they now stand. I believe that the USAF has more formal steps (to include different wings -- star-senior, wreath-command, etc.) Are those unnecessary as well?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: flyandscuba,
That will probably depend upon your perspective (participation in the program, relevant application to one's level of experience and ratings, etc.) It probably has little meaning to one who's not a pilot -- or not active in the AUXAIR program.
Of course, the designations as they stand -- and the corresponding missions allowed to perform based upon the designation, it would prevent a low-time CAP pilot in being able to conduct SAR missions for the USCG.
When I went to safety school, and human nature hasn't changed much since then, the most dangerous time in a pilots career was when he had 500 to 800 hours. He had developed that feeling of invincability that comes with knowing it all. By the time that he got to a thousand hours, he had begun to realize that there was still a good bit to learn, and the accident rate went down.
I did some looking through the Nall reports a while back in a thread on CAPTalk and it appears that time in type is a much more important factor than total time for GA accidents. They're doing some additional research on the topic that should prove interesting.
I think I saw somewhere that AuxAir took time-in-type into account in the qualification process, but that may have been in an old document. What about currently?
The same flight time topics are being taught in safety courses today. Also, once a pilot reaches 4000+ hours PIC the accident rate trends back upward -- the complacent period.
The current 7015 form in use for pilot qualification does not consider time in type, rather total PIC time only.
Page 16 of the 2006 Nall report has updated information regarding accident trends based upon flying experience. It remains that pilots with 500 hours or less total time incure the most accidents (fatal and non-fatal), followed by pilots with greater than 4000 hours.
Again, the Nall report shows that the first 100 hours in type produce the greater frequency of accident in that same type. Considering that most AUXAIR pilots own the facility they are flying, you'll find that most have appreciable time in type as well as a specific serial number for that matter.
The special emphasis on maneuvering flight is extremely relevant to what we do. I predict these increased risk exposures may have a factor in the recent fatal CAP accident. Both organizations should increase specific training focused on maneuvering flight procedures.
The stats in the Nall report certainly indicate that time-in-type is probably a big factor, but the way they're presented there isn't definitive. They need to look at the amount of hours flown each year by pilots with different amounts of total time and time-in-type and figure out accident rates on that basis and that is what they're looking at.
For example, they say that the vast majority of flying is done by those with less than 500 hours PIC. So, we shouldn't be surprised if they account for the most accidents. What we need to know is if they account for more accidents than expected based on how much of the flying they are doing. Same goes for time in type.
Originally Air Observers (those without FAA pilot licenses) were discouraged from pursuing Air Crew status. That is written into older OpsPolMans and Air Manuals in my possession. The Air Crew qualification was created to satisfy the ego desires of two groups of members:
1. Those who formally held FAA pilot licenses but lost them, usually due to a medical reason, before they joined the Aux. As former pilots, they were deemed a notch above lowly non-licensed AOs and got to wear wings.
2. Those with FAA pilot licenses but without enough hours yet to qualify for the lowest Aux pilot rating. See ego satisfacton remark above.
When I and several other members of my old flotilla made AO we were discouraged by AuxAir7 from pursuing further qualification. Lucky for me my main pilot was the Top Gun Pilot of D7 AuxAir and he trained and got both MembersB qualified as Air Crew. Some time after that, there was a sea (or air) change in AuxAir at least in D7, and they no longer actively discourage AOs from 'moving on up' although very little help is provided in doing so.
The difference in the pilot ratings was done to enable low hour pilots to perform certain missions while accumulating time and skill. However, at the last AuxAir7 meeting I went to (about 1.5 years ago) it was pretty strongly stated that AuxAir was only interested in those who could come on board as Aircraft Commanders. Whether the lose of pilots and aircraft due to the TBO Policy changed that is unknown to me.
I suppose if you're limiting entry into the program (for whatever reason) it makes sense to only accept those that would be eligible for the highest rating as long as you have the rating system in place.
Sounds like D7 had some "issues' in the past based solely upon your statements -- hopefully, those issues -- if true -- have been corrected.
In my particular district all persons entering the program start at the Observer-trainee level, and progress through the steps. I started as an Observer-trainee and progressed through Observer and Air Crew. When the need arose in my geographical area for the addition of a new AUXAIR facility, those experiences and time of service in other AUXAIR facilities allowed me to gear up quickly (especially since I had prepared my aircraft accordingly) to full service as an AUXAIR pilot.
I'm not aware of anyone in my District being discouraged from entering the program (subject to medical or physical deficiencies) -- or progressing through the observer and aircrew training process. Acceptance of a facility -- and usually corresponding pilot -- continues to be, as it always has been, based upon the needs of the particular area (determined by the AIRSTA, the DSO-AV [evil as some here think these office holders may be], and DIRAUX).
Maybe looking through the data systems will satisfy curiosity that there are copilots, first pilots, and aircraft commanders in the program...therefore, no exclusive conspiracy toward aircraft commanders only. (Though I expect that you will see a higher number of First Pilots and Aircraft Commanders simply because they are more likely to own an aircraft used as a facility)
According to AuxInfo there are 62 co-pilots, 68 First Pilots, and 170 aircraft commanders. I don't know if there is a conspiracy, but they do seem to dominate the program. In D7, oddly enough they are actually more evenly balanced --19 copilots, 10 first pilots, and 36 aircraft commanders. They've got 60 pilots in REYR -- 39 of which are aircraft commanders.
I forget, could a pilot be listed in multiple categories (just like coxswains often hold active crewmember quals)?
Maybe D7s "problems" have been fixed -- if they actually existed at all...
As I stated above, the FPs and ACs are more likely to be the ones owning the aircaft facilities. Likewise, if you could get a read on the total number of active duty CPs, FPs, and ACs at a given AIRSTA, I predict that you will see a similar distribution. Because the designations are a progression -- unless you have a bunch of ACs quit or die, the numbers of ACs will remain higher than the rest.
I suppose if you're limiting entry into the program (for whatever reason) it makes sense to only accept those that would be eligible for the highest rating as long as you have the rating system in place.
That was the point since they were limiting access to the program. I don't know if they still are limiting access, both for position/billets and aircraft given the problem with TBO Policy as stated officially by D7 Aux officials on the district website.
There is no limitation -- other than an as-needed basis of the District and/or AIRSTA, as it has always been stated in information regarding the AUXAIR program.
