Draft Update to 60-1

Started by RiverAux, November 11, 2007, 08:51:11 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

NHQ has posted a draft update to 60-1 that is available in the publication sections draft regulations for comment section.  This is the summary of changes:
QuoteSUMMARY OF CHANGES. Adds spins to prohibited uses of CAP aircraft. Clarifies that the National Board has stipulated that senior member student pilot instruction can only be approved in geographic areas where commercial facilities/training are not available. AFJROTC cadets added as authorized passengers. Flying privileges suspension paragraph updated. Assessment
for damage to CAP corporate aircraft paragraph updated. Operational Requirements updated for flight with cadets subsequent to major maintenance. Need for commercial certificate and class II medical for AFROTC/AFJROTC orientation flights deleted. FAA instrument check good for
within 180 days of Fm 5. Add-on rating authorized. FRO items updated. Attachment 1, Statement of Understanding, updated. Attachment 2 updated for AFROTC/AFJROTC. Attachment 9 sorties authorized "A" mission status with appropriate approvals. Attachment 10 updated.

The senior member flight training thing caught my eye,it just adds a requirement for Wing and Regional Commander approval, in addition to the Executive Director as well as the requirement that it only be done where commercial facilities are not available.  I find this phrasing odd:
Quote(The National Board has stipulated that this can only be approved in geographic areas where commercial facilities/training are not available)
whats with this "National Board" reference?  Why not just state it in the regulation?  Why do it differently for this than for any other regulation change?

It also classifies CG Aux members along with other government workers who can fly on CAP planes without jumping through all the approval hoops. 

Regarding flight releases it says this:
QuoteFor USAF Assigned Missions utilizing a CAP incident commander (IC), that IC is a flight release officer (FRO) without written designation otherwise required by this chapter. CAP aircraft are released on such missions using CAPF 84 or 104 (as applicable). The mission base flight release authorities will flight release all aircraft flown under the assigned mission number. This includes prepositioning, employment, and de-positioning of aircraft, and travel to/from the mission base.

For every large mission I've been on, the AOBD has been the one actually releasing the flights.  Does this now mean that the IC will have to individually release each flight?  Don't think that will work.  They need to add Ops Officer or AOBD for AFAM flight release authority.

ZigZag911

FRO is a requirement/prerequisite for AOBD.

I believe the thinking is (and I could be wrong) that the IC, on a mission with AOBD or OSC, delegates flight release authority, but continues to bear the responsibility.

RiverAux

Yes, AOBDs do have to be FROs and you are correct in terms of how I've seen missions run as well.  And, in actuality the change recommended here isn't really all that much different than how it is worded now. 

However, a very literal minded person (which I've been accused of being every now and again) can read it to require that the IC be the one to release the flight.  Maybe "IC or their designee" would work for AFAMs?

Short Field

Quote from: RiverAux on November 11, 2007, 09:34:32 PM
Yes, AOBDs do have to be FROs and you are correct in terms of how I've seen missions run as well. 

AOBDs have to be qualified as a FRO.  However, that does not mean the Wing/CC has designated them a FRO for the wing.  ICs can also be fully qualified as a FRO but not included on the Wing's designated FRO list.  You would think the wing would include them, but it does not always happen. 

If you are using the IMU, it knows if you are a designated FRO or not.  It cannot be "delegated" by the IC.  A lot of the time the "delegation" means the AOBD is signed on to the IMU under another CAPID that does have release authority.  This is probably not a proper procedure - and I am sure if pressed for when and where, I never saw it take place.   ;)

 
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640

RiverAux

Interestingly, they are supposedly working on making 60-1 drastically shorter.  I'm not really sure what would be appropriate to cut out that would make a big difference.