I looking to find out if there are any requirements that a NEW Senior Member needs before being allowed to get into a CAP aircraft, pilot or non-pilot? Where can I find them in CAP regulations?
See: CAPR 60-1 section 2-3; CAPR 62-1 section 4. Assumes the Sr Member meets requirements iaw CAPR 39-2. Regardless, check with the Squadron Commander and Ops staff.
Short version, if they have a valid CAP membership, they can go fly.
Quote from: PHall on March 21, 2017, 12:47:25 AM
Short version, if they have a valid CAP membership, they can go fly.
Membership card AND a proper uniform of course. ;)
Quote from: etodd on March 21, 2017, 01:20:56 AM
Quote from: PHall on March 21, 2017, 12:47:25 AM
Short version, if they have a valid CAP membership, they can go fly.
Membership card AND a proper uniform of course. ;)
The definition of "proper" tends to vary... >:D
So they do not have to be signed off on ICUT or have Level 1 completed? Is this decision simply left to a Squadron Commanders discretion?
Quote from: deepblue1947 on March 21, 2017, 07:50:07 PM
So they do not have to be signed off on ICUT or have Level 1 completed?
Correct, however they would not be able to do any ES training without Level 1, GES, etc. But they
can do a Form 5, or just be ballast.
Yes folks, as we've discussed before, members can be Cadet Orientation Pilots w/o Level 1. CPT? Yes? L1? Nope.
Quote from: deepblue1947 on March 21, 2017, 07:50:07 PM
Is this decision simply left to a Squadron Commanders discretion?
Yes, but that pre-supposes the member recognizes the authority of the Unit CC in these matters, as well as
the check pilot, etc. Everything a member does needs to be approved by the unit CC, however the practical
reality is that it is difficult to enforce that if people ignore that to their own gains, or higher HQ is doing the flying.
I don't think you even need a completed BGC for a Form 5. No one with sense would authorize that, but
within the regs, I don't thinks it's required.
If new member is here and not interested in completing Level 1, we really don't need that pilot.
Quote from: scooter on March 22, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
If new member is here and not interested in completing Level 1, we really don't need that pilot.
Many agree, NHQ does not "to encourage pilots"...
Quote from: scooter on March 22, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
If new member is here and not interested in completing Level 1, we really don't need that pilot.
The OP above mentioned non-pilots as well.
How many pilot spouses join and get the polo just to 'ride along' on a flight occasionally?
Quote from: etodd on March 22, 2017, 02:51:21 AM
Quote from: scooter on March 22, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
If new member is here and not interested in completing Level 1, we really don't need that pilot.
The OP above mentioned non-pilots as well.
How many pilot spouses join and get the polo just to 'ride along' on a flight occasionally?
Very few actually. Highly discouraged these days. Was more common when we used Member Owned Aircraft.
Quote from: PHall on March 22, 2017, 03:58:27 AM
Very few actually. Highly discouraged these days. Was more common when we used Member Owned Aircraft.
Why would it be "highly discouraged"? Is that in the regulations, Phil, or is that some well meaning commander someplace saying "yeah, no."
If the pilot is flying a self-funded proficiency flight, or self-funding a flight to, say, the Region Conference, and his or her spouse is a member, properly credentialed and uniformed, why not?
BTW, I'm not saying "go out and have your wife/husband join
solely so they can fly in a CAP plane." I'll have Bob frothing about "empty shirts" again..LOLz. If you have 5 spouses on yours books just so they can fly with their pilot member spouse to activities, maybe thats not the right approach, sure. But for crying out loud, we're an aviation organization.
We shouldn't be finding lame excuses to keep people out of the cockpit.
Quote from: NIN on March 22, 2017, 11:57:40 AM
Quote from: PHall on March 22, 2017, 03:58:27 AM
Very few actually. Highly discouraged these days. Was more common when we used Member Owned Aircraft.
Why would it be "highly discouraged"? Is that in the regulations, Phil, or is that some well meaning commander someplace saying "yeah, no."
If the pilot is flying a self-funded proficiency flight, or self-funding a flight to, say, the Region Conference, and his or her spouse is a member, properly credentialed and uniformed, why not?
BTW, I'm not saying "go out and have your wife/husband join solely so they can fly in a CAP plane." I'll have Bob frothing about "empty shirts" again..LOLz. If you have 5 spouses on yours books just so they can fly with their pilot member spouse to activities, maybe thats not the right approach, sure. But for crying out loud, we're an aviation organization. We shouldn't be finding lame excuses to keep people out of the cockpit.
When all members had to be "safety current" to actively participate in CAP activities, "
wife spousal memberships disappeared. They are now back, however I think they aren't that common today... ;)
Quote from: FW on March 22, 2017, 12:09:36 PM
When all members had to be "safety current" to actively participate in CAP activities, "wife spousal memberships disappeared. They are now back, however I think they aren't that common today... ;)
I can see my wife rolling her eyes and saying "What do you mean I have to take *another* safety thingy?"
Quote from: NIN on March 22, 2017, 11:57:40 AM
Quote from: PHall on March 22, 2017, 03:58:27 AM
Very few actually. Highly discouraged these days. Was more common when we used Member Owned Aircraft.
Why would it be "highly discouraged"? Is that in the regulations, Phil, or is that some well meaning commander someplace saying "yeah, no."
If the pilot is flying a self-funded proficiency flight, or self-funding a flight to, say, the Region Conference, and his or her spouse is a member, properly credentialed and uniformed, why not?
BTW, I'm not saying "go out and have your wife/husband join solely so they can fly in a CAP plane." I'll have Bob frothing about "empty shirts" again..LOLz. If you have 5 spouses on yours books just so they can fly with their pilot member spouse to activities, maybe thats not the right approach, sure. But for crying out loud, we're an aviation organization. We shouldn't be finding lame excuses to keep people out of the cockpit.
With all of our flights being done in corporate aircraft, the folks who pay the bills want all of the seats occupied by members who are actually doing something.
Stuff like maintaining currency in an ES specialty. Having a spouse along just to be there does not sound like a good use of expensive resources.
What part of "self-funded proficiency flying" isn't obvious as to who is footing the bill?
I'm certainly not suggesting your member spouse stowaway on the next AF-funded SAREX
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Quote from: NIN on March 22, 2017, 09:47:20 PM
What part of "self-funded proficiency flying" isn't obvious as to who is footing the bill?
Nothing wrong with those, per-se, but those are still mission sorties, not hamburger runs, and those
airplanes don't get into the sky by themselves, nor do those passengers' membership get maintained with out administrative
overhead by the unit staff etc.
I know of more then a few situations where someone with a fair amount of grade decided they'd like to fly to their
vacation CAP conference, and bring their spouse, and magically there are more people on the roster.
Dont know what aircraft you are flying but look at the maintenance rate and then add the cost of fuel. If self-funded covers all that then it really is self-funded. It the cost of these is more than the what is paid by the member, the AF is paying the extra. Be hard to justify AF funds just to take the wife along.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 22, 2017, 09:59:32 PM
Nothing wrong with those, per-se, but those are still mission sorties, not hamburger runs, .......
In the interest of health-rest-nourishment-etc., when doing a cross country, self-funded C12, proficiency flight, I usually make it a point of a lunch and bathroom stop at some point. If I happen to have a MO and/or MS with me, they usually appreciate it as well. :)
Thank you all for your knowledge and guidance for this subject.