We have been told not to discuss this so I hereby removed my comment.
Hmmm.
For the same reason that people start multiple threads on the same topic. They refuse to read and just react. If you're asked about it, refer inquiries to the proper person and be done with it. It's a fluid situation. It's an open federal investigation. When the investigation is complete, you'll be able to read it. Until then, accept the release for what it is and move on.
Mods, lock or merge help!
We have been told not to discuss this so I hereby removed my comment.
Quote from: tonyairplane on December 29, 2015, 10:19:37 PM
I wasn't referring to media asking questions, just family friends co-workers. You must know what I meant.
If there is an other thread in this section, i didn't see it.
You handle it like any other crash that you know nothing about. Just say "I dont know anything more than you do. Heck of a thing...."
You should check the most recent topics before opening a new one. There are several ways to do that.
We have been told not to discuss this so I hereby removed my comment.
Quote from: tonyairplane on December 29, 2015, 10:19:37 PM
I wasn't referring to media asking questions, just family friends co-workers. You must know what I meant.
If there is an other thread in this section, i didn't see it.
No worries.
Underneath your username in the upper right corner of the screen is a link: 'Show unread posts since last visit.' Always go there first to see what's been posted in all sections.
:)
Having read a number of the stories online, the press release that NHQ put out is about as long as most stories. Also, considering that no one really knows yet what happened and that there is still a lot of information that shouldn't be released due to an on-going investigation, I find national's press release to be about as long as it needs to be.
We have been told not to discuss this so I hereby removed my comment.
Quote from: tonyairplane on December 30, 2015, 12:37:28 AM
I strongly disagree.
The statement that they put out leads to all kinds of guessing - we in CAP don't even know what it means.
They somehow quickly determined that he was "not authorized to fly the aircraft", and decided to include it in the press release.
Why?
None of your business. If anyone asks you about it, refer them to your wing PIO.
It is that simple.
We have been told not to discuss this so I hereby removed my comment.
It's frustrating when someone feels like they deserve to have more information about a situation like this, and don't have access to it. I totally sympathize.
I'm sure more information will be released when it's appropriate to do so. Speculating on here or other social media is not good OPSEC.
We have been told not to discuss this so I hereby removed my comment.
By putting that blurb in the press release, it does a couple of things. First, it tells all of us that the sortie wasn't released or authorized. Second, it gives just simple facts that NHQ can confirm at this time, and that is, the flight was not authorized.
You can't expect anyone to have all the facts of what happened when NTSB is even still investigating. The press release tells you everything you need to know. One of our own perished in a flight that wasn't authorized. Give the investigators a chance to investigate.
What it does is shifts the blame a bit. Because it was not an authorized flight in WMIRS, instead of the media asking, "was CAP to blame for this accident", The story is now "why was this pilot flying when he (presumably) wasn't allowed to". Also there is the insurance aspect, that if the flight wasn't released, it isn't covered under our insurance.
Perhaps the wording could have been different, but the statement does imply that the crash wouldn't have occurred if CAP regulations were being followed.
Any comments by members should be limited to CAP flight safety and maintenance programs. Imagine that your child is a new cadet with his first O-flight scheduled for this weekend. Would that type of information be important to you?
Given the size, scope, and expertise within the organization, as well as the strong ties to the Air Force, it is highly possible that CAP will be an official party to the NTSB investigation. As such they are VERY restricted in what they can release publicly or comment on.
Like all other accidents, details and facts will come in due time, but there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.
Quote from: tonyairplane on December 29, 2015, 10:07:35 PM
We have been told not to discuss this so I hereby removed my comment.
Hmmm.
Just so you know, nuking your posts is a violation of site rules and the mods may, and hopefully will, restore them. If you're not supposed to discuss it, then you should think about that first. Once something is said though, it cannot be unsaid.
We got the email saying not to discuss this after I made my posts.
But thanks for pointing out the forum's rules. We need guys such as you in CAP, too.
From KTUU:
"FBI officials stressed that Demarest had no military connections and was strictly a Civil Air Patrolman."
Not sure we have been called that before.
KTUU also has more info on the story - apparently the police had been at his house on a domestic call at about 10pm the night before, then early the next morning he takes the CAP plane and crashes into his wife's place of work.
Still, not too nice how CAP's first reaction (within hours, before the investigation is barely underway) was to throw the pilot under the bus - whether for liability or publicity reasons - not real nice. They could have just confirmed his name and membership and let it go at that until the investigation warranted further disclosures.
Needless to say yesterday was a difficult day for our membership. Within minutes of reading a post in the Lobby...the PCR HC and AKWG HC was notified as to the tragic event. Word was also passed along to the members of the Chaplain Corps. Throughout the day, we were working of behalf of our membership to provide support, comfort and counsel. Please feel free to contact anyone of us in the Chaplain Corps if you need our assistance....we are here to serve.
PM sent.
To everyone else, please do not nuke your posts. If OPSEC becomes an issue, PM an admin or mod, and we'll review the request. Removing parts or all of a post is a violation of the MCoC.
Don't play with your food.
Don't pick your nose in public.
Make sure to wash your hands after you use the bathroom.
Play nice.
Did I miss any?
[coming down from the soap box]
I don't think OPSEC is a player here.
It's not. It was the justification used to nuke posts. I was just throwing that out there.
Copy
Quote from: Pace on December 30, 2015, 06:36:57 PM
Don't play with your food.
Don't pick your nose in public.
Instructions unclear, NHQ's gonna have to publish guidance for that.
Quote from: tonyairplane on December 30, 2015, 02:57:20 PM
We got the email saying not to discuss this after I made my posts.
But thanks for pointing out the forum's rules. We need guys such as you in CAP, too.
Why did you even think that this was a good thing to post about?
And the request from Headquarters to not post about this should have not been a surprise.
Quote from: PHall on December 31, 2015, 01:20:39 AM
Quote from: tonyairplane on December 30, 2015, 02:57:20 PM
We got the email saying not to discuss this after I made my posts.
But thanks for pointing out the forum's rules. We need guys such as you in CAP, too.
Why did you even think that this was a good thing to post about?
And the request from Headquarters to not post about this should have not been a surprise.
And that Q will hang out there unanswered, forever, since tony has been given the ban hammer.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 31, 2015, 02:32:08 AM
Quote from: PHall on December 31, 2015, 01:20:39 AM
Quote from: tonyairplane on December 30, 2015, 02:57:20 PM
We got the email saying not to discuss this after I made my posts.
But thanks for pointing out the forum's rules. We need guys such as you in CAP, too.
Why did you even think that this was a good thing to post about?
And the request from Headquarters to not post about this should have not been a surprise.
And that Q will hang out there unanswered, forever, since tony has been given the ban hammer.
Along with WhiteWings66. Huummm, what are the odds? >:D
100%. Same chucklehead.
Well, at least there're a couple of folks out there taking the time to explain a little about CAP to the wondering masses.
http://www.ktva.com/what-is-the-civil-air-patrol-an-inside-look-at-the-organizations-role-249/ (http://www.ktva.com/what-is-the-civil-air-patrol-an-inside-look-at-the-organizations-role-249/)
http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/civil-air-patrol-member-explains-air-force-auxiliarys-protocols/37220288 (http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/civil-air-patrol-member-explains-air-force-auxiliarys-protocols/37220288)
I've read a couple sites that suggest the aircraft was "stolen."
Ah... media. ::)
Quote from: Paul_AK on January 01, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Well, at least there're a couple of folks out there taking the time to explain a little about CAP to the wondering masses.
http://www.ktva.com/what-is-the-civil-air-patrol-an-inside-look-at-the-organizations-role-249/ (http://www.ktva.com/what-is-the-civil-air-patrol-an-inside-look-at-the-organizations-role-249/)
Wow, 600,000 members??? :) :) :)
Otherwise, I think this is a very nicely done story.
http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokeswoman-alaska-plane-crash-suicide-185628960.html?nf=1 (http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokeswoman-alaska-plane-crash-suicide-185628960.html?nf=1)
According to this, a family spokesperson said it was suicide.
Quote from: SamuelRosinsky on January 02, 2016, 01:02:12 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokeswoman-alaska-plane-crash-suicide-185628960.html?nf=1 (http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokeswoman-alaska-plane-crash-suicide-185628960.html?nf=1)
According to this, a family spokesperson said it was suicide.
What part of please do not post about this on social media did you not understand?
Quote from: PHall on January 02, 2016, 01:18:45 AM
Quote from: SamuelRosinsky on January 02, 2016, 01:02:12 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokeswoman-alaska-plane-crash-suicide-185628960.html?nf=1 (http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokeswoman-alaska-plane-crash-suicide-185628960.html?nf=1)
According to this, a family spokesperson said it was suicide.
What part of please do not post about this on social media did you not understand?
The part about simply posting a link to a relevant news story? Or would you rather see the story the National Chief of Staff posted on social media?
It's not CAP members speculating. It's simply posting a link to a news story.
I'm kind of ashamed I got to say this on this forum.
Guys.
CAP Talk is an unofficial CAP forum.
Each and everyone of use can be quoted by a news agency as a "Civil Air Patrol Official". And so just like we all learned in OPSEC training and GES training we should refrain from commenting unless specifically cleared by the PAO or Commander.
Ergo....let's not even link and add comments to this topic.
Blue Skies to the friends and family of the CAP member. Good luck to the investigative team.
Nothing more needs to be said.
In other words:
If you (or I) feel compelled to share information, a link, or just the wisdom of a lifetime, do it on www.aopa.org/Forums (http://www.aopa.org/Forums) (the 'red board') or elsewhere. Thank you Lord M and others for your very excellent advice.
Like other threads on the topic, IMHO, this too should be locked. We'll have plenty of opportunity to discuss lessons learned once the investigators have done their job.
It's very sad a person elected to take his own life. While there is some solace in that nobody else was injured or killed, it's a sad day for his family, friends, and community.
I'm glad CAP has been doing everything it can to help the authorities piece together what happened. I would expect nothing less from our organization.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 02, 2016, 02:20:03 AM
I'm kind of ashamed I got to say this on this forum.
Guys.
CAP Talk is an unofficial CAP forum.
Each and everyone of use can be quoted by a news agency as a "Civil Air Patrol Official". And so just like we all learned in OPSEC training and GES training we should refrain from commenting unless specifically cleared by the PAO or Commander.
Ergo....let's not even link and add comments to this topic.
Blue Skies to the friends and family of the CAP member. Good luck to the investigative team.
Nothing more needs to be said.
ummm, the information is now public. ??? They won't quote the CAP talk board they'll quote the family spokesman. ??? Geeesh, some people need to learn what OPSEC means. OPSEC doesn't mean potentially embarrassing. There is no privileged information being discussed here. No one here is a member of the NTSB or the CAP IG investigating the crash. We aren't giving away the combination to the hangar, radio frequencies, or military protocol. We are discussing a particularly relevant CAP related news story. This was not even speculation, this was sharing information. It might not be fact yet, but it is valuable information. Since I gave my December safety briefing on holiday depression and signs of suicide, I hereby declare this topic to be relevant.
Quote from: SamuelRosinsky on January 01, 2016, 04:01:28 PM
I've read a couple sites that suggest the aircraft was "stolen."
Ah... media. ::)
Never thought I'd be defending a media assumption, but in general, "unauthorized use" = "stolen". While the nuances may differ, for the public, the terms are equivalent.
We (CAP members) can't control what the media reports but we can certainly watch our statements. Let's keep our Core Values in mind when posting remarks regarding this tragic event.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 02, 2016, 02:20:03 AM
I'm kind of ashamed I got to say this on this forum.
Guys.
CAP Talk is an unofficial CAP forum.
Each and everyone of use can be quoted by a news agency as a "Civil Air Patrol Official". And so just like we all learned in OPSEC training and GES training we should refrain from commenting unless specifically cleared by the PAO or Commander.
Ergo....let's not even link and add comments to this topic.
Blue Skies to the friends and family of the CAP member. Good luck to the investigative team.
Nothing more needs to be said.
^^^ Concur. Rather than discussing speculation or news reports, we should be looking for opportunities to be aid, comfort, counsel to those in our membership who are feeling the affects of this event.
Quote from: arajca on January 02, 2016, 04:14:38 PM
Quote from: SamuelRosinsky on January 01, 2016, 04:01:28 PM
I've read a couple sites that suggest the aircraft was "stolen."
Ah... media. ::)
Never thought I'd be defending a media assumption, but in general, "unauthorized use" = "stolen". While the nuances may differ, for the public, the terms are equivalent.
If I go to a squadron and, without authorization, take a radio, use it in a mission, and then return it in the same condition, did I stole it? Unauthorized use is certainly NOT the same as "stolen".
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 03, 2016, 03:42:47 PMreturn it in the same condition, did I stole it? Unauthorized use is certainly NOT the same as "stolen".
In the matter under discussion, the plane was never returned nor is it in the same condition so it was stolen.
If your hypothetical radio was misplaced or "stolen" while in your possession without authorization, your original taking of it would have been theft.
If you did that in my squadron, since I did not know your intentions or who took it I would have made a report of a "stolen radio" until ya returned it!
???
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 03, 2016, 03:42:47 PM
If I go to a squadron and, without authorization, take a radio, use it in a mission, and then return it in the same condition, did I stole it? Unauthorized use is certainly NOT the same as "stolen".
According to Merriam-Webster
: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal
: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission
yup, you stole the radio
If I go to your driveway and without authorization, take your car, use it in a mission, and then return it in the same condition, did I steal it?
Yes, yes I did. Most people would look the other way on a radio as your intentions were good, and the value was small (and the no harm, no foul factor), but they could also call the police. Heck, in the eyes of the law, smearing cake on someone's face is considered assault even though it is minor, so "borrowing" a radio is theft. Taking a radio is still theft if you don't have authorization. Now, we are talking about a plane and not a radio. Taking a piece of property work hundreds of thousands of dollars (and sometimes millions) without authorization is most certainly theft.
Quote from: umpirecali on January 04, 2016, 07:39:44 PM
If I go to your driveway and without authorization, take your car, use it in a mission, and then return it in the same condition, did I steal it?
Yes, yes I did.
Depending on what state you are in and the conditions in which you took the car, it may be considered "Operating Without Consent", which is not technically theft according to the law as, again in some states, theft requires the intent to deprive the owner. Operating Without Consent is when you have no intention of depriving the owner of it and thus return it. >:D
Quote from: LSThiker on January 04, 2016, 08:41:37 PM
Quote from: umpirecali on January 04, 2016, 07:39:44 PM
If I go to your driveway and without authorization, take your car, use it in a mission, and then return it in the same condition, did I steal it?
Yes, yes I did.
Depending on what state you are in and the conditions in which you took the car, it may be considered "Operating Without Consent", which is not technically theft according to the law as, again in some states, theft requires the intent to deprive the owner. Operating Without Consent is when you have no intention of depriving the owner of it and thus return it. >:D
Soooooo....something to the effect of leaving a note saying "Dear CAP. I borrowed (this) on (this date) for the purpose of (this). I will return it forthwith but I needed it because reasons. Signed, CAP SM Doodlebug." At least someone will notice item is missing and why.
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 04, 2016, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on January 04, 2016, 08:41:37 PM
Quote from: umpirecali on January 04, 2016, 07:39:44 PM
If I go to your driveway and without authorization, take your car, use it in a mission, and then return it in the same condition, did I steal it?
Yes, yes I did.
Depending on what state you are in and the conditions in which you took the car, it may be considered "Operating Without Consent", which is not technically theft according to the law as, again in some states, theft requires the intent to deprive the owner. Operating Without Consent is when you have no intention of depriving the owner of it and thus return it. >:D
Soooooo....something to the effect of leaving a note saying "Dear CAP. I borrowed (this) on (this date) for the purpose of (this). I will return it forthwith but I needed it because reasons. Signed, CAP SM Doodlebug." At least someone will notice item is missing and why.
That's the type of document I call a "Constructive CAPF 37"
If you need it, but don't have the form available...at least leave something!
Quote from: umpirecali on January 04, 2016, 07:39:44 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 03, 2016, 03:42:47 PM
If I go to a squadron and, without authorization, take a radio, use it in a mission, and then return it in the same condition, did I stole it? Unauthorized use is certainly NOT the same as "stolen".
According to Merriam-Webster
: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal
: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission
yup, you stole the radio
If I go to your driveway and without authorization, take your car, use it in a mission, and then return it in the same condition, did I steal it?
Yes, yes I did. Most people would look the other way on a radio as your intentions were good, and the value was small (and the no harm, no foul factor), but they could also call the police. Heck, in the eyes of the law, smearing cake on someone's face is considered assault even though it is minor, so "borrowing" a radio is theft. Taking a radio is still theft if you don't have authorization. Now, we are talking about a plane and not a radio. Taking a piece of property work hundreds of thousands of dollars (and sometimes millions) without authorization is most certainly theft.
It's very easy to use straw man arguments. Comparing your example of a privately own vehicle to my example of a CAP radio used during a mission without authorization is like comparing apples and oranges.
Unauthorized use is wrong and not without consequences. But it doesn't automatically denote theft. A qualified CAP pilot who is scheduled to fly an authorized sortie on a CAP airplane and forgets to get a flight release before taking off has technically taken the airplane without authorization. And while there are consequences to those actions, it doesn't necessarily mean the pilot stole the airplane.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 07, 2016, 10:51:47 PM
A qualified CAP pilot who is scheduled to fly an authorized sortie on a CAP airplane and forgets to get a flight release before taking off has technically taken the airplane without authorization. And while there are consequences to those actions, it doesn't necessarily mean the pilot stole the airplane.
And I assume you agree that a CAP pilot who was
not scheduled to fly an authorized sortie on a CAP airplane and
never intended to get a flight release, and--possibly--also to never return that airplane to CAP in its previous (i.e., one-piece) condition might just be considered theft?
Really? CAP Talk has hit a new low.
After losing the fight with whatever demons he was struggling with, a member has died. Show some respect.