Wearing CAP Blues in Airport

[a2capt]

From "never" to "it's been done" back to "attempted to".

Remember, many if not all court  cases are because someone "attempted" to do something. How far along they get, etc.

[RogueLeader]

I was referring to this:

(is this the first time a uniform issue has been hijcacked?) 

[754837]

Being in violation of a traffic law (much stronger than a CAPR) does not void out a car insurance policy.  If you think of it, almost all if not all car crashes involve someone operating a vehicle outside of the law and the insurance is not voided.

Ned is a member of the bar.  The rest of us are all sidewalk attorneys and barracks lawyers.

If CAP took the position that a uniform or some other regulation petty violation voids insurance then no one in their right mind would be a member!

[Eclipse]

Being in violation of a traffic law (much stronger than a CAPR) does not void out a car insurance policy.  If you think of it, almost all if not all car crashes involve someone operating a vehicle outside of the law and the insurance is not voided.

But not being legally authorized to operate the vehicle at all, for whatever reason, may, in fact void your insurance. 

In the vast majority of circumstances, not being in uniform means you are not "legally" (in CAP terms) allowed to operate the aircraft.

[SARDOC]

can anybody explain why you must be in a uniform when flying a plane...especially for something like a maintenance flight.  I understand that if you are on a mission but if you are just performing a quick task after work or something.  It just seems like a silly rule.  Any ideas.

[lordmonar]

It is just another one of those rumors/lies...that are running around.  I too was told at one time that not wearing your uniform would jepordise your insurance.......but really.........has anyone out there actually known someome who was not paid off simply for not wearing the uniform?

Forget about your interpetation of the regs....forget what you may have been told......I'm likely to beleive a member of our BoG when he says that uniforms will not impact insurance pay outs.

If someone can provide first hand info to the contrary I would like to know.

[Blues Brother]

I understand the concept of senior members setting an example and I respect that viewpoint. But if a "uniform violation" ( I have a hard time even saying that without laughing) denies insurance coverage, then show me where I turn in my membership card to the human race.  If that is what we have degraded to as a society,  its time to find a better planet to live on.   I am just envisioning a crash scene investigation where the police and FAA are examining the evidence of the crash site, and all of a sudden a fleet of black suburbans from the insurance company show up and agents start shoving police officers out of the way shouting  "DONT TOUCH THE UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!!   BACK AWAY FROM THE UNIFORMS  WE NEED TO INSPECT THEM BEFORE YOU TOUCH ANYTHING!!!!!!!!   Now, you EMTs come over here,  you first responders tell us, were their shirts properly pressed when you found the wreckage???"   

You can't make this "touchy feely", or somehow about the compassion of the leadership, because the decisions won't be made in that way.
When we're talking about hangar rash or a missing static whip, few would make a big deal, because the money isn't life-changing for anyone,
but in the case where we'd be talking about numbers with meaningful commas, it's a different story.

Those decisions, quite appropriately, would be made based on numbers and risk, and while I agree that its the Commanders, not the lawyers,
who make the actual decisions in these cases, when you start talking real money, those decisions might be made, or influenced, over the
heads of CAP's commanders by either the USAF or a jury.  Our insurance carriers will also have an opinion, and they are just private businesses.

Where does real money come from?  Many of our aircraft are based in urban areas where sprawl has encroached on the runways.
In my wing, a number of the major airports are a stone's throw from homes.   One poor judgment on takeoff with full tanks
and you could take out a whole row of houses - real money.

No matter what the actual cause, the lack of following a simple required procedure like wearing a uniform opens the door in a jury's
mind to "What else did the pilot ignore?"  Real money.

And yes, this started based on the supposition that a uniform issue could be grounds for denying a member benefits, but the uniform is
really a MacGuffin.  It's anything, no matter how minor, that could potentially disqualify a member from being "legal" (in a CAP sense) to do "x".

I just see things in a practical way I guess.  I mean if there was an accident and it was linked to something such as alcohol or drug use,  lack of ATC clearance,  flying into IMC without a rating, etc...  I can understand where it could become a legal issue,  but the idea of a "uniform violation" causing a legal issue is just beyond silly.     I have never even heard of anything so obtuse.  I mean I was going to lunch today and I saw an interstate battery delivery truck, and I was thinking if that truck got into an accident and batteries went flying all over and busted open and all the battery acid flew everywhere and melted a bunch of innocent bystanders eyes out,  would the DOT or police check to make sure the driver was wearing his proper company uniform?   I dont think so.   blood test, urine test, yea...... but a uniform?  I dont think so.

[Eclipse]

^ For clarity, we're talking "legal" in the CAP sense, not in the real world sense.

However, in a real-world sense, someone flying a CAP plane without a proper flight release has essentially "stolen" the aircraft, and we all know what the first question on the FRO checklist is, so there's that.

...would the DOT or police check to make sure the driver was wearing his proper company uniform? 

Of course not, the DOT has no interest or involvement in internal company policies or benefits, but the battery company probably would, and may well have issues with paying benefits to that driver.  In that case there may well be union rules and a contract involved, and in those cases, they really, really understand the term "required".

[lordmonar]

I just checked the FRO checklist on the National Site....and question one is:

1. Are PIC(s) qualified to fly the CAP aircraft for the type of flight proposed (consult the Ops-Qual FRO Report)? Does the PIC(s) possess the appropriate pilot currency for the flight?

And the other questions are:

2. Are all aircraft occupants CAP members? If not, have applicable procedures been followed for non-CAP members, including CAPF 9 if applicable?
3. Is the correct mission symbol selected?
4. Is the route of flight complete, and does the PIC have permission to fly to destinations outside the wing? Does permission exist for all landings at every airport IAW CAPR 60-1?
5. Will a flight plan be filed (required for over 50 nm)? If not, what is the estimated landing time? Unless an FAA flight plan is filed and activated, the FRO is responsible for initiating missing aircraft procedures two hours after the estimated landing time if not notified the flight was safely concluded.

Note one question about  uniforms.  So....while some wings may be mis-informed and passing bad information about uniforms and flight releases.....NHQ (as Ned said) is not so concerned about it from an insurance liablity stand point.

So.......again.......what exactly is the point?   Has anyone ever been denided coverage due to a uniform?  Ned says you are wrong about the "no uniform no coverage" and he should know.

And to think of it from a "let's get the lawyers involved" point of view......my cadet flies an o-ride that (FSM forbid) crashes and because he was not wearing his uniform NHQ won't pay his medical bills........just think of the law suit that would come down on that!

[Eclipse]

1. Are PIC(s) qualified to fly the CAP aircraft for the type of flight proposed (consult the Ops-Qual FRO Report)? Does the PIC(s) possess the appropriate pilot currency for the flight?

You're short-handing that to make your point.

There are a number of factors that make up "qualified", none of which are asked.

Is he an active member?
Is he in proper uniform?

CAPR 60-1, Page 7:
2-3. Passenger Requirements.  Authorized passengers are CAP crew members, other current
CAP members, CAP employees, ROTC/JROTC cadets (ROTC/JROTC flight orientation
program only), International Air Cadet Exchange (IACE) orientation flight cadets and escorts,
CAP-USAF personnel conducting official business, or FAA designated pilot examiners during
flight checks.

c. CAP members will wear an appropriate CAP uniform and carry proof of CAP
membership.  Only occupants of CAP gliders, tow planes and crew members requested not to
wear uniforms by the customer of a CD mission are exempt from the CAP uniform requirement.


No uniform = not qualified.  Not qualified = no release.  No release = no coverage.

Just because it isn't spelled out explicitly doesn't mean it isn't enforced.

[lordmonar]

NO....I think you are adding requirments that don't exist.

qualified means does he have the proper FAA license for the type of flight.  Does he have the proper CAPF 5 for the aircraft.  Does he have the right ES and CAPF95 for the mission.  Is he FAA current and is his medical current.


As for the regulations to wear uniforms....I agree......we need to be wearing the proper uniform.  Period end of story.  But where is the reference that says if fail to follow ALL of the regulations to the "T" that you are going to loose your insurance coverage?

I know that FECA can care less what you were wearing.   They will care about negligence that CAUSED the accident......but that is all.

Again....you are right in demanding that your people follow all the regulations......but you are wrong if you are telling them that they will lose their insurance coverage if they do.

That is all.

[ol'fido]

can anybody explain why you must be in a uniform when flying a plane...especially for something like a maintenance flight.  I understand that if you are on a mission but if you are just performing a quick task after work or something.  It just seems like a silly rule.  Any ideas.

Because NAKED people flying airplanes is probably not a good thing.

As to the notion that one may be denied coverage for a uniform violation......

M-I-C....K-E-Y.....M-O-U-S-EEEE.

[Eclipse]

NO....I think you are adding requirments that don't exist.

qualified means does he have the proper FAA license for the type of flight.  Does he have the proper CAPF 5 for the aircraft.  Does he have the right ES and CAPF95 for the mission.  Is he FAA current and is his medical current.

No, that's not all, "qualified" means.  The F5 and 91 are called out in the second sentence.

If "qualified" only meant they were flight current, then anyone could fly our airplanes on a whim.

[Eclipse]

Again....you are right in demanding that your people follow all the regulations......but you are wrong if you are telling them that they will lose their insurance coverage if they do.

So which of the other regs can we ignore?

We might as well start a list.

[754837]

Negative on "stolen" - it does not meet the elements.  Theft requires the intention to deprive the owner of ownership.  It requires the intent to steal.


LARCENY OF AUTOMOTIVE DRIVEN VEHICLE - ELEMENTS

No person may be convicted of larceny of an automotive driven vehicle unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, trespassory;

Second, taking;

Third, carrying away;

Fourth, automobile/aircraft/(automotive driven vehicle)/(construction/farm equipment);

Fifth, of another;

Sixth, with the intent to steal.

______________________________

Statutory Authority: 21 O.S. 2001, § 1720.

[lordmonar]

Again....you are right in demanding that your people follow all the regulations......but you are wrong if you are telling them that they will lose their insurance coverage if they do.

So which of the other regs can we ignore?

We might as well start a list.

I am not saying we can ignore them......I am saying that we should not be telling lies to enforce compliance.

Thou shall wear an appropriate and complete CAP uniform or I shall pull your flight privlages until you learn to follow the rules.

Not

Thou shall wear an appropropriate and complete CAP uniform or you may loose your insurance coverages.

[lordmonar]

NO....I think you are adding requirments that don't exist.

qualified means does he have the proper FAA license for the type of flight.  Does he have the proper CAPF 5 for the aircraft.  Does he have the right ES and CAPF95 for the mission.  Is he FAA current and is his medical current.

No, that's not all, "qualified" means.  The F5 and 91 are called out in the second sentence.

If "qualified" only meant they were flight current, then anyone could fly our airplanes on a whim.

Well first.......it is the first part sentance of question one that applies to CAPF 5 and CAPF 91.  The second sentance is about currancy.
Again....no mention at all about uniforms.

Second....no one ever said the qualified meant only FAA license and currency.....you still need your CAPF 5 for the type of aircraft as a minimum.

So your "anyone can fly" argument is a non starter as that was never something I proposed.

[Eclipse]

Negative on "stolen" - it does not meet the elements.  Theft requires the intention to deprive the owner of ownership.  It requires the intent to steal.

I used "steal" in quotes.

The proper term is "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle".  The statute is different depending on which state you're in, but in most states
it includes aircraft and is a felony.

[Eclipse]

Second....no one ever said the qualified meant only FAA license and currency.....you still need your CAPF 5 for the type of aircraft as a minimum.

So I'm just trying to whittle this down to "required" vs "required".

The uniform is "required", but the F5 is "required"?

Either you're qualified to fly the airplane or you aren't.  It's not a shade of gray.
No uniform, you're not qualified. And that goes for the other duties and activities where the uniform is a line item on
the criteria to participate.

If you're not qualified to participate in an activity, how can you believe you'd be covered by benefits which are only open to qualified members?

[ol'fido]

Nobody is choosing to ignore any regulation. 99.999% percent of our members do not willfully or purposely plan to ignore regulations, policies, or established procedures when they go about their duties as CAP members. Do regulations get violated through ignorance, misinformation, human error, or other factors that may be forced on us? Of course they do. Nobody is denying this. Anybody who says that they have never violated one portion of one regulation of CAP is a liar or sits at home and does nothing. If we want to accomplish something in this organization, however, we are going to have to go about our business and try to stay within the regs, but knowing that we might violate some small tenet of some obscure regulation as we do our jobs.

Can this cause us to get in trouble with CAP? Of course. But I would like to think that our leaders have the wisdom, foresight, and experience to separate the occasional procedural error from the wanton and willful disregard of the rules that is the real problem. We can choose to hammer every little deviation from the letter of the regulations and call ourselves "professionals" all we want. We can also sit at mission base and twiddle our thumbs lest we inadvertently breach regulations.

Is the leadership of CAP going to say that a "uniform violation" that did not have any material relation to whatever caused the "incident" in question make the members "unauthorized" for benefits? Yes, but not unless they don't have brain cell one in their bodies and no human emotions whatsoever.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, counsel for the defendant would have you believe that because the victim's belt was navy blue instead of the "authorized" black that the aircraft would not have hit the errant flock of geese, he would still be alive, and all would be right with the world."

Somehow, I ain't buying that.