Wearing CAP Blues in Airport

[Eclipse]

"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."

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.  Plantiff's Counsel would have you believe that a 79-year old woman was unaware that coffee was hot."

The ultimate settlement was $600,000 and every cup of coffee served in this country now carries a warning that coffee is hot.

At a minimum, no one in authority or influence should ever even hint that something which is noted as "required", isn't, especially something
which is at the core of the organization and membership, affects attitude, and may, in a remote circumstance, cause a member to be denied the protections of CAP.  As soon as you introduce fudge on anything, you open the door to fudge on everything.

The response should always be: "In order to insure both the member and the corporation are always protected in regards to injury or liability,
it is critical that our members adhere to all the applicable regulations, and consult higher headquarters whenever there is a question in this regard."

[lordmonar]

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?

Required is not the word we are debateing.....it is Qualified.

Your plane is required to have a fire extingusher.  If you don't have one....you are still qualified to fly.....just not authorised.
Your pilot is required to be qualified for the type of aircraft and type of flight to be able to get a flight release.
Everyone is required to wear a uniform to fly.......not affecting anyone's qualificaitons......just their authorisation.

And NHQ does not think that makeing sure everyone on the plane is in uniform is a big enough issue to make it to the FRO checklist.

But all of this is secondary to my basic point.

WEAR YOUR FRIGGING UNIFORM!  BECAUSE THE REGS SAY SO!  Not......Wear your uniform or you may not get insurance coverage.  End of message.

[lordmonar]

"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."

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.  Plantiff's Counsel would have you believe that a 79-year old woman was unaware that coffee was hot."

The ultimate settlement was $600,000 and every cup of coffee served in this country now carries a warning that coffee is hot.

At a minimum, no one in authority or influence should ever even hint that something which is noted as "required", isn't, especially something
which is at the core of the organization and membership, affects attitude, and may, in a remote circumstance, cause a member to be denied the protections of CAP.  As soon as you introduce fudge on anything, you open the door to fudge on everything.

The response should always be: "In order to insure both the member and the corporation are always protected in regards to injury or liability,
it is critical that our members adhere to all the applicable regulations, and consult higher headquarters whenever there is a question in this regard."

Then why are you holding that line?  Ned said that was not true.  The regs do not say that.  You are the one that is suggesting that
"In order to insure both the member and the corporation are always protected in regards to injury or liability,
it is critical that our members adhere to all the applicable regulations, and consult higher headquarters whenever there is a question in this regard."

What we are telling you is that unless someone has slipped something by Ned while he was not looking.......THAT IS NOT CAP's Policy.
Your protection in recard injurly or liablity will be based on your negligence not if you Crossed all the T's and Dotted all the I's and what not. 

[Eclipse]

Everyone is required to wear a uniform to fly.......not affecting anyone's qualificaitons......just their authorisation.

You can't be authorized, without being qualified. 

You can't be qualified without the uniform.

[Eclipse]

Your protection in recard injurly or liablity will be based on your negligence not if you Crossed all the T's and Dotted all the I's and what not.

Right.  Because details are never important in regards to the court system or civil suits.

No one has ever lost thousands of dollars because of minor "unimportant" details.

Ned may view the courts and lawyers as always benevolent and working in the best interest of all involved.  I don't.
Lawyers, especially in civil trials, have very specific mandates, and the #1 mandate is defending their client or minimizing
damages.  They will use whatever tactic is necessary.  Why he would say that is unethical is beyond me, that's their job.

And there's no way he can speak for FECA and FTCA administrators who have zero vested interest in CAP members.

[lordmonar]

Everyone is required to wear a uniform to fly.......not affecting anyone's qualificaitons......just their authorisation.

You can't be authorized, without being qualified. 

You can't be qualified without the uniform.

Somantics.....but you can be qualified without a uniform.....and you can be authorised without a uniform (I point to seveal cases where 39-1 uniforms are either not authorised CD missions...or alternate uniforms are mandated/allowed).

Either case has nothing to do with the argument that of all the things you can screw up......uniforms is so way down on the list of things that will make NHQ contimplate pulling insurance coverage.

Wear your uniform becausee the regs say so....not because you may lose insurance coverage.

[lordmonar]

Your protection in recard injurly or liablity will be based on your negligence not if you Crossed all the T's and Dotted all the I's and what not.

Right.  Because details are never important in regards to the court system or civil suits.

No one has ever lost thousands of dollars because of minor "unimportant" details.

Ned may view the courts and lawyers as always benevolent and working in the best interest of all involved.  I don't.
Lawyers, especially in civil trials, have very specific mandates, and the #1 mandate is defending their client or minimizing
damages.  They will use whatever tactic is necessary.  Why he would say that is unethical is beyond me, that's their job.

And there's no way he can speak for FECA and FTCA administrators who have zero vested interest in CAP members.

Whose lawyers?   
We are talking about CAP....i.e. CAP's lawyers pulling insurance coverage.  As for FECA and FTCA.......having seen those in action and being covered by similar (if not exactly the same thing as an AD USAF member) I can tell you that again uniforms are a non starter unless it somehow contributed to the cause of the accident/injury.   Wearing your pink tutu and it flips up and blinds you causing you to taxi into a building on an AFAM.........maybe they will state CAP regs as reason to leave you (and CAP) high and dry.  Crashing due to a wind gust on final.....again uniforms are so way down on the list...it won't even come up.

So again......a member of the BoG says it won't happen.......in my 10+ years in CAP I have never seen it happen.     I think you are trying to make a mole hill out of nothing here.

I may be wrong.....so again I ask.......has anyone have first hand knowlege of CAP or FECA pulling coverage due to simply uniforms?

[754837]

To reduce our liability we should eliminate uniforms!

[Blues Brother]

Wear your uniform becausee the regs say so....not because you may lose insurance coverage.

I'll buy that.

[Eclipse]

Whose lawyers?   

The ones defending CAP in the lawsuits when there is a mishap involving external liability.  The ones requesting that CAP
be relieved of responsibility based on the fact that the member was not authorized for the activity in question.

The lawyers for the insurance carrier who are suing the member directly for the damage to the aircraft because CAP
disavowed responsibility based on unauthorized use of the aircraft.

The lawyers for CAP, or the Federal government when benefits are denied based on unauthorized use of the aircraft
and you have to sue them for benefits.

[lordmonar]

Dude....if a CAP member is sueing CAP for injuries sustained or is sueing CAP because some T-shirt wearing pilot damaged their airport/house/car.........it is not going to matter much to the jury one bit if CAP pulled insurance coverage from the member or not.

In case A.....it is more likely that a CAP member sue CAP IF they pull coverage then if they just pay the medical bills. 

In Case B....the plaintiff is going to name EVERYONE from the pilot, the MO, the MS, the FRO  AND CAP inc. as defendants.  So again pulling coverage will only make things worse for CAP not better.  At that point the jurry is not going to care one whip if the pilot was following CAP uniform regulations or not.....unless it contributed to the accident.

Now....if CAP were to sue members (or exmembers) to recoup thier loses and they want to use the uniform issue to show a pattern of disregard to following the regs......maybe you would have a case......but on the reality side of things......I just don't see that happening....a) It will cost more money to get their loses back.  b) I just don't think CAP has the time for that BS.

Also note.....CAP does not have an insurance carrier AFAIK......we are self insured....that is we got a big pot of money we keep on hand to pay out these sort of things.

Otherwise we would not be having to take the stupid aircraft handeling training because said insurance carrier would be sueing for the repairs for all these hanger rashes we have been having.

Now I am not a lawyer.....but Ned is one......and he says it does not happen the way you say......I'll take his word for it.

[Eclipse]

Now....if CAP were to sue members (or exmembers) to recoup thier loses and they want to use the uniform issue to show a pattern of disregard to following the regs......maybe you would have a case......but on the reality side of things......I just don't see that happening....a) It will cost more money to get their loses back.  b) I just don't think CAP has the time for that BS.

At $350,000 plus for a new airplane, I'd guess it was worth it.

Also note.....CAP does not have an insurance carrier AFAIK......we are self insured....that is we got a big pot of money we keep on hand to pay out these sort of things.

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/general_counsel/insurance-and-other-contacts/

[FW]

So again......a member of the BoG says it won't happen.......in my 10+ years in CAP I have never seen it happen.     I think you are trying to make a mole hill out of nothing here.

I may be wrong.....so again I ask.......has anyone have first hand knowlege of CAP or FECA pulling coverage due to simply uniforms?

CAP or FECA has never pulled coverage due to uniforms however, CAP-USAF has considered decertifiying AFAM status for members killing themselves in crashes because they weren't wearing "the proper uniform".  I know of two cases where this was considered.  At no time did this ever happen.  It is important to note; the Air Force wants to make sure we obey our regulations.  If we allow members to fly without uniforms; the Air Force won't mind.

[JeffDG]

Just to chime in on the "required" vs "required" concept.

In insurance case law there's a question of materiality.

So, take a CAPF5 for example:  A pilot without a CAPF5 crashes a plane.  The CAPF5 is specifically designed to test the pilot's competence to fly the aircraft.  So, if the cause of the accident was pilot error in any way, the lack of CAPF5 could well be considered a material breech.  If, however, that crash is caused by mechanical failure that would not be detectable on a pre-flight, then that lack of CAPF5 would not be a material breech.  One can be cause for insurance denial, the other cannot.  Nothing would prevent CAP from 2Bing a member who flew without a CAPF5, even if there is no accident, as that pilot violated CAP regs, but absent material contribution to the cause of an accident, insurance still has to pay up.

So, when would a uniform violation be a material cause of an accident that would give rise to denied insurance?  For the life of me, I can't think of any situation.

[Eclipse]

CAP or FECA has never pulled coverage due to uniforms however, CAP-USAF has considered decertifiying AFAM status for members killing themselves in crashes because they weren't wearing "the proper uniform".  I know of two cases where this was considered.  At no time did this ever happen.  It is important to note; the Air Force wants to make sure we obey our regulations.  If we allow members to fly without uniforms; the Air Force won't mind.

^ So this is a fair answer as far as I'm concerned, and comes from a former board member.

The USAF has, in fact, at least considered uniform wear in decertifying an AFAM.

No one said it was a common occurrence, but then again neither are serious mishaps.

It's not a "won't ever happen", or a "can't happen", it's a "did happen".

Members should act accordingly and not kid themselves that violating even minor rules won't potentially have serious ramifications.

[Eclipse]

So, when would a uniform violation be a material cause of an accident that would give rise to denied insurance?  For the life of me, I can't think of any situation.

But we're not just talking about insurance, are we?  We're also talking about CAP defending a member in civil suits from outside parties.

Obviously CAP would be party to those suits, and could make the case that the member acted without proper flight authorization and
therefore is personally liable for damages, even to the point of CAP suing the member to recover damages.  Insurance carriers sue to
recover damages all the time.

[ol'fido]

"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."

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.  Plantiff's Counsel would have you believe that a 79-year old woman was unaware that coffee was hot."

The ultimate settlement was $600,000 and every cup of coffee served in this country now carries a warning that coffee is hot.

At a minimum, no one in authority or influence should ever even hint that something which is noted as "required", isn't, especially something
which is at the core of the organization and membership, affects attitude, and may, in a remote circumstance, cause a member to be denied the protections of CAP.  As soon as you introduce fudge on anything, you open the door to fudge on everything.

The response should always be: "In order to insure both the member and the corporation are always protected in regards to injury or liability,
it is critical that our members adhere to all the applicable regulations, and consult higher headquarters whenever there is a question in this regard."

Thanks for making my point although in a backhanded manner. Yes, the little old lady did win a pile of money even thought she should have known that the coffee was hot. Now put that in the context of our discussion. A jury is not going to hold an individual liable for damages because he was wearing the wrong belt or tee shirt. A jury is going to look at it as "we can find Joe X Member liable even if he should have known better and he can pay part of his pay check for the rest of his life for that or we can find the big nationwide corporation with deeper pockets liable and the plaintiff can get a big payday." You talk about lawyers, but lawyers don't count for this. Juries do and they love to stick it to the biggest bank account.

And an organization that tries to throw someone under the bus for a minor uniform violation will  realize this too. The same lawyers that might say that they can deny indemnity based on this will also tell you that they would get creamed in a jury trial for it.

[Eclipse]

A jury is not going to hold an individual liable for damages because he was wearing the wrong belt or tee shirt.

No, they will consider whether the member was authorized to fly the airplane.  Authorization is CAP's accepting a member's credentials,
status, and readiness to perform a given duty, in exchange they assume some responsibility for injury and damages.  In this case, part of that readiness
is the uniform.

No uniform, no authorization.

[ol'fido]

A jury is not going to hold an individual liable for damages because he was wearing the wrong belt or tee shirt.

No, they will consider whether the member was authorized to fly the airplane.  Authorization is CAP's accepting a member's credentials,
status, and readiness to perform a given duty, in exchange they assume some responsibility for injury and damages.  In this case, part of that readiness
is the uniform.

No uniform, no authorization.

NO THEY WON'T. They will say "Who has the BIGGEST POCKETS? That is CAP not Joe X Member. Right, wrong, or otherwise that is how it usually ends up.

[Eclipse]

NO THEY WON'T. They will say "Who has the BIGGEST POCKETS? That is CAP not Joe X Member. Right, wrong, or otherwise that is how it usually ends up.

Deep pockets?  CAP doesn't have deep pockets, and you're forgetting this isn't just CAP, this is also FECA and FTCA admins.

And it doesn't matter who's pockets are deepest if CAP or the Feds are successful in being relieved of liability, then their responsibility ends, pockets or no.