No more cadet aircrews?

[stillamarine]

I searched and I only found the one article we talked about back in 07 that was locked. I remember we talked about the PRWG all cadet aircrew back then. I was skimming through 60-1 today and noticed this:

f. Only pilots that are qualified as CAP instructors, cadet and ROTC/JROTC orientation
pilots, SAR/DR or transport mission pilots (during supervised missions) may carry CAP cadets
as passengers or crew members. At no time may a pilot who is a CAP cadet carry another CAP
cadet as a passenger or crew member.

So that wouldn't fly that today? I read this as you can have a Cadet MP with a SM MO/MS or a SM MP with a Cadet MO/MS. Not saying that is a bad thing I was just curious.

I'm bored today can you tell?

[Eclipse]

I read that like 20 times in an effort to make the case, but really can't get there.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make the case the intention was that non-SAR/DR cadets
can't fly cadets, but SAR/DR cadets could.

I think that's a stretch.  I think you're right, no more cadet-only aircrews, assuming they were ever authorized
(didn't look at olde regs).

[stillamarine]

I read that like 20 times in an effort to make the case, but really can't get there.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make the case the intention was that non-SAR/DR cadets
can't fly cadets, but SAR/DR cadets could.

I think that's a stretch.  I think you're right, no more cadet-only aircrews, assuming they were ever authorized
(didn't look at olde regs).

Ok I found the article I was referencing. Apparently just the MP was a cadet and the rest of the crew was SMs. I don't know why I had it in my mind that it was all cadets. Old age I guess.

[Panzerbjorn]

What about a cadet MP, SM CAP Instructor Pilot MO, and a cadet MS?  Could the argument be made that the Instructor pilot is actually the PIC?

[PHall]

What about a cadet MP, SM CAP Instructor Pilot MO, and a cadet MS?  Could the argument be made that the Instructor pilot is actually the PIC?

The way I read that extract from the 60-1, no. There seems to be no loophole for having a Senior Member on board.
If a cadet is the pilot then no cadets can be aboard. And I bet that most AOBD's and IC's would agree too.

[lordmonar]

I read that like 20 times in an effort to make the case, but really can't get there.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make the case the intention was that non-SAR/DR cadets
can't fly cadets, but SAR/DR cadets could.

I think that's a stretch.  I think you're right, no more cadet-only aircrews, assuming they were ever authorized
(didn't look at olde regs).

Ok I found the article I was referencing. Apparently just the MP was a cadet and the rest of the crew was SMs. I don't know why I had it in my mind that it was all cadets. Old age I guess.

There was.....another article around the same time frame.....that was touting an all cadet crew.  MP, MO and MS.  It was at around that time that 60-1 got changed to stop that practice.   IIRC the discussion at the NB was that they could not trust the cadet MP not to do a "Hey y'all looky here!" 

Personally....I think the rule makes no logical sense.   You either trust the MP or you don't trust the MP.    YMMV.

[stillamarine]

I read that like 20 times in an effort to make the case, but really can't get there.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make the case the intention was that non-SAR/DR cadets
can't fly cadets, but SAR/DR cadets could.

I think that's a stretch.  I think you're right, no more cadet-only aircrews, assuming they were ever authorized
(didn't look at olde regs).

Ok I found the article I was referencing. Apparently just the MP was a cadet and the rest of the crew was SMs. I don't know why I had it in my mind that it was all cadets. Old age I guess.

There was.....another article around the same time frame.....that was touting an all cadet crew.  MP, MO and MS.  It was at around that time that 60-1 got changed to stop that practice.   IIRC the discussion at the NB was that they could not trust the cadet MP not to do a "Hey y'all looky here!" 

Personally....I think the rule makes no logical sense.   You either trust the MP or you don't trust the MP.    YMMV.

I agree. What is the difference between a 19 year old cadet MP and a 19 year old senior member MP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

I agree. What is the difference between a 19 year old cadet MP and a 19 year old senior member MP?

Very little and everything. In the same way a 19 year old cadet cannot supervise other cadets or senior members
in anything but a "dad is still in the room" kind of way, nor drive other cadets in a CAP vehicle.  The actuaries and lawyers
decided the ROI on the risk isn't worth it.

I would be very hesitant to build a full crew of only cadets.  Individual outstanding personalities aside,
we see regularly that the decision making of people under 25 tends to be both suspect and impulsive.
Heck, the decision making of a lot of senior members falls under the same caveat, but they have generally accepted
they actually aren't immortal.  That realization, in and of itself, is a huge behavioral limiting factor.

The ORM on those sorties would be be, by design, very high due to generally low experience and recent
activity, re-mediated by changing things around to add at least one senior member with experience.

I would also hazard the number of members this effects is literally zero.

[stillamarine]

I agree. What is the difference between a 19 year old cadet MP and a 19 year old senior member MP?

Very little and everything. In the same way a 19 year old cadet cannot supervise other cadets or senior members
in anything but a "dad is still in the room" kind of way, nor drive other cadets in a CAP vehicle.  The actuaries and lawyers
decided the ROI on the risk isn't worth it.

Kinda incorrect. A cadet GTL can actually supervise SMs and cadets. A cadet MP can supervise an aircrew of SMs. So the lawyers say no cadets supervising other cadets. So SM supervising cadets is good to go right?

I would be very hesitant to build a full crew of only cadets.  Individual outstanding personalities aside,
we see regularly that the decision making of people under 25 tends to be both suspect and impulsive.
Heck, the decision making of a lot of senior members falls under the same caveat, but they have generally accepted
they actually aren't immortal.  That realization, in and of itself, is a huge behavioral limiting factor.

So how about a crew of 19 or 20 year old SMs?  Legally they can fly. Regs say they are good to go. What if they are the only aircrew available?

The ORM on those sorties would be be, by design, very high due to generally low experience and recent
activity, re-mediated by changing things around to add at least one senior member with experience.

See above. Now you have 3 SMs. They may have quite a bit of experience flying, who knows? We can speculate all day. What does the reg say?

I would also hazard the number of members this effects is literally zero.

You and your "this doesn't effect anyone." Who cares? It's just a discussion, that's what people do on discussion boards. I saw something that I found interesting and brought it over here.

[Eclipse]

I agree. What is the difference between a 19 year old cadet MP and a 19 year old senior member MP?

Very little and everything. In the same way a 19 year old cadet cannot supervise other cadets or senior members
in anything but a "dad is still in the room" kind of way, nor drive other cadets in a CAP vehicle.  The actuaries and lawyers
decided the ROI on the risk isn't worth it.

Kinda incorrect. A cadet GTL can actually supervise SMs and cadets. A cadet MP can supervise an aircrew of SMs. So the lawyers say no cadets supervising other cadets. So SM supervising cadets is good to go right?

No, they do not.

Cadets are never "supervising" anyone, including themselves.  A cadet GTL may be directing the actions of a team, but the senior members involved are fully and 100% responsible for the supervision of that team, and all the cadets on it.

So how about a crew of 19 or 20 year old SMs?  Legally they can fly. Regs say they are good to go. What if they are the only aircrew available?

The chances of the only choice of an aircrew being available in any given situation are so slim as to not be worth the discussion.

If such a crew does or did exist, the wing ES people would be fully aware of them owing to their anomaly, and the IC at the time would need to make a decision on the ORM.

The regs say it's allowed, reality says it doesn't happen.

[stillamarine]

So the MP is not supervising his crew?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

So the MP is not supervising his crew?

The senior member in the aircraft would still be ultimately responsible.

This is NHQ's dynamic, so don't expect explanation from here.

These situations are the reasons many argue that the CP should end at 18.

[Майор Хаткевич]

So the MP is not supervising his crew?

The senior member in the aircraft would still be ultimately responsible.

This is NHQ's dynamic, so don't expect explanation from here.

These situations are the reasons many argue that the CP should end at 18.

I thought MP is the Driver, and the MO is the boss?

[Eclipse]

I thought MP is the Driver, and the MO is the boss?

Now you've done it!

Those West of the MI will light their "that's NESA BS" torches.  Nice going.

[stillamarine]

So the MP is not supervising his crew?

The senior member in the aircraft would still be ultimately responsible.

This is NHQ's dynamic, so don't expect explanation from here.

These situations are the reasons many argue that the CP should end at 18.

I thought MP is the Driver, and the MO is the boss?

That's a whole different argument that had gonna on since forever.

So what if the cadet was the MO?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spam]

I agree. What is the difference between a 19 year old cadet MP and a 19 year old senior member MP?

Very little and everything. In the same way a 19 year old cadet cannot supervise other cadets or senior members
in anything but a "dad is still in the room" kind of way, nor drive other cadets in a CAP vehicle.  The actuaries and lawyers
decided the ROI on the risk isn't worth it.

Kinda incorrect. A cadet GTL can actually supervise SMs and cadets. A cadet MP can supervise an aircrew of SMs. So the lawyers say no cadets supervising other cadets. So SM supervising cadets is good to go right?

No, they do not.

Cadets are never "supervising" anyone, including themselves.  A cadet GTL may be directing the actions of a team, but the senior members involved are fully and 100% responsible for the supervision of that team, and all the cadets on it.

The regs say it's allowed, reality says it doesn't happen.

With respect Sir, there are adequate references to the contrary to support debate on that point (emphasis added):

GTL reference text APR03:
p. 17: "The ground team leader is in charge and responsible for team members"
p. 50: "Ground Team Leader: The team leader is responsible for safety, health and welfare of all members under his or her charge as well as accomplishing the assignment at hand. The leader will also manage scenes if the first arrival on site at crash sites or survivor find scenarios".
p. 100: "The Ground Team Leader (GTL) has several functions at a the site. The GTL supervises all actions, from the initial survey for potential hazards and survivors to the turnover of control of the scene to the appropriate authority".


"Reality" says that I have (as GBD, within the past 4 years) sortied a GTL with a team on an active AFAM, with an over 21 SM team member who was only a GTM3* escort for compliance purposes, with a non distress Find, with no incidents.  Depending on my ORM assessment of the staff involved, I might do that again.


Mission Aircrew Reference Text (11APR05):
p. 87: "Demonstrate techniques to minimize fatigue, and how you would direct the pilot during flight... 2. Describe how to direct the pilot"
p.116: "O-2106 PLAN AND COMMAND A CAP FLIGHT CONDITIONS You are a Mission Pilot trainee and must plan and command a CAP flight. OBJECTIVES Plan and command a CAP flight. Perform preflight tasks and briefings, check and fill out applicable aircraft logs, perform briefings for all critical phases of flight, and perform after-landing tasks.
p.131: "O-2109 ASSIST IN PLANNING AND PERFORMING A ROUTE SEARCH CONDITIONS You are a Mission Observer trainee and must assist a Mission Pilot in planning and performing a route search... The observer (as mission commander) must be aware of how many scanners will be on board in order to assign which side of the aircraft they should scan".
p.139: "1. As a Mission Observer trainee, the ability to assist the Mission Pilot in planning and performing a point based
search pattern is essential. The observer learns to plan the search pattern in order to better assist the
mission pilot and to more effectively direct scanners".


These statements to me illustrate the CONOPS, (following USAF multi crewed aircraft) stating that the PIC is (legally!) in charge of the vehicle as "aircraft commander", but the MO directs the tactical mission as "mission commander". The MO concept (following USAF and USN experience with WSOs/RIOs/NFOs) is that the MO is the equivalent of a module commander or weapons systems officer who provides a Big Picture of the tactical scenario, and directs tactical decision making for the integrated team. The WSO (or for us, MO) provides tactical direction - the MP provides aircraft pilotage - both work as a TEAM.

Back to the main issue, my opinion only: assignment should be regardless of age (young or old) but should be based on their individual quals and suitability for the task, as defined by the IC. Can you disregard that you might - MIGHT - find a qualified team based on ability, regardless of age?  I personally would leave that up to the IC and AOBD.

V/R
Spam

[JeffDG]

So the MP is not supervising his crew?

The senior member in the aircraft would still be ultimately responsible.

That's not what FAA regulations say.  And real laws, like Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, trump CAP regulations all day, and twice on Sunday.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

If a Senior Member Observer violates the directives of the Cadet MP Pilot in Command, said SM Observer can go to jail for hijacking.

[Eclipse]

If a Senior Member Observer violates the directives of the Cadet MP Pilot in Command, said SM Observer can go to jail for hijacking.

Yeah, OK.  And if the Cadet does something "dumb", it's the senior(s) who is(are) on the hook.  If he sits quietly he can
arrange for the cadet to not be a member anymore. 

I fully acknowledge NHQ's stance on the cadet vs. senior relationship doesn't align with law, FAA regs on PIC,  etc.
Doesn't change a thing if the people involved value their ID cards.  No different then the other areas CAP
rules and regs step on behavior or other "rights" - CAP is a volunteer "at will" organizaiton.

The fact that Seniors are in defacto charge at all times is both the advantage and the curse of the cadet - the trade off
for opportunities "adults" don't have access to.

This is tired old road, one which I have generally advocated on the side of ending the CP at 18 to close the discussion.

[Spam]

If a Senior Member Observer violates the directives of the Cadet MP Pilot in Command, said SM Observer can go to jail for hijacking.

This is tired old road, one which I have generally advocated on the side of ending the CP at 18 to close the discussion.

I certainly think I would agree with you there, Sir. It would resolve many, many questions.

V/R
Spam

[JeffDG]

If a Senior Member Observer violates the directives of the Cadet MP Pilot in Command, said SM Observer can go to jail for hijacking.

Yeah, OK.  And if the Cadet does something "dumb", it's the senior(s) who is(are) on the hook. 

No.

By federal regulation, the cadet PIC is "on the hook".  He is responsible for everything that happens on the aircraft.  If the backseater drops his camera out the camera port and it hits something, the cadet PIC is 100% legally responsible.

[Mitchell 1969]

So the MP is not supervising his crew?

The senior member in the aircraft would still be ultimately responsible.

That's not what FAA regulations say.  And real laws, like Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, trump CAP regulations all day, and twice on Sunday.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

If a Senior Member Observer violates the directives of the Cadet MP Pilot in Command, said SM Observer can go to jail for hijacking.

Stop, please, yer killin' me!

No. It doesn't work that way. First of all, there is no aircraft hijacking crime in the US Code. It's "aircraft piracy" that you're looking for. And it's not in Title 14. It's in Title 49. (49 USC 46502).

The scenario you described does not meet the elements of the crime. Specifically,

"(A) "aircraft piracy" means seizing or exercising control of an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent."

And, no, don't even try to go down the "intimidation" road. It doesn't lead to this, in the scenario described.

[stillamarine]

If a Senior Member Observer violates the directives of the Cadet MP Pilot in Command, said SM Observer can go to jail for hijacking.

This is tired old road, one which I have generally advocated on the side of ending the CP at 18 to close the discussion.

I certainly think I would agree with you there, Sir. It would resolve many, many questions.

V/R
Spam

Yeah I don't like there's two paths for 18-20 year olds. Should be one or the other. With our police explorers they can stay to 21 as explorers. We don't let them become advisors at 18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tim Day]

With respect Sir, there are adequate references to the contrary to support debate on that point (emphasis added):

GTL reference text APR03:
p. 17: "The ground team leader is in charge and responsible for team members"
p. 50: "Ground Team Leader: The team leader is responsible for safety, health and welfare of all members under his or her charge as well as accomplishing the assignment at hand. The leader will also manage scenes if the first arrival on site at crash sites or survivor find scenarios".
p. 100: "The Ground Team Leader (GTL) has several functions at a the site. The GTL supervises all actions, from the initial survey for potential hazards and survivors to the turnover of control of the scene to the appropriate authority".


"Reality" says that I have (as GBD, within the past 4 years) sortied a GTL with a team on an active AFAM, with an over 21 SM team member who was only a GTM3* escort for compliance purposes, with a non distress Find, with no incidents.  Depending on my ORM assessment of the staff involved, I might do that again.

[skipped]

Back to the main issue, my opinion only: assignment should be regardless of age (young or old) but should be based on their individual quals and suitability for the task, as defined by the IC. Can you disregard that you might - MIGHT - find a qualified team based on ability, regardless of age?  I personally would leave that up to the IC and AOBD.

V/R
Spam

The answer is a little different and more complex, but nothing that unique (roughly analogous to a non-pilot Flag or General Officer embarked in an aircraft, for us prior military types).

Here's CAPR 60-3 1-10e:

Use of qualified CAP cadets is encouraged as much as possible on appropriate missions. Cadets should be trained in the various functions of mission operations and support as permitted. Cadets qualify no differently than adult members in emergency services qualifications, and can be properly utilized in age-appropriate scenarios. Additional guidance for employing cadets on missions can be found on the NHQ CAP/DOS website.

So the regulation points to additional guidance on a website, but subject to whatever that additional guidance is, cadets can be used properly.

Then the NHQ CAP/DOS website says this:

•A qualified senior member must directly supervise cadets less than 18 years of age. Cadets 18 years of age and older can be qualified to serve as ground team leaders, mission pilots, and several other positions of authority traditionally considered adult qualifications in accordance with applicable SQTRs, but cadet protection policies must be followed. If adult members are assigned to a team in a subordinate position to a cadet, the adult member may exercise command authority if necessary to avoid extreme risks endangering the team.

So yes, a cadet 18 year or older may supervise a senior member. However, that senior member may (and under cadet protection policies must) exercise command authority in safety situations.

It seems to me, Spam, like you were correct to assign the cadet GTL the way you did. The over-21 SM GTM3 trainee retained his obligation and authority to take command if the GTL endangered cadets at any time. I like to ensure that the mission staff briefs this to the senior member assigned when this happens.

[stillamarine]

With respect Sir, there are adequate references to the contrary to support debate on that point (emphasis added):

GTL reference text APR03:
p. 17: "The ground team leader is in charge and responsible for team members"
p. 50: "Ground Team Leader: The team leader is responsible for safety, health and welfare of all members under his or her charge as well as accomplishing the assignment at hand. The leader will also manage scenes if the first arrival on site at crash sites or survivor find scenarios".
p. 100: "The Ground Team Leader (GTL) has several functions at a the site. The GTL supervises all actions, from the initial survey for potential hazards and survivors to the turnover of control of the scene to the appropriate authority".


"Reality" says that I have (as GBD, within the past 4 years) sortied a GTL with a team on an active AFAM, with an over 21 SM team member who was only a GTM3* escort for compliance purposes, with a non distress Find, with no incidents.  Depending on my ORM assessment of the staff involved, I might do that again.

[skipped]

Back to the main issue, my opinion only: assignment should be regardless of age (young or old) but should be based on their individual quals and suitability for the task, as defined by the IC. Can you disregard that you might - MIGHT - find a qualified team based on ability, regardless of age?  I personally would leave that up to the IC and AOBD.

V/R
Spam

The answer is a little different and more complex, but nothing that unique (roughly analogous to a non-pilot Flag or General Officer embarked in an aircraft, for us prior military types).

Here's CAPR 60-3 1-10e:

Use of qualified CAP cadets is encouraged as much as possible on appropriate missions. Cadets should be trained in the various functions of mission operations and support as permitted. Cadets qualify no differently than adult members in emergency services qualifications, and can be properly utilized in age-appropriate scenarios. Additional guidance for employing cadets on missions can be found on the NHQ CAP/DOS website.

So the regulation points to additional guidance on a website, but subject to whatever that additional guidance is, cadets can be used properly.

Then the NHQ CAP/DOS website says this:

•A qualified senior member must directly supervise cadets less than 18 years of age. Cadets 18 years of age and older can be qualified to serve as ground team leaders, mission pilots, and several other positions of authority traditionally considered adult qualifications in accordance with applicable SQTRs, but cadet protection policies must be followed. If adult members are assigned to a team in a subordinate position to a cadet, the adult member may exercise command authority if necessary to avoid extreme risks endangering the team.

So yes, a cadet 18 year or older may supervise a senior member. However, that senior member may (and under cadet protection policies must) exercise command authority in safety situations.

It seems to me, Spam, like you were correct to assign the cadet GTL the way you did. The over-21 SM GTM3 trainee retained his obligation and authority to take command if the GTL endangered cadets at any time. I like to ensure that the mission staff briefs this to the senior member assigned when this happens.

See I can understand in a extreme safety situation, the senior member takes over, but only in those cases. The senior member can't just say, "we are doing it this way because I'm the adult." Also, how does the senior member MO take over the plane from a cadet MP? Little bit more complicated.

[JeffDG]

Also, how does the senior member MO take over the plane from a cadet MP? Little bit more complicated.

First:  If the cadet is designated as the PIC, then he doesn't.  By law, the PIC is the final authority for the flight.  CAP regulations that are contrary to law are not applicable insofar as they conflict with local, state or federal law.

[stillamarine]

Also, how does the senior member MO take over the plane from a cadet MP? Little bit more complicated.

First:  If the cadet is designated as the PIC, then he doesn't.  By law, the PIC is the final authority for the flight.  CAP regulations that are contrary to law are not applicable insofar as they conflict with local, state or federal law.

Oh I agree. That's kind of what I was getting at. Especially when said MO is not a pilot.

[Eclipse]

See I can understand in a extreme safety situation, the senior member takes over, but only in those cases. The senior member can't just say, "we are doing it this way because I'm the adult." Also, how does the senior member MO take over the plane from a cadet MP? Little bit more complicated.

Also, how does the senior member MO take over the plane from a cadet MP? Little bit more complicated.

First:  If the cadet is designated as the PIC, then he doesn't.  By law, the PIC is the final authority for the flight.  CAP regulations that are contrary to law are not applicable insofar as they conflict with local, state or federal law.

While the flight is in the air, I agree, however if the senior members directs an action by the cadet and the cadet refuses, as soon as the engines shut down, that
cadet is going to be done flying for CAP for a while, if ever again, depending on the severity of the issue and the nature of the refusal.

That's based on the senior / cadet relationship, not the MO/MP relationship, however even in the normal latter, if there is a serious disagreement
between the aircrew, it needs to be addressed by an authority at the ICP or the Wing's chain.

[Tim Day]

Also, how does the senior member MO take over the plane from a cadet MP? Little bit more complicated.

First:  If the cadet is designated as the PIC, then he doesn't.  By law, the PIC is the final authority for the flight.  CAP regulations that are contrary to law are not applicable insofar as they conflict with local, state or federal law.

He'd do it the same way as a non-pilot General or Flag Officer would take over a military flight, by simply ordering the MP to do something.

For example, a SM in the back seat can, within CAP regulations and without violating any FAA regulations, order the cadet MP to return to base. The cadet would be obligated to follow that order as long is it did not further endanger the aircrew (there's the difference between the military and CAP - a GO/FO can lawfully order the PIC to endanger the crew, A SM cannot).

Once safely on the ground they'd then discuss what happened with the AOBD, IC, etc. The SM retains the command authority under CAP regulations without violating any FAA Regulations. If the IC decides the SM ordered the cadet MP to RTB for frivolous reasons, he could reassign aircrews and probably have the SM leave the mission.

By CAP regulations all other (non-safety) aspects of the mission would be the same as for a SM MP.

Edited for clarity...

[DakRadz]

So how about a crew of 19 or 20 year old SMs?  Legally they can fly. Regs say they are good to go. What if they are the only aircrew available?

The chances of the only choice of an aircrew being available in any given situation are so slim as to not be worth the discussion.

If such a crew does or did exist, the wing ES people would be fully aware of them owing to their anomaly, and the IC at the time would need to make a decision on the ORM.

The regs say it's allowed, reality says it doesn't happen.

Going back to a previous discussion about Wing conference, no sober crew to be found for a REDCAP, embarrassing... If a properly certified senior member crew of the mentioned ages were present in such an event, they would legally be the sober ones (let's assume they were not drinking underage as seniors). That would present your opportunity.

And even today I'd wager you can still find a conference or two without a sober flight crew.... Yes, slim scenario, but as mentioned this IS a discussion board.

[Eclipse]

Wing conferences should not ever be looked at as a source for crews, sober or not, most would be past their
duties days anyway - you get a crew from a neighboring wing, or from the likely 85% of the membership
not interested in a $50 rubber chicken meal.

[Spaceman3750]

or from the likely 85% of the membership not interested in a $50 rubber chicken meal.

This. If you can't find 3 people in proximity to a plane somewhere in the entire wing when a conference is going on, you have bigger problems then disallowing cadet aircrews. Consider coordinating an aircrew and an IC to NOT be at the conference. The "designated survivors", if you will. Or, you know, recruit more air crews (as if it were that easy...)

[DakRadz]

I actually put "recruit more members" in an AAR I am working on for a recent activity.... Only slightly tongue in cheek.