CAPR 60-1 5 Jan 2009 Posted on eServices

[Short Field]

The new CAPR 60-1 with associated policy letter for assessing members the cost of damage to the aircraft is now effective.   It is posted on eServices.

Did I miss something or is the only thing now required in the member's paper file is the Statement of Understanding?  Looks like the rest of it is required on eServices now.  Will need to check the changes to the Pilot section of Ops Quals when it comes back up on 6 Jan 08.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Thankfully, the letter assessing damages keeps them where they have been for years.   Simple Negligence $500.00 cap ; Gross Negligence $5000.00 cap , Willful Conduct - Full Damages possible.

I am happy that every complaint that I made about the proposed 60-1 was changed to reflect common sense in the final product. 

[Eclipse]

Thankfully, the letter assessing damages keeps them where they have been for years.   Simple Negligence $500.00 cap ; Gross Negligence $5000.00 cap , Willful Conduct - Full Damages possible.

Maybe we just need to send more invoices - the amount of hanger rash showing up in the Sentinel lately is completely unacceptable.

[DG]

I am happy that every complaint that I made about the proposed 60-1 was changed to reflect common sense in the final product. 

I posted in this forum on June 24, 2008 that "The revised CAPR 60-1 for comment provides in paragraph 2.7 g. that CAP members may be assessed some or all of the damages due to negligent operation or movement of CAP Corporate aircraft."

The new official 60-1 which takes full force and effect today provides in paragraph 2.7 g. that "CAP members may be assessed some or all of the damages due to negligent operation or movement of CAP Corporate aircraft."

[caprr275]

The new 60-1 also keeps cadets from being o flight pilots and mission pilots if there is another cadet as part of the air crew. The new 60-1 basically will not let cadets fly the missions that they have in the past. It is very anti cadet and needs to be changed!

[lordmonar]

No....it is just consitant with the current definition of cadet.

[IceNine]

The new 60-1 also keeps cadets from being o flight pilots and mission pilots if there is another cadet as part of the air crew. The new 60-1 basically will not let cadets fly the missions that they have in the past. It is very anti cadet and needs to be changed!

It does not limit cadets from being orientation pilots, it simply says that they must be a CFI. 

Be an active CAP pilot at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age with a valid FAA CFI certificate).

CAP VFR Pilot at least 21 years of age (or have a valid FAA CFI certificate).

That "or" means that if you meet this requirement you don't have to meet the other one.

[lordmonar]

The new 60-1 also keeps cadets from being o flight pilots and mission pilots if there is another cadet as part of the air crew. The new 60-1 basically will not let cadets fly the missions that they have in the past. It is very anti cadet and needs to be changed!

It does not limit cadets from being orientation pilots, it simply says that they must be a CFI. 

Be an active CAP pilot at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age with a valid FAA CFI certificate).

CAP VFR Pilot at least 21 years of age (or have a valid FAA CFI certificate).

That "or" means that if you meet this requirement you don't have to meet the other one.

I think he was talking about

d. Only pilots that are qualified as CAP Instructors, Cadet/AFROTC/AFJROTC Orientation Pilots, or 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.

[Auxpilot]

If you are an FRO you better read the new reg closely. You are now a full time dispatcher and are personally responsible/obligated to start search procedures within two hours of the estimated time of arrival.

If a plane goes down and the crew dies of injuries sometime post crash, you will be going to court to defend yourself. The estimated time of arrival is subject to you proving that your data is correct and god forbid that you did not start the search on time.

What are "search procedures" and who do you call? The FAA, your CC?

If you can't sit by the phone and wait until the flight is down, better not release a flight.

[heliodoc]

If that is true Auxpilot

Then CAP itself had better send those folks to an appropriately certifcated FBO type dispatcher school...

Or is CAP trying to fly under the FAA radar??

Then there better be some kind of FAA certificate attached and NOTATED to that FRO

If it's true... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot CAP?

[IceNine]

What are "search procedures" and who do you call? The FAA, your CC?

If you can't sit by the phone and wait until the flight is down, better not release a flight.

That will directly depend on your wing's policy.

And let's get real, that's a pretty Exaggerated statement "can't sit by the phone".  Whatever, if you don't know that you have a flight that is overdue by 2 hours then you should not be releasing flights

If you can't sit by the phone GET A CELL PHONE!!!!.  OR pass off to someone that you trust.

Regardless of how you feel about it, you may very well be the only person alive that knows that airplane is out trolling around.  And if they come up missing because you weren't vigilant that they were overdue that will haunt your conscience anyway.  CAP is simply protecting themselves from the non-vigilant.

[Auxpilot]

If that is true Auxpilot

Then CAP itself had better send those folks to an appropriately certifcated FBO type dispatcher school...

Or is CAP trying to fly under the FAA radar??

Then there better be some kind of FAA certificate attached and NOTATED to that FRO

If it's true... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot CAP?

Well it says that you are not a "Dispatcher" but then goes on to say that you are responsible to initiate a search if the aircraft does not land within two hours of the  ETA. Call it what you want but if you drop the ball on initiating the search, you are personally on the hook my friend.

[caprr275]

Cadet and AFROTC/AFJROTC Orientation Pilots.
(1) Current CAP senior member.
(2) CAP VFR Pilot at least 21 years of age (or have a valid FAA CFI certificate

So if you follow this reg the way it looks if your a 20 year old CFI you can except for #1 which clearly states you must be a CAP Senior Member

[heliodoc]

Auxpilot

I'm with you on this one...

FRO's could be dropping when the "agency" isn't backing your six

[Auxpilot]

What are "search procedures" and who do you call? The FAA, your CC?

If you can't sit by the phone and wait until the flight is down, better not release a flight.

That will directly depend on your wing's policy.

And let's get real, that's a pretty Exaggerated statement "can't sit by the phone".  Whatever, if you don't know that you have a flight that is overdue by 2 hours then you should not be releasing flights

If you can't sit by the phone GET A CELL PHONE!!!!.  OR pass off to someone that you trust.

Regardless of how you feel about it, you may very well be the only person alive that knows that airplane is out trolling around.  And if they come up missing because you weren't vigilant that they were overdue that will haunt your conscience anyway.  CAP is simply protecting themselves from the non-vigilant.

There is no room for Wing Policy here. It states that the FRO must initiate a search. How exactly he is to do that is not defined.

Your point about vigilance is well taken but that won't help you in court. You are now on the hook for something that the FAA used to get paid for (VFR flight plans.)

I don't know about you but I work all day and many times am in meetings for hours on end. I can't be responsible to set an alarm for two hours after every flight that I release and have the pilots constantly call me with flight time adjustments because the last guy that flew was a half hour late and so on.

This a job for the NOC, not a volunteer.

I don't see any way that it protects CAP but it places huge personal liability on it's members.

[lordmonar]

If you are not comfortable with the duties...don't volunteer.

As we just stated....sure the FAA is supposed to track flight plans...but so are we as an organisation.

As for "initiate a search"....as Icenice said....follow your wing's policy on who/how you do that.

If you don't know...then you should not be a FRO.

The whole point of having FRO's in the first place is to help protect the organisation.  We started it because people were out flying CAP planes with no FAA flight plan and no one knew they were out tootling around.

All 60-1 is doing...is closing the loop.  We know when they took off, what they were supposed to do and when they were supposed to be back.  If you are not going to be home for that time....transfer the release up your chain of command, get a cell phone or don't release the flight.

[Short Field]

If it is too much trouble to keep track of the flight you released to make sure they got back within two hours of ETA, then it should be too much trouble to release the flight.   CAP just made making sure the aircraft landed within two hours of ETA part of the job of a FRO.  If you can't or don't want to do the job, then don't be a FRO.  

[Mustang]

Worst. Reg. Rewrite. Ever.

[Auxpilot]

If it is too much trouble to keep track of the flight you released to make sure they got back within two hours of ETA, then it should be too much trouble to release the flight.   CAP just made making sure the aircraft landed within two hours of ETA part of the job of a FRO.  If you can't or don't want to do the job, then don't be a FRO.  

My point exactly, I am betting that we will have fewer FRO's than before as a result of this reg change.

I have had many situations where 3-4 flights are going on in a single day that I have released in the morning and logged the times later in the day.

I can't do my job and manage flights all day. People can pound their chests all they want about the duties of an FRO, which never before included being responsible for starting search procedures within a two hour window, but the simple fact is not all of us can conform with this reg, nor do we want the personal financial liability for the failure to start a search at T+2 hours.

This organization is made up of members that have various levels of non-CAP responsibility and the creep of reg changes like this will only move more work to those who have the time to do it.

If this regulation was written as a result of a series of CAP planes going down and nobody looking for them it would be one thing but that is not the case. This is someone at the AF saying that they do it this way and so should CAP. The only difference is that they have paid airman in the command post doing the job.

There is already a procedure for this that has been working for years - it's called a VFR flight plan. If the concern here is that planes are going down without anyone looking for them then mandate that all flights file a flight plan, just like CD flights already have to. Don't make some volunteer potentially become financially responsible for another members actions.

I asked an attorney friend of mine to give me his take on this and the potential liability last night. He told me that unless the crew died on impact, this new reg absolutely transfers a significant degree of liability to the FRO in the event that he cannot prove without out a doubt that he started a search on time.

If you can do this, and find the transfer of personal liability to you and your family acceptable, god bless you.

[lordmonar]

Worst. Reg. Rewrite. Ever.

That's helpful.