Fellow members,
I hope to read your thoughts about the new Flight Release Officer requirements. I am particularly interested in your views and concerns regarding liability and how the FRO "responsibilities" are being changed (without member input).
I have been a FRO for several years. I find that acknowledging a CAP pilot's plans to fly a CAP aircraft, review some basic transaction details with that pilot and be on watch for the pilot's return is a reasonable volunteer activity. I received an email several weeks ago from CAPNHQ letting me know that a "refresher" FRO course would be required by the end of the year (calendar 2017) in order to retain FRO privileges.
First, it was not a refresher course. There are a LOT of new requirements. And some disturbing language. So much so that I will not be continuing as a FRO.
There is wording that the FRO position is a "contract" to perform certain oversight duties in order to release a flight. Too, it says that the FRO becomes the "conscience" of the PIC. This is clearly shifting a great deal of liability for any incidents or accidents to the FRO (perhaps unintended by CAP, but nevertheless the result of the new FRO functions).
The FAA is clear regarding PIC responsibilities: The PIC is solely responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. How can anyone share their "conscience" with the PIC for a flight? What does that even mean, exactly? Too, if you look at the numerous questions (in an online form) the FRO is required to answer it is clear that the FRO is setting him/herself up to accept a significant level of responsibility for the flight via taking an oversight position.
Now, I understand that this may not be CAP's intent. But this is very poorly conceived and ignores any protection for the membership. It is common knowledge that when accidents occur and lawsuits follow, plaintiff attorneys look to cast their net far and wide for potentially liable parties. Someone who, by way of simply releasing the flight, likely very innocently, has a solid record of signing off on a number of weather, crew and safety elements as well as having agreed to be the conscience of the PIC and, thus, becomes a dream target in court.
Folks, this is unacceptable. And dangerous to members and their families who will find themselves at risk every time a flight is released. Who can possibly agree to do this? Why has CAP become so cavalier with the well-being of their membership?
I look forward to your thoughts. And I hope others will join me in pushing back on this vulgar overreach on volunteers. I concur that CAP has a responsibility to safely conduct operations and protect equipment and members. But to shift serious liability that can wipe out members' family savings and future earnings and ruin reputations is no way to approach the matter.
- MajTbird
If you want to worry about who attorneys might sue you should just stay home and watch tv.
An aggressive attorney may decide to try to sue anyone in CAP who had anything to do with the pilot or plane -- squadron/wing commander, squadron/wing Ops officer, squadron/wing maintenance officer, the person who signed off on their form 5, and the FRO. Anyone can get sued -- the question is whether or not you would prevail.
Sadly, unwarranted worry about lawsuits is endemic in CAP and is one of the reasons we're losing relevance in the wider SAR/DR community.
An interesting question is whether or not CAP would pay for the legal defense of individual members in such a situation.
I have no problem whatsoever with an FRO acting as a critical reviewer of the pilot, the flight, and the mission. My understanding of the "old" rules was that they said as much, though not as bluntly. Hence after the fact I've observed some FRO's likely abdicated their responsibilities. For example, is it good practice for an FRO to uncritically release a flight because the pilot "is a big boy" and can decide for him/herself their fitness to fly...? If obviously congested would the pilot's self assessment be consistent with the intent of IMSAFE? IMHO the FRO shares some responsibility for the safe outcome of flights they release.
FROs are not Dispatchers. They are appointed to insure a CAP flight is allowed to proceed as per all pertinent CAP regulations. Worrying about liability or indemnification should not be an issue if you follow the guidelines. BTW; you always enter into "a contract" when agreeing to serve in a position....
Quote from: FW on December 29, 2017, 05:18:32 PM
FROs are not Dispatchers. They are appointed to insure a CAP flight is allowed to proceed as per all pertinent CAP regulations. Worrying about liability or indemnification should not be an issue if you follow the guidelines. BTW; you always enter into "a contract" when agreeing to serve in a position....
+1
An FRO is reviewing the available administrative requirements of launching a sortie, reminding the pilot
of their responsibilities, and acting as 3rd-party "where is he?" safety link. Nothing more, nothing less.
The problem was that many FROs acted complacently or didn't follow the rules - follow them and you will be fine.
Plaintiffs will sue the Dunkin' Donuts a pilot stopped at on the way to the airport if they think they can find a deep
pocket willing to write a check, but as I tell all my members, if a given duty is too much for them, or outside
their comfort zone, simply disengage formally and move on.
I actually have the reverse problem with the new rules.
In my group we have a member who is probably the most productive and useful member I have ever seen in 43 years of CAP. He has been the incident commander for just about all of our exercises for the past three years. He is a pilot with about 700-900 hours.
I, on the other hand, have logged about 50 mission hours as an observer and won't even start learning how to be a pilot until February.
Under the new rules - we have the same FRO authority.
Someone tell me why you can qualify for Incident Commander (and be a very good one) but not be able to perform SFRO duties.
Quote from: N6RVT on December 29, 2017, 05:28:23 PM
Someone tell me why you can qualify for Incident Commander (and be a very good one) but not be able to perform SFRO duties.
NHQ has decided the few sortie types with higher ORM should be relegated to current pilots with at least 1,000 PIC and who
were at least at one time instrument rated. Clearly an actuary, lawyer, or insurance adviser decided these individuals
are better suited to act in that manner.
I know more then a few higher-time pilots who never got IFR rated, and lots of more then competent ICs and upper-level
base staff who have been aircrew but not pilots.
I also know more then a few high-time Chuck Yeager types who were poop-hot in their day, but haven't flown a PIC hour in
a decade and don't always make the bets decisions because the consider the GOBC as more important then CAP regs or
making people sad.
The number of sorties needing SFROs are pretty slim, and if you look at the ORM involved in many of them,
an extra set of non-incentived eyes is probably a good idea, and no biggie.
Don't confuse an administrative process in CAP---regarding the sharing of safety information pertinent to flight operations---with Part 91/135/121 operations.
All CAP flights are operated under Part 91. The PIC is the sole authority for the operation of the aircraft. FROs do not have any joint authority in conducting flight operations; they are merely a process in CAP to determine the safety and compliance with CAP standards prior to permitting aircraft operations.
There is no legal basis for an FRO to "release" a flight, which is not conducted. It's based on shared system of operational control, but only in regard to the CAP paperwork, not the FAA paperwork. Huge difference. FROs are not liable for the safety of a flight. If you want to address any civil matters, from a lawsuit standpoint, at most, there may be a negligence in the process by CAP in managing its flight operations, but it's not going to be anything on the level of a civil penalty in violation of a 14/49 CFR.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2017, 05:53:21 PM
The number of sorties needing SFROs are pretty slim, and if you look at the ORM involved in many of them,
an extra set of non-incentived eyes is probably a good idea, and no biggie.
This may be a California only thing, but I have been told certain types of missions can only be released by an SFRO regardless of the ORM score. I don't know what those are, and wasn't told as I will never qualify to be an SFRO, but thats where the real heartburn seems to be. As to a regular mission that goes over 15, honestly I would not release it anyway so I'm glad the pressure is off.
Having experienced the growth of administrative requirements placed on the people who actually are trying to execute the missions of CAP, I wonder what sort of data or analysis is driving this growth. I've posed this question before and, in the absence of an answer, I'm left to conclude the development of these regulations is entirely arbitrary. The comments I've seen here seem to favor more and more administration. Since CAP deems it appropriate to dump all this on the membership perhaps they'd be kind enough to explain the basis for creating this mountain of paperwork. Going above and beyond is perfectly fine with me. After all, CAP owns the aircraft and can impose whatever rules they like for us to fly them. I'd just like to know there is something that could be shared with the membership that provides evidence validating the need for more regulations. Most of the membership, in my experience, have proven themselves to be conscientious and trustworthy. The pilots got to be pilots by rising to the requirements set by the FAA. The additional layers of regulation which some members defend citing safety concerns should therefore serve to make the safety record of CAP quite a bit better than for general aviation which doesn't have the benefit of CAP regulations. I'd really like to see the numbers that back this notion up. Sadly, our safety record is not that good. I have the suspicion that the process of handling the administrative requirements is lulling members into a false sense of security. I see this as simply adding stress to flight planning rather than allowing pilots and aircrew to concentrate on the relevant factors.
As a specific example of CAP regulations, I think the new FRO rules are badly worded, ill conceived, and generally not very well thought out.
Quote from: N6RVT on December 29, 2017, 08:58:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2017, 05:53:21 PM
The number of sorties needing SFROs are pretty slim, and if you look at the ORM involved in many of them,
an extra set of non-incentived eyes is probably a good idea, and no biggie.
This may be a California only thing, but I have been told certain types of missions can only be released by an SFRO regardless of the ORM score. I don't know what those are, and wasn't told as I will never qualify to be an SFRO, but thats where the real heartburn seems to be. As to a regular mission that goes over 15, honestly I would not release it anyway so I'm glad the pressure is off.
It can't be enforced without an approved supplement, and it certainly shouldn't be a secret since FROs need to know
what sorties they
can't release.
My assumption here is that WMIRS does not vet this.
Quote from: IFLY2 on December 29, 2017, 08:58:29 PMSince CAP deems it appropriate to dump all this on the membership perhaps they'd be kind enough to explain the basis for creating this mountain of paperwork.
What paperwork?
QuoteHaving experienced the growth of administrative requirements placed on the people who actually are trying to execute the missions of CAP, I wonder what sort of data or analysis is driving this growth.
Jeez, just recently learned that now even the production of annual histories is a requirement. I'm all about history, but making this a requirement in an organization that just barely has enough active people to conduct an operation in the first place is just nuts.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2017, 10:46:24 PM
QuoteHaving experienced the growth of administrative requirements placed on the people who actually are trying to execute the missions of CAP, I wonder what sort of data or analysis is driving this growth.
Jeez, just recently learned that now even the production of annual histories is a requirement. I'm all about history, but making this a requirement in an organization that just barely has enough active people to conduct an operation in the first place is just nuts.
Can you cite that?
Below is just one part of the new FRO requirements the FRO must complete. The whole release process takes between 20 and 45 minutes.
Completing this does no more to ensure a safe flight than does completing an ORM form. If they did we should expect CAP's safety and incident record to be far superior to that of general aviation. Can we see some data that all of this is paying off?
Note the incomplete options for several questions below and some of the nonsensical questions. Note also the numerous questions where you are taking responsibility for assuring PIC responsibilities.
Clearly a lot of work went into this. Unfortunately, not a lot of thought went into it. Never let activity to be mistaken for productivity. This is clearly a case where paperwork (Ok, yes, it's on a computer but the analogy fits) is being offered up as some instrument to prevent accidents or incidents.
While reviewing and acknowledging safety for a planned flight is a wise thing to do, it is the responsibility of the PIC to do that. No one else. Even hinting at sharing responsibility is a very dangerous precedent. CAP pilots are rated by the FAA and have passed a CAPF-5. That should be enough to expect that they conduct flights safely and responsibly. Adding another layer isn't helping. Especially a layer that will result in legal exposure for a well-intending member who announced, by releasing a flight, that he/she knowingly and willfully took on a measure of the responsibility (and liability) for a flight that ended in damage, injury or death. If you think CAP wouldn't "go there," think again: CAP routinely reminds us that we can/will be held responsible for damage done to planes when merely moving them in/out of a hangar (watch the ground handling video). Imagine when the stakes are higher...and you accepted responsibility for the outcome.
FRO Checklist
Date Submitted: 12/28/2017 by: C.A.P. Member Last Updated: 12/28/2017 by: C.A.P. member
Aircraft Information
What aircraft (N number) is the pilot intending to fly?
N12345
What type of aircraft is this?
C172
Are there any maintenance discrepancies for this aircraft?
Yes
Is the pilot aware of the discrepancies, if there are any? If not, review them with the pilot. In either case, did you confirm that the pilot can fly with these discrepancies.
Yes
No
Is it legal to fly with these discrepancies?
Yes
No
N/A
Does it make sense to fly with these discrepancies?
Yes
No
N/A
When was the last time the pilot flew this aircraft and this aircraft type?
Aircraft 2017-11-28 Type 2017-11-28
Mission Information
What mission is the pilot intending to fly on?
18-A-1234
What sortie(s) is the pilot requesting a release for?
A0001
What type(s) and profiles (if applicable) of sortie(s) is the pilot intending to fly?
A0
Where is the pilot intending to fly?
OZ RGNL (OZZ Airport)
Is the pilot intending to fly within the local area (50 NM)?
Yes
No
Is a flight plan filed? If filing a flight plan, remind them to close it when finished.
Yes
No
Route of flight?
LCL
Is the pilot authorized to fly this route?
Yes
No
Does the pilot have permission to fly to destinations outside the wing if required?
Yes
No
Are all destinations along the route of flight authorized for landings in CAP aircraft?
Yes
No
What time does the pilot expect to depart?
16:00:00
How long does the pilot intend to fly?
120 minutes
What time will the pilot land at the planned destination? Verify times.
18:00:00
What time will you initiate missing aircraft procedures if not notified the flight has been safely concluded? Establish a time that you will contact the pilot if you have not been notified of the pilot reaching his destination. Note: This time can be no longer than 2 hours after the estimated landing time.
2000
Verify that you have the best telephone number to reach the pilot to confirm completion of sortie if necessary.
Yes
What type of weather does the pilot expect to see along the route of flight?
VFR
Is the pilot current and qualified to fly this type of sortie?
Yes
If the pilot is not qualified for this type of sortie, is the pilot properly supervised?
N/A
Occupants
Are all of the aircraft occupants authorized to be on board this type of flight?
Yes
No
If there are non-CAP passengers or crew members, have they completed the CAPF-9 if required?
Yes
No
N/A
Where have they been stored for safekeeping?
na
Operational Risk Management
What is the ORM score for this sortie?
1.00 (Low)
Are you authorized to release a flight with that score?
Yes
No
If not, who does the pilot need to contact?
na
What does the pilot consider to be the highest risk for this flight?
XXX
What is the pilot doing to mitigate this risk?
XXX
Has the pilot read and understand the latest hot topics for pilots? If no, review with the pilot, and enter the review in WMIRS.
Yes
Are you comfortable releasing this flight?
Yes
No
Quote from: MajTbird on December 29, 2017, 11:35:57 PM
The whole release process takes between 20 and 45 minutes.
No, it doesn't. I can't imagine where you're getting that from.
Quote from: MajTbird on December 29, 2017, 11:35:57 PM...a layer that will result in legal exposure for a well-intending member who announced, by releasing a flight, that he/she knowingly and willfully took on a measure of the responsibility (and liability) for a flight that ended in damage, injury or death. If you think CAP wouldn't "go there," think again: CAP routinely reminds us that we can/will be held responsible for damage done to planes when merely moving them in/out of a hangar (watch the ground handling video). Imagine when the stakes are higher...and you accepted responsibility for the outcome.
If you knowingly release a flight that doesn't comply with CAP regs, or has other safety issues you ignore, maybe.
If you do your job properly. You're not accepting responsibility for anything beyond the screen in front of you
and the answers the pilot gives you.
You've already indicated you're not doing it anymore, so move on. People get so wrapped around the axle
about "not problems".
eclipse,
Let me address a few of your comments.
I know about the time a release requires because I've released two flights under this new system and it has taken me a little over twenty minutes to go through all the ORM checking, talking with the PIC, looking at the aircraft MX record and answering the page I posted above. So, experience (with two straightforward flights) is my answer. That combined with doing a thorough job. A friend took 45 minutes to release one; that's where I got that number.
As far as your flippant comments about liability and inviting me to "move on," well, no sir.
First, anything I write or record electronically concerning a flight I release will become part of a court record should a tragic--or even a damaged aircraft--occur. The FAA rules are one thing; but, civil liabilities are an entirely different animal. (Ask OJ). Anything a lawyer can convince a jury concerning my tacit approval or accepting being the "conscience" of a PIC of a flight will become my problem if a jury votes for it to be my responsibility. That is the problem. We've moved from checking off an administrative to-do list to being the "conscience" of the PIC. That's not a subtle move; it is a clear shift of responsibility which carries with it a great deal of liability. With all due respect, I'd appreciate a more professional assessment of "my responsibility" than your post. Case law is a good place to start; easy to find if you simply look. Being in the cross-hairs of a plaintiff lawyer on the prowl for deep pockets is not a place I care to be. I'm shocked that CAP would expect me to go there.
As far as "move on," I am a member as are you. We pay the same membership dues and, thus, have the same privilege to question policy as any other member. And I will question this as it impacts my long-term service as a volunteer who has invested heavily, in terms of both time and money, to support CAP and its programs. So when I see something I think is wrong or not in members' interest I will discuss it and ask questions--period. If you don't care for me doing that then you certainly have the option to ignore me and read and post elsewhere. So, sir, I will not "move on" but, rather, will read what other members have to say and consider their thoughtful contributions to the subject.
I have already asked for an opinion from CAP's general counsel and will share his response herein. Specifically, I want his assessment of member liability and want to know if CAP will defend members if they are sued or suffer legal repercussions acting as a FRO. If this is a sound policy and necessary for operations then I am certain CAP will provide that for its membership. Though, I won't be continuing as a FRO because, CAP legal defense or not, I don't care to expose myself to the possibility of having to go through it all should a suit happen. And, it's just a waste of my time to go through all this new FRO stuff. Regardless, I care because it does impact an organization in which I have invested a lot and care about.
I've been involved in enough SAREXs and other situations to know that FROs typically operate differently when releasing pilots they do not know. Pilots in their Squadron that they fly with often, they know how they operate. At a SAREX, you may be releasing a pilot you've never heard of that just joined last year.
Some of the things in the Checklist mentioned above seem redundant. Projected TO times and other info has already been entered into WMIRS. No need to have discussions with the pilot getting him to verbally repeat the WMIRS info.
Occupants in the plane is all in WMIRS. Why rehash it?
How long does the pilot intend to fly? Already in WMIRS.
Mission and Sortie numbers ... WMIRS already enters that in the email sent to the FRO.
A two minute phone call or text (yes, text) usually suffices for every flight I've ever flown as a MP.
IOW ... if the FRO checks over all the info in WMIRS / ORM 'first', then there should be very little to discuss when the pilot calls the FRO (or vice versa).
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2017, 11:41:27 PM
If you knowingly release a flight that doesn't comply with CAP regs, or has other safety issues you ignore, maybe.
Maybe, but probably not. FWIW, a little more accountability might not be a bad idea.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2017, 10:50:36 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2017, 10:46:24 PM
QuoteHaving experienced the growth of administrative requirements placed on the people who actually are trying to execute the missions of CAP, I wonder what sort of data or analysis is driving this growth.
Jeez, just recently learned that now even the production of annual histories is a requirement. I'm all about history, but making this a requirement in an organization that just barely has enough active people to conduct an operation in the first place is just nuts.
Can you cite that?
Email from Region Commander. Haven't bothered to look it up.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2017, 11:04:23 PM
Email from Region Commander. Haven't bothered to look it up.
Sounds like a holiday wish - I couldn't find anything in the regs on it.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2017, 11:21:21 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2017, 11:04:23 PM
Email from Region Commander. Haven't bothered to look it up.
Sounds like a holiday wish - I couldn't find anything in the regs on it.
We have a History page on our website that includes notable events during the year. If it is ever 'required' we could simply click print.
Quote from: etodd on December 30, 2017, 02:49:31 AM
I've been involved in enough SAREXs and other situations to know that FROs typically operate differently when releasing pilots they do not know. Pilots in their Squadron that they fly with often, they know how they operate. At a SAREX, you may be releasing a pilot you've never heard of that just joined last year.
Some of the things in the Checklist mentioned above seem redundant. Projected TO times and other info has already been entered into WMIRS. No need to have discussions with the pilot getting him to verbally repeat the WMIRS info.
Occupants in the plane is all in WMIRS. Why rehash it?
How long does the pilot intend to fly? Already in WMIRS.
Mission and Sortie numbers ... WMIRS already enters that in the email sent to the FRO.
A two minute phone call or text (yes, text) usually suffices for every flight I've ever flown as a MP.
It's been a very long time since I've seen so many red flags in one post.
Quote from: EMT-83 on December 31, 2017, 12:27:21 AM
Quote from: etodd on December 30, 2017, 02:49:31 AM
I've been involved in enough SAREXs and other situations to know that FROs typically operate differently when releasing pilots they do not know. Pilots in their Squadron that they fly with often, they know how they operate. At a SAREX, you may be releasing a pilot you've never heard of that just joined last year.
Some of the things in the Checklist mentioned above seem redundant. Projected TO times and other info has already been entered into WMIRS. No need to have discussions with the pilot getting him to verbally repeat the WMIRS info.
Occupants in the plane is all in WMIRS. Why rehash it?
How long does the pilot intend to fly? Already in WMIRS.
Mission and Sortie numbers ... WMIRS already enters that in the email sent to the FRO.
A two minute phone call or text (yes, text) usually suffices for every flight I've ever flown as a MP.
It's been a very long time since I've seen so many red flags in one post.
I waited until the new Reputation scoring system was taken down to post that. ;)
But I do think the part about WIMRS is correct. If I spend a few minutes entering all that into the system, add a FRO, who gets emailed immediately .... it seems the FRO should look over the WMIRS info first. That would save a lot of time in the phone call.
Otherwise, why bother with WMIRS as a Mission pilot? Let me simply call the FRO, and as the FRO asks all the questions, 'he' can be entering it into WMIRS.
Quote from: etodd on December 30, 2017, 02:49:31 AM
I've been involved in enough SAREXs and other situations to know that FROs typically operate differently when releasing pilots they do not know. Pilots in their Squadron that they fly with often, they know how they operate. At a SAREX, you may be releasing a pilot you've never heard of that just joined last year.
Some of the things in the Checklist mentioned above seem redundant. Projected TO times and other info has already been entered into WMIRS. No need to have discussions with the pilot getting him to verbally repeat the WMIRS info...
Perhaps the biggest benefit of forcing a checklist for ALL releases is the still with us problem of the "good 'ol" boy or girl network. The USAF finds it problematic, and it's evident in CAP. It was a "GOB" who likely released the pilot who was congested when he happily logged "over an hour of IMC" enroute to a sarex a few years ago, and another "GOB" who released another pilot so sick he couldn't go to work the next day a year or two after. IOW, FROs should certainly trust, but they should verify --- each time. It's the prudent thing to do. And it's, IMHO, what's expected of FROs.
Quote from: Live2Learn on December 31, 2017, 03:15:59 AM
It was a "GOB" who likely released the pilot who was congested when he happily logged "over an hour of IMC" enroute to a sarex a few years ago, and another "GOB" who released another pilot so sick he couldn't go to work the next day a year or two after. IOW, FROs should certainly trust, but they should verify --- each time. It's the prudent thing to do. And it's, IMHO, what's expected of FROs.
Yep. If a MP fills out the ORM saying he is good to go, and then tells the FRO he is healthy, because he wants to fly, even though he has the flu ... all the FRO can do is trust the pilot at his word. No way to 'verify'.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2017, 11:21:21 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2017, 11:04:23 PM
Email from Region Commander. Haven't bothered to look it up.
Sounds like a holiday wish - I couldn't find anything in the regs on it.
CAPR 210-1(6)
QuoteIn addition to the duties listed in CAPR 20-1, region and wing historians shall:
a. Prepare region and wing histories on a calendar year basis.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2017, 12:21:29 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2017, 11:21:21 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2017, 11:04:23 PM
Email from Region Commander. Haven't bothered to look it up.
Sounds like a holiday wish - I couldn't find anything in the regs on it.
CAPR 210-1(6) QuoteIn addition to the duties listed in CAPR 20-1, region and wing historians shall:
a. Prepare region and wing histories on a calendar year basis.
New thread for that one:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=22724.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=22724.0)
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2017, 12:21:29 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2017, 11:21:21 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2017, 11:04:23 PM
Email from Region Commander. Haven't bothered to look it up.
Sounds like a holiday wish - I couldn't find anything in the regs on it.
CAPR 210-1(6) QuoteIn addition to the duties listed in CAPR 20-1, region and wing historians shall:
a. Prepare region and wing histories on a calendar year basis.
Like I said - technically a requirement for somebody, not a concern at the unit level and not really "new", per se.
Frankly, if history is your bag, and you accept that role at the Wing or Region, what
else do you have to do?
Quote from: etodd on December 31, 2017, 04:11:39 AM
Yep. If a MP fills out the ORM saying he is good to go, and then tells the FRO he is healthy, because he wants to fly, even though he has the flu ... all the FRO can do is trust the pilot at his word. No way to 'verify'.
For the unaware FRO taking a MP's (or any other pilot) at face value is sometimes what can be done. However the regs require a telephone contact and I understand that to mean voice, not text or social media. A lot of information is conveyed by voice when an FRO listens to more than just words... like fatigue, congestion, stress, etc. offers an opportunity for responsible FRO feedback & mentoring. Also, that long known principle of management & leadership should apply: "Once fooled, shame on you! Twice fooled, shame on ME!" A sick, fatigued, stressed, etc pilot who is later discovered to have exercised either bad judgement through a flawed self assessment of IMSAFE compliance and/or a lapse in integrity by untruthful responses to the FRO should be a candidate for accountability.
Quote from: Live2Learn on December 31, 2017, 06:39:56 PM
Quote from: etodd on December 31, 2017, 04:11:39 AM
Yep. If a MP fills out the ORM saying he is good to go, and then tells the FRO he is healthy, because he wants to fly, even though he has the flu ... all the FRO can do is trust the pilot at his word. No way to 'verify'.
For the unaware FRO taking a MP's (or any other pilot) at face value is sometimes what can be done. However the regs require a telephone contact and I understand that to mean voice, not text or social media. A lot of information is conveyed by voice when an FRO listens to more than just words... like fatigue, congestion, stress, etc. offers an opportunity for responsible FRO feedback & mentoring. Also, that long known principle of management & leadership should apply: "Once fooled, shame on you! Twice fooled, shame on ME!" A sick, fatigued, stressed, etc pilot who is later discovered to have exercised either bad judgement through a flawed self assessment of IMSAFE compliance and/or a lapse in integrity by untruthful responses to the FRO should be a candidate for accountability.
I saw a lot of texting over phone calls. I also saw pre-released emails as a substitute with no verbal communications.
I recall a topic not too long ago (was is a Safety Beacon?) addressing the gung-ho-ness of pilot groups and trying to weed out the "buddy system" when it comes to decision making. Still a valid point, especially in this discussion.
Units need to be weary of who they assign to certain duties, including the squadron and wing levels. Don't assign someone as an FRO just because they qualify. You need to know who this person is and determine if they present themselves as someone who does have that integrity and sound judgement to have this role; the same for pilots. Way too many units shoot for roster numbers rather than really looking at who is in what slot. This should also include Safety Officers and Air Ops bosses. Volunteer or not, this is important, and serious, stuff. Flight operations are real; it's not play time; it's not recreational flying. These aren't your aircraft, and they're not your passengers, regardless of it being a Part 91 flight under the law. There are a lot more distractions and a lot more operational pressures, not to mention social ones.
If you're dumb enough to release >any< flight without actually speaking to the pilot,
you deserve all the excitement life has to offer.
I know it happens, that doesn't make it less dumb.
Texts do have their good side. You can save them by doing a screen shot. I'd rather have a screen shot of the text then to rely on memory.
Stops the "He said - she said" arguments too!
Quote from: PHall on January 01, 2018, 12:17:14 AM
Texts do have their good side. You can save them by doing a screen shot. I'd rather have a screen shot of the text then to rely on memory.
Stops the "He said - she said" arguments too!
Ok, time for a "yes, but..." comment. Remember the now well known factoids about communication? http://www.nonverbalgroup.com/2011/08/how-much-of-communication-is-really-nonverbal (http://www.nonverbalgroup.com/2011/08/how-much-of-communication-is-really-nonverbal)... most is non-verbal. Text alone doesn't give enough information to make even a passable decision on whether or not to release a sortie. Gotta at least hear the voice and listen for clues. :)
This thread started with a request for opinions and those expressed have given me a better idea of prevalent attitudes in CAP. It's impressive that so many seem so willing to take on such responsibility. It's not an easy task to "ensure the safety of all flight operations" and "to act as the conscience for the PIC". You have the "faith" and "trust" of CAP in performing this duty. CAP even offers up that you shouldn't release a flight if you're not comfortable doing so. So, if you are comfortable and do release a flight, it's all on you. It makes it a simple choice to follow the advice offered and kick it up the chain of command. It makes sense too that, just as the PIC needs someone to authorize their flight, the FRO needs someone to validate their release. Happy and safe 2018 to all!
Quote from: Eclipse on December 31, 2017, 05:48:47 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2017, 12:21:29 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2017, 11:21:21 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2017, 11:04:23 PM
Email from Region Commander. Haven't bothered to look it up.
Sounds like a holiday wish - I couldn't find anything in the regs on it.
CAPR 210-1(6) QuoteIn addition to the duties listed in CAPR 20-1, region and wing historians shall:
a. Prepare region and wing histories on a calendar year basis.
Like I said - technically a requirement for somebody, not a concern at the unit level and not really "new", per se.
Frankly, if history is your bag, and you accept that role at the Wing or Region, what else do you have to do?
Wing Commanders are required to appoint a historian who is required to write a history. Sure, if someone is into it, this isn't a problem, but evidence indicates that there are very few willing to do it voluntarily and because of that it is now a requirement that someone spend CAP time working on it.
Again, this is just another example of over-bureaucritization of CAP. Same thing happened in public affairs a while back.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2018, 08:59:10 PM
Wing Commanders are required to appoint a historian who is required to write a history. Sure, if someone is into it, this isn't a problem, but evidence indicates that there are very few willing to do it voluntarily and because of that it is now a requirement that someone spend CAP time working on it.
Again, this is just another example of over-bureaucritization of CAP. Same thing happened in public affairs a while back.
I agree 100%. Unfunded mandates are useless.
There are what, five mandated positions at the unit level, but only three seniors are required for
a squadron?
Math.
I began this thread questioning the liability created for members by the new FRO requirements. That's one part of the equation. The other is
how mandates are created and executed, which has also been discussed herein.
While I've seen nothing posted that assuages my concern about liability (yes, it is a significant problem), I've gotten some insight into organizational practices that confirms some suspicions. And this post, I think, strikes at the heart of the matter:
Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2018, 09:06:06 PM
I agree 100%. Unfunded mandates are useless.
There are what, five mandated positions at the unit level, but only three seniors are required for
a squadron?
Math.
There are two huge organizational disconnects: 1, We are volunteers doing the bidding for salaried employees of the corporation at NHQ. And 2, We are
not the military yet the USAF drives a lot of policy.
To the 2nd issue first: Our military structure and "rank" in CAP is fine. It acknowledges our rich history, it serves to recognize longevity and service and accomplishment but it does not (and should never) render one volunteer less influential or less considered than any other. We all pay the same dues, we should all have equal access to CAP assets and be heard. Sorry, but decisions by a bunch of CAP colonels (or generals) will never convince me to accept liabilities or policies that work for sworn (and protected by a different set of laws) armed service members or to just blindly accept policy. We are
not an armed service. So just because the Air Force wants us to do something differently, like release flights along the lines of their dispatchers, CAP needs to put us, the volunteer civilian citizen, first and just refuse. The CAP/USAF relationship is complicated--they are both a "boss" and a customer--so policy requires strong leadership and careful strategy thinking. Unfortunately, I don't see it in CAP management (or even the recognition of that unusual oddity).. There's a lot more to discuss about the CAP/USAF relationship, but I digress.
To the 1st issue, our "currency" as volunteers is our time spent in service. That is, what volunteers get out of volunteering for CAP is some equation of time + talent invested vs. satisfaction derived. To assure volunteers remain excited and committed to volunteering their valuable time and talents, those at NHQ who come up with the requirements (which is too often busy-work) would better serve all by carefully balancing redundancy of work (examples outlined herein), genuine value of the work and so forth with volunteer time required to meet the requirement. We are not employees of CAPNHQ; thus, every demanded moment of members' time should be scrutinized and, where possible, whittled away. Volunteer time, it seems, is viewed as an abundant resource in endless supply for the NHQ wonks to use and abuse at their whim. This new FRO business is just the latest example. There are many, many others.
Appreciate the comments and discussion! I look forward to reading more. And Happy New Year to all my fellow members!
This is an interesting thread.
Maybe it could be even more interesting if one (or more) of the members who've been in CAP long enough to know the history of FRO's would discuss WHEN FROs and 'flight releases' were first required? A brief discussion of WHY the BOG (or someone else?) decided FRO were necessary would also help with developing some perspective among those of us not 'in the know'.
The language in the requirements appears to be geared toward liability offset for the organization, accomplished by moving it to the FRO. Besides being a bad idea, if such is the case, it isn't even a well written bad idea, because it is so vague and ambiguous.
How does a FRO "ensure the safety of all flight operations" without actually being on that flight and overseeing safety of the flight operations? Don't get me wrong, there should be a process, but the end result simply can't be for the FRO to "ensure the safety of all flight operations."
And, how, exactly, does a FRO "act as the conscience of the PIC?" In fact, how does ANYONE act as the conscience for anyone else in any situation? There are psychiatrists who can't achieve that with patients. Again, ask the questions, get the answers, but expecting somebody to serve as somebody else's conscience is impossible - so why even say that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on January 02, 2018, 08:14:26 AM
...How does a FRO "ensure the safety of all flight operations" without actually being on that flight and overseeing safety of the flight operations? Don't get me wrong, there should be a process, but the end result simply can't be for the FRO to "ensure the safety of all flight operations."
And, how, exactly, does a FRO "act as the conscience of the PIC?" ...
Good questions. FWIW, the National Institute of Highway Safety in the US, and similar organizations in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere have found that drivers with impairing illnesses or self induced conditions (like drugs, fatigue, severe stress, etc.) do a very poor job of recognizing their impairments, then voluntarily avoiding driving. Not very surprisingly, the FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) has found similar problems among the US pilot populations. We can find that by a few simple keyword searches of the NTSB accident DB. There's also research that seems to offer strong support for the idea that a 3rd party intervention has a significant affect on drivers (and pilots) willingness to sequester themselves from driving/flying. From my own observations of drivers (and pilots) I think the research is on point, and supports the use of FRO's by CAP. However, the more remote the personal contact (Text, vs voice conversation by phone, vs in person contact) the less likely an impaired person will "do the right thing" and recognize their own impairment. My read of the regulation as it exists in CAPR 70-1, and as it existed in CAPR 60-1 as far back as 2008 (the oldest copy I've found in my digital files) shows the responsibility and role of the FRO hasn't changed during the past decade in any significant way. Nor has the real problem, which is NOT 'ambiguity', IMHO. I think the biggest issues facing an effective FRO is the tendency to say (and I quote from one FRO who released a very sick pilot) "XXX is a big boy..." meaning he'll decide if he's impaired. See the first part of the post for the likelihood of THAT taking place. :(
IMHO, that FRO didn't do his job. Fortunately no accident resulted and after-the-fact counselling of pilot and FRO occurred. IOW, we had a 'teachable moment'.
Another assist to the pilot an FRO might offer could be to confirm pilots have checked NOTAMs. :) http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local/trump-palm-beach-fighter-jets-intercept-private-plane/kCT81qjwL6RCl07uV7FG5J/ (http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local/trump-palm-beach-fighter-jets-intercept-private-plane/kCT81qjwL6RCl07uV7FG5J/) Whether TFRs or enroute runway closures, a little prior planning avoids a PP outcome.
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 02, 2018, 04:41:59 PM
Another assist to the pilot an FRO might offer could be to confirm pilots have checked NOTAMs. :) http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local/trump-palm-beach-fighter-jets-intercept-private-plane/kCT81qjwL6RCl07uV7FG5J/ (http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local/trump-palm-beach-fighter-jets-intercept-private-plane/kCT81qjwL6RCl07uV7FG5J/) Whether TFRs or enroute runway closures, a little prior planning avoids a PP outcome.
And that brings up a good question. Is the FRO asking the pilot if he has checked NOTAMS good enough? Or should the FRO after the seeing the info in WMIRS, and before the phone call, check the wx, NOTAMS, and all other info ... before talking to the pilot, in order to 'verify' the pilot knows what he is talking about?
How much pre-flight planning should the FRO do before the call? Otherwise, its just a trust the pilot issue.
Quote from: etodd on January 02, 2018, 05:17:32 PM
How much pre-flight planning should the FRO do before the call?
Ask the questions, records the answers.
Quote from: etodd on January 02, 2018, 05:17:32 PM
Otherwise, its just a trust the pilot issue.
Yes, it is.
This is indicative of a huge issue in CAP - people overthinking a problem, second-guessing, or
going beyond the requirement because...reasons.
Stay in your lane, do what is asked and then move on.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2018, 05:50:27 PM
Stay in your lane, do what is asked and then move on.
Remember Sgt Schultz in Hogan's Heros, that pre-modern Soap Opera based on a German prison camp? "Orders is orders..." In other words, someone told me to do it so I'm absolved of any responsibility. Maybe a fatal accident could be avoided if the FRO had asked the pilot about his alternate, current experience, etc. I agree it's the PIC's responsibility to assess the flight risks and make the decisions. Human nature, being as it is, often makes it tough for a pilot to make a "good" decision - even when faced with overwhelming evidence that 'powering through' is a really BAD idea. I think that's called a "mission mind set". IMHO, that's the essence of why the FRO is a key element in the decision to release... not a rubber stamp. FWIW, the FRO can't offer the prospective PIC a meaningful assessment of the risks if ignorant of the key facts (like NOTAMs, weather, aircraft maintenance condition, etc.). Note also, the PIC ain't "PIC" until AFTER the flight is released. 'Til then there's no slam dunk to the launch.
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 02, 2018, 06:39:27 PM
Remember Sgt Schultz in Hogan's Heros, that pre-modern Soap Opera based on a German prison camp? "Orders is orders..." In other words, someone told me to do it so I'm absolved of any responsibility.
Not only is that not an apt comparison, it's also a mischaracterizationof of the beloved Oberfeldwebel Hans Schultz.
He willfully ignored issues he actually saw or had knowledge of - that's the antithesis of the FRO's role,
and people doing that, or at least walking the line, are the reason the changes were made.
There's a big difference between negligent denial or overt ignorance and not turning a release into
a 45-minute flight clinic.
The FRO is one of many safety valves in the flight process, it just happens to be one of the last before
take off, that doesn't make them the secret police of flying, which I guarantee you is going to happen in some parts.
Squawks and airframe issues, properly noted, are listed and should be mentioned, pilot and aircrew qualifications
are there to see as well. I agree 100% you have to make voice contact to judge the pilot, but beyond that,
FRO's are not dispatchers, nor ATC, they are more akin to the boarding gate - one last eyes-on to make sure no
huge red flags are missed, nothing more, nothing less.
Heck, I know now of issues where FROs and A/C POCs show up to "help", unannounced and unexpected, only
to have "issues" with the pilot. Then the fun begins.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2018, 08:52:18 PM
The FRO is one of many safety valves in the flight process, it just happens to be one of the last before
take off, that doesn't make them the secret police of flying, which I guarantee you is going to happen in some parts.
Squawks and airframe issues, properly noted, are listed and should be mentioned, pilot and aircrew qualifications
are there to see as well. I agree 100% you have to make voice contact to judge the pilot, but beyond that,
FRO's are not dispatchers, nor ATC, they are more akin to the boarding gate - one last eyes-on to make sure no
huge red flags are missed, nothing more, nothing less.
Heck, I know now of issues where FROs and A/C POCs show up to "help", unannounced and unexpected, only
to have "issues" with the pilot. Then the fun begins.
Highly agree.
This goes right back to the fact that FROs are not certificated flight dispatchers, and CAP does not mirror that role.
"Alright, I've got 12000 pounds of fuel for you. Looks like there are some SIGMENTs along your route. Expect some moderate chop and possibly an ATC hold. TFR on your approach, so just be cautious on making that early decent or we'll need to reroute you around. Let me know if you want an amendment on your release for a new TLR for the alternates."
That doesn't exist here. The FRO is not a "catch everything you're doing" role. See something, say something; absolutely. Help provide information but understand that you are not an ultimate decision maker for the operation. It's an administrative job, part of the process. "Releasing" a CAP aircraft for flight is an administrative function, not an operational function. It's like filing a flight plan in a way.
The PIC is still the PIC all of the time, from the minute he/she walks up to that aircraft and starts a preflight, including a review of the weather and pertinent information regarding that flight. If there is an aircraft accident or incident, it goes right back to the PIC and the data he obtained before flight, not the FRO. If the FRO sees an unsafe condition, the flight should be held and reported as required, but the PIC has the legal responsibility here.
This is being way overcomplicated.
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 02, 2018, 06:42:38 AM
This is an interesting thread.
Maybe it could be even more interesting if one (or more) of the members who've been in CAP long enough to know the history of FRO's would discuss WHEN FROs and 'flight releases' were first required? A brief discussion of WHY the BOG (or someone else?) decided FRO were necessary would also help with developing some perspective among those of us not 'in the know'.
Looking forward to the answers, great questions!
The bigger question is whether there is evidence that the FRO and associated requirements have had a measurable impact on CAP safety. Difficult to say since CAP safety stats are hard to come by these days.
Obviously, we at some level need someone to approve whether someone can or cannot use a CAP aircraft. If that is what we're concerned about, that could almost all be easily automated or at least the necessary human involvement could be lessened and perhaps make everyone's CAP life somewhat easier and less burdensome.
But, if we truly believe that the FRO is a critical part of the safety program (rather than someone that more or less is a scheduler) then it would be nice to have some stats to prove it.
However, we have been using FROs so long that any pre-FRO data is probably meaningless since so much else in the program has changed since then and (thankfully) we have so few accidents that any improvements couldn't easily be tied directly to the FRO. Because of this, I'm not exactly sure how to look at the data.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 02, 2018, 11:26:39 PM
The bigger question is whether there is evidence that the FRO and associated requirements have had a measurable impact on CAP safety. Difficult to say since CAP safety stats are hard to come by these days.
...
However, we have been using FROs so long that any pre-FRO data is probably meaningless since so much else in the program has changed since then and (thankfully) we have so few accidents that any improvements couldn't easily be tied directly to the FRO. Because of this, I'm not exactly sure how to look at the data.
Every civil aviation accident is listed, and ownership of aircraft involved are for the most part also available on the NTSB accident db. Accident records are posted since the early to mid 70's. If the date FROs became an OPS fixture is known it should be discoverable whether or not FROs are a positive, neutral, or negative contributor to CAP OPS safety on a fleet wide basis. I doubt there are enough data points to reach down to Regions or below.
I agree with all the comments that this is being way over-analyzed.
Go back to the basics. The FRO is a representative of the wing commander, "responsible for verifying appropriate information, authorizing a CAP pilot to fly as pilot in command in CAP aircraft, documenting the appropriate mission symbol, and confirming that the aircraft has arrived safely at its destination". The authorizing a pilot to fly an aircraft bit extends to ensuring the requirements of 70-1 have been satisfied before authorizing the pilot to take the keys and put them in the ignition. That's it.
It is not an FRO's job (since an FRO is not necessarily a pilot) to enforce, or necessarily even know the FARs, to determine whether the PIC is in a position to safely act as an PIC by FAA standards. It is their job to know what CAP requires for a pilot to operate a CAP plane, and ensure those checkboxes are checked.
Or said another way... take the FRO out of the picture and assume a wing commander has to personally give the authorization to operate a CAP plane. Assume the wing commander is not a pilot. Since that wing commander is personally responsible for that piece of equipment, what would they want to be assured of before allowing someone to fly the plane?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 03, 2018, 12:53:32 AM
Every civil aviation accident is listed, and ownership of aircraft involved are for the most part also available on the NTSB accident db. Accident records are posted since the early to mid 70's. If the date FROs became an OPS fixture is known it should be discoverable whether or not FROs are a positive, neutral, or negative contributor to CAP OPS safety on a fleet wide basis. I doubt there are enough data points to reach down to Regions or below.
Yes, information on accidents is available through that source and with enough effort you may be able to track down data on CAP-related ones, though it may not be as easy as you think. What I probably should have said involved accident rates, which depends on flying hour data only available through CAP.
Quote from: Nick on January 03, 2018, 02:49:07 AM
I agree with all the comments that this is being way over-analyzed.
Go back to the basics. The FRO is a representative of the wing commander, "responsible for verifying appropriate information, authorizing a CAP pilot to fly as pilot in command in CAP aircraft, documenting the appropriate mission symbol, and confirming that the aircraft has arrived safely at its destination". The authorizing a pilot to fly an aircraft bit extends to ensuring the requirements of 70-1 have been satisfied before authorizing the pilot to take the keys and put them in the ignition. That's it.
It is not an FRO's job (since an FRO is not necessarily a pilot) to enforce, or necessarily even know the FARs, to determine whether the PIC is in a position to safely act as an PIC by FAA standards. It is their job to know what CAP requires for a pilot to operate a CAP plane, and ensure those checkboxes are checked.
Or said another way... take the FRO out of the picture and assume a wing commander has to personally give the authorization to operate a CAP plane. Assume the wing commander is not a pilot. Since that wing commander is personally responsible for that piece of equipment, what would they want to be assured of before allowing someone to fly the plane?
Exactly.
I beg to differ.
This may be the perspective from a wing commander level but it does not account for membership liability exposure. Predictably, wing and above level folks are going to try to implement policies and systems that benefit their command and control needs and desires. Unfortunately, such has become routine in CAP while the rank-and-file members are taken for granted. Members aren't asked for input (how many examples do you want?) and seem to be generally ignored as policies and demands on time are constantly burdened more and more.
But, the big issue with this new FRO implementation isn't the fact that PIC responsibility hasn't changed in the eyes of the FAA, it hasn't. Nor is it that wing commander's need to account for the responsible use of CAP assets. It comes down to one thing (for me): Liability. All the FAA and CAP "stuff" goes out the window
when the aftermath of an accident becomes a civil issue. That is, when people start suing. When that happens the worst thing you could have done is having agreed to being "responsible for the safe outcome of the flight" and "becoming the conscience of the pilot." You just made yourself responsible for the accident, you exposed yourself to significant liability, your life will become a living hell, you and your family will suffer, your reputation (deserved or not) will take a serious hit and all it will take to pretty much ruin you financially is the very low bar of showing "preponderance of the evidence" (not proving "beyond a reasonable doubt") to a jury. A jury that is likely predisposed to reward grieving widows and children and these rich private pilots need to pay. All the CAP platitudes of "for the wing commander" and blah, blah, blah, what we really meant for the FRO blah, blah, blah won't do you a bit of good. And the preponderance of evidence is all there for the court to see in all that you entered for the flight release and the online FRO course where you agreed to all this exposure.
Just the reality of a litigious society, folks, and a dose of shock that CAP would even propose such for its membership. I'm 100% for a reasonable administrative function but FRO liability must be strictly and completely eliminated.
Quote from: Nick on January 03, 2018, 02:49:07 AM
I agree with all the comments that this is being way over-analyzed.
Go back to the basics. The FRO is a representative of the wing commander, "responsible for verifying appropriate information, authorizing a CAP pilot to fly as pilot in command in CAP aircraft, documenting the appropriate mission symbol, and confirming that the aircraft has arrived safely at its destination". The authorizing a pilot to fly an aircraft bit extends to ensuring the requirements of 70-1 have been satisfied before authorizing the pilot to take the keys and put them in the ignition. That's it.
It is not an FRO's job (since an FRO is not necessarily a pilot) to enforce, or necessarily even know the FARs, to determine whether the PIC is in a position to safely act as an PIC by FAA standards. It is their job to know what CAP requires for a pilot to operate a CAP plane, and ensure those checkboxes are checked.
Or said another way... take the FRO out of the picture and assume a wing commander has to personally give the authorization to operate a CAP plane. Assume the wing commander is not a pilot. Since that wing commander is personally responsible for that piece of equipment, what would they want to be assured of before allowing someone to fly the plane?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: MajTbird on January 03, 2018, 04:36:06 AM...FRO liability must be strictly and completely eliminated.
Done. (Actually never existed, so it was pretty easy...).
Assuming you're a Major, you, of anyone, should know who makes up the majority of the
command echelons in CAP...I'll wait...
...correct...and as such, and considering those same people are FROs, would they take on
"FRO liability" without considering the ramifications to, first and foremost, themselves?
Citing that this is a "litigious society" is like an answer from Micorsoft Tech Support technically correct,
but of no value to the actual problem.
No one would argue the raw point - in an incident involving death, injury, or significant property
loss, the lawyers are going to go after
literally everyone. So? If that's a real concern then
your only option is to quit CAP, because, you know, you could get sued, like every minute of every day.
Also quit driving, eating
I went back to see if I was missing something - all this over a non-regulatory slide in a
presentation - it's called "rehtoric". Nothing more, nothing less.
The actual regulation says this:
"9.10.2.3. The FRO is responsible for verifying appropriate information, authorizing a CAP pilot
to fly as pilot in command in CAP aircraft, documenting the appropriate mission symbol, and confirming
that the aircraft has arrived safely at its destination. If not notified that the flight was safely concluded or
extended, the FRO is responsible for initiating missing aircraft procedures two hours after the estimated
landing time."
Same as it ever was - no "safety of all", no "conscience", etc., and certainly no flight planning or second-guessing the
PIC. In fact other verbiage indicates that it is the PIC's job to notify of new conditions, change the ORM, and
request a new release when appropriate.
That's it - anything else is just hair on fire for the sake of being outraged. (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/hair-fire.gif)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 05:14:35 AM
That's it - anything else is just hair on fire for the sake of being outraged. (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/hair-fire.gif)
Welcome to CAPTalk.
For those who asked, the FRO first came out in 1977 or 78, it has been around a long time. I remember reading the letter from the wing commander on it and I am sure if your go back through the Monthly Bulletins for that time frame you will find the info on it. I remember there being a lot of push back when it first came out. Of course back then in the stone age, no cell, no text or computer.
JCW
Quote from: Ohioguard on January 03, 2018, 05:56:23 PM
For those who asked, the FRO first came out in 1977 or 78, it has been around a long time. I remember reading the letter from the wing commander on it and I am sure if your go back through the Monthly Bulletins for that time frame you will find the info on it. I remember there being a lot of push back when it first came out. Of course back then in the stone age, no cell, no text or computer.
JCW
Getting a release in those days could be very dangerous...
(https://s18.postimg.org/vnpjhorop/brooks.jpg)
Before the FRO we would jump in and go flying. Of course there were a lot fewer corporate ac back then. A lot of surplus ac and mostly member owned.
JCW
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 05:14:35 AM
I went back to see if I was missing something - all this over a non-regulatory slide in a
presentation - it's called "rehtoric". Nothing more, nothing less.
If it's just "rhetoric" then simply remove it.
But, verbatim from the slides:
- To ensure the safety of all flight operations.
- To ensure all personnel involved in the CAP Flight Release program understand the responsibilities/results/consequences of release decisions.
These two are from the second slide entitled "Reason for Refresher Training." If there are no consequences anticipated or being placed on a FRO then why does CAP feel the need to inform you of them? This mindset was predicated in the previous FRO course where there is verbiage about the likelihood FROs and their release process of "winding up in court" so at least someone at CAP understands the legal exposure. That sentence, however, was with regard to if a deceased's family would be awarded CAP insurance or not; thus, it is clear that CAP NHQ anticipates (because they're been through it) lawsuits as the result of accidents. If that's the case, why isn't the "rhetoric" more closely examined and safeguards put into the FRO program to protect members?
From the third slide (also under the title of "Reason for Refresher Training.")
- Bottom line, don't release a flight you're not comfortable with and feel free to ask for assistance through the chain of command.
Here, intentional or not, CAP isolates you. I can hear the line of questioning in court now: "Did you release the flight?" "Were you completely comfortable releasing the flight on your own?" "You chose to not check with anyone else in CAP to get their input before you authorized the flight, you chose to release it yourself after reviewing all the information the pilot gave you and review the documents, the weather and other items CAP requires you to review?" "So authorizing this flight was your decision and your decision alone?"
In a later slide this it's-on-you is repeated:
- MOST IMPORTANT - Are you comfortable releasing this flight?
This is on the FRO online release form. Answering this "Yes" and you've completely isolated yourself and accepted the responsibility.
From the slide entitled "Bottom Line" there is (here it is, Eclipse) this statement:
- The Flight Release Officer (FRO/SFRO) needs to act as the conscience for the PIC.
Be clear about what this is saying: "...conscience for the PIC." How is that even possible? Can you imagine the plaintiff's lawyer questioning you about this? Because, fellow members, when you complete this new FRO training you explicitly agree to this.
Start adding together "...ensure safety," "you understand the consequences," "...the conscience for the PIC," the fact that you understand the details and nuances of being an FRO (you even passed a test on the subject matter!) so you certainly understand these "rhetoric" items are embodied in the training and there exists a pretty strong case that the FRO was negligent in releasing a flight that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, should have never been released because Maj Tbird clearly understood the dangers yet approved (yes, "approve" shows up six times in the training) the flight, contributing to irresponsible decisions shared by the pilot and the deaths of the passengers.
Eclipse makes an important observation, however, about rhetoric. These slides are full of details about very specific duties, levels of ORM that must be released by different FROs, details about checking MX records and various other very specific procedures. So can we get a little guidance, Eclipse, anyone? Which is rhetoric and which is not? It's a pretty important distinction. There is a lot of ambiguity throughout CAP regs (want some examples?), directives, training, etc., etc. So I am disinclined to just dismiss certain parts as rhetoric while the body of the training slides are so direct and specific.
Since someone at CAP seems to recognize that there is the likelihood for legal problems due to lawsuits--though that recognition only extends to whether CAP would pay out to a family or not--doesn't it seem reasonable for this training to include an appropriate disclaimer that protects the member acting as FRO? Maybe make that a part of each flight release, where both the PIC and CAP specifically acknowledges that the PIC assumes all responsibility for the flight and absolves the FRO from any responsibility for flight decisions? There are plenty of ways to "fix" this but in its present form it's dangerous.
Slides aren't regulatory, so the conversation is basically over from there. As a Major you
should well know about all the presentations, curriculum, and other materials in CAP
that conflict with the regs, extend "ideas" well beyond the regs, or even conflict with themselves internally.
The only thing(s) that mandates action are the regs. Clear and simple.
The rehtoric in that presentation is intended to convey the idea that the FRO is an important, final link
in the chain of CAP flying, that's it, nothing more.
You're also confusing "authorized" with "released".
The FRO is not "authorizing" the flight. That happens in other parts of CAP, everywhere from the
Form 5, through the sortie approval and other links in the qualification and mission chain.
The FRO is releasing an already "authorized", or more appropriately "approved" flight.
He's just double-checking the administrative side of the mission, and seeing that the PIC's answers
are appropriate for the parameters already entered.'
FROs don't authorize anything or anyone - that's the Wing CC and his staff.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 04:55:18 AM
No one would argue the raw point - in an incident involving death, injury, or significant property
loss, the lawyers are going to go after literally everyone. So? If that's a real concern then
your only option is to quit CAP, because, you know, you could get sued, like every minute of every day.
Also quit driving, eating
^^^ Worth repeating. Those who can't handle the worry of a possible lawsuit should obviously refrain from being a FRO, MP and many other positions.
Step away and let others who can handle the pressure do their jobs.
Move on ..... take care of yourself.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PM
You're also confusing "authorized" with "released".
The FRO is not "authorizing" the flight. That happens in other parts of CAP, everywhere from the
Form 5, through the sortie approval and other links in the qualification and mission chain.
Not true. "9.10.2.3. The FRO is responsible for [...] authorizing a CAP pilot to fly as pilot in command in CAP aircraft." It just so happens that the process to authorize/release the flight is very specific, so the subjectiveness in deciding the release of a flight is minimal.
As for the whole lawsuit thing ... I'm with Eclipse. You are at risk of being sued for anything you do that affects someone else. If you're not comfortable with that, then this is not the job for you. Would it be nice if FROs (among many other classes of members) were included in the indemnification reg? Sure. But until then...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PM
Slides aren't regulatory, so the conversation is basically over from there.
The slides are required study to be a "new" FRO. You are then tested on the material in the slides. They may not be embodied in one of CAP's regulation documents but the intent and content are most definitely germane. So the conversation may be over for you--and that's fine--but it's only just beginning if you're the target of a lawsuit. Then the stakes are a bit more than a forum discussion.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PMAs a Major you
should well know about all the presentations, curriculum, and other materials in CAP
that conflict with the regs, extend "ideas" well beyond the regs, or even conflict with themselves internally.
Twice you've said that "as a Major..." We'll I'm not a real Major. Neither is anyone else a real officer in CAP. It's basically meaningless other than to indicate that I've taken some online courses, filled a duty position or two and have spent time in the organization. Otherwise, completely meaningless. But, as a member, and with the colored glasses of "rank" or "grade" removed I can read documents and understand what they mean, including implications, regardless of their titles.
And your recognition that there are conflicts among CAP documents and publications underscores another troubling point. Why are there so many conflicts? If they're prevalent and recognizable then why are they not addressed? Why is that acceptable? Seems like the organization would want to root out such impediments.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PMThe only thing(s) that mandates action are the regs. Clear and simple.
Maybe so. Within the organization. But in a civil court everything is open for scrutiny. Including your emails, texts, online courses you took, how you handled previous flights as a FRO, if you taught a class or led a discussion (thus positioned yourself as a subject matter expert) on something, it's all open-season. CAP regs, unlike those of the armed servises, which have their own legal system, provides absolutely no shield in civil proceedings. Just like the fallacy of incorporating a small business automatically shields owners from liability--it does not. The first thing a plaintiff's lawyer does is to pierce that "shield."
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PMThe rehtoric in that presentation is intended to convey the idea that the FRO is an important, final link
in the chain of CAP flying, that's it, nothing more.
Your opinion, nothing more. And your opinion won't matter as the course material clearly says otherwise.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PMYou're also confusing "authorized" with "released".
I don't think so. And I'm certainly not confusing "approve." Which appears over and over in the unequivocal context that the FRO
approves the flight. And here is the definition of approve:
ap·proveəˈpro͞ov/
verb
verb: approve; 3rd person present: approves; past tense: approved; past participle: approved; gerund or present participle: approving
1. officially agree to or accept as satisfactory.
"the budget was approved by Congress"
synonyms: accept, agree to, consent to, assent to, give one's blessing to, bless, rubber-stamp; ratify, sanction, endorse, authorize, validate, pass;
support, back;
informal give the nod to, give the go-ahead to, give the green light to, give the OK to, give the thumbs-up to
It can't get much clearer than that.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PMThe FRO is not "authorizing" the flight. That happens in other parts of CAP, everywhere from the
Form 5, through the sortie approval and other links in the qualification and mission chain.
Not quibbling on the words. But
approve is the operative word. And the FRO, according to the official CAP FRO training course, is approving the flight. Thus, sanctioning, endorsing, etc., etc... Again, it can't get much clearer.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PMThe FRO is releasing an already "authorized", or more appropriately "approved" flight.
May be. But the FRO is the final approval. The most vulnerable and responsible approval authority.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PMHe's just double-checking the administrative side of the mission, and seeing that the PIC's answers
are appropriate for the parameters already entered.'
That's not what the course is about. That's generally what FROs did before all this new stuff.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2018, 08:18:46 PMFROs don't authorize anything or anyone - that's the Wing CC and his staff.
Then why does the course say that FROs hold the approval authority--six times?
As a member I just want CAP to get it right. As has been observed herein, CAP never shares data with us. So we never know what's driving these changes. And we're never asked for input. Well, Ok. Then when I find something that exposes me to potential liability I am going to ask questions and hopefully get answers. I'd appreciate answers that are more thoughtful and respectful than to just "move on" or the several other flippant comments I've read here. If my questioning CAP frustrates you or if you don't have a good answer that's fine. I don't either; thus, why I am open to discussion here.
Quote from: MajTbird on January 03, 2018, 09:39:13 PM
Twice you've said that "as a Major..." We'll I'm not a real Major. Neither is anyone else a real officer in CAP. It's basically meaningless other than to indicate that I've taken some online courses, filled a duty position or two and have spent time in the organization. Otherwise, completely meaningless. But, as a member, and with the colored glasses of "rank" or "grade" removed I can read documents and understand what they mean, including implications, regardless of their titles.
It's not "meaningless" in this context, as it's a indication that you should well understand how CAP works.
However when you make assertions like the above, then I'm done with the conversation.
"Twice you've said that "as a Major..." We'll I'm not a real Major. Neither is anyone else a real officer in CAP. It's basically meaningless other than to indicate that I've taken some online courses, filled a duty position or two and have spent time in the organization. Otherwise, completely meaningless."
This absolutely grinds my gears about CAP in general. I strongly dislike this thought process, and feel that if we could change this internal perception, as an organization we could address other issues.
I have asked time and time again, why we are not "real (insert grade here)" and we get the answer of not military, or its meaningless, like above. Absolutely disagree.
This is the FDNY job description of a "Captain." (I would like to point out FDNY is not a military organization, in case anyone wants to argue that point)
Captains in the Fire Department, under general direction, are responsible for the command and control of a company. They command and assume responsibility for the efficient operation of a company; are responsible for the discipline of members in their command, and for the maintenance and protection of all department property in or assigned to the unit; perform all other duties prescribed for this position in the regulations of the department; drive a motor vehicle; and perform related work.
That looks like a Squadron Commander Position to me. Also sounds a lot like what CAP requires of all Officers/NCO's/Senior Members and even some Cadets.
Are the FDNY Captains any less official because they aren't military? NO
Grade (rank whatever you want to call it) is not meaningless at all. In our organization, it should, show progress up the PD levels, along with increased roles and responsibilities inside CAP.
In the FDNY, their Grade shows progress up their version of PD, as well as increased roles and responsibilities.
Same for PD's, SO's, State Police, US DOD components.
Stop trashing our Grade system. If you don't feel like a "real Major" than please, hand over the oak leaves. Some of us take pride in our forward and upward progression.
While the slides are not regulatory, in a court case, they would certainly be relevant as they demonstrate how CAP trained the FRO for these particular job duties. Although not a lawyer, I would suspect that these might be more relevant to proving that CAP was negligent in some way in regards to training the FRO rather than exposing the FRO to more personal liability.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2018, 10:22:08 PM
While the slides are not regulatory, in a court case, they would certainly be relevant as they demonstrate how CAP trained the FRO for these particular job duties. Although not a lawyer, I would suspect that these might be more relevant to proving that CAP was negligent in some way in regards to training the FRO rather than exposing the FRO to more personal liability.
I can't speak as to the intent of our leadership and CAP General Council, however if there are questions popping up as to "liability" of the FRO, I would suggest using your Legal Officer for getting proper answers. That said, as far as I know (and you can argue I don't know that much), CAP has NEVER let someone hang for doing their job. NEVER!!! Being an FRO is a responsibility. If you take this responsibility seriously, you have nothing to worry about if something unexpected happens.
I'm getting another bag of popcorn.... :angel:
Quote from: NCRblues on January 03, 2018, 10:20:04 PM
Are the FDNY Captains any less official because they aren't military? NO
Fire fighter's pay is scaled to their rank.
Everyone in CAP gets paid the same, whether its their first day or they have been in for 30 years. LOL
Quote from: FW on January 03, 2018, 11:08:25 PM
I would suggest using your Legal Officer for getting proper answers. That said, as far as I know (and you can argue I don't know that much), CAP has NEVER let someone hang for doing their job. NEVER!!! Being an FRO is a responsibility. If you take this responsibility seriously, you have nothing to worry about if something unexpected happens.
I'm getting another bag of popcorn.... :angel:
To add to the popcorn-related festivities, I always enjoy when non-lawyers speak with such earnestness about "liability" or "what juries would do if they heard X."
If it helps, I spend many years as a CAP legal officer before my law license was suspended, and of course during my term on the BoG I was briefed in great detail on literally every single lawsuit that CAP was involved in as either a plaintiff or a defendant. Additionally, as a National Staff guy, I have a fair idea of the litigation status since I left the BoG several years ago. Plus I have conducted several hundred jury trials over the last couple of decades.
And FWIW, I have never heard of an FRO being sued. Or even deposed. Or indeed, any involvement in any case at all. As in never, ever. But as others have pointed out, sometimes people file frivolous lawsuits, so I suppose it might happen someday. If that occurs, the CAP legal team is required to defend CAP members who are performing their duties.
I'm not currently allowed to practice law, nor have I been reinstated as a CAP legal officer, so please do not take anything I say or do as legal advice.
But, if you want legal advice, it is pretty easy to get. Just ask a CAP legal officer, and she/he will give it to you. Especially if it involves your CAP functions and duties.
Sadly, however, CAP legal officers do not read CAPTalk very often, so you are extremely unlikely to get reliable legal information here.
But by all means continue to discuss technical legal issues. Just value the legal opinions of non-lawyers as worth every penny you pay for them.
(But Your Honor, the guy on the internet clearly said that . . . ." ) 8)
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
The liability question really seems like a rabbit chase to me. Follow direction and we have an umbrella. I got to use that umbrella a few years ago and it worked. A bigger question seems to flow from "just follow the checklist" and all is done. What about the CAP's Core Value of "Excellence"? Are we performing in an "Excellent" manner if we merely ask the pilot "Are you Ill?" She replies "Nope", check. "Are you using any OTC or Rx drugs?" She replies "Nope", check. etc. and on to "are you current"? Yep, says the pilot, check. etc. Yet, when we ask that first question in IMSAFE we hear the telltale voice of someone with congestion. But, the pilot said "nope" when asked. Where's the mentoring aspect of a CAP FRO's job. How was merely going 'check', 'check', 'check' meeting CAP's Core Values?
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 04, 2018, 02:58:51 AMWhere's the mentoring aspect of a CAP FRO's job.
Where is it indicated that the FRO's role includes "mentoring"?
Sometimes "excellence" is "doing what you are told to do / asked to do / expected to do" without filter or deviation.
This is one of those cases.
This whole thread is getting silly.
If you're scared of litigation, then don't be a FRO.
Leave those alone who can hack it and want to be a FRO.
Why argue over something that does not concern you if you are not a FRO?
Quote from: etodd on January 04, 2018, 03:19:04 AM
This whole thread is getting silly.
This. It's getting ridiculous.
Quit confusing legality and negligence with CAP policy---CAP regulations are not law; they are internal to this organization only.
A "CAP flight release" is an administrative process to verify that a PIC is acting in accordance with SOPs developed by CAP, to include the information they must obtain prior to conducting CAP flight operations. The FRO is, in no way, verifying the legality of the flight operation; this is the PIC's job. They, therefore, have no legal role, nor operational control, in regarding to any flight operation.
Now that we're past that part---the FAA aspect---The FRO has a role in aiding in the authorization of a CAP flight from an administrative stance. If the flight appears to violate CAP standards, to include a known unsafe operation which is in conflict with legal requirements, then the FRO has a responsibility to, administratively, deny the PIC to conduct that flight. This is purely a CAP matter.
If an FRO is to say "This flight appears to meet all CAP requirements for flight operations," and the flight results in an accident or incident, there is no civil penalty in a sense of the individual FRO. There may be, certificate action and/or additional legal consequences for the PIC and for CAP as an organization, but not the FRO.
An individual or class may file a civil suit against the PIC (or his/her family/estate) or CAP, or other persons involved in that flight operation. It's tough to have a civil immunity against that action; however, this does not mean someone would sue everyone (from the squadron commander on down, say) or that it would stand in court.
But under the law, the FRO is at no fault in the conduct of civil aviation flight operations. It doesn't exist under 14 CFR 91.
Quit making this more than it is. And as others above have stated, if you are so concerned that your role in the decision making of CAP events is posing a liability against you, then you need to consider a change of your role(s) in the organization. You're going to face this in just about most of CAP (from cadet protection, to the prevention of injuries and damage to persons during ground operations).
I think TheSkyHornet, and others, are expressing the heart of the issue.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 04, 2018, 03:17:33 PM
Quit confusing legality and negligence with CAP policy---CAP regulations are not law; they are internal to this organization only.
So true. Thus CAP has no sway to make a civil action against one of its members "go away" as does certain government agencies and the military. So we're back to civil contracts governing our relationships with each other. That is, what we agree to do for and with each other, particularly that which is written down.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 04, 2018, 03:17:33 PM
A "CAP flight release" is an administrative process to verify that a PIC is acting in accordance with SOPs developed by CAP, to include the information they must obtain prior to conducting CAP flight operations. The FRO is, in no way, verifying the legality of the flight operation; this is the PIC's job. They, therefore, have no legal role, nor operational control, in regarding to any flight operation.
Except we agree to the tenets of the training and to CAP's own regulation (shared in a post above) that we as FROs both authorize and approve flights. That's getting deep into contract land where we are assuming some amount of responsibility. See the comments about "conscience of the PIC" and "ensure the safety" mentioned numerous times.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 04, 2018, 03:17:33 PM
Now that we're past that part---the FAA aspect---The FRO has a role in aiding in the authorization of a CAP flight from an administrative stance. If the flight appears to violate CAP standards, to include a known unsafe operation which is in conflict with legal requirements, then the FRO has a responsibility to, administratively, deny the PIC to conduct that flight. This is purely a CAP matter.
First, it's not just aiding authority. It's granting authority--clearly stated in CAP regulations expressed, again, in an above post. And approving a flight. Once an FRO agrees to this it can't be walked back.
Second, if you argue that an FRO has the responsibility to administratively deny a flight in which known unsafe operations exist, then the FRO's job and responsibility doesn't just evaporate with a claim of, "Well, I didn't know it was unsafe," if an accident happens. You don't get to have it both ways. If hundreds of FROs are authorizing and approving thousands of flights then the body of the organization has established a history of FRO - PIC relationships that, in turn, has established a standard of operation. An accident invites scrutiny of the FRO as the authorizing/approval authority.
And yes, it's time to throw out all the references to FAA regs. This is not at all about a government regulatory agency rules or aviation law. It's civil litigation. But you can't throw out CAP regs because they form the contract (to which you have agreed) by virtue of your role in approving flights.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 04, 2018, 03:17:33 PM
If an FRO is to say "This flight appears to meet all CAP requirements for flight operations," and the flight results in an accident or incident, there is no civil penalty in a sense of the individual FRO. There may be, certificate action and/or additional legal consequences for the PIC and for CAP as an organization, but not the FRO.
The crash victims' lawyers will decide this. CAP, nor anyone else, can make it go away. The civil penalty will be decided in a court, by a jury. Likely in a county selected by the plaintiffs known to be favorable to "suing the pants off of rich folks," like pilots. This is no fairy tale. It happens. And there is nothing more heart-wrenching than a grieving widow with kids and a deceased husband who would still be there to care for his family had this FRO fella only done his job and
been the conscience of that idiot pilot and not allowed them to take-off.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 04, 2018, 03:17:33 PM
An individual or class may file a civil suit against the PIC (or his/her family/estate) or CAP, or other persons involved in that flight operation. It's tough to have a civil immunity against that action; however, this does not mean someone would sue everyone (from the squadron commander on down, say) or that it would stand in court.
Agree 100%. The "other persons involved in that flight operation" would obviously be the lone survivor: The FRO. Who was (it will be alleged) so obviously negligent in authorizing the flight when he had a duty--expressed in the thorough training, proven to work as so many other FROs dutifully exercised their responsibilities by approving thousands of other CAP flights without incident--to prevent this flight and thus prevent this tragic loss. Yep, SkyHornet, this paragraph sums it up.
I'm not arguing that "it" would stand in court. But plaintiffs don't go that far without a solid case. But you start adding up all the strikes against a CAP FRO (conscience of the PIC, responsible to ensure safe operations, training, authorizing, approval authority, this one failure among so many non-incidents) and it isn't pretty.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 04, 2018, 03:17:33 PM
But under the law, the FRO is at no fault in the conduct of civil aviation flight operations. It doesn't exist under 14 CFR 91.
Won't matter. See above. The FRO made a conscious choice to assume some degree of responsibility for the outcome of the flight, agreed to be the conscience of the pilot and to ensure the safe outcome of the flight.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 04, 2018, 03:17:33 PM
Quit making this more than it is. And as others above have stated, if you are so concerned that your role in the decision making of CAP events is posing a liability against you, then you need to consider a change of your role(s) in the organization. You're going to face this in just about most of CAP (from cadet protection, to the prevention of injuries and damage to persons during ground operations).
In response: Quit making it less than it is.
And, sir, I will not "let it go" (that's been suggested before) or "change my role" because I am a pilot and I am deeply involved in CAP and flight operations. I have invested heavily in my CAP activities and, just because CAP's NHQ has foistered something untenable and brimming with liability doesn't mean I should just accept it and move on. No, my dues are worth just as much as yours. That is an insult and I would never suggest such to a fellow member.
If you still do not believe that this is a liability just ask ladder manufacturers why there are so many warning stickers all over ladders, and ask how much their product liability insurance has increased over recent years. Ask gas can manufacturers why there are such confounded nozzles and caps on their cans now rather than simple screw-tops. You can't get much simpler, product-wise, than a can. Who would have ever though the folks who made the can would be responsible for someone burning themselves with the contents? That's our legal system. And I avoid it--more than anything else--like the plague. Because it has become a plague that looks for any and every opportunity to drain your bank account, today and for the rest of your life. For CAP to even remotely open that exposure to its members is unacceptable and responsible, seasoned members need to refute it.
And fixing this is so easy and simple. Maybe the next question should be, Why didn't CAP think about this and get it right to begin with?
It seems the release process has far exceeded it's original goal of preventing members from just flying whenever they want to without telling someone. There doesn't appear to be any information available on the effectiveness of the process in increasing safety. I don't see why CAP implies that their pilots are somehow less competent than any other general aviation pilots through this process. I certainly don't see, in spite of the emphasis on safety in the changes to the release process, that safety is in any way enhanced by the new procedures.
Since no one seems to have an answer to the questions asked, I've submitted my request for an explanation to the paid employees of the corporation. I'll let you know if I ever get a reply from them.
Quote from: IFLY2 on January 04, 2018, 07:02:47 PMI don't see why CAP implies that their pilots are somehow less competent than any other general aviation pilots through this process.
Where does anything in the release process imply anything of the sort?
MajTBird:
I didn't say "let it go." And my comment was to the board, not any specific person. This discussion got so far left field, like most CAP Talk discussions, that it went from determining what the liabilities would be to determining what the role of the FRO even is. It got way too deep and way too extreme.
I think we're crossing streams here shooting at the same ghost.
Quote from: IFLY2 on January 04, 2018, 07:02:47 PM
I don't see why CAP implies that their pilots are somehow less competent than any other general aviation pilots through this process.
By that notion, virtually every process of releasing a flight in any organization deems someone incompetent.
The FRO is not there to determine the competency of a pilot or protect him/her against "making stupid decisions." It's another block in the Swiss Cheese Model...
Allow me to take a step back here for anyone who no clue what I'm talking about. You take slices of cheese and poke holes in it. Because of the design of the cheese, slices are not always in the same appearance. Some holes are bigger, some smaller. Some are in different locations. If you go through one hole, hopefully you hit a solid piece of cheese behind it. If not, you jump through another hole. When you jump through enough holes, you've created an unsafe condition and have the potential for a mishap. Those slices are your risk controls. Those holes are the risks that you have failed to control.
An FRO is just another step in adding an a risk control. It's not determining someone's competency. It's a step to ensure that, if competency lacks, there is another role in the mix to try and prevent an unsafe situation.
Performing 100 hour checks isn't there to call a manufacturer incompetent. Having an inspector sign off a mechanic's work isn't calling that mechanic incompetent. It's a "what if; let me take a look."
Hdqs just sent out New FRO Requirements. So now that its done .... how many YEARS before its revised again? LOL
It is what it is. No amount of CAPtalk is going to change anything. Gotta just deal with it for a decade or two.
Quote from: etodd on January 05, 2018, 01:20:40 AM
Hdqs just sent out New FRO Requirements. So now that its done .... how many YEARS before its revised again? LOL
It is what it is. No amount of CAPtalk is going to change anything. Gotta just deal with it for a decade or two.
You know how it is, the stupidity of a few mess it up for everybody else. ::)
Well, ladies and germ, I think we're about done here. Any opposition?
Quote from: SarDragon on January 05, 2018, 03:28:39 AM
Well, ladies and germ, I think we're about done here. Any opposition?
Well, perhaps, except for this: I have learned from a senior wing staffer that CAP powers-that-be will be meeting shortly to revisit the new FRO policy because there has been a lot of push back from a number of members. I have no other details. But, that's encouraging news.
Sadly, I have received no answers regarding FRO liability questions from NHQ. My requests for data to study accidents trends have been unanswered or deflected. CAP seems to love the chain-of-command when they want something from you yet requests just evaporate when sent up the chain.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 05, 2018, 03:28:39 AM
Well, ladies and germ, I think we're about done here. Any opposition?
Nope. Overdone, the steak is tough leather now. The first page was enough. :)
Quote from: SarDragon on January 05, 2018, 03:28:39 AM
Well, ladies and germ, I think we're about done here. Any opposition?
Nope should have been cut off days ago
Wayyyy past it's use by date. Kill it.
My request for a definitive statement from appropriate authority that an FRO has absolutely no responsibility for the safety of a released flight nor any responsibility for the flight planning is now in the hands of the National Operations Director. So far, he has declined to respond. I read that as we should take the requirements specified as literal instructions, without interpretation.
So, we are left with waiting to see what transpires after we have an accident under the new FRO requirements (unless those running the corporation realize this is about as popular as "New Coke"). Since CAP is really shy about sharing information with it's members, it'll be up to you folks to keep the rest informed.
BTW, I really liked the comparison of a release to getting a 100 hr inspection. I can picture the poor Mx officer quizzing the A & P in detail about all the work that was done, explaining that they have to be the conscience of the A & P, having to enter all that into WMIRS, and having to take responsibility for the work as well. Seems to be the direction CAP is going but that's another topic.
Quote from: PHall on January 05, 2018, 04:04:04 PM
Wayyyy past it's use by date. Kill it.
Nah, still a few drops of blood to wring from the discussion...
I think the debate could move in a slightly different, and more productive direction...
It was suggested that there is no role for "mentoring" for FROs (
QuoteWhere is it indicated that the FRO's role includes "mentoring"?
and that
Quote
Sometimes "excellence" is "doing what you are told to do / asked to do /
Both are addressed in CAPP 50-7, MENTORING: Building Our Members, 1 December 2004 discusses CAP's "Core Values", and then goes on to explain how members can help new (and not-so-new) members grow in CAP.
CAP's four core values include "Excellence", which is described as "an obligation to perform to the highest standards, both professionally and personally." I think merely "doing what you're told to do" is both minimalist and absolutely inconsistent with either performing at 'the highest standards', whether professionally or personally. I know that, as a supervisor, I don't reward minimalist behaviors. I hope others in CAP expect more than simply "doing what you are told to do". Value added is provided only when we go beyond the minimum expectations. Always, and in every situation.
The other part of how CAP defines our Core Value of "Excellence" is an explicit statement about mentoring: "Through modeling, coaching, and counseling, the effective mentor guides fellow members in developing a personal road-map to achieve CAP's standards of excellence."
It's very clear from these words that CAP expects more of us than satisficing. I know when I receive a flight release, I expect some thoughtful interaction with the FRO who will offer a second set of eyes to confirm the quality of my understanding of the four elements of a safe flight which the FAA defines as "Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External factors", a.k.a. "the PAVE checklist".
Trying to run this into a core values discussion is just silly mental hoops to make a point that doesn't apply,
unless to say that the reason the program changed
slightly, for an
extremely small number of sorties each year, is because there is anecdotal evidence that some FROs were not taking the situation as seriously as they should,
which is a fair assessment in an environment that still has a monthly release rate that ≠ 100%.
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 05, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
It's very clear from these words that CAP expects more of us than satisficing. I know when I receive a flight release, I expect some thoughtful interaction with the FRO who will offer a second set of eyes to confirm the quality of my understanding of the four elements of a safe flight which the FAA defines as "Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External factors", a.k.a. "the PAVE checklist".
And that is exactly what an FRO is supposed to do, and that does
not take "20 - 45 minutes".
Quote from: Eclipse on January 05, 2018, 04:55:42 PM
Trying to run this into a core values discussion is just silly mental hoops to make a point that doesn't apply,
unless to say that the reason the program changed slightly, for an extremely small number
of sorties each year, is because there is anecdotal evidence that some FROs were not taking the situation as seriously as they should,
which is a fair assessment in an environment that still has a monthly release rate that ≠ 100%.
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 05, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
It's very clear from these words that CAP expects more of us than satisficing. I know when I receive a flight release, I expect some thoughtful interaction with the FRO who will offer a second set of eyes to confirm the quality of my understanding of the four elements of a safe flight which the FAA defines as "Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External factors", a.k.a. "the PAVE checklist".
And that is exactly what an FRO is supposed to do, and that does not take "20 - 45 minutes".
Yep. And now the thread has circled back. LOL
Quote from: Eclipse on January 05, 2018, 04:55:42 PM
Trying to run this into a core values discussion is just silly mental hoops to make a point that doesn't apply,
unless to say that the reason the program changed slightly, for an extremely small number
of sorties each year, is because there is anecdotal evidence that some FROs were not taking the situation as seriously as they should,
which is a fair assessment in an environment that still has a monthly release rate that ≠ 100%.
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 05, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
It's very clear from these words that CAP expects more of us than satisficing. I know when I receive a flight release, I expect some thoughtful interaction with the FRO who will offer a second set of eyes to confirm the quality of my understanding of the four elements of a safe flight which the FAA defines as "Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External factors", a.k.a. "the PAVE checklist".
And that is exactly what an FRO is supposed to do, and that does not take "20 - 45 minutes".
Don't know how you got to 20-45 minutes??? It doesn't take much time for a competent FRO to review relevant details of a flight (off line from the pilot), then have the requisite telephone conversation to validate plans and get a sense of the only real unknown: the "P" in "PAVE".
Frankly, I don't see how that (or any CAP activity) can be divorced from a Core Values screen. Either do the job (well) or don't agree to FRO, be a Squadron Commander, Staff Officer, or whatever.
I wonder if we're saying much the same thing, but talking past one another?
Quote from: Live2Learn on January 05, 2018, 10:54:28 PM
I wonder if we're saying much the same thing, but talking past one another?
Most of us here seem to agree. Its just one or two others who seem to be trying to scare away anyone considering being a FRO. Always a few negative folks around who should mind their little corner and let others mind their own. ;)
Quote from: etodd on January 05, 2018, 11:03:42 PM
Most of us here seem to agree.
Group-think? Prelude to missing even obvious problems.
Quote from: etodd on January 05, 2018, 11:03:42 PM
Its just one or two others who seem to be trying to scare away anyone considering being a FRO. Always a few negative folks around who should mind their little corner and let others mind their own. ;)
Hmmm. I take umbrage to your comment, etodd.
The suggestion that those of us who find a red flag with a new CAP policy should just change our membership focus and "mind our little corner" is offensive. And, sadly, a characteristic symptom of an organization in decline--ask former executives of Nortel Networks, Lucent Technologies, Ingres, examples abound on and on
ad nauseum. Arrogance, even the mild version, is particularly ugly in a volunteer organization. CAP is a corporation depending on volunteers. It is not, regardless how much some might want to believe otherwise, a military service. All our memberships are equal.
Uncovering potential problems that may seriously and adversely affect member should be welcomed into the conversation, examined with a critical eye and addressed. To suggest a member who identifies such, or dares to express concern, is negative is insulting and beneath honest volunteerism and teamwork. And if this is the prevailing attitude of the membership then I think you're answering a lingering, unanswered question: Why do so many people quit CAP? My skin is a bit thicker but if member questions are dismissed as undeserving or beneath serious response then at least part of that mystery is solved.
By posting my original question--which, after consulting my personal lawyer who found more holes and problems with the new FRO training materials than did I--as a loyal member I had hoped to stimulate thoughtful input and proposed solutions, not flippant brush-offs. I guess I was wrong. Maybe there are fewer serious members in CAP than I thought. And maybe that helps explain why the corporation feels the need to micromanage activities; after all, without critical thinking a more strict guidance is needed.
Many thanks to Ron Olienyk for his work in spearheading the effort to answer my request. He returns this from CAP General Counsel :
"All CAP flight release officers are covered and protected under the CAP's Aviation Liability Insurance provided they are involved in a corporate mission and they are acting within the scope of CAP regulations and their authority. Please refer to CAPR 900-5, paragraph 11d."
I may be mistaken but isn't any sortie entered in WMIRS considered a "corporate mission", including AFAMS? To me, that handles the liability issue as best as it can be handled.
It is possible I will renew my FRO status and in each release I will include a note disclaiming any authority or responsibility for the outcome of the flight. It is also likely that outside of the pilots I know personally, I will choose to be uncomfortable granting a release.
I highly recommend that we, before blindly giving up our critical thinking abilities, take the example of Henry V before Agincourt who stated, " I and my bosom must debate awhile."
Many thanks for the informative and reasoned questions and answers. As for the rest, well - bless your hearts.
Quote from: MajTbird on January 05, 2018, 11:44:52 PM
By posting my original question--which, after consulting my personal lawyer who found more holes and problems with the new FRO training materials than did I--as a loyal member I had hoped to stimulate thoughtful input and proposed solutions, not flippant brush-offs. I guess I was wrong. Maybe there are fewer serious members in CAP than I thought. And maybe that helps explain why the corporation feels the need to micromanage activities; after all, without critical thinking a more strict guidance is needed.
Well, let's take a look at that and see if we can decide where critical thinking may be of some benefit.
Let's start by noting that
every single one of your posts here have been on this single topic. No crime, of course, but suggests a bit of a "drive-by" mentality.
Second, although your initial post certainly started off reasonably enough asking for our thoughts on the FRO situation, it appears that you don't really want to hear them. Indeed, your mind seems pretty closed to the discussion, which is perhaps not surprising since in your very first post you announced that the program was "unacceptable," "dangerous," and a "vulgar overreach" while creating images of CAP volunteers' family savings "wiped out" while dramatically pointing out that member's "future earnings and reputation" were at risk.
Which again, is fine. You are certainly entitled to your opinion about CAP regulations. And you are also entitled to voice that opinion, provided it is done while observing our Core Value of Respect towards both the participants here and our volunteer leadership who created the program that you believe to be fatally flawed. (BTW, we don't work for the paid employees at NHQ; they work for us, the volunteers. Seriously, none of them has the power to enact a single regulation. Every single one is enacted by a volunteer, just like you and me.)
But in my view, you are not entitled to appear to seek input into a potential problem and then attack the members' sincere replies that disagree with you while playing the victim card. (Replies given to you are "arrogant," "insulting," "beneath honest volunteerism," "flippant brush-offs," etc..)
There is a word that describes people who join an internet community solely to post inflammatory information in hopes of provoking emotional or other responses from the community members. If you are not genuinely seeking information and discussion, and given that your mind was clearly made up as stated in your first post, it is hard to imagine any other reason why you are here. And that kind of thing is always facilitated by anonymity.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you have asked for our input. You have received it. Nobody here seems to be changing their minds over any aspect of the conversation. It also appears that you have brought the matter to the attention of folks in the chain of command. Which is probably where this conversation belonged in the first place.
Anyway, it would appear that we are done here. I look forward to your input on other topics. Uniform threads are always popular here.
Ned Lee
Thank you, Colonel Lee, for your erudite summation.
This concludes our discussion. If anyone has something else they think might contribute to the discussion, PM me, or one of the other mods, and we'll consider it.
Click.
Reopened by request.
Keep it clean. Be kind to the horse.
Quote from: IFLY2 on January 06, 2018, 12:19:04 AM
Many thanks to Ron Olienyk for his work in spearheading the effort to answer my request. He returns this from CAP General Counsel :
"All CAP flight release officers are covered and protected under the CAP's Aviation Liability Insurance provided they are involved in a corporate mission and they are acting within the scope of CAP regulations and their authority. Please refer to CAPR 900-5, paragraph 11d."
OK, then. Please define 'corporate mission' per the above, as now I'm getting fuzzy on this.
What about my C-12 IFR training flights I'm paying for out of pocket? Thats not a 'corporate mission' is it? Yet I have to get a FRO to sign me off. Or any other C-12 flights I do to keep current?
Quote from: etodd on January 06, 2018, 05:29:41 AM
Quote from: IFLY2 on January 06, 2018, 12:19:04 AM
Many thanks to Ron Olienyk for his work in spearheading the effort to answer my request. He returns this from CAP General Counsel :
"All CAP flight release officers are covered and protected under the CAP's Aviation Liability Insurance provided they are involved in a corporate mission and they are acting within the scope of CAP regulations and their authority. Please refer to CAPR 900-5, paragraph 11d."
OK, then. Please define 'corporate mission' per the above, as now I'm getting fuzzy on this.
What about my C-12 IFR training flights I'm paying for out of pocket? Thats not a 'corporate mission' is it? Yet I have to get a FRO to sign me off. Or any other C-12 flights I do to keep current?
Yes, it is. Thus the "C".
A & B are AFAMs, meaning you are protected by FECA & the USAF.
C = corporate, meaning you are protected by the corporation's insurance, not the USAF.
QuoteOK, then. Please define 'corporate mission' per the above, as now I'm getting fuzzy on this.
What about my C-12 IFR training flights I'm paying for out of pocket? Thats not a 'corporate mission' is it? Yet I have to get a FRO to sign me off. Or any other C-12 flights I do to keep current?
I'd say RTFM, but since that seems to be difficult, here it is right from the regs:
CAPR 70-1, Terms, page 34, 4 Dec 2017:
CAP Corporate Mission – Any CAP flight activity that is not an Air Force Assigned Mission (AFAM).
Air Force Assigned Mission – As defined in AFI 10-2701, Organization and Function of the Civil Air Patrol, any CAP flight or ground activity that the Air Force approved under an A or B mission symbol. See also CAP-USAFI 10-2701, Civil Air Patrol Operations and Training.CAPR 900-5 THE CAP INSURANCE/BENEFITS PROGRAM
Section 1 The Civil Air Patrol Risk Management Program
a) CAP, along with the Air Force provides liability coverage for CAP the organization and CAP members who volunteer their services to CAP and country. CAP coverage will apply when CAP is engaged in corporate activities or missions. The Air Force coverage applies when CAP is engaged in missions approved by CAP-USAF or the Air Component Commander as Air Force-assigned.
Section 8 The National Headquarters Liability Insurance Program.
a) These policies provide liability protection for CAP members while engaged in CAP duties other than Air Force-assigned missions. (Liability protection for CAP and CAP members arising out of Air Force-assigned missions is provided by the United States as CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality under title 10 United States Code section 9442(b)(2).Mike
Realizing that this horse has returned from the dead and is, once again, on life support...
I can buy into the reassurances and liability protections that have been given here. But, the language that puts one CAP member I to being the conscience of another individual, with that individual being potentially hundreds of miles away, seems to be flat out silly. It's not quantifiable, not measurable, open to wide interpretation and pretty much worthless. It doesn't give anything of value to CAP and would cost nothing for CAP to remove it. I sure hope they do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mitchell 1969, your observations are the exact same that began this thread and you have lots of company. Apparently, enough members asked the same questions and had the same reservations that the corporate decision makers are looking into it. Many FROs have taken a "wait and see" attitude towards this as well. In the two squadrons closest in my area, we've lost 60% of the FROs due to this change. Personally, I had the same knee-jerk reaction. After email exchanges with Ron at NHQ, I am seeing that what we see in the training is not what was meant. From one of the emails, Ron O. sent this:
"First, the FRO is not assuming the responsibility for the safety of the flight, the FROs are the knowledgeable members that are there to discuss possible risk and safety factors with the PIC. The PIC is ultimately responsible for the safety of flight. The FRO is the sanity check that gives the PIC the opportunity to discuss the flight with a fellow pilot to determine if they, the PIC, has thought of all the risk and implemented ways to mitigate the risk.
Second, the FRO should also be familiar with the rules for flight releases associated with the mission symbols. For example, one of the areas that is confusing to most pilots is the ability of pilots whose qualifications have expired to fly their evaluation as an A7 mission. These missions cannot be reimbursed and have to be flown as B7 or C7 missions."
So, the PIC is still in charge and the FRO is helping to make sure CAP has it's share of checkboxes filled in correctly. That they've gone way overboard with that is plain to see. It's what they do. From a business standpoint, I'd prefer to see CAP have a mechanism that facilitated efficient use of members time and aided in getting to the launch. What we have doesn't have reason to support it. At least, CAP doesn't offer a reason. Nor are there any data points that say the changes will make CAP flying "better".
Really, we are left with these ideas and expressions which are so disconnected with the regs. that many of us stopped to consider whether it is a good idea to continue performing this task. I take some comfort from Ron's statement, "the FRO is not assuming the responsibility for the safety of the flight." This, coming from a paid employee at NHQ, directly contradicts the new training material and, to me, calls into question the validity of all of it. The bottom line is that a bad idea was presented very badly and now a lot of us want clarification.
Quote from: IFLY2 on January 06, 2018, 03:36:02 PM
The FRO is the sanity check that gives the PIC the opportunity to discuss the flight with a fellow pilot to determine if they, the PIC, has thought of all the risk and implemented ways to mitigate the risk.
That would be great if all FROs were pilots.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: IFLY2 on January 06, 2018, 03:36:02 PMIn the two squadrons closest in my area, we've lost 60% of the FROs due to this change.
"Lost" or "were not retained"? There's a difference, and one of the parts of the new program was
reducing the number of FROs.
Saying they lost "60%" is meaningless without knowing how many they had, and why the number dropped.
My wing doesn't assign FROs based on a given squadron, since that's actually irrelevant.
If you have two, not retaining one is a "50% loss", but it's not out of the realm that one of those hasn't released a
flight in 5 years and was
dropped, not "lost". It's also possible some of those "60%" couldn't be bothered to check
their email and / or take the refresher.
Quote from: Nick on January 06, 2018, 04:07:57 PM
That would be great if all FROs were pilots.
I didn't realize an FRO could be a non-pilot. I really think a FRO should be a pilot, so they fully understand all the issues , from PAVE to Weather to NOTAMS, and more, instead of just reading off a checklist with the pilot.
Eclipse, it's also possible that I interviewed each FRO to ascertain why they chose not to renew under the new training. It's a small sample I'll grant but it's the limit of our experience and constitutes the entirety of pilots and FROs we've used locally as a self-sustaining unit. Having 4 of 6 decline to continue is significant. I failed to mention that one who did renew will not release flights under this training so, really, we've lost 80%. Oops, the one remaining isn't a pilot so, in spite of his wanting to contribute, we don't have any FROs remaining in the two squadrons.
You are correct that it is important as to why we have this reduction in FROs. There is a vast difference between very involved and dedicated members cutting back their donation to the corporation and sweeping aside members who didn't even know they had FRO status. In our case, we're losing highly productive members not one of which would view "excellence" as just doing what you're told to do. This hits squarely on the double-edged feature of "retention", both the quantity and, more importantly, the quality of who continues to volunteer service to the corporation. I'm concerned that as the ratio of accountants to workers increases, CAP will go the way of Ford Motor Company.
Still, I think the information I've gotten from NHQ and posted here will provide valuable fodder for those who are carefully considering this issue. Back to waiting for the results of corporate reviewing this mess. Any bets on that outcome?
BTW, could you cite your source for your statement regarding CAP desiring to reduce the number of FROs? That could actually prove interesting and it certainly seems to be working.
Quote from: Nick on January 06, 2018, 04:07:57 PM
Quote from: IFLY2 on January 06, 2018, 03:36:02 PM
The FRO is the sanity check that gives the PIC the opportunity to discuss the flight with a fellow pilot to determine if they, the PIC, has thought of all the risk and implemented ways to mitigate the risk.
That would be great if all FROs were pilots.
I'm pretty sure they are in CAWG. ISTR a supplement to that effect.
I agree that it makes sense to have pilots be FROs. There's a logical rationale to it. But that's not the uniform case across CAP; for right or wrong, there are a plethora in my wing that are not pilots, and they are fine FROs when the scope of duties are limited to sanity checking that a proposed sortie meets the requirements of CAP regulations. Many became an FRO in order to become an AOBD or an IC. Others are working as operations staff at various levels. Sure a commander could just say that day-to-day release FROs must be pilots, but again, that's not always the case.
My point is that you just cannot expect them to be a second set of eyes to assess nuanced risks to safety of flight behind what is disclosed on the ORM worksheet without additional training, and even then, would you want to?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
70-1 does not require an FRO to be a pilot. There is some haziness to their requirements though. Here's the reg.:
4.5.1. CAP Flight Release Officer (FRO)
4.5.1.1. FROs must have flying experience either as a pilot or as an aircrew member. Pilot or aircrew experience should preferably be within CAP, but external experience is acceptable. FROs do not have to be current to fly within CAP. Additional IC guidance can be found in paragraph 9.10.2.5. In order to be an FRO, personnel must also:
4.5.1.1.1. Pass the online CAP FRO training course every four years (current FROs must complete new training by 1 January 2018 to remain qualified) or as updated by NHQ; and
CAPR 70-1 4 DECEMBER 2017 5
4.5.1.1.2. Be designated as a CAP FRO by the Wing or Region Commander, CAP/DO, or their designee, with the appointment documented in Ops Quals.
Following on that, what is an aircrew member? Here's the definitions provided also in 70-1.
CAP Aircrew Definitions
CAP Auto Tow Operator – Member qualified to operate a ground tow vehicle to launch CAP gliders.
CAP Check Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to administer an initial or renewal CAP proficiency check to CAP member pilots in CAP aircraft, and to endorse the CAP Form 5.
CAP Check Pilot Examiner – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to administer an initial or renewal flight check to CAP member pilots in CAP aircraft for CAP Check Pilot privileges, and to endorse the CAP Form 5 accordingly.
CAP Flight Release Officer (FRO) – A CAP member who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to release CAP flights.
CAP Instructor Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to give flight instruction to CAP members.
CAP Instrument Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to act as pilot in command of CAP aircraft under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules.
CAP Orientation Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to conduct Orientation Flights for CAP, ROTC and JROTC cadets.
CAP Mission Pilot – See CAPR 60-3.
CAP Mission Check Pilot – See CAPR 60-3.
CAP Mission Check Pilot Examiner – See CAPR 60-3.
34 CAPR 70-1 ATTACHMENT 2 4 DECEMBER 2017
CAP Senior Flight Release Officer – An FRO with significant operations experience and an instrument airplane rating (need not be current) that is conducting flight releases for more complex missions.
CAP Solo Pilot – A CAP member who holds either a student pilot certificate or is a rated pilot, is endorsed by a CAP Instructor Pilot, and is authorized in accordance with this regulation to perform solo flights in CAP aircraft.
CAP Tow Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to tow CAP gliders using a CAP airplane.
CAP Tow Pilot Trainee – A CAP pilot who is in training to tow CAP gliders using a CAP airplane.
CAP Tow Pilot Trainer – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to train others to tow CAP gliders using a CAP tow plane.
CAP Transport Mission Pilot – See CAPR 60-3.
CAP Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to operate as pilot in command of CAP aircraft only under visual flight rules.
CAP Winch Operator – A CAP member who is qualified and authorized
I meant to add that I don't see Observer or Scanner or AP in this list. That's what I found odd. Yet a Winch Operator can be an FRO? Also, "flying experience" isn't quantified and could be called one flight or an aborted takeoff if you broke ground.
Sadly, more evidence this thing wasn't completely thought out before implementation.
With all this controversy, I feel like I'm missing something. So I just went and studied up and took the FRO test and passed. We'll see if Wing approves me .... :)
Glad we're still talking.
Some good data has been shared; it sure is more interesting than conjecture. I do wish CAP NHQ shared data freely. At Stan/Eval Check Pilot school, for instance, we spend two days (and about $200 for hotel/food/travel) being told, "Don't be stupid." Never have we gone over accident reports, data, anything of the sort. Missed opportunities.
I searched the online NTSB database for all accidents where "Civil Air Patrol" was the aircraft owner. Their online database goes back to 1982. From then to now there are 164 accidents where CAP was the aircraft owner. I randomly chose two dozen of those accidents and studied the final cause determinations. (14 is a reasonable sample size where the population is 164). I didn't find any accident (of the 14) where any of the FRO procedures, questions, review of ORM, etc., would have--could have--possibly prevented the accident except for one. That one was an IFR flight where it could be argued that ORM and another set of eyes could have resulted in the flight not being released. But, the flight was not below minimums, the crew was current and competent, and there were no flight conditions that would appear to have offered clues that the two on board were going to suffer a stall/spin accident.
All the other accidents I looked at just had some unusual and unpredictable occurrences (like hitting a runway sign after take-off) or the usual chain of events that started innocently but culminated in an accident.
I am weighing spending the $75.00 quoted to me to download the CAP accidents and run some statistical analyses on the numbers and text mining on the final cause determinations. Surely there is some good guidance to be gleaned from those reports regarding the possible effectiveness of FROs "to ensure safety." It would also be interesting to compare CAP annual flying hours/accidents to General Aviation statistics.
If anyone is interested in chipping (not $$, your time to get annual CAP flying hours since 1982) in to the research I'd appreciate the help. Flying hours may be recorded in CAP's annual reports (and reports to congress) so going back though those might be the best way to ferret out those numbers. Here is a link to the archives: https://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/cap_reports/
I personally believe the best use of the FRO is purely administrative, as it was. So far I am not convinced that increasing the FRO workload and involvement will contribute to safer flight outcomes. And I am not convinced that our personal liability as an FRO is eliminated. Just because CAP says they will defend us in court and be responsible for any liability (though that is important) I still don't care to risk going through that miserable experience.
Best to all and thanks for the lively and helpful comments.
Studying the CAP accidents probably won't reveal much about the possible safety benefits of going through an FRO. You would probably be better off examining non-CAP accidents to see what percentage of them had factors that an FRO might have addressed. But first, I guess you'd need to come up with a list of the FRO-related factors that would be considered. What do we think those would be?
Quote from: RiverAux on January 07, 2018, 12:44:22 PM
Studying the CAP accidents probably won't reveal much about the possible safety benefits of going through an FRO. You would probably be better off examining non-CAP accidents to see what percentage of them had factors that an FRO might have addressed. But first, I guess you'd need to come up with a list of the FRO-related factors that would be considered. What do we think those would be?
Most CAP aircraft "accidents" are caused by the "rental car" mentality of pilots and aircrews. An FRO has no control over such ridiculousness. FROs are good to mitigate such problems, however one is only as effective as the PIC is willing to be honest. This is where a commander is so important in the process. Commanders must insure FROs are trustworthy, and Pilots/Crew are serious with Corporate Property. "Free Flying" is NOT free...
I think it is worth noting that this requirement (and indeed all of 70-1) was written by pilots. As we all know, non-pilots are lesser beings and therefore not smart enough or worthy enough to do the job they've been doing for decades. As I've said before the current trend is that SM that are not pilots are only considered useful in supporting the cadet program or the organization financially. We worry a lot about opportunities for cadets and how to keep them involved. If we keep minimizing the opportunities for non-pilot, non-CP SMs we will continue to lose them
Quote from: Alaric on January 07, 2018, 03:51:31 PM
I think it is worth noting that this requirement (and indeed all of 70-1) was written by pilots. As we all know, non-pilots are lesser beings and therefore not smart enough or worthy enough to do the job they've been doing for decades. As I've said before the current trend is that SM that are not pilots are only considered useful in supporting the cadet program or the organization financially. We worry a lot about opportunities for cadets and how to keep them involved. If we keep minimizing the opportunities for non-pilot, non-CP SMs we will continue to lose them
At last week's meeting we talked of just the opposite. You do not have to be a pilot to be a MS or MO. And a MP needing to go SAR is useless without a full crew. We are trying to encourage our non-pilot members to be MS and MO. As a MP, I'm just driving the bus. The MS and MO with their eyes outside are the ones who will see the target. One blink and they could miss it. Very important and tiring jobs. Huge responsibility. Sell it to your non-pilot Seniors.
Edited to add AP as well. Many of our missions are AP in the back instead of MS. You do not have to be a pilot to be an AP.
I haven't looked at many other threads here but I'm finding it fascinating in how the posts allude to the variety of experiences members have had in CAP. I think FW makes a good point but I question whether adding an FRO to the equation will solve that problem. Why not just adjust the attitude of the pilots? I would say that could be better handled on a Form 5 but I've seen too many instances where a pilot flies perfectly under "test" situations and then reverts to less than desirable practices on their own.
Still, I can't rid myself of the notion, under the new FRO training, that CAP is providing PICs with a bad girlfriend, who's constantly looking to criticize and question your every decision. Or is that just my experience?
Quote from: IFLY2 on January 07, 2018, 05:54:52 PM
I haven't looked at many other threads here but I'm finding it fascinating in how the posts allude to the variety of experiences members have had in CAP.
The differences in Squadrons can be vast. I visited my squadron nearly 10 years ago and it only took 2 meetings to know I couldn't work with these folks. Visited again 7 years later and the whole tone and atmosphere was completely different (several faces no longer there) and I've been very happy here ever since.
Only takes a couple bad apples to spoil a Squadron. How to get rid of them is 'the question'.
Quote from: Alaric on January 07, 2018, 03:51:31 PM
I think it is worth noting that this requirement (and indeed all of 70-1) was written by pilots. As we all know, non-pilots are lesser beings and therefore not smart enough or worthy enough to do the job they've been doing for decades. As I've said before the current trend is that SM that are not pilots are only considered useful in supporting the cadet program or the organization financially. We worry a lot about opportunities for cadets and how to keep them involved. If we keep minimizing the opportunities for non-pilot, non-CP SMs we will continue to lose them
Well that's an optimistic view.
I would like to make a few observations... my wing commander: not a pilot. My wing director of operations: not a pilot. Some of the best ICs I know: not pilots. I was not a pilot for my first 14 years as a senior member; I was a mission observer, AOBD, a variety of other ES positions, deputy squadron commander of a squadron with an aircraft. I chose to become a pilot because I wanted to see the other side of CAP.
This is an attitude that plagues both sides of the fence in CAP. Pilots who think this organization is all about them, and the non-pilots who perceive that what you describe is their "class standing" in CAP. Neither is true, and if you have maybe noticed, over the past several years there has been more and more of a push from the higher levels of leadership towards the "one team, one CAP" philosophy as an effort to break down these perceived cliques and express that all members are in fact equal participants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Nick on January 07, 2018, 07:58:13 PM
Quote from: Alaric on January 07, 2018, 03:51:31 PM
I think it is worth noting that this requirement (and indeed all of 70-1) was written by pilots. As we all know, non-pilots are lesser beings and therefore not smart enough or worthy enough to do the job they've been doing for decades. As I've said before the current trend is that SM that are not pilots are only considered useful in supporting the cadet program or the organization financially. We worry a lot about opportunities for cadets and how to keep them involved. If we keep minimizing the opportunities for non-pilot, non-CP SMs we will continue to lose them
Well that's an optimistic view.
I would like to make a few observations... my wing commander: not a pilot. My wing director of operations: not a pilot. Some of the best ICs I know: not pilots. I was not a pilot for my first 14 years as a senior member; I was a mission observer, AOBD, a variety of other ES positions, deputy squadron commander of a squadron with an aircraft. I chose to become a pilot because I wanted to see the other side of CAP.
This is an attitude that plagues both sides of the fence in CAP. Pilots who think this organization is all about them, and the non-pilots who perceive that what you describe is their "class standing" in CAP. Neither is true, and if you have maybe noticed, over the past several years there has been more and more of a push from the higher levels of leadership towards the "one team, one CAP" philosophy as an effort to break down these perceived cliques and express that all members are in fact equal participants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's a little concerning as the regulations require the Director of Operations to be a Pilot
Quote from: Alaric on January 07, 2018, 08:02:20 PM
That's a little concerning as the regulations require the Director of Operations to be a Pilot
Cite please.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I second the call for a citation of the regulations. I look high and low and could not find it anywhere so I want to make sure I am not missing something
I reviewed copies of 60-1 dating back to 1998 (all I could find), which include 8 complete versions and several change letters. Here's what I found.
1. These sentences, mostly but not always together, were in every version:
The FRO is responsible for authorizing a CAP pilot to fly as pilot-in-command in CAP aircraft on CAP flight activities. The FRO is not a dispatcher and is not responsible for the actual conduct of the flight.
2. There have been no requirements for an FRO to be a pilot. Though I don't have copies before 1998, I was an FRO before that and can say that there was no requirement to be a pilot.
The requirements were:
Possess a sound knowledge of the CAP flight management program and flight release procedures. Satisfy one of the following criteria:
(1) Qualified incident commander, or
(2) Unit commander of a unit with CAP flight activity, or
(3) An experienced CAP pilot with a private or higher pilot certificate (need not be current).
Unit commanders were required to
(1) Appoint, in writing, sufficient individuals who meet FRO qualifications as designated FROs.
(2) Ensure FROs are trained in their flight release responsibilities using the CAP NHQ provided FRO Training Program as a minimum.
In 2009 the requirements were changed to:
FROs are CAP senior members designated in writing as Flight Release Officers by the Executive Director, region or wing commander, or their designee. FROs must have passed the on-line CAP FRO training course and possess a sound knowledge of the CAP flight management program prior to being appointed as an FRO.
And this was added:
For Supervised Missions (a mission with an IC or CMD) the IC or CMD is also considered a FRO and may release any flight related to that mission. CMD is counterdrug mission director.
In 2011, the "designated in writing" was changed to "designated in WMIRS" and this was added for supervised missions:
Additional mission management personnel (such as Air Operations Branch Directors and Operational Section Chiefs) may be appointed FROs in sufficient quantity to meet the operational mission needs of the wing/region.
3. This was in every version until 2011:
The FRO is expected to use his/her best efforts to verify appropriate information prior to giving a flight release, including reliance on information verbally provided by the CAP pilot requesting a flight release.
In 2011, this was significantly changed to:
The release is made directly between the FRO and the pilot-in command and not to a crew member/passenger. The PIC and the FRO will have a personal or telephone conversation prior to flight release. The FRO is expected to verify appropriate information prior to giving a flight release. The WMIRS eFlight Release process automatically provides a great deal of the information flight release officers need.
And in 2014 (the version 70-1 supersedes) it was simplified to:
The release is made directly between the FRO and the pilot in command. The PIC and the FRO will have a personal or telephone conversation prior to flight release. The FRO is expected to verify appropriate information prior to giving a flight release.
4. For those who want to compare FRO vs non-FRO incident statistics, until 2009 the following could release their own flights without an FRO.
The following are authorized to release flights on which they are the PIC, crew member, or passenger.
(1) National Commander and national staff members specifically authorized by the National Commander in writing. (National staff not authorized by the National Commander will obtain flight release from their attached region or wing.)
(2) Region commanders and region staff members specifically designated by the region commander.
(3) Wing commanders and National Headquarters staff.
5. In response to an exchange about reducing the number of FROs, this was in the 2011 version:
Commanders should only appoint a sufficient number of FROs to meet wing needs. The eFlight Release process should decrease the overall number of FROs a wing needs so it should be understood that not every person who completes the FRO online training course will be selected to be an FRO.
After this was published wings were expected to, and did, cull their number of FROs.
6. In 1998, 60-1 was 33 pages, by 2007 it had grown to 71 pages and was 69 pages in 2008.
In 2009 the document was only 14 pages with this statement on page 1 The entire regulation is completely revised, to eliminate information duplicated in other CAP regulations and improve readability.
It started regrowing the very next year and in 2014 was up to 22 pages. The new 70-1 which replaces the 2014 version is 37 pages.
Mike
Quote from: RMW14 on January 07, 2018, 08:30:40 PM
I second the call for a citation of the regulations. I look high and low and could not find it anywhere so I want to make sure I am not missing something
I'll look it up as soon as I get home to a computer
GO SAINTS!
Only curious since I have been an FRO since last February and I am not a pilot (Type 1 diabetic and don't have the time or money right now to jump through hoops) and I was doing CD flight releases pretty much every day from June to Sept of this year.
I am also curious because the original thing that caught my eye was that the DO must be a pilot comment? That's kind of limiting the pool of people who might wish to do the job and could be counter productive in my mind.
That's a little concerning as the regulations require the Director of Operations to be a Pilot
[/quote]
No such mandate exists.
Some wings may require or prefer that, but it's not required.
As far as I can tell, there are literally no requirements for any staff job,
up to and including National CC as even those "requirements" indicated can be waived.
Respiration and gravitational attraction in proper proportion, along with presence appear to
be the only "requirements", and even the latter is subjective.
Here are some interesting numbers.
Looking back through CAP's Reports to Congress and Annual Reports for total flying hours has not been productive. Those reports included hours spent on missions but not total hours. But, other numbers have jumped out as interesting. So I thought I'd share. I looked at the most recent Report to Congress, 2016, and then back at twenty-five years prior, 1991, to see how "The Big Picture" has changed over the last 1/3 of CAP's history.
The 2016 document reported 32,656 senior members and 24,091 cadet members for a total membership of 56,707. Appropriations (from a separate document, CAP's financial report) were $27.4-million for ops and MX, $10.4-million for aircraft procurement, $1.7-million for vehicles for a total appropriation of $48.5-million. US population was 323.1-million.
The 1991 report shows 36,486 senior members and 23,780 cadets for a total of 60,266. The appropriation was $3.7-million from Air Force funds. US population was 249.6-million.
So, big picture, CAP membership has declined by 6% while appropriations has increased 1,211%. As a backdrop, the US population has increased 29.4%.
Thoughts? Anyone see any serious issues?
CAP spends a lot of time focused on small, tactical and internal issues--and on regulations; i.e., micro-managing. I'd argue that the FRO changes are an example of much ado about nothing while much larger issues loom. We are slowly losing members while being substantially dependent on more and more public funding in a growing population with radically changing technology capabilities--which we are cumbersome, at best, to acquire. In other words, we're slowly dying. And we're at serious risk (Senator John McCain took a run at dramatically reducing CAP's funding four years ago) of losing funding should anyone take a critical look our effectiveness.
Ask yourself this question: If we lost Congressional funding would we survive? Can we be self-sufficient? Do we have the leadership for being self-sufficient? Or is our leadership best suited for the annual government money hunt? For two-thirds of our history we were largely self-sufficient. So, what happened?
I see the FRO thing as an extension of a bureaucratic mindset. And yet another slice in death by a thousand cuts. Another poster has reported herein about the decline of FROs in his area; the same is true around where I serve. We continue to lose good, seasoned members who are weary of the weight of paperwork and regulations that really accomplish nothing but to consume time. And attract members who equate all that busy work with productivity (a common adage among successful entrepreneurs is, "Never confuse activity with productivity.").
What is the clue that we've officially become a top-heavy, paper-pushing, bureaucratic beast? The kind that comes up with this new FRO convolution? The $3.7-million that came from the Air Force in 1990 was for aircraft (mainly used aircraft). In 2016, $27.4-million went for operations and maintenance.
While the FRO issue is a specific--but major--concern the much larger issue is serious and realistic strategic leadership that will take us from our traditional strengths to the market demands and opportunities of today and the future.
Semper Vigilans
Edit to say it was answered above but I missed it.
Quote from: MajTbird on January 08, 2018, 04:05:53 AM
Ask yourself this question: If we lost Congressional funding would we survive?
With the funding loss we would also lose our Mission given to us by them.
So we would all go play golf.
QuoteThe 2016 document reported 32,656 senior members and 24,091 cadet members for a total membership of 56,707. Appropriations (from a separate document, CAP's financial report) were $27.4-million for ops and MX, $10.4-million for aircraft procurement, $1.7-million for vehicles for a total appropriation of $48.5-million. US population was 323.1-million.
The 1991 report shows 36,486 senior members and 23,780 cadets for a total of 60,266. The appropriation was $3.7-million from Air Force funds. US population was 249.6-million.
Our current 550 plane fleet costs a lot more to maintain than the fleet from 1991. Prices of parts and consumables are significantly higher. That 1991 fleet was much smaller and consisted primarily of used birds. Much of what we are flying today was acquired new.
We are buying new vehicles, instead of depending on cast-off military equipment. The radio narrow band transition was not cheap, and we have another equipment upgrade coming in the next couple of years, since the EFJs are essentially beyond the end of their life cycle.
Yes, CAP spends more money these days. Where is the problem in that? Where do you see wasted money?
Quote from: MajTbird on January 08, 2018, 04:05:53 AM
So, big picture, CAP membership has declined by 6% while appropriations has increased 1,211%. As a backdrop, the US population has increased 29.4%.
We have a huge marketing problem. I'd venture to guess maybe 1% of the U.S. population knows what CAP is. They see Cadets at events as Honor Guards and more, and think they are high school ROTC.
EAA has Harrison Ford, Morgan Friedman, and others as spokespersons, and big city Ad Agencies creating marketing for them. CAP Hdqs does everything in-house and it shows.
You should start a new thread as we are now way off topic.
The horse is dead! The horse is dead! Long live the horse.