Cadets not allowed to fly other cadets. Period

[Eclipse]

I've met plenty of cadets that are more responsible than "mature" adults.

I've met plenty that never seem to reach a level one would consider "mature".

I've also known my fair share of mature cadets who had a "lights off" or "watch this" moment with consequences that range anywhere from "oops, sorry" to life-long impact on career, finances, and/or freedom.

Considering CAP's generally risk averse nature, is it any wonder they are not interested in doing the ORM numbers on sending three semi-formed humans in a $200K+ piece of equipment and hoping everyone stays mature? Especially when you consider they would not be allowed to do that in a ground vehicle, either.

For the record, in person I tend to give cadets the benefit of the doubt, probably too much, but for snicks I've been asking some experienced, ranking people in CAP what they think of this and the universal answer has been in agreement with the current version of 60-1.

[lordmonar]

Hawk200...

Your argument looses bite when you go to "the military...." argument.

First off.. all those things that young Airman and Soldiers are doing...are beind done under supervision.

Second...Denial is not only a river in Egypt.  Age is a factor in auto accidents....more importantly is the "peer" factor.  A 17 year old driving his car by himself is less likely to get into an accident then that same 17 year old out driving with his buds.....That was the 28% reduction AAA was talking about.  Saying it ain't so..or saying it is only a perception does not make the problem go away.

Now...for the record.....I think this is mostly about perception.  CAP is not comfortable with having to deal with an accident by a cadet PIC that involves another cadet.  They are really scared of the idea of a plane full of 19 year olds out and about with no supervision.

Right, wrong or indifferent....that is definatly a perception problem.

The problem is......moaning about how unfair it is, is not going change those perceptions.  

I don't have an answer of how to fix this perception.  The only solution to the problem is to make it go away.  We can either eliminate the problem by eliminating over 18 cadets (not a good option)...or we let the cadet make the choice about what they want to do.

They can either suck it up....contiune to fly as a cadet pilot with only SMs on board or they can cross over to the gray side and fly anyone they want.

I leave it up to you and those handful of cadets this reg affects to make informed decisions based on your wants and needs.

[NIN]

"Statistically zero" does not equal "zero", it means it happens on rare occasion, but not often enough to change policy, or even generally be concerned about - those rare occasions can be treated as anomalies by local decision makers.

If you have to reach back 25 years for an example, you're making my point.

Certainly statistically zero != zero.

However, as I stated, I am personally (as in "I put my eyes on the crew as they were walking to the plane trailing TV cameras") aware of at least ONE instance that I can easily remember, and I think at least one more where I was present at the mission but my memory is weak as to exactly when.  

And, anecdotally, I am aware of other instances where this has occurred over the years in Michigan Wing since then.  

That the instance I witnessed in person was 25-ish years ago is immaterial.  There have been additional instances, in just one of the 52 wings in Civil Air Patrol,  in the intervening 25 years.  Without going too far out on a limb, it stands to reason that MI wing was not the only wing in the country that has done that kind of thing in that time frame, either.  

Lacking specific research and evidence outside of my own experience, I cannot point and say "On June 23rd, 1991, 3 cadets flew as a mission aircrew from Pascagoula, MS..."   but I have heard, anecdotally, of this kind of thing occurring in other parts of the country, so it stands to reason that Mary Read, Sue Bray & Aletha King in the summer of 1984 were not the only cadets to ever fly as an "all cadet" aircrew. (ie. while I am no NASA  historian, the only space shuttle launch I have ever witnessed in-person was STS-116, but I do know of other instances of the shuttle visiting low earth orbit both before and since. While I cannot quote for you the mission numbers and dates without additional research, I'm reasonable certain I can rely on that information alone to show that shuttle missions other than STS-116, or missions that I did not specifically follow and watch their launch live on TV, have and will be flown..)

What may or may not have happened when the year had different leading digits doesn't make a lot of difference in today's CAP.  I've got photos of CAP helicopters, scuba teams, water rescue, and members hanging IV's in the field.

Yay for them, but don't use those pictures on the recruiting posters.

But they do form a part of our history and knowing where we've been, and WHY we're either not still there, or have evolved from that, is necessary to avoid repeating mistakes going forward and learning from our forebearers.  Ignoring things like that on the basis of "well, we're not still doing that" is akin to jamming your head in a posterior orifice and hoping that "it all just goes away."  Otherwise, we keep making the same dumb mistakes.

I don't have access to the numbers, but I'd still be willing to bet that if you took the total number of qualified cadet aircrew vs. total number of cadets nationally, the number would be at or less than 1% (i.e "0").

Which begs another question: If the number is statistically zero, why do we even bother regulating it?  Have there been a rash of accidents that occurred when there were 3 19-year old cadets joyriding in a CAP plane?  Any hull loss?  Damage to limbs?  Deaths?  

CAP regulations, much like the FARs, are often "written in blood," meaning someone had to go and actually do the stupid thing that you're now being told to not do again, and somehow paid for their stupidity by either bending a plane, getting caught by the Air Force, or being injured in some way.

Did we have an all-cadet aircrew go "off the reservation?"

I have had 2 cadets in my squadron get their licenses while still a cadet.  Both have taken me up in a CAP plane for an hour or so, and while I am not a pilot, I think I know aviation competence and judgment when I see it.   Neither managed to bend the plane, or me, prior to returning the aircraft to the chocks, and the aircraft was even usable by the next 10 people on the flight schedule!  Whether they wore pips or bars, or their ID card said "cadet", they were FAA-licensed aviators who met or exceeded the standard as pilots and as Civil Air Patrol pilots.   That should be good enough.

So why the restriction?

[Hawk200]

Hawk200...

Your argument looses bite when you go to "the military...." argument.

First off.. all those things that young Airman and Soldiers are doing...are beind done under supervision.

Not really. Our cadets have more supervision than younger military members do. Far more.

They can either suck it up....contiune to fly as a cadet pilot with only SMs on board or they can cross over to the gray side and fly anyone they want.

I leave it up to you and those handful of cadets this reg affects to make informed decisions based on your wants and needs.

In other words, leave it alone, or leave other people forced to make choices they shouldn't have to. Seems like washing of hands to me. It also makes a few things clear.

I think NIN's post makes the point quite well. There hasn't been any reason to deny cadets' the ability other than status. Looking at the reality of it, there is no reason an 18 year old totally cadet aircrew shouldn't be able to do a mission, considering that a 18 year old senior member aircrew can by the books.

It's simply a matter of status. Requiring grey epaulets instead of blue ones is complete garbage. Tell me I'm wrong, but make sure you understand the repercussions of doing so.

[rightstuffpilot]

Well, there is officially a Cadet CFI. 

[flyguy06]

Yeah, I dont agree withthis rule. I know cadets that are very good pilots. Why shouldnt they be allowed to fly other cadets? If you are a FAA certificated pilot then it shouldnt matter wheather you are a cadet or senior member. Again,like I asked in a different thread on a different topic, whats the diff between a 20 year old SM pilot and a 20 year old cadet pilot? Nothing. Why is one able to carry cadets and the other not?

And we did one 18 year old cadet CFI years ago in my wing. I think he went on to fly for an airline.

Anyway, I hope they change this rule.

[PlaneFlyr]

I think the comparison between driving a car and flying is a bit weak.  I tend to believe someone spending thousands of dollars training to fly an aircraft, and building up the requisite 200+ PIC hours to become a mission pilot, would make them as safe as any other member with equal time.

I was a ground team leader at 15 (back when such things were allowed), and led several teams that were entirely cadets, with the exception of a new SM driver, with only GES qualification, who we needed to operate the vehicle.  The team was always successful at locating our targets, and there were never any issues encountered due to "immaturity".  We were taught to take our responsibility seriously, and we did. 

I have trouble believing that cadets can't be responsible just due to their age, when I know for a fact that my team and I were.  There are individuals who may be immature (one of our local CFII's who is in his 50s comes to mind), but the check ride and qualification system should sufficiently weed out any who pose a risk. 

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure why this is being resurrected, but so be it.

We need to seperate this idea of a cadet's relative ability from their status as a cadet. 

Cadets are not "adults" in the eyes of the program, period, therefore they are not authorized to be in responsible supervisory charge of other cadets, period.  Being a cadet affords you any number of opportunities such as IACE, NCSA, Encampments, and scholarships.  The trade off is not being considered an adult, regardless of your age, within CAP.

There are good arguments on both sides of the house for whether we should maintain this status, however changing it will fundamentally change the existing CP, and if you're doing it because of cadet aircrews, you're doing it for a very small number of members.

CAP has to have a line somewhere, its 21 today.

I think the comparison between driving a car and flying is a bit weak.  I tend to believe someone spending thousands of dollars training to fly an aircraft, and building up the requisite 200+ PIC hours to become a mission pilot, would make them as safe as any other member with equal time.

Maybe - however one cannot rule out the "watch this" factor of a developing mind, especially in an airplane without an adult in it.  We're also not just talking about mission pilots - by the time you get to that level most cadets would be aged out anyway. 

The real risk here would be transport mission pilots building hours with their buddies, or orientation pilots who, by definition would be flying cadets.

[Ned]

There are good arguments on both sides of the house for whether we should maintain this status, however changing it will fundamentally change the existing CP, and if you're doing it because of cadet aircrews, you're doing it for a very small number of members.

Why do you say that?

Heck, we've had the rule both ways just in the last few years and I haven't noticed any fundamental changes to the cadet program.  What sort of changes have you noticed?

But I certainly agree that the rule affects only a very small number of mission-qualified aircrews.

But if I was down in the wilderness, it only takes one aircrew to find me . . . .

[Eclipse]

^ I was referring to changing the max cadet age, not the sub-set issue of whether cadets can fly other cadets, but it is part of the larger, continuing argument about that issue.

There's so few cadet pilots that changing it either way has little effect on the program itself, except to weaken the argument that cadets can't supervise other cadets.

[SJFedor]

The real risk here would be transport mission pilots building hours with their buddies, or orientation pilots who, by definition would be flying cadets.

For TMPs, yeah, I feel you. But to be an o-pilot, you actually need the same amount of time as being an MP.

I've tried to stay away from this topic, and I'll leave it at this. It sucks that it does short change the few very advanced, high speed cadets that have achieved the ratings and hours that make them eligible for these qualifications/opportunities. But, for now at least, it is what it is, and we just have to salute and execute.

Write letters to your Wing/CC, express your displeasure. Have him do the same up his lines. That's all that can really be done right now.

[flyguy06]

Cadets are not "adults" in the eyes of the program, period, therefore they are not authorized to be in responsible supervisory charge of other cadets, period. 

then why do cadets have leadership positions such as cadet commander? Dothey not supervise other cadets? Thats my whole premise about making the CP more serious because it takes a certain level of maturity to do this

Maybe - however one cannot rule out the "watch this" factor of a developing mind, especially in an airplane without an adult in it.  We're also not just talking about mission pilots - by the time you get to that level most cadets would be aged out anyway. 

The real risk here would be transport mission pilots building hours with their buddies, or orientation pilots who, by definition would be flying cadets.

If the FAA has deemed the cadet to be mature enough toissue them a Private pilots cetificate, then that cadet should understand his responsobility as PIC (FAR 91.7)  So if the FAA considers the cadet mature enough to fly passengers (including his friends) why doesnt CAP?

[Eclipse]

If the FAA has deemed the cadet to be mature enough toissue them a Private pilots certificate, then that cadet should understand his responsibility as PIC (FAR 91.7)  So if the FAA considers the cadet mature enough to fly passengers (including his friends) why doesn't CAP?

Same basic argument as the state indicating a cadet is capable of operating a motor vehicle, yet CAP does not allow a cadet to drive a COV with other cadets in it.

Its simply a risk the corp has chosen not to bear.

[SJFedor]

Cadets are not "adults" in the eyes of the program, period, therefore they are not authorized to be in responsible supervisory charge of other cadets, period. 

then why do cadets have leadership positions such as cadet commander? Dothey not supervise other cadets? Thats my whole premise about making the CP more serious because it takes a certain level of maturity to do this

Maybe - however one cannot rule out the "watch this" factor of a developing mind, especially in an airplane without an adult in it.  We're also not just talking about mission pilots - by the time you get to that level most cadets would be aged out anyway. 

The real risk here would be transport mission pilots building hours with their buddies, or orientation pilots who, by definition would be flying cadets.

If the FAA has deemed the cadet to be mature enough toissue them a Private pilots cetificate, then that cadet should understand his responsobility as PIC (FAR 91.7)  So if the FAA considers the cadet mature enough to fly passengers (including his friends) why doesnt CAP?

Honestly, I'm willing to bet it's an insurance underwriter thing more than anything else. 60-1, in previous editions at least, and probably in this one, restricted any member under the age of 18 (which meant all cadets >18) from flying with ANY passengers on board, SM or otherwise, the exception being a CFI. I'm willing to fully bet that ruling was insurance driven.

[flyguy06]

I bet you are right

[rightstuffpilot]

Interesting Fact: A private pilot is sitting in the front giving an O-Flight to a cadet.  I'm going along for the ride and sitting in the back, as a CFI.  If that private pilot messes up, through FAA case law, I'm still responsible--reguardless of what CAP things--the FAA constitutes a higher authority when it comes to my certificates.

[Eclipse]

Interesting Fact: A private pilot is sitting in the front giving an O-Flight to a cadet.  I'm going along for the ride and sitting in the back, as a CFI.  If that private pilot messes up, through FAA case law, I'm still responsible--regardless of what CAP things--the FAA constitutes a higher authority when it comes to my certificates.

But as a cadet, you wouldn't be sitting in the back as a CFI, right?

Does your mere presence and status as a CFI provide / require the authority?  You can't really do much from the GIB spot but yell "knock it off".

[lordmonar]

Interesting Fact: A private pilot is sitting in the front giving an O-Flight to a cadet.  I'm going along for the ride and sitting in the back, as a CFI.  If that private pilot messes up, through FAA case law, I'm still responsible--reguardless of what CAP things--the FAA constitutes a higher authority when it comes to my certificates.

Which case law is that?

How can any passanger be held liable for the actions or inactions of the PIC?

If the PIC was under your instruction I can see....but as passanger? 

[flynd94]

Pat,

I asked this question to the local FSDO folks and, to the lawyers at AOPA.  My concern was I sometimes like to sit in the back on Mission and play scanner.  Say the private pilot up front makes a mistake and, bends metal. 

According to AOPA and the FSDO, me (ATP, CFII type) could be in trouble also, even though I wasn't the one manipulating the controls.

Their reasoning is that even though I was not manipulating the controls, I as a more experienced pilot should of noticed the situation going bad and, interjected.  It sucks but, thats why I pay for insurance for my CFII and ATP tickets.  I have also started to limit my time in the back seat.  If I am in a plane (CAP or GA), I sit in the front seat so, I can interject to save my tickets.

[Eclipse]

I can't dispute what you were told, but I am also somewhat dubious as to how well that would ever stick in court.

What you're effectively saying is that GA CFI pilots are never allowed to be simple "passengers' in any plane in which they are rated.

What if you're asleep?  What if you're a paying passenger on a charter flight?