Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 17, 2019, 02:39:14 PM
Home Help Login Register

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Where does it say we obey the law?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All Print
Author Topic: Where does it say we obey the law?  (Read 5192 times)
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,209

« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2017, 10:02:47 PM »

I see very little reason that CAP personnel couldn't be additionally covered under the same liability and malpractice that covers DoD medical personnel now for when they perform civilian care. (that whole instrumentality of the USAF when performing on authorized missions etc etc.  But I am just a medical guy, not a lawyer or policy expert)

We've talked about this before in several threads. 

And I think that you are right --  that assuming our medical folks can meet the license/training requirements for their Federal counterparts, then there is little reason they could not be used on AF-authorized missions, where the government is essentially serf-insured.  Just like pilots and others on AF-assigned missions.  Underlying that assumption is that we would have to invent and maintain a system like the Feds, that records and tracks the certifications and training.  Which would also include mandated yearly professional training to maintain currency.  Which may or may not be what your state licensure requires.  And if it is more, then the HSO would have to fund and attend the training on their own.  And of course, our AF colleagues would have to agree to oversee the certification and training requirements before the DoD would consider moving forward.  And that would likely require a lot of persuading since they are pretty happy with the status quo.

Perhaps even more importantly, even if we could finagle all that (which is certainly possible), it would only cover AF-assigned missions, which would leave out something like 97% of what CAP does.  We still would not have any sort of care for cadets or seniors not on AF-assigned missions.  Still no coverage for care given on corporate missions or routine activities like encampment, NCSAs, unit meetings, or during CAP PD classes.

But it is not impossible during times we have instrumentality status.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
Former CAP Policy Guy
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,340

« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2017, 02:58:31 AM »

in the thread regarding drones, I mentioned that any pilot with their Part 107 who has a drone, and is interested in using it for SAR, should put on their civilian clothes and go help any of the many agencies that could use their services. Do it outside of CAP.

Seems that idea may work here as well. If you are an EMT or similar and want to use those skills, then put on your civies and go help out. The Red Cross and other agencies would be happy I'm sure.

You can help CAP in some areas and also help other agencies with other skill sets.

Its a good thing.  :)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 03:03:00 AM by etodd » Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 804
Unit: MER-SC-020

« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2017, 05:02:54 AM »

To the OP, I'm curious if you have (re?)read CAPR 60-3 lately. All your concerns are addressed from what I can tell, and in terms of conflicts and which takes precedence, that's a call for Legal to make I would say:

1-17. Ground Operations. Ground teams may be used in virtually all phases of a mission.
Ground operations are governed by state and local laws as well as by CAP regulations and

1-24. Legal Issues of CAP Operational Missions. Title 10, USC 9442 identifies CAP as an
auxiliary of the Air Force when carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air
Force. This happens when CAP provides services to any department or agency in any branch of
the Federal government, including the Air Force. CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality of the
United States while carrying out missions assigned by the Secretary. This provides both legal
benefits and restrictions on what members can do on AFAMs. There are certain legal issues and
principles of which CAP members should be aware to protect themselves and the Corporation
from legal liability. While it is impossible to have specific rules which will be valid in all the
states and territories, several general principles of law can decrease the risk of individual and
corporate liability. The legal officer of each wing should review state laws and suggest ways to
avoid legal liability arising out of CAP activities.

f. First Aid and Emergency Medical Care. CAP is not an emergency medical care or
paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such. CAP will not be the primary
provider of medical support on missions or training events though qualified personnel can be
used to support such activities. The only type of medical aid that should be administered by
CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable treatment deemed
necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering. This treatment must be executed by a person
qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level. When first aid or higher medical
training is required for qualification in a particular specialty, the expectation is that the
qualification course includes both knowledge and practical skills training; first aid courses taken
on-line only are not acceptable; though members are not considered employees when supporting
operations, courses are expected to meet the National Guidelines for First Aid in Occupational
Settings available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24700/24757/ngfatos.pdf or ASTM F 2171-
02(2009), Standard Guide for Defining the Performance of First Aid Providers in Occupational
Settings. CAP medical personnel are not provided supplemental malpractice insurance coverage,
and any care provided is at the members own risk. Though medical supplies and equipment are
not normally provided to responders, any reasonable supplies used on training or actual missions
may be submitted for reimbursement as long as sufficient justification is provided.
Brad Lee
Maj, CAP
Assistant Director of Communications

Posts: 68

« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2017, 12:15:48 PM »


CAPR 60-3 seems to cover what I was looking for better than anything else I've found. The language is pretty much repeated in CAPR 160-1 OPERATION OF THE CAP HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAM.

The wording in these regulations seem much better than the language in Ground & Urban Direction
Finding Team Tasks
. For example, the task guide mentions as a step in patient care "transport the person to a medical care facility". CAPR 160-1 puts it differently: "Medical care within CAP is limited to emergency first aid and may be provided only by members with appropriate training and experience. Such care shall continue only until professional medical care can be obtained." The latter wording makes it clear that once the patient is turned over to "professional medical care" then those care providers are responsible for medical decisions (even if they were functioning as CAP members just before they started using their professional medical skills). CAP members who are acting as CAP members needn't feel responsible for medical decisions up to the point where the patient arrives at a health care facility, only up to the point where the patient comes under the care of a qualified medical professional.

CAPR 160-1 also lists as a responsibility of a health services officer "b. Provide or arrange for the provision of training in first aid, CPR and other life-saving measures by a certifying agency (American Red Cross, American Heart Association, American Safety and Health Institute, National Safety Council, etc.)." Since this is a regulation, while the  Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Tasks is merely a guide, it would not be unreasonable for an evaluator to accept answers to questions that disagree with that guide but conform to up-to-date information from one of the certifying agencies that health services officers are allowed to select from when arranging first aid training. Really no different than an evaluator allowing a candidate to equip herself with an LED flashlight even though a guide was written before LED flashlights were generally available.
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,976

« Reply #44 on: December 21, 2017, 10:04:23 PM »

Passing the CAP task is different from obtaining one of the outside First Aid qualifications.  The CAP answer is the right one at least as far as passing the task. 

Also, keep in mind that a HSO or anyone else teaching First Aid doesn't necessarily have the qualifications to be evaluating someone working on a CAP ES task anyway. 
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,296
Unit: Worry

« Reply #45 on: December 27, 2017, 02:30:13 AM »

I would certainly expect that if there is a conflict between a CAP procedure and a federal, state, or local law, we should ignore the CAP procedure and obey the law. But is there a CAP policy that states this?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that:
I understand membership in the Civil Air Patrol is a
privilege, not a right, and that membership is on a
year‐to‐year basis subject to recurring renewal by
CAP. I further understand failure to meet
membership eligibility criteria will result in
automatic termination at any time.
I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and
purposes of the Civil Air Patrol and agree to be
guided by CAP Core Values, Ethics Policies,
Constitution & Bylaws, Regulations and all applicable
Federal, State, and Local Laws.
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,533

« Reply #46 on: December 27, 2017, 03:13:26 AM »

Asked, answered, ended.

Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Where does it say we obey the law?

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.047 seconds with 20 queries.