New FRO requirements

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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'.

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)

In 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.

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)

In 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

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)

In 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?

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.

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!

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...  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!

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)

In 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. 

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:

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!