hold harmless agreements

[RiverAux]

Okay, if you are one of the rare CAP pilots who is able to get permission to use your private airplane on a AF-mission you have to sign a hold-harmless agreement that says you can't go after the AF for money in case your aircraft is damaged on the mission. 

The CG Aux Air program, which has nothing but private planes, has no such requirement.  If your plane gets dinged on a CG mission you're covered. 

If the CG can afford to take this risk, why can't CAP? 

Now, I happen to think that there are very few missions where a private plane would be a better choice than a CAP plane, but I certainly think its to our advantage to have as many private planes as possible on backup standby just in case we do need them (for example, larger twin engine planes for moving people and equipment for major missions).  Why discourage our pilots from offerring their planes for use like this? 

I know I've seen this before, but can't remember off the top of my head (I'm sure the logistics folks will), but our private cars used on missions not covered for damage sustained during the mission as well? 

[bosshawk]

RA: I assume tha you read the policy letter on Hold Harmless Agreements on the National website.  I, also, saw the same thing and immediately emailed our State Director, screaming like a stuck hog.  His brief reply was somewhat reassuring: don't do anything, those things haven't been finalized.

It just may be that wiser heads are taking another look at those things.

Lets hope so.

[lordmonar]

The intent is to stop using Member Owned Aircraft and use Corporate Aircraft.

This is just another way to force our members to use the assets the corporation provides us.

[RiverAux]

Well, I'm wouldn't disagree that CAP is strongly biased against the use of member-owned aircraft and generally I agree with that policy direction.  However, this seems to be coming from the Air Force and I doubt they are terribly worried about increasing use of CAP aircraft. 

This just makes me think that the Air Force sees us as a potential liability rather than a member of the Total Force. 

[lordmonar]

Well, I'm wouldn't disagree that CAP is strongly biased against the use of member-owned aircraft and generally I agree with that policy direction.  However, this seems to be coming from the Air Force and I doubt they are terribly worried about increasing use of CAP aircraft. 

This just makes me think that the Air Force sees us as a potential liability rather than a member of the Total Force. 

No actuall that is exactly what they are worried about.  We got briefed late last year that the USAF was concerned about the amount of flying time that was going to member-owned aircraft and the lack of flying hours on CAP planes.

[AlaskanCFI]

I can see problems with only using Corp. aircraft.

1. Some of our Squadrons here in Alaska don't have a Corp. aircraft and only have member owned planes available.

2. Flying out over open ocean water is much less scarey in your own floatplane than it is in a CAP owned C-172 tricycle gear.  (We have to do that fairly often for Coast Guard assist missions.)

The same goes for winter flying on skis and rough area flying using tailwheel.  Basically the tri-gear C-172-180hp on little city boy tires is not much of a plane for Alaska.  Yes I know you are not supposed to be landing out there, but it would be nice to survive an engine out...

3. During a recent real search, we had to grid search an area the size of Ireland.  During snowy weather.  We had 3 CAP available.    Since many memebrs also flew their private planes during the same search, we had 8 planes in the air on many occasions.


xx

[arajca]

I can see problems with only using Corp. aircraft.

1. Some of our Squadrons here in Alaska don't have a Corp. aircraft and only have member owned planes available.

2. Flying out over open ocean water is much less scarey in your own floatplane than it is in a CAP owned C-172 tricycle gear.  (We have to do that fairly often for Coast Guard assist missions.)

The same goes for winter flying on skis and rough area flying using tailwheel.  Basically the tri-gear C-172-180hp on little city boy tires is not much of a plane for Alaska.  Yes I know you are not supposed to be landing out there, but it would be nice to survive an engine out...

3. During a recent real search, we had to grid search an area the size of Ireland.  During snowy weather.  We had 3 CAP available.    Since many memebrs also flew their private planes during the same search, we had 8 planes in the air on many occasions.


xx

Alaska has always been a unique critter. Many of the standard rules and such just don't work up there. I can see ample justification for exceptions to "Corporate A/C only" rules there. Down in the lower 48, many wings have problems maintaining the required 200 hrs per aircraft. A contributing factor is members using their own a/c instead of corporate a/c. Of course, some of the corporate a/c are positioned in areas that are somewhat inconvienient to members to use.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Alaska being the exception, of curse, I could see whay one would want to use an unmarked member-owned aircraft on drug interdiction missions rather than the CAP planes with the "Thunderbird Wannabe" markings.  But I wouldn't want to fly MY plane if the USAF made me hold them harmless.

"Hold harmless" is MORE than just not covering your plane's damage.  A "Hold Harmless" agreement means you agree to call for a fair catch on a javelin for ANY liability arising from the flight, even things that are not your fault or under your control.

A DEA agent drops his binoculars out of a plane, and they hit a car windshield.  YOU have already agreed to pay for the windshield, and the agent's binoculars by signing a hold harmless agreement.

[RiverAux]

I think the agreement was specific to physical damage to the airplane itself.  I think the other liability protections were still there.  Would have to read again to make sure. 

[lordmonar]

I think the agreement was specific to physical damage to the airplane itself.  I think the other liability protections were still there.  Would have to read again to make sure. 

That was my take on the briefing I got.  If you use your own plane and wreck it....CAP and/or the USAF will not cover it.  If you buy it....in your plane or a CAP plane you will be covered depending on the mission type.

[JohnKachenmeister]

What you guys are describing is a "Waiver of liability."  A "Hold harmless" agreement is something else. 

I can say that I wont sue the USAF if I crash my plane.  That waives their liability for my damages.

But a hold harmless agreeement says that I will keep the USAF from any claim arising out of the flight.  I will throw myself on the grenade.  You waive your own liability, but then also accept any other liability as your own, so the USAF doesn't get hurt.

[RiverAux]

I just used the same phrasing as in the agreement. 

Here is the meat of what you have to agree to (it is in the policy letter section on eservices:

4. I understand that participating in the AFAM referenced herein involves risk of damage to or
loss of the Aircraft. I hereby waive any claim I may have against the United States arising from
the use of the Aircraft in connection with performing an AFAM. (AFI 10-2701, para. 3.6.2.10; AFI 51-501, para. 5.25.3)

7. Nothing in this agreement is intended or should be interpreted as a waiver of any rights under FECA for my death or injury during the AFAM or waiver of any FTCA protections for injuries or property damage to third parties that I may cause while participating in the AFAM.

: