New draft of 60-1 available for comment

[RiverAux]

A revised 60-1 draft is up on the web page for comment: http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/member_services/publications/publications_for_comment.cfm

Here are some interesting items from the list of changes:

Modified requirements for flight beyond gliding distance of land out to 10NM to require life jackets only. Equipment, training and aircraft requirements for flight beyond 10NM moved to the NHQ DOV web site due to the extensive nature of requirements and the low number of operations it impacts.

FROs are now responsible for confirming a released flight safely landed if not flown under an FAA flight plan.

I always thought it was sort of stupid to not use our FROs to officially confirm that our flights got back.  However, they still left the "not a dispatcher" language in the regulation.   
From the draft reg itself:

p. Assistance to law enforcement officers using CAP Aircraft is restricted to only those missions coordinated and approved through the CAP National Operations Center (NOC).

sort of opens the door a little bit...

They're moving a whole bunch of stuff out of the regulation and to the web site. 

[Pylon]

They're moving a whole bunch of stuff out of the regulation and to the web site. 

That may be to help keep up with frequent changes, especially if they're moving to NIMS compliance?

[RiverAux]

Nah, none of the stuff they're moving has anything to do with that. 

Looks like they just wanted to cut bulk:  from 69 pages to 14. 

[Tubacap]

Anyone familiar with the electronic flight release?  Will it look like the IMU flight release module?  Hopefully it doesn't rely on internet access, but can upload data into WMIRS when it gets there.  There is nothing more frustrating than having thinking your going to have internet access, but then you don't. 

Before flaming ensues, that's why I keep all the paperwork to run Air Ops in my jeep.

[Short Field]

We use the WMU for non-mission and SAREX flight releases.  The rest are released through the IMU.  Both systems upload to WMIRS.

[Tubacap]

^We do to, but so far, National has not embraced the WMU, which personally I agree with.  Regardless, who is going to host the electronic flight release?

[Short Field]

^We do to, but so far, National has not embraced the WMU, which personally I agree with.  Regardless, who is going to host the electronic flight release?

Sorry but I can't find where the draft 60-1 talks about electronic flight release.  What section is it in?  Or did I miss the point?

[Tubacap]

It's actually in the "Items Changed" document.  Sixth bullet point down.

[Larry Mangum]

One of the major reasons for it being so much smaller in size, is that it was wisely (perhaps) decided to remove items that were already covered by other regulations. Hopefully this will reduce the number of conflicts between different regulations.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

The Draft 60-1 also changes requirements to fly a high performance airplane.  It requires 100 hours PIC time.

"3-6. Airplane Qualifications. In order to operate certain CAP Airplane models, pilots (other than CAP Solo pilots) must meet one or more of the following requirements:
a. Single Engine Airplane.
(1) High Performance Airplanes – 100 hours total PIC airplane time."

The present 60-1 for the last several years has only required 100 hours   flight experience.

"(3) For high performance (per FAR Part 61), fixed landing gear aircraft, the pilot must have a minimum of 100 hours flight experience as a pilot"

Those of you who have many hours or do not fly may not notice this as a major change.  However, it imposes on the average an additional 30 to 40 hours of flight experience to be able to fly the 182.   Since the 182 is all we have in California Wing, this can cause problems for new members trying to get a form 5.

There is also the problem that some people have already received their form 5 under the present rule, but still do not have the 100 hours PIC time, what happens with them, do they lose their form 5 and have to go back and get the extra hours then come back?

The present system is much better for getting new members involved after they intially get their licences.   They get used to flying the 182 earlier, while building PIC time to become a mission pilot.  They can gain the PIC time in the CAP aircraft where under the new regulation they would not be able to.  

Finally, the new Draft allows CAP Solo pilots (Cadets) to fly the 182 without the 100 hours PIC, but  a Senior member with a pilots license and more hours would not be eligible to so the same.  This part of the new draft should be changed and the present language left in place.

[Al Sayre]

That's the exact reason they put these out for comments.  You make a very good point, send it up the chain...

[rightstuffpilot]

It would be nice to see the stipulation removed that you must be a senior member inorder to be an orientation pilot under the stipulation that the cadet does have atleast a CFI rating.  Although this only effects a few of us who attend universities in aviation--we are a very valuable resource to CAP and the future of aviation.

[Pylon]

It would be nice to see the stipulation removed that you must be a senior member inorder to be an orientation pilot under the stipulation that the cadet does have atleast a CFI rating.  Although this only effects a few of us who attend universities in aviation--we are a very valuable resource to CAP and the future of aviation.

I think it goes back to the whole purpose of cadet vs. purpose of senior membership dealio where those cadets who are at that level and can give back in that form can transfer and become a senior member.  The expectation, I think, is that those who remain in the cadet membership category from 18-20 years of age will still be focusing on their own development and progression through the program.

It's not a reflection at all on your capability, but rather the purpose of the class of membership in which you are.  The focus and duties of a 19 or 20 year old cadet are different than the expectations, focus and duties of a 19 or 20 year old senior member. 

[rightstuffpilot]

While you make a very valid point, if you have been able to handle traditional cadet programs work, emergency services, and have worked through the rating of a CFI--in all likelyhood-- you will be able to instruct/teach cadets(as is the natural progression for aviators).  I should not have to resort to "giving up my cadet membership", simply to be able to teach cadets aviation/give o-flights.  Instead, a cadet who is a CFI, should be looked to as a mentor and a great opportunity to get more cadets in the air.  My ability to teach a 12 year-old about the parts of an airplane is no different wether I am wearing am wearing SM Captains grade or C/Col's grade.

[rightstuffpilot]

As a note, it is a new addition that cadets could no longer give orientation rides. 3-2-F in the current version  of CAPR 60-1 states:
f. Cadet Orientation Pilot. The following requirements must be met to be designated as a cadet orientation pilot:
(1) Be an active CAP pilot at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age with a valid FAA CFI certificate).
(2) CAP powered pilots must have a minimum of 200 hours (300 hours for AFROTC and AFJROTC orientation flights) total pilot-in-command (PIC) time in the category and class of airplane to be used.

[ßτε]

^You have a valid point IMO. I suggest you make the appropriate suggestion through your chain of command.

[lordmonar]

While you make a very valid point, if you have been able to handle traditional cadet programs work, emergency services, and have worked through the rating of a CFI--in all likelyhood-- you will be able to instruct/teach cadets(as is the natural progression for aviators).  I should not have to resort to "giving up my cadet membership", simply to be able to teach cadets aviation/give o-flights.  Instead, a cadet who is a CFI, should be looked to as a mentor and a great opportunity to get more cadets in the air.  My ability to teach a 12 year-old about the parts of an airplane is no different wether I am wearing am wearing SM Captains grade or C/Col's grade.

I agree with you to a point....however....this particular topic touches on a whole other set of discussions about the gray areas for the over 18/under 21 crowd.

[rightstuffpilot]

I plan on bringing it up through my chain as well as to CAC because it is an issue that involves cadets.  The 18+ cadet issue does get very sticky.  You do not realize exactly how sticky it is until you are living on your own, going to school miles from your parents, paying your own bills, and need to get a NCSA application signed(but this is off topic!).

[DG]

The revised CAPR 60-1 for comment provides in paragraph 2.7 g. that CAP members may be assessed some or all of the damages due to negligent operation or movement of CAP Corporate aircraft.  (Emphasis added.)

If you are a pilot, how do you react to increasing your personal liability from $500 under the present 60-1 to all of the damages?

[DG]

The Items Changed List 20 June 2008 makes a note that:
• Moved specific assessment of damages and liability levels to a policy letter pending modification of CAP's supply regulation to cover damage to all CAP assets.

What policy letter?

What modification of CAP's supply regulation to cover damage to all CAP assets?