New draft of 60-1 available for comment

[mikeylikey]

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?

Yikes!  So (god forbid) your CAP plane decides to crash, do you get to start paying the corporation?  I am wondering how much they will take you to court over?  Don't we have insurance on the vehicles to include the planes??  If members are responsible for the total cost of all damages, lets dump the insurance the corp currently buys.  That should lower our yearly dues. 

[DG]

CAP is self insured for hull damage to aircraft.

CAP has excellent corporate insurance for personal injury liability.

[rightstuffpilot]

That is definately an important change.  Allthough its probably a good idea to carry renters insurance for CAP pilots, if that is added in, I think I will make it a higher priority.

[FW]

^ Yes, it is a great idea to carry renters insurance for flying.  Proposed 60-1 isn't much different than current reg regarding mishaps/accidents.  It just "shortens" the explanation.

Current Section:
2-12. Assessments for Damage to CAP Corporate Aircraft:
a. Assessments. Wing and region commanders may assess CAP members the cost of repairs as follows:
(1) For damage that occurs due to a member's negligence, the member may be assessed up to $500 or, if the pilot in command is covered by non-owner hull insurance, up to the policy limits. Negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances. Violation of CAP and/or FAA regulations is negligence if the violation contributes to causing the damage.
(2) For damage that occurs due to a member's gross negligence, the member may be assessed up to $5,000 or, if the pilot in command is covered by non-owner hull insurance, up to the policy limits. Gross negligence is an act or omission of an aggravated character as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise ordinary care. Gross negligence is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others or their property and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care. It is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to others or their property.
(3) For damage that occurs due to a member's willful or intentional misconduct, upon a finding of willful or intentional misconduct by a wing or region commander, the National Commander may increase a member's assessment beyond $5,000 after affording the member an opportunity to make a statement and present evidence. This assessment may equal, but not exceed, the total amount of the damages. Willful or intentional misconduct is conduct in which there is a reckless disregard of the probable consequences.
(4) In determining if a member's actions constitute negligence, gross negligence, or willful or intentional misconduct, the commander will take into consideration all the facts concerning the incident and any written statement the member provides, as well as CAP and Federal Aviation regulations. The assessment may be made against any CAP member who contributed to causing the loss or damage in proportion to the culpability of that individual. The commander may allow assessments to be paid in installments but shall require payment in full within 1 year. The on-line Form 79, Safety Mishap Report of Investigation, must reflect the assessment and method of payment. Proof of payment in full is to be filed in the pilot records file and retained for 5 years.

[lordmonar]

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?

Don't be neglingent....buy insurance....quit.  Why should the rest of the organisation have to cover the costs of a pilot not doing his job?

[DG]

With all due respect, Sir, (FW) there is a world of difference.

Between the current 60-1 and the draft revised 60-1.

For negligence, there is a world of difference between being assessed $500 as opposed to all the damages.

Gross negligence is entirely different from negligence.  As an example, negligence occurs in CAP flight ops.  Perhaps it is not even rare that negligence occurs in CAP flight ops.  On the other hand, I don't believe I have ever seen or even heard of gross negligence in CAP flight ops.

And do you really mean to say there isn't much difference between negligence and willful, intentional misconduct?  I am sure that I have never seen or even heard of willful, intentional misconduct in CAP flight ops.

Can we revisit why the current 60-1 limited a pilot's exposure to $500 for negligence?  Does it have to do with the nature of our CAP missions and with the fact that we are volunteering our skills and time?

Performing Missions for America.

Does the USAF and/or the CAP-USAF have a regulatory scheme for assessing all of the damages to the pilot?

[DG]

Further with all due respect, Sir, (FW) is it legally rational to get non-owner's hull insurance?

If we don't get insurance, exposure is limited to $500.  If we get insurance, the assessment is to the fullest extent of the insurance.   But this has been so only since February 20 of this year 2008 when 60-1 was changed.

You and I don't have a choice, in that because we own our own a/c, we have such insurance and would be assessed the full amount as opposed to the non-insured pilot who would only be assessed $500. 

In one aspect of a return to fairness, the draft revised 60-1 eliminates this disparity and assesses all of the damages against everyone, not just the pilot with insurance.

[mikeylikey]

Does the USAF and/or the CAP-USAF have a regulatory scheme for assessing all of the damages to the pilot?

If that were the case there would be no USAF pilots.  Can you imagine getting a bill for 15 million dollars?  It would be "Oh CAPT Smith, I am glad you were able to eject safely, by the way is this the correct address to send the bill?"  Heck when a USAF pilots taxis his aircraft into the side of a hangar he doesn't even get a $500.00 bill.

[RiverAux]

Personally, I've always wondered just exactly how enforcable these "assessments" are. 

[FW]

DG, I was just making the observation between the current reg and the draft of the new reg.

BUT,

I understand what you're saying however, I think you're missing the point.  No one in CAP is going to assess a pilot for more than $500 unless there is more than "plain" negligence.  There is a big difference between crashing an aircraft because of fuel starvation and bending an O-ring because of a landing too nose high.  I've sat on investigation boards of both types of accidents and, believe me, the assessments were not the same.

Yes, the current 60-1 has the insurance clauses added to it.  Why shouldn't it?  If a pilot has renters insurance, and the pilot is at fault, CAP has an obligation to collect all it can to reduce the general members cost. After all, why should we spend a cadet's membership dues on a pilot's lack of good judgement?  However, if the pilot has no insurance, the pilot is responsible for what ever the assessment is. And, that can mean thousands.  I wouldn't change this in the new 60-1 either.  Of course, who knows what the final version will look like at this time as we're still waiting for all the comments to come in from the field.  

And yes, IMHO, all pilots should get renters insurance.  I do get coverage because I'm an aircraft owner however, even before that, I spent the extra $100 on the "peace of mind" the coverage gave me.  

In the 20 or so years I've flown with CAP, I never had a problem with taking responsibility for my actions in the aircraft.  I also never had a problem with purchasing renters insurance.  So it may seem obvious I don't have a problem with this portion of the reg.

Does the USAF and/or the CAP-USAF have a regulatory scheme for assessing all of the damages to the pilot?

If that were the case there would be no USAF pilots.  Can you imagine getting a bill for 15 million dollars?  It would be "Oh CAPT Smith, I am glad you were able to eject safely, by the way is this the correct address to send the bill?"  Heck when a USAF pilots taxis his aircraft into the side of a hangar he doesn't even get a $500.00 bill.

If the aircraft crashed because "CAPT Smith" was FUI,  the response would probably be, "4-6 in Levinworth".  Pilot would be paying under a very long payment plan.  And, Mikey, when was the last time you saw an AF aircraft being "pushed" into a hanger by its pilot?

[RiverAux]

One of the main selling points of CAP to potential pilots has been coverage for liability, etc. while flying for CAP.  I'm afraid that the more of this stuff that we put in the regulations, the less interested pilots will be in risking their financial health for CAP.  Is it really worth it for a measely $500 or the rare case where more might be gotten out of them?    Frankly, as a non-pilot Observer/Scanner I have given thought to dropping ouf of the aircrew program since I'm not sure I want to risk my fortune (such as it is) on the whim of some CAP body to assess me if something goes wrong while I'm in the plane. 

[FW]

Personally, I've always wondered just exactly how enforceable these "assessments" are. 

Me too, I don't know if any collections on the assessments were ever made.  Usually, the pilot quits after being found negligent.  However, when we take a CAPF 5 check ride, we do say we understand CAPR 60-1 and this understanding may be considered an enforceable contract. YMMV.

Also, we're only talking about damage to the aircraft.  Personal liability is a different matter.  As I understand things, flying for CAP means personal liability covered by CAP.
(or govt. if AFAM).  That, hopefully will never change.

[mikeylikey]

And, Mikey, when was the last time you saw an AF aircraft being "pushed" into a hanger by its pilot?

Your right.....usually the enlisted guys.  So I guess they would get the bill  

I am all for CAP pilots (and everyone) taking due fault where it is due.  However, if there is insurance, then they should only pay the deductible, just like driving a car.  

I will admit I don't work very much on the flight side of CAP, but I can tell what is fair and unfair.  

FW......Did you see the new post flight procedures for PAWG?  Doing a post inspection and signing off on the form stating "there's nothing wrong with the A/C".  Guess when a pilot causes damage to the A/C and does not report it for a few months will cause the Wing Commander to become upset, especially after we just "got ungrounded".  

[FW]

And, Mikey, when was the last time you saw an AF aircraft being "pushed" into a hanger by its pilot?

Your right.....usually the enlisted guys.  So I guess they would get the bill  

I am all for CAP pilots (and everyone) taking due fault where it is due.  However, if there is insurance, then they should only pay the deductible, just like driving a car.  

I will admit I don't work very much on the flight side of CAP, but I can tell what is fair and unfair.  

FW......Did you see the new post flight procedures for PAWG?  Doing a post inspection and signing off on the form stating "there's nothing wrong with the A/C".  Guess when a pilot causes damage to the A/C and does not report it for a few months will cause the Wing Commander to become upset, especially after we just "got ungrounded".  

Since we are self insured for hull damage, the "deductable" is the cost of repair.  
And, yes, I've seen the NER post flight procedures.  And, after an aircraft get's a new wing because of a Vne incident (cost to CAP $30K), I'd like to know who was responsible.  But, more importantly, I would like to know that the aircraft I'm about to risk my life in is airworthy before I start the engine.

[DG]

Doing a post flight inspection and signing off on the form stating "there's nothing wrong with the A/C"?

What are these "NER post flight procedures"?  And where can I find them?

[DG]

 FW,  You say that you do not have a problem with a new regulation that is rewritten from $500 to "all of the damages" because you never had a problem with taking responsibility for your actions in the aircraft.

1.  What about when there is a dispute?  When you don't agree that you caused the damage?  There is a big difference between a dispute over a $500 problem and a $30,000 problem or higher.

2  What about the case where you get charged for damage someone caused before you?
Do you file a Form 78 on each dent when you preflight an a/c?  According to CAPR 62-2 dented skin is an incident.  As an incident, a Form 78 and also a Form 79 are required.  If you don't file a Form 78 on each dent, what are you going to do when the next pilot to preflight files the Form 78 on the dent that you did not report?

[FW]

^DG, I'm just giving my opinion.   As I understand the protocols, disputes can go all the way to the CAP/CC.   Best way to avoid your scenario is making a proper preflight before engine start.

And, no, you file a 78 for "all" the dents you find.  IF you fill the form out for damage before you start the engine, responsibility for damage is previous pilot.  

I guess the best way to find out about the NER "post flight" procedures is to look them up on the region web site.  I was responding to a post by Mikey.  He referenced the PAWG post flight procedures, which, I'm sure, were extrapolated from NER supplement to CAPR 62-2 dated 15 April 2008.  

Here is some (obvious) advice to all pilots:  Make a thourough pre flight inspection before you start the engine.  Practice sterile cockpit procedures during all critical phases of the flight. And, never stop "flying" the aircraft until it is safely tied down or in the hanger safely and door closed, latched and locked.

I really have nothing further to add on the subject. I would suggest you go through official channels to voice your comments on the proposal as previously suggested and hope for the best.  I trust the people who authored the reg and I'll follow whatever wording is finally agreed to by the NB.

Again, just my $.02 (well, $.03 with the rising price of 100LL)  

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

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?

As an attorney, I can tell you this is a huge change from the previous 60-1.  In the present 60-1 you need to be found grossly negligent, which is reckless conduct , before you can be assessed more than  $500.00.

Under the revised rule you could be responsible for a $400,000 airplane for simple negligence, which could be defined as the slightest mistake if it leads to the accident.

This is an epic change in the language and I for one am against it.

[FW]

^OK, I understand the difference in the new proposed reg.  How would you change the wording  to keep the intent of the original lang. without the enlarged word count?  I think the authors just wanted to "shorten" the reg.  I don't think they wanted to change its meaning, especially on this section.

[Pylon]

^OK, I understand the difference in the new proposed reg.  How would you change the wording  to keep the intent of the original lang. without the enlarged word count?  I think the authors just wanted to "shorten" the reg.  I don't think they wanted to change its meaning, especially on this section.

Since words are free, since these pubs are published electronically-only anyways, and since they have already shortened the reg substantially, I don't think retaining the original gross negligence and willful misconduct language would be too terribly taxing on our organization.  It would seem to provide a lot more comfort for our pilots.