New 60-1

[Storm Chaser]

I wish the wording was a bit clearer. While the first sentence in that paragraph seems clear from an operational point of view, the question that needs answer is whether cadets participating in Orientation Flights are performing "duties in the vicinity of CAP aircraft". The fact that they now omit the wording regarding cadets participating in Orientation Flights could lead one to believe that they are no longer required to take AGH unless they will assist with moving the aircraft, as stated on the second to last sentence in that paragraph: "Only CAP personnel that have current Aircraft Ground Handling training may be authorized to move or supervise moving aircraft when necessary." I think if their intent was clearly spell out in regards to cadets participating in Orientation Flights, it would avoid members having to read between the lines and, potentially, misinterpreting the intent of the regulation.

[a2capt]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

[PHall]

And I state that is Just.One.More.Educational.Tool placed at our disposal. So what is the big deal? Don't fret the small details! If you as pilot-in-command decry this small thing, I will question your ability to follow required checklists and procedures as a pilot. After all, the checklists and procedures pilots use are composed of many small items and others not so small.



Flyer

Maybe this would be easier for you to understand.


Do the students who ride a school bus have to know how to properly park and secure the bus before they're allowed to ride on it?

[Storm Chaser]

This is exactly what I was referring to. There shouldn't even be a need to debate the meaning of this.

I think that the fact that they removed the previous wording means that cadets only need AGH if they're going to assist in moving the aircraft. I think it's a good idea that cadets take the training and I will encourage the unit commanders in my group to promote and encourage their cadets to take AGH so that they can assist with the aircraft, as needed.

[Eclipse]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

No, it isn't.

The only people in the list above who are members are the cadets. 

CAP Cadets on O-rides routinely push the planes, help with the preflights, they handle the controls during flight as part of the
rides, etc., etc.

Not the case for any above, with the exception of ROTC, and then I'd doubt it happens very often.

The wording is clear - members, and further indicates very specific specialties. If they intended to
include non-members...

1) It would say so.

b) That would be ridiculous.

[a2capt]

Still boils down to the hip shooting premature publishing, constant revising of the regulations is just getting ridiculous.

Not quite as bad as a TFR check before departing on a flight, but darn close. 

[Storm Chaser]

True, but it could also mean that they do listen to the membership and correct issues when they become apparent.

[JeffDG]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

No, it isn't.

The only people in the list above who are members are the cadets. 

Really?

Teacher ORides are AE Members.

Politicians are often Legislative Members

[SunDog]

We flew a mayor and a teacher, both non-members.  The teacher had a couple of our cadets in his class, was curious. The mayor was just a good guy, friend to the airport, etc.

I don't think WMIRS is that well aligned with the rules du jour most of the time anyway.  If it isn't jamming releases for O rides for cadets without the training, then problem solved. Plausible deniability. . . If it is, force little Johnny and Suzy to do the training.  Not like you're gonna let them move the airplane anyway, and it comes out of the cadets quality time, vice yours.

[Eclipse]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

No, it isn't.

The only people in the list above who are members are the cadets. 

Really?

Teacher ORides are AE Members.

Politicians are often Legislative Members

Yeah. Like that actually means anything.
Those are honorary at best and not subject to normal
member rules.

[Garibaldi]

Members performing flight duties: Marshalling, MO, MP, O-ride pilots, MS. Those are the ones who would need to view the video IMO. Anyone who performs WORK RELATED DUTIES in or around an airplane.

Members/non-members taking a RIDE in an airplane: No. The cadets taking an O-ride...why would they NEED to view a video that has nothing to do...wait. I was asked to assist the pilot in moving the plane out of the hangar one time, and I had no idea what to do other than make sure the wings didn't hit the hangar door frame or the door was high enough for the tail to clear. This was about 3 years ago. They MIGHT need to view it just in case they are the first ones there and the pilot needs assistance getting the plane out.

Other folks who get rides in the plane, not so much. If it's the only time they will be around a CAP plane, then no.

I'm sure there are those who would disagree with me and already have.

[JeffDG]

So, if cadets that are riding in the aircraft are deemed to be performing duties in the vicinity, then that would be the same for any passenger. IE, Teachers, ROTC cadets, Politicians, whatever "customer" that CAP puts in the aircraft ..

No, it isn't.

The only people in the list above who are members are the cadets. 

Really?

Teacher ORides are AE Members.

Politicians are often Legislative Members

Yeah. Like that actually means anything.
Those are honorary at best and not subject to normal
member rules.

Based on what?

[Eclipse]

Bases on their status and the regs. They aren't "members" in any way meaningful.

No meetings, no missions, nothing except the very narrow lane afforded by the
category.

[SarDragon]

Legislative members can participate on the same basis as you and I. There have been several article in various media that have talked about this participation. The CSAG agenda also discusses this.

[SunDog]

CAP maintains a "club" aircraft at Joint Base Andrews for national level pols and thier hangers-on;  I beleive membership is restricted to just those people.  Didn't CAP or someone make a big deal about one of them doing some mission flying recently? 

[JeffDG]

And AE Members taking ORides are not only members, but exercising a specific privilege of their membership category.

[Eclipse]

And AE Members taking ORides are not only members, but exercising a specific privilege of their membership category.

Yes, of course, everyone is equal, we're all members in good standing, no expectations of performance or attendance,
one big happy check-writing family.  Hoo-RAH!

Meanwhile, back on Earth-616...

The vast majority of members in the 999 units forget about CAP before the flash bulb cools on their shake-and-take,
assuming they are even personally present for that. 

The majority of AEMs take a ride, some brochures, talk about CAP that Monday, and we never see them again, either.
There are exceptions for everything, thus the term.

Practical reality helps these conversations a lot more then just reading the brochures.

[nomiddlemas]

We dont move the aircraft.  The FBO does all that for us.  We have two airplanes in one hangar so I think its a great idea that the FBO deal with it. 

[SunDog]

We generally don't need to have cadets push or pull.  Not too many occasions where a lot of airplanes are jamned on a ramp anymore. And hangars are not the rule in my wing.

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

I used to recite the USAF mantra of "If you never enter the prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop", but our 182's have that useless, short little tow-bar, so you always have some part of your anatomy in the arc. If there are no witnesses, I don't use it.

[vento]

We generally don't need to have cadets push or pull.  Not too many occasions where a lot of airplanes are jamned on a ramp anymore. And hangars are not the rule in my wing.

You might want to have a care when the FBO hauls one out for you, if your name is on the release as PIC; I don't speak from experience, but I suspect CAP will throw you under the bus if the FBO dings the airplane. Probably negligence, for not exercising close supervision. . .

I used to recite the USAF mantra of "If you never enter the prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop", but our 182's have that useless, short little tow-bar, so you always have some part of your anatomy in the arc. If there are no witnesses, I don't use it.

Have you even watched the ground handling video? That is not what the video says at all. Suggest you to  watch the video one more time, especially at the 11 minutes mark.