Where in regulation are CAP "standards" defined?

Started by Holding Pattern, July 02, 2020, 05:27:27 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Holding Pattern


JohhnyD

In a million years, I would have never thought to ask that. having been asked, I scratch my head hoping someone can answer that.

baronet68

Quote from: Holding Pattern on July 02, 2020, 05:27:27 PMhttps://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/members/publications/standards

What sort of publication is this defined as?

Looks like standards are mentioned under the definition of what a regulation is:

Quote from: CAPR 1-2, Attachment 3 - Terms:Regulation – a publication issued at the national level that directs actions and prescribes standards to
meet a policy's intent or implement management practices. Regulations also present rules designed to
govern or control a procedure, behavior or conduct.

Since most of these standards are operations related, I looked at CAPR 70-1 and found it to be filled with references to these numbered CAP standards.

The publication of separate standards makes perfect sense to me since those standards could be updated much easier than the process required to update a regulation.


Michael Moore, Lt Col, CAP
National Recruiting & Retention Manager

Holding Pattern

Quote from: baronet68 on July 02, 2020, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Holding Pattern on July 02, 2020, 05:27:27 PMhttps://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/members/publications/standards

What sort of publication is this defined as?

Looks like standards are mentioned under the definition of what a regulation is:

Quote from: CAPR 1-2, Attachment 3 - Terms:Regulation – a publication issued at the national level that directs actions and prescribes standards to
meet a policy's intent or implement management practices. Regulations also present rules designed to
govern or control a procedure, behavior or conduct.

Since most of these standards are operations related, I looked at CAPR 70-1 and found it to be filled with references to these numbered CAP standards.

The publication of separate standards makes perfect sense to me since those standards could be updated much easier than the process required to update a regulation.




While mentioned though, it isn't defined. Ideally since these appear to be publications for mandatory compliance of membership, those documents should be defined, just as we define what a regulation, pamphlet, and form are, how they are updated at each level, and how supplements are or aren't allowed for them.

Eclipse

#4
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/emergency-services/aircraft-operations/standardization-and-evaluation

"Change Notice: CAP Standards (CAPS) for flying operations became effective on 31 Mar 20 and are available under Members > Publication Library > Standards.  CAPS 71-series addresses standardization of training.  CAP 72-series addresses program standards (see additional information provided below).  CAPS 73-series addresses standardization of operational procedures.  Examinations that support the Form 5 process (e.g., the CAPR 70-1 General Exam and all the category-specific examinations (Powered, Balloon, Glider, and sUAS) and the Orientation Pilot quizzes), are currently available within AXIS.  Aircraft questionnaires (CAPF 70-5QA/B/G) and evaluation forms (CAPF 70-5A/B/G) supporting the Form 5 are available at Members > Publication Library > Forms."

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/S072_003_D49277B04A9F2.pdf

"CAPR 70-1 is Now Effective!
MARCH 31, 2020

The revised CAPR 70-1, CAP Flight Management, became effective on 31 March 20 along with its associated publications (e.g., 70-series CAPS and CAPF documents).  These publications can be found in the CAP Publication Library.  Publication of CAP Standards in the 70-series will be driving major changes to the Aircraft Operations web pages.  Training syllabi such as National Flight Academy, G1000 Transition, or Proficiency Profiles that were either here, on Ops Quals, or published as pamphlets have been placed in category-specific CAPS 71-series Aircrew Training documents.  More noticeably, program information previously disseminated informally on this site has been replaced by formally published CAP Standards and forms.  Examples include: Mission Symbols (now CAPS 72-2), Aircraft Checklists (now CAPS 72-3), Aircraft Information Files (CAPS 72-4), Preflight Risk Assessment Worksheets (CAPF 70-1/1G), and Flight Release Checklists (CAPF 70-2/2G).  Procedural guidance once spread across this site (Post-Flight Checklists, Sterile Cockpit, Electronic Flight Bag procedures, etc.) has been consolidated into category-specific CAPS 73-series Operations Procedures documents.  Training on the content of these changes is available at Aircraft Operations > Change Communications."


The "regulation" you seek is CAPR 70-1, which refers to the CAPS publications as the respective "standard".

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R_070001_C72108C0E2F06.pdf

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

As an aside, thanks for pointing out these new documents. I'm especially interested in:

S71-1   Jun 20   Aircrew Training, Airplane

I wish they would change the name. The first half of it is about teaching primary student pilots from start to solo. Its a good syllabus, that along with other information, provides a base to get a student to solo. It  only covers eight lessons, but some skills would have to be practiced until the proficiency needed for solo. So it might take more than eight hours.

"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

NovemberWhiskey

Quote from: baronet68 on July 02, 2020, 06:32:19 PMThe publication of separate standards makes perfect sense to me since those standards could be updated much easier than the process required to update a regulation.

This makes sense; most corporate governance / compliance documentation is structured this way. You get a high level policy document that describes general concerns, the overall approach of the organization to a problem, and so on. You put that document on a multiple year review cycle. Then you build out the detail in documents that substantiate the policy, with more rapid review cycles and a lower-touch approval process. It's not unusual to have two or three tiers of documents.

UWONGO2

Can wings implement "standards" as well?

Spam

Potentially, if local missions and conditions apply. However, any local Wing standards would almost certainly not supplant a national airmanship Standard, but would clarify or provide a specific TTP. They'd have to go through the DO Ops chain to review them, and have Stan/Eval buyoff and then approval just like a Supplement would, probably. I could imagine that if the local subject matter experts (say, a border Wing develops some sort of standard for agency support flights, or a maritime Wing develops a tsunami specific set of TTPs or something) then it may be reviewed and adapted as a national TTP.

Note, TTPs in DoD speak are Tactics Techniques and Procedures, and are typically based on years of flight test and engineering review of mission profiles and procedures, gauging their effectiveness and relative safety when employed against emergency situations and threat laydowns. In addition to the FAA flight standards offices, the DoD agencies have their own Flight Standards offices which, for the USAF for example, promulgate the AFIs that are the basis of flight training instructions and standards. TTPs are developed for each platform (from F-16s to HH-60Gs to B-52s) describing tactical utility standards on top of general airmanship standards.  So, there are levels on top of levels.

Stray voltage:
I have worked closely with the SAF/AQ joint airworthiness guys many times developing cockpit instrumentation flight references which met Flight Standards, and have helped develop TTPs myself. This work is constantly ongoing; I actually just traded emails an hour ago tonight with a test team at Nellis AFB who are working late developing new TTPs for a platform... This can actually be very satisfying to collate test results and best practices to improve safety and mission effectiveness for aircrews around the world. It translates excellence in airmanship and good engineering results into workable standards for everyone, as opposed to relying on tribal knowledge and "gouge" which can be unsafe.


R/s
Spam