Suspension of Corporate Compassion and Animal Transport Flights

[CAP4725]

Not sure if this is the right board to post to.  (Sorry I am cutting and pasting the letters as I either don't have attachment rights or can't figure it out.)

I am fairly new to CAP and was excited to learn in November 2015, CAP was authorizing C99 missions for Compassion Flights.  There was even an article in the November 2015 AOPA Magazine about the change as well as a letter from NHQ.(below)

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patient Airlift Services, Angel Flight and other Public Benefit & Compassion Flying in CAP Aircraft
The use of CAP aircraft in support of flying for organizations like Patient Airlift Services, Angel Flight and other Air Care Alliance organization missions is possible, but is approved on a case by case basis. Pilots interested in doing so should coordinate with their wing operations and command staff to enter a specific mission to do so (not just enter a sortie under the wing miscellaneous missions), and understand there are some basic rules to this type of flying:
- These missions are flown as C99 missions; A or B Air Force Assigned Mission status is not authorized.
- Pilots will be funding all costs of this flying (fuel, oil, maintenance, RONs if required, etc.) themselves; the pilots cannot be reimbursed as CAP aircraft are not for hire and these public benefit flying programs are established under the premise that the pilots are funding the flying. This does allow any CAP pilot to potentially support these missions as far as CAP is concerned, though the organizations that pilots may be partnering with may have more restrictive requirements such as flying hours or instrument ratings. Pilots may be able to use this charitable flying as a tax deduction though, and are encouraged to consult with their accountants and tax professionals.
- NHQ CAP/DO is approving patients and their family member as non-CAP passengers on an individual case by case basis. Prior to approval, NHQ CAP/DO will need to know the following in order to limit CAP risk:
• Passengers being transported must be ambulatory.
• Passengers must be able to sit upright for the duration of the flight.
• Passengers must be able to wear the aircraft seatbelt without significant difficulty or modification.
• There are no reasonable expectations to believe that any passenger could become violent or otherwise combative or uncontrollable in the aircraft due to their medical conditions.
• Passengers are not criminals and/or do not have any known criminal history.
• Patients' doctor has certified that no abnormal or otherwise negative issues or trauma will result or are otherwise expected from flying in unpressurized aircraft.
• A CAPF 9 with statement saying, "The patient may be safely transported in an unpressurized aircraft, seated upright, and utilizing aircraft seatbelts", has been preferably uploaded to WMIRS, or at the very least is documented before flight and left in a safe and known place on the ground.
Note: The organizations that the pilots are partnering with sometimes have documentation of the above for passengers and patients. That documentation can be shared with NHQ CAP/DO to facilitate approval as well for convenience. Documentation of the above can be uploaded to the mission request or email to the NOC at opscenter@capnhq.gov for approval coordination with NHQ CAP/DO.
- A CAPF 9 must be completed by all passengers and patients to be flown in CAP aircraft. Waivers signed to other organizations do not protect CAP, so a CAPF 9 must still be completed by the passenger/patient and/or their parent or guardian.
CAP is in the process of establishing agreements with several organizations to outline the above and show our support for this type of flying, but in the interim these missions can still be approved and flown. Some organizations may require proof of insurance prior to providing support if there isn't an established agreement in place. If that is needed, requests can be made to the General Counsel's office to provide documentation necessary; please contact generalcounsel@capnhq.gov.
Many members have noted how positive of an experience this kind of flying can be as it truly is a way for our volunteers to give back to those in need in their communities within their skills and means. Flying patients to and from necessary medical care or transporting family members to someone getting care makes an impact, and in many cases we are supporting veterans and their families, making this that much more important. Thank you for doing what you can to make this as good an experience as possible.
Last Updated: 19 November 2015
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Yesterday, we received notice that NHQ is now suspending all Corporate Compassion Flights. (below)


MEMORANDUM FOR ALL CAP REGION AND WING COMMANDERS
FROM: CAP/CC
SUBJECT: Suspension of Corporate Compassion and Animal Transport Flights
1. After careful consideration and discussion with the NHQ staff I have decided to direct the suspension of all compassion flights and animal transport flights conducted in a corporate status except those conducted in direct support of or as requested by state and local government agencies. The National Operations Center (NOC) will no longer approve these missions unless requested as noted above, and each situation will be evaluated on a case by case basis by the CAP/DO as they are now.
2. The above suspension does not prohibit support for these types of missions in an Air Force Assigned Mission (AFAM) status. AFAMs require federal interest which would likely only be possible after disasters or other emergencies or at the specific request or endorsement by a federal agency though. If you believe you have a request for support that could have federal interest, please provide the NOC your justification, and they will coordinate with the designated AFAM approval authority.
3. Any questions or requests for support for this type of flying can be directed to the NOC at opscenter@capnhq.gov or 1-888-211-1812 extension 300, or my Director of Operations, John Desmarais, at jdesmarais@capnhq.gov or 1-888-211-1812 extension 301.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

I find it odd that within 5 months, they have done a 180.  Wonder if this was caused by the February crash in Mobile, Alabama.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks.

JDL4725

[Eclipse]

^^^ It was likely related.

It's a risk CAP does not need to take on, and in most cases the approvals needed take longer then just renting a plane or using a POA.

[PHall]

The crash in Alabama most likely caused the powers that be to review the pros and cons of doing these flights.
Obviously the cons outweighed the pros in their eyes. But that's the way risk management works.

[FW]

I think it is related too. It is sad CAP is pulling the plug. Compassion Flights have been safely conducted for years by pilots all over the country. Angel Flight/Airlift Hope and other such networks have an excellent safety record. I doubt the extra paperwork was an issue. Any current, qualified mission pilot should be able to safely fly. Proper risk management IS the key. The crash was a tragedy, but was not directly related to the CF.

[Fubar]

If the crash occurred during an AFAM, would we suspend flying AFAMs?

[RiverAux]

If anything, these sorts of missions have much less "risk" than our standard SAR or DR mission considering that they are just point-to-point flights conducted just like thousands of such flights conducted each day.  Its our AFAMs that are the dangerous ones conducted at unusually low altitudes using techniques that are not common to those used by most private pilots in routine flying. 

So "risk" is not really a factor here. 

What was unusual about these flights was apparently the very non-standard way we were approving and documenting them.  Are there other CAP-approved missions that we make the pilots pay for out of their own pocket (other than routine training flights)?  Given that weirdness, I'm not surprised that someone eventually asked, "Just why are we doing these if we can't get them funded by some legit source?"

Don't get me wrong, I actually think that this is the sort of thing that CAP should be doing and exemplifies that sort of thing that we were set up to do, but I can understand the decision. 

[Flying Pig]

I just sorta scratch my head on these.  Although a noble idea, I dont know that compassion flights flights is really what the CAP aircraft fleet was intended for.   Does CAP even do the organ transports anymore?  Most of those missions seem to be done by EMS aircraft.  As far as getting them funded by a legit source, well, they arent funded anywhere that I know of.  Thats why groups like Angel Flight exist.  There isnt a funded network set up to fly patients around the country for medical treatment.  But then again..... if a pilot is going to foot the bill to fly anyway, you may as well do more than patterns and approaches.

[Flying Pig]

So CAP didnt offer the reason?  They just whacked it without explanation? 

[PHall]

So CAP didnt offer the reason?  They just whacked it without explanation?

Do they need to offer a reason?

[FW]

CAP doesn't need to give a reason for anything, however if the organization is still concerned about "Friend-raising", it should.   

Most Compassion Flight Organizations are well funded by an established sponsor network, and annual contributors.  Many have fuel reimbursement options for pilots, and Phillips-Conoco offer a $1.00/gal. discount for mission fuel reimbursement.  Many FBOs around the country also offer discounts/waivers as well.  The FAA requires CF pilots to maintain a certain level of currency to maintain status, and even maintain higher standards to take advantage of the fuel reimbursement. 

Mission pilots can deduct all costs of the flight for tax purposes, however the thanks of very appreciative passengers make the flight very rewarding...

[jeders]

So CAP didnt offer the reason?  They just whacked it without explanation?

Do they need to offer a reason?

No, but it would be kind of nice of them to do so.

I can imagine why they would do this, too much liability if anything goes wrong. But on the other hand, it's great PR and a good way to get hours on airplanes.

[Johnny Yuma]

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL CAP REGION AND WING COMMANDERS
FROM: CAP/CC
SUBJECT: Suspension of Corporate Compassion and Animal Transport Flights
1. After careful consideration and discussion with the NHQ staff I have decided to direct the suspension of all compassion flights and animal transport flights conducted in a corporate status except those conducted in direct support of or as requested by state and local government agencies. The National Operations Center (NOC) will no longer approve these missions unless requested as noted above, and each situation will be evaluated on a case by case basis by the CAP/DO as they are now.
2. The above suspension does not prohibit support for these types of missions in an Air Force Assigned Mission (AFAM) status. AFAMs require federal interest which would likely only be possible after disasters or other emergencies or at the specific request or endorsement by a federal agency though. If you believe you have a request for support that could have federal interest, please provide the NOC your justification, and they will coordinate with the designated AFAM approval authority.
3. Any questions or requests for support for this type of flying can be directed to the NOC at opscenter@capnhq.gov or 1-888-211-1812 extension 300, or my Director of Operations, John Desmarais, at jdesmarais@capnhq.gov or 1-888-211-1812 extension 301.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

I find it odd that within 5 months, they have done a 180.  Wonder if this was caused by the February crash in Mobile, Alabama.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks.

JDL4725

Translation: The lawyers who run CAP told the National Commander to stop the flights and he complied.

Wouldn't be surprised if the aeromedical flight industry also had a hand in this, too.

[PHall]

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL CAP REGION AND WING COMMANDERS
FROM: CAP/CC
SUBJECT: Suspension of Corporate Compassion and Animal Transport Flights
1. After careful consideration and discussion with the NHQ staff I have decided to direct the suspension of all compassion flights and animal transport flights conducted in a corporate status except those conducted in direct support of or as requested by state and local government agencies. The National Operations Center (NOC) will no longer approve these missions unless requested as noted above, and each situation will be evaluated on a case by case basis by the CAP/DO as they are now.
2. The above suspension does not prohibit support for these types of missions in an Air Force Assigned Mission (AFAM) status. AFAMs require federal interest which would likely only be possible after disasters or other emergencies or at the specific request or endorsement by a federal agency though. If you believe you have a request for support that could have federal interest, please provide the NOC your justification, and they will coordinate with the designated AFAM approval authority.
3. Any questions or requests for support for this type of flying can be directed to the NOC at opscenter@capnhq.gov or 1-888-211-1812 extension 300, or my Director of Operations, John Desmarais, at jdesmarais@capnhq.gov or 1-888-211-1812 extension 301.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

I find it odd that within 5 months, they have done a 180.  Wonder if this was caused by the February crash in Mobile, Alabama.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks.

JDL4725

Translation: The lawyers who run CAP told the National Commander to stop the flights and he complied.

Wouldn't be surprised if the aeromedical flight industry also had a hand in this, too.

My, aren't you just a ray of sunshine! 

[Flying Pig]

So CAP didnt offer the reason?  They just whacked it without explanation?

Do they need to offer a reason?

:clap:  Bravo.   Thats a great way to keep volunteers volunteering.  No, they dont.  But nothing we do is a secret and there were many people involved in this.

However, knowing CAP and knowing the legalistic nature of society, Im going with the idea that liability was to much of a risk. 

[Flying Pig]

I doubt the aeromedical industry had anything to do with it.  There isnt any money in it.  These were not flights where people needed airborne medical care.  These people being flown are on their own.  They dont need medical care in flight. 

[FW]

^Exactly.  These are strictly transport flights; either to get to, or home from treatment.  Liability issues are no different than from any other type of flying.  CAPF 9, plus the CF organizational waiver forms are well written.  All CF pilots, whether flying POA or rented aircraft (to include CAP aircraft) must show proof of insurance before being qualified.  This is where it may be problematic for CAP, and for this reason, is why the "program" was stopped.

[Flying Pig]

So CAP planes were flying without personal insurance?  Were requirements not being adhered to but pilots were doing the missions anyway?

[etodd]

I'll make a big assumption here for folks to tell me I'm wrong:

The return flight in question was in weather that a FRO would never have approved for a typical SAR or DR type mission.

[FW]

Flight release officers are not dispatchers.  PICs use IMSAFE, PAVE, and CAPR60-1 to make go-no go decisions.  We should let the NTSB determine what happened that fateful day...

So CAP planes were flying without personal insurance?  Were requirements not being adhered to but pilots were doing the missions anyway?

If the CAP pilots were flying under the Angel Flight/Airlift Hope umbrella, they would need to have had proper insurance.

[blackrain]

On a related note we just received an update to CAPR 60-1:

Paraphrase of the email below.

1) All CAP IFR operations now have a minimum ceiling of 500 and 1. This is for both departing and arriving airports. This can be waived by the NOC (which would be VERY unlikely).

2) If you are going to fly actual IFR (i.e. in the "soup") your flight may NOT be released any earlier than 2 hours prior to departure.

Of course we routinely receive flight releases more than two hours out now and we won't necessarily know ahead of time if weather will be actual IFR/below minimums at the time of departure until much closer to said departure. That said if the weather is below 500 and 1 that's pretty much a personal minimum for me anyway. 500 and 1 mins really don't happen that often or for very long where I live anyway unlike a coastal city like Mobile

In the winter when low weather is more likely the freezing level is usually a bigger concern anyway