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?

[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.

[ßτε]

From the list of items changed:

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.

So I guess we need to see the policy letter for the specific definitions. I am guessing that they are going to be mostly unchanged, just moved out of the CAPR 60-1.

[DG]

How would you change the wording?

For starters, a pilot should be assessed only for damage that can be shown that s/he caused.

Keeping the $500 limit for ordinary negligence places a safeguard against any false accusation / inadequately proved causation, and the dispute then is limited to only a $500 problem.

If you are moving from $500 to "all of the damages," it is critical for assigning liability that causation must be proved, i.e., that the pilot caused the damage.

   

[FW]

From the list of items changed:

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.

So I guess we need to see the policy letter for the specific definitions. I am guessing that they are going to be mostly unchanged, just moved out of the CAPR 60-1.

I'm not really happy with a policy letter for definitions and assessment levels.  IMO, they need to be put in a regulation, either in 60-1 or, for all CAP assets, in CAPR 67-1.  Policy letters can be changed without any approval or consent of the NB.

After re reading the proposed 60-1, I notice no actual figures for assessments.  I also note the definitions and limitations for assessments will be written in CAPR 62-2.  

This is the part in question 2-7g.:

g. CAP members may be assessed some or all of the damages due to negligent operation or movement of CAP Corporate aircraft. CAPR 62-2 will govern the conduct of accident investigations.

I'll add my "comments" for proposing this to the authors. I would like the phrase " to include levels of negligence and assessments" or something similar to the last sentence.

[JE]

FW.
What kind of pilots do you think would be willing to fly CAP aircraft under the proposed 60-1 draft if the former categories of gross negligence and willful misconduct and the associated property damage limits are removed? "in paragraph 2.7 g. CAP members may be assessed some or all of the damages due to negligent operation or movement of CAP Corporate aircraft." 

• Pilots that are judgement proof
  
• Pilots that have nothing financially to lose

Are these the only categories of pilots that we want flying Missions for America

[DG]

After re reading the proposed 60-1, I notice no actual figures for assessments.  I also note the definitions and limitations for assessments will be written in CAPR 62-2.

I don't read paragraph 2-7g that way.  I would read the reference to 62-2 as limited to accident investigations.

I say this also because the current 62-2 explicitly sets forth that "Investigations will not involve attempts to determine liability, disciplinary actions or pecuniary assessments, but may recommend remedial training."

But if it is so that CAPR 62-2 will be completely rewritten and the definitions and limitations for assessments will be written in CAPR 62-2, then:

Is there a draft revised CAPR 62-2 we can look at?

Will the new revised CAPR 60-1 be issued simultaneously with the new revised CAPR 62-2?

[FW]

FW.
What kind of pilots do you think would be willing to fly CAP aircraft under the proposed 60-1 draft if the former categories of gross negligence and willful misconduct and the associated property damage limits are removed? "in paragraph 2.7 g. CAP members may be assessed some or all of the damages due to negligent operation or movement of CAP Corporate aircraft." 

• Pilots that are judgement proof
  
• Pilots that have nothing financially to lose

Are these the only categories of pilots that we want flying Missions for America

I agree with you.  I seriously doubt this is how it's going to be written.  However, I would make sure your comments are heard through official channels.  I have my own methods

After re reading the proposed 60-1, I notice no actual figures for assessments.  I also note the definitions and limitations for assessments will be written in CAPR 62-2.

I don't read paragraph 2-7g that way.  I would read the reference to 62-2 as limited to accident investigations.

I say this also because the current 62-2 explicitly sets forth that "Investigations will not involve attempts to determine liability, disciplinary actions or pecuniary assessments, but may recommend remedial training."

But if it is so that CAPR 62-2 will be completely rewritten and the definitions and limitations for assessments will be written in CAPR 62-2, then:

Is there a draft revised CAPR 62-2 we can look at?

Will the new revised CAPR 60-1 be issued simultaneously with the new revised CAPR 62-2?

Your guess is as good as mine.  However, my opinion is if it is not, 60-1 should spell it out as in the current reg.  If it is, then 60-1 should reference the other (From reading the proposal and summery of changes, I don't know if it will be 62-2 or 67-1 which will include the section on assessment of damages).

[Capt Rivera]

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?

i've never seen a AF A/C being pushed by its pilot but I have seen them taxied by their pilot and do know for a fact that AF pilots taxi into things...

I have also seen AF A/C pushed and pulled by enlisted members and have also seen a A/C pushed into an ... lets say object... Damage was done to the A/C and the object. The enlisted member who I find to be Grossly negligent had nothing done to him. [He was not paying attention, and yes he was a Wing Walker..... 

I agree with you.  I seriously doubt this is how it's going to be written.  However, I would make sure your comments are heard through official channels.

How does one easily do that? Seriously how many people will ACTUALLY take the time to write up a letter in proper format and submit it? If I know that Lt Col someone is writing a letter stating my points exactly, and I'm short on time, I probably won't duplicate his effort. If I get a copy of it somehow I might copy it and send it with my signature. [if he lets me] I would much rather have a way to easily say I agree with his letter. [Think Petition]

How many who write will make sure that the comments actually go forward instead of being held back by someone at a higher command that disagrees?

CAP NEEDS a better way to handle things like this. A way that ensures the member that his comments in FACT made it to the person/people who actually matter and not jo blow at group/wing who doesn't understand or who disagrees and decides to stop it there.

Does national look at a letter and say, "you know this one member is correct lets not screw everyone"... or does national say, well we have 60k members.... 20k pilots and only got 100 letters saying this was a bad idea... lets do it anyway...."

My point there is if someone at regional is going to get all letters concerning 60-1 etc... are they going to say, well lets toss these 90 letters i have saying the same thing and keep just the 1 that happens to be the best written....

If they are REQUIRED to send anything and everything they get on... [which i can't find anything that says they are] then why can't we ALWAYS submit directly to the person/people in charge?

[Mustang]

I have to say that this is probably the worst re-write of a CAP reg I've ever seen.  They've moved stuff to the website, to policy letters, to additional pages of forms...all of which can be changed on a whim, rather than requiring the normal ratification process--which is, I suspect, precisely why they did it.

There's still no good set of instructions for administering a checkride for one to become a Cadet Orientation Pilot, and the reg is still way behind MIMS; mountain checkouts expire annually in MIMS, but there's not even a mention of a mountain checkout in the current or proposed reg, or how long it's valid for. 

They need to come up with something less onerous than a 5-hour checkout for pilots who wishes to maintain currency as a Cadet Orientation, SAR/DR, night-, instrument-, mountain- and G-1000-qualified pilot.

[stratoflyer]

I a letter is stopped by someone during the chain of command, can't it be sent directly to National saying that it was withheld at a lower echelon level?

Wouldn't it be wiser to set-up a special email address for comments of regulation rewrites?

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Has anyone heard anything new on the proposed change.  Many of my members are very concerned about the change in liability.