New draft of 60-1 available for comment

[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.