Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 24, 2018, 01:39:32 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: New FRO requirements
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print
Author Topic: New FRO requirements  (Read 13010 times)
Alaric
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 781

« Reply #120 on: January 07, 2018, 04:02:20 PM »

I think it is worth noting that this requirement (and indeed all of 70-1) was written by pilots.  As we all know, non-pilots are lesser beings and therefore not smart enough or worthy enough to do the job they've been doing for decades.  As I've said before the current trend is that SM that are not pilots are only considered useful in supporting the cadet program or the organization financially.  We worry a lot about opportunities for cadets and how to keep them involved.  If we keep minimizing the opportunities for non-pilot, non-CP SMs we will continue to lose them
Well that’s an optimistic view.

I would like to make a few observations... my wing commander: not a pilot. My wing director of operations: not a pilot. Some of the best ICs I know: not pilots. I was not a pilot for my first 14 years as a senior member; I was a mission observer, AOBD, a variety of other ES positions, deputy squadron commander of a squadron with an aircraft. I chose to become a pilot because I wanted to see the other side of CAP.

This is an attitude that plagues both sides of the fence in CAP. Pilots who think this organization is all about them, and the non-pilots who perceive that what you describe is their “class standing” in CAP. Neither is true, and if you have maybe noticed, over the past several years there has been more and more of a push from the higher levels of leadership towards the “one team, one CAP” philosophy as an effort to break down these perceived cliques and express that all members are in fact equal participants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a little concerning as the regulations require the Director of Operations to be a Pilot
Logged
Nick
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 519
Unit: SWR-TX-001

« Reply #121 on: January 07, 2018, 04:29:03 PM »

That's a little concerning as the regulations require the Director of Operations to be a Pilot
Cite please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Nicholas McLarty, Lt Col, CAP
Texas Wing Staff Guy
National Cadet Team Guy
RMW14
Member

Posts: 63
Unit: NER-PA-010

« Reply #122 on: January 07, 2018, 04:30:40 PM »

I second the call for a citation of the regulations. I look high and low and could not find it anywhere so I want to make sure I am not missing something
Logged
Ryan Weir Capt
Deputy Commander for Seniors Jesse Jones Composite Squadron 304
Expert Ranger #274
CMD PAWG Central
IC3 (T),AOBD,GBD,GTL, GTM1, UDF, MO, MS, MRO
sardak
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,197

« Reply #123 on: January 07, 2018, 04:56:52 PM »

I reviewed copies of 60-1 dating back to 1998 (all I could find), which include 8 complete versions and several change letters. Here’s what I found.
1. These sentences, mostly but not always together, were in every version:
    The FRO is responsible for authorizing a CAP pilot to fly as pilot-in-command in CAP aircraft on CAP flight activities. The FRO is not a dispatcher and is not responsible for the actual conduct of the flight.

2. There have been no requirements for an FRO to be a pilot. Though I don’t have copies before 1998, I was an FRO before that and can say that there was no requirement to be a pilot.
   The requirements were:
      Possess a sound knowledge of the CAP flight management program and flight release procedures. Satisfy one of the following criteria:
         (1) Qualified incident commander, or
         (2) Unit commander of a unit with CAP flight activity, or
         (3) An experienced CAP pilot with a private or higher pilot certificate (need not be current).

   Unit commanders were required to
      (1) Appoint, in writing, sufficient individuals who meet FRO qualifications as designated FROs.
         (2) Ensure FROs are trained in their flight release responsibilities using the CAP NHQ provided FRO Training Program as a minimum.


 In 2009 the requirements were changed to:
     FROs are CAP senior members designated in writing as Flight Release Officers by the Executive Director, region or wing commander, or their designee. FROs must have passed the on-line CAP FRO training course and possess a sound knowledge of the CAP flight management program prior to being appointed as an FRO.
  And this was added:
     For Supervised Missions (a mission with an IC or CMD) the IC or CMD is also considered a FRO and may release any flight related to that mission. CMD is counterdrug mission director.

  In 2011, the “designated in writing” was changed to “designated in WMIRS” and this was added for supervised missions:
    Additional mission management personnel (such as Air Operations Branch Directors and Operational Section Chiefs) may be appointed FROs in sufficient quantity to meet the operational mission needs of the wing/region.

3. This was in every version until 2011:
     The FRO is expected to use his/her best efforts to verify appropriate information prior to giving a flight release, including reliance on information verbally provided by the CAP pilot requesting a flight release.

  In 2011, this was significantly changed to:
     The release is made directly between the FRO and the pilot-in command and not to a crew member/passenger. The PIC and the FRO will have a personal or telephone conversation prior to flight release. The FRO is expected to verify appropriate information prior to giving a flight release. The WMIRS eFlight Release process automatically provides a great deal of the information flight release officers need.

  And in 2014 (the version 70-1 supersedes) it was simplified to:
     The release is made directly between the FRO and the pilot in command. The PIC and the FRO will have a personal or telephone conversation prior to flight release. The FRO is expected to verify appropriate information prior to giving a flight release.

4. For those who want to compare FRO vs non-FRO incident statistics, until 2009  the following could release their own flights without an FRO.
     The following are authorized to release flights on which they are the PIC, crew member, or passenger.
        (1) National Commander and national staff members specifically authorized by the National Commander in writing. (National staff not authorized by the National Commander will obtain flight release from their attached region or wing.)
        (2) Region commanders and region staff members specifically designated by the region commander.
        (3) Wing commanders and National Headquarters staff.


5. In response to an exchange about reducing the number of FROs, this was in the 2011 version:
     Commanders should only appoint a sufficient number of FROs to meet wing needs. The eFlight Release process should decrease the overall number of FROs a wing needs so it should be understood that not every person who completes the FRO online training course will be selected to be an FRO.
   After this was published wings were expected to, and did, cull their number of FROs.

6. In 1998, 60-1 was 33 pages, by 2007 it had grown to 71 pages and was 69 pages in 2008.
In 2009 the document was only 14 pages with this statement on page 1 The entire regulation is completely revised, to eliminate information duplicated in other CAP regulations and improve readability.
 It started regrowing the very next year and in 2014 was up to 22 pages. The new 70-1 which replaces the 2014 version is 37 pages.

Mike
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 05:05:03 PM by sardak » Logged
Alaric
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 781

« Reply #124 on: January 07, 2018, 05:11:35 PM »

I second the call for a citation of the regulations. I look high and low and could not find it anywhere so I want to make sure I am not missing something

I'll look it up as soon as I get home to a computer

GO SAINTS!
Logged
RMW14
Member

Posts: 63
Unit: NER-PA-010

« Reply #125 on: January 07, 2018, 05:57:43 PM »

Only curious since I have been an FRO since last February and I am not a pilot (Type 1 diabetic and don't have the time or money right now to jump through hoops) and I was doing CD flight releases pretty much every day from June to Sept of this year.

I am also curious because the original thing that caught my eye was that the DO must be a pilot comment? That's kind of limiting the pool of people who might wish to do the job and could be counter productive in my mind.

That's a little concerning as the regulations require the Director of Operations to be a Pilot
[/quote]
Logged
Ryan Weir Capt
Deputy Commander for Seniors Jesse Jones Composite Squadron 304
Expert Ranger #274
CMD PAWG Central
IC3 (T),AOBD,GBD,GTL, GTM1, UDF, MO, MS, MRO
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,958

« Reply #126 on: January 07, 2018, 06:31:05 PM »

No such mandate exists.

Some wings may require or prefer that, but it's not required.

As far as I can tell, there are literally no requirements for any staff job,
up to and including National CC as even those "requirements" indicated can be waived.

Respiration and gravitational attraction in proper proportion, along with presence appear to
be the only "requirements", and even the latter is subjective.
Logged


MajTbird
Recruit

Posts: 18

« Reply #127 on: January 08, 2018, 12:05:53 AM »

Here are some interesting numbers.

Looking back through CAP's Reports to Congress and Annual Reports for total flying hours has not been productive.  Those reports included hours spent on missions but not total hours.  But, other numbers have jumped out as interesting.  So I thought I'd share.  I looked at the most recent Report to Congress, 2016, and then back at twenty-five years prior, 1991, to see how "The Big Picture" has changed over the last 1/3 of CAP's history.

The 2016 document reported 32,656 senior members and 24,091 cadet members for a total membership of 56,707.  Appropriations (from a separate document, CAP's financial report) were $27.4-million for ops and MX, $10.4-million for aircraft procurement, $1.7-million for vehicles for a total appropriation of $48.5-million.  US population was 323.1-million.

The 1991 report shows 36,486 senior members and 23,780 cadets for a total of 60,266.  The appropriation was $3.7-million from Air Force funds.  US population was 249.6-million.

So, big picture, CAP membership has declined by 6% while appropriations has increased 1,211%.  As a backdrop, the US population has increased 29.4%.

Thoughts?  Anyone see any serious issues?

CAP spends a lot of time focused on small, tactical and internal issues--and on regulations; i.e., micro-managing.  I'd argue that the FRO changes are an example of much ado about nothing while much larger issues loom.  We are slowly losing members while being substantially dependent on more and more public funding in a growing population with radically changing technology capabilities--which we are cumbersome, at best, to acquire.  In other words, we're slowly dying.  And we're at serious risk (Senator John McCain took a run at dramatically reducing CAP's funding four years ago) of losing funding should anyone take a critical look our effectiveness. 

Ask yourself this question:  If we lost Congressional funding would we survive?  Can we be self-sufficient?  Do we have the leadership for being self-sufficient?  Or is our leadership best suited for the annual government money hunt?  For two-thirds of our history we were largely self-sufficient.  So, what happened?

I see the FRO thing as an extension of a bureaucratic mindset.  And yet another slice in death by a thousand cuts.  Another poster has reported herein about the decline of FROs in his area; the same is true around where I serve.  We continue to lose good, seasoned members who are weary of the weight of paperwork and regulations that really accomplish nothing but to consume time.  And attract members who equate all that busy work with productivity (a common adage among successful entrepreneurs is, "Never confuse activity with productivity.").

What is the clue that we've officially become a top-heavy, paper-pushing, bureaucratic beast?  The kind that comes up with this new FRO convolution?  The $3.7-million that came from the Air Force in 1990 was for aircraft (mainly used aircraft).  In 2016, $27.4-million went for operations and maintenance.

While the FRO issue is a specific--but major--concern the much larger issue is serious and realistic strategic leadership that will take us from our traditional strengths to the market demands and opportunities of today and the future.

Semper Vigilans
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,226

« Reply #128 on: January 08, 2018, 12:31:46 AM »

Edit to say it was answered above but I missed it.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 12:35:30 AM by etodd » Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,226

« Reply #129 on: January 08, 2018, 12:37:22 AM »


Ask yourself this question:  If we lost Congressional funding would we survive?

With the funding loss we would also lose our Mission given to us by them.

So we would all go play golf.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,404
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #130 on: January 08, 2018, 12:41:15 AM »

Quote
The 2016 document reported 32,656 senior members and 24,091 cadet members for a total membership of 56,707.  Appropriations (from a separate document, CAP's financial report) were $27.4-million for ops and MX, $10.4-million for aircraft procurement, $1.7-million for vehicles for a total appropriation of $48.5-million.  US population was 323.1-million.

The 1991 report shows 36,486 senior members and 23,780 cadets for a total of 60,266.  The appropriation was $3.7-million from Air Force funds.  US population was 249.6-million.

Our current 550 plane fleet costs a lot more to maintain than the fleet from 1991. Prices of parts and consumables are significantly higher. That 1991 fleet was much smaller and consisted primarily of used birds. Much of what we are flying today was acquired new.

We are buying new vehicles, instead of depending on cast-off military equipment. The radio narrow band transition was not cheap, and we have another equipment upgrade coming in the next couple of years, since the EFJs are essentially beyond the end of their life cycle.

Yes, CAP spends more money these days. Where is the problem in that? Where do you see wasted money?
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,226

« Reply #131 on: January 08, 2018, 12:42:53 AM »


So, big picture, CAP membership has declined by 6% while appropriations has increased 1,211%.  As a backdrop, the US population has increased 29.4%.


We have a huge marketing problem. I'd venture to guess maybe 1% of the U.S. population knows what CAP is. They see Cadets at events as Honor Guards and more, and think they are high school ROTC.

EAA has Harrison Ford, Morgan Friedman, and others as spokespersons, and big city Ad Agencies creating marketing for them. CAP Hdqs does everything in-house and it shows.

You should start a new thread as we are now way off topic.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,404
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #132 on: January 08, 2018, 12:46:25 AM »

The horse is dead! The horse is dead! Long live the horse.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: New FRO requirements
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me