New FRO requirements

[sardak]

OK, then. Please define 'corporate mission' per the above, as now I'm getting fuzzy on this.

What about my C-12 IFR training flights I'm paying for out of pocket? Thats not a 'corporate mission' is it? Yet I have to get a FRO to sign me off.  Or any other C-12 flights I do to keep current?

I'd say RTFM, but since that seems to be difficult, here it is right from the regs:

CAPR 70-1, Terms, page 34, 4 Dec 2017:
CAP Corporate Mission – Any CAP flight activity that is not an Air Force Assigned Mission (AFAM).

Air Force Assigned Mission – As defined in AFI 10-2701, Organization and Function of the Civil Air Patrol, any CAP flight or ground activity that the Air Force approved under an A or B mission symbol. See also CAP-USAFI 10-2701, Civil Air Patrol Operations and Training.

CAPR 900-5 THE CAP INSURANCE/BENEFITS PROGRAM
Section 1 The Civil Air Patrol Risk Management Program
a) CAP, along with the Air Force provides liability coverage for CAP the organization and CAP members who volunteer their services to CAP and country. CAP coverage will apply when CAP is engaged in corporate activities or missions. The Air Force coverage applies when CAP is engaged in missions approved by CAP-USAF or the Air Component Commander as Air Force-assigned.

Section 8 The National Headquarters Liability Insurance Program.
a) These policies provide liability protection for CAP members while engaged in CAP duties other than Air Force-assigned missions. (Liability protection for CAP and CAP members arising out of Air Force-assigned missions is provided by the United States as CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality under title 10 United States Code section 9442(b)(2).

Mike

[Mitchell 1969]

Realizing that this horse has returned from the dead and is, once again, on life support...

I can buy into the reassurances and liability protections that have been given here. But, the language that puts one CAP member I to being the conscience of another individual, with that individual being potentially hundreds of miles away, seems to be flat out silly. It's not quantifiable, not measurable, open to wide interpretation and pretty much worthless. It doesn't give anything of value to CAP and would cost nothing for CAP to remove it. I sure hope they do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IFLY2]

Mitchell 1969, your observations are the exact same that began this thread and you have lots of company.   Apparently, enough members asked the same questions and had the same reservations that the corporate decision makers are looking into it.  Many FROs have taken a "wait and see" attitude towards this as well.  In the two squadrons closest in my area, we've lost 60% of the FROs due to this change.  Personally, I had the same knee-jerk reaction.  After email exchanges with Ron at NHQ, I am seeing that what we see in the training is not what was meant.  From one of the emails, Ron O. sent this:

"First, the FRO is not assuming the responsibility for the safety of the flight, the FROs are the knowledgeable members that are there to discuss possible risk and safety factors with the PIC.  The PIC is ultimately responsible for the safety of flight.  The FRO is the sanity check that gives the PIC the opportunity to discuss the flight with a fellow pilot to determine if they, the PIC, has thought of all the risk and implemented ways to mitigate the risk. 

Second, the FRO should also be familiar with the rules for flight releases associated with the mission symbols.  For example, one of the areas that is confusing to most pilots is the ability of pilots whose qualifications have expired to fly their evaluation as an A7 mission.  These missions cannot be reimbursed and have to be flown as B7 or C7 missions."

So, the PIC is still in charge and the FRO is helping to make sure CAP has it's share of checkboxes filled in correctly.  That they've gone way overboard with that is plain to see.  It's what they do.  From a business standpoint, I'd prefer to see CAP have a mechanism that facilitated efficient use of members time and aided in getting to the launch.  What we have doesn't have reason to support it.  At least, CAP doesn't offer a reason.  Nor are there any data points that say the changes will make CAP flying "better".

Really, we are left with these ideas and expressions which are so disconnected with the regs. that many of us stopped to consider whether it is a good idea to continue performing this task.  I take some comfort from Ron's statement, "the FRO is not assuming the responsibility for the safety of the flight."  This, coming from a paid employee at NHQ, directly contradicts the new training material and, to me, calls into question the validity of all of it.  The bottom line is that a bad idea was presented very badly and now a lot of us want clarification.

[Nick]

The FRO is the sanity check that gives the PIC the opportunity to discuss the flight with a fellow pilot to determine if they, the PIC, has thought of all the risk and implemented ways to mitigate the risk. 

That would be great if all FROs were pilots.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

In the two squadrons closest in my area, we've lost 60% of the FROs due to this change.

"Lost" or "were not retained"?  There's a difference, and one of the parts of the new program was
reducing the number of FROs.

Saying they lost "60%" is meaningless without knowing how many they had, and why the number dropped.
My wing doesn't assign FROs based on a given squadron, since that's actually irrelevant.

If you have two, not retaining one is a "50% loss", but it's not out of the realm that one of those hasn't released a
flight in 5 years and was dropped, not "lost".  It's also possible some of those "60%" couldn't be bothered to check
their email and / or take the refresher.

[etodd]

That would be great if all FROs were pilots.

I didn't realize an FRO could be a non-pilot. I really think a FRO should be a pilot, so they fully understand all the issues , from PAVE to Weather to NOTAMS, and more, instead of just reading off a checklist with the pilot.

[IFLY2]

Eclipse, it's also possible that I interviewed each FRO to ascertain why they chose not to renew under the new training.  It's a small sample I'll grant but it's the limit of our experience and constitutes the entirety of pilots and FROs we've used locally as a self-sustaining unit.  Having 4 of 6 decline to continue is significant.  I failed to mention that one who did renew will not release flights under this training so, really, we've lost 80%.  Oops, the one remaining isn't a pilot so, in spite of his wanting to contribute, we don't have any FROs remaining in the two squadrons.

You are correct that it is important as to why we have this reduction in FROs.  There is a vast difference between very involved and dedicated members cutting back their donation to the corporation and sweeping aside members who didn't even know they had FRO status.  In our case, we're losing highly productive members not one of which would view "excellence" as just doing what you're told to do.  This hits squarely on the double-edged feature of "retention", both the quantity and, more importantly, the quality of who continues to volunteer service to the corporation.  I'm concerned that as the ratio of accountants to workers increases, CAP will go the way of Ford Motor Company.

Still, I think the information I've gotten from NHQ and posted here will provide valuable fodder for those who are carefully considering this issue.  Back to waiting for the results of corporate reviewing this mess.  Any bets on that outcome?

BTW, could you cite your source for your statement regarding CAP desiring to reduce the number of FROs?  That could actually prove interesting and it certainly seems to be working.

[SarDragon]

The FRO is the sanity check that gives the PIC the opportunity to discuss the flight with a fellow pilot to determine if they, the PIC, has thought of all the risk and implemented ways to mitigate the risk. 

That would be great if all FROs were pilots.

I'm pretty sure they are in CAWG. ISTR a supplement to that effect.

[Nick]

I agree that it makes sense to have pilots be FROs. There's a logical rationale to it. But that's not the uniform case across CAP; for right or wrong, there are a plethora in my wing that are not pilots, and they are fine FROs when the scope of duties are limited to sanity checking that a proposed sortie meets the requirements of CAP regulations. Many became an FRO in order to become an AOBD or an IC. Others are working as operations staff at various levels. Sure a commander could just say that day-to-day release FROs must be pilots, but again, that's not always the case.

My point is that you just cannot expect them to be a second set of eyes to assess nuanced risks to safety of flight behind what is disclosed on the ORM worksheet without additional training, and even then, would you want to?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[IFLY2]

70-1 does not require an FRO to be a pilot.  There is some haziness to their requirements though.  Here's the reg.:

4.5.1. CAP Flight Release Officer (FRO)
  4.5.1.1. FROs must have flying experience either as a pilot or as an aircrew member. Pilot or aircrew experience should preferably be within CAP, but external experience is acceptable.  FROs do not have to be current to fly within CAP. Additional IC guidance can be found in paragraph 9.10.2.5. In order to be an FRO, personnel must also:
  4.5.1.1.1. Pass the online CAP FRO training course every four years (current FROs must complete new training by 1 January 2018 to remain qualified) or as updated by NHQ; and
CAPR 70-1 4 DECEMBER 2017 5
  4.5.1.1.2. Be designated as a CAP FRO by the Wing or Region Commander, CAP/DO, or their designee, with the appointment documented in Ops Quals.

Following on that, what is an aircrew member?  Here's the definitions provided also in 70-1.

CAP Aircrew Definitions
CAP Auto Tow Operator – Member qualified to operate a ground tow vehicle to launch CAP gliders.
CAP Check Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to administer an initial or renewal CAP proficiency check to CAP member pilots in CAP aircraft, and to endorse the CAP Form 5.
CAP Check Pilot Examiner – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to administer an initial or renewal flight check to CAP member pilots in CAP aircraft for CAP Check Pilot privileges, and to endorse the CAP Form 5 accordingly.
CAP Flight Release Officer (FRO) – A CAP member who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to release CAP flights.
CAP Instructor Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to give flight instruction to CAP members.
CAP Instrument Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to act as pilot in command of CAP aircraft under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules.
CAP Orientation Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to conduct Orientation Flights for CAP, ROTC and JROTC cadets.
CAP Mission Pilot – See CAPR 60-3.
CAP Mission Check Pilot – See CAPR 60-3.
CAP Mission Check Pilot Examiner – See CAPR 60-3.
34 CAPR 70-1 ATTACHMENT 2 4 DECEMBER 2017
CAP Senior Flight Release Officer – An FRO with significant operations experience and an instrument airplane rating (need not be current) that is conducting flight releases for more complex missions.
CAP Solo Pilot – A CAP member who holds either a student pilot certificate or is a rated pilot, is endorsed by a CAP Instructor Pilot, and is authorized in accordance with this regulation to perform solo flights in CAP aircraft.
CAP Tow Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to tow CAP gliders using a CAP airplane.
CAP Tow Pilot Trainee – A CAP pilot who is in training to tow CAP gliders using a CAP airplane.
CAP Tow Pilot Trainer – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to train others to tow CAP gliders using a CAP tow plane.
CAP Transport Mission Pilot – See CAPR 60-3.
CAP Pilot – A CAP pilot who is qualified and authorized in accordance with this regulation to operate as pilot in command of CAP aircraft only under visual flight rules.
CAP Winch Operator – A CAP member who is qualified and authorized

[IFLY2]

I meant to add that I don't see Observer or Scanner or AP in this list.  That's what I found odd.  Yet a Winch Operator can be an FRO?  Also, "flying experience" isn't quantified and could be called one flight or an aborted takeoff if you broke ground.

Sadly, more evidence this thing wasn't completely thought out before implementation.

[etodd]

With all this controversy, I feel like I'm missing something. So I just went and studied up and took the FRO test and passed. We'll see if Wing approves me ....

[MajTbird]

Glad we're still talking. 

Some good data has been shared; it sure is more interesting than conjecture.  I do wish CAP NHQ shared data freely.  At Stan/Eval Check Pilot school, for instance, we spend two days (and about $200 for hotel/food/travel) being told, "Don't be stupid."  Never have we gone over accident reports, data, anything of the sort.  Missed opportunities.

I searched the online NTSB database for all accidents where "Civil Air Patrol" was the aircraft owner.  Their online database goes back to 1982.  From then to now there are 164 accidents where CAP was the aircraft owner.  I randomly chose two dozen of those accidents and studied the final cause determinations.  (14 is a reasonable sample size where the population is 164).  I didn't find any accident (of the 14) where any of the FRO procedures, questions, review of ORM, etc., would have--could have--possibly prevented the accident except for one.  That one was an IFR flight where it could be argued that ORM and another set of eyes could have resulted in the flight not being released.  But, the flight was not below minimums, the crew was current and competent, and there were no flight conditions that would appear to have offered clues that the two on board were going to suffer a stall/spin accident.

All the other accidents I looked at just had some unusual and unpredictable occurrences (like hitting a runway sign after take-off) or the usual chain of events that started innocently but culminated in an accident.

I am weighing spending the $75.00 quoted to me to download the CAP accidents and run some statistical analyses on the numbers and text mining on the final cause determinations.  Surely there is some good guidance to be gleaned from those reports regarding the possible effectiveness of FROs "to ensure safety."  It would also be interesting to compare CAP annual flying hours/accidents to General Aviation statistics. 

If anyone is interested in chipping (not $$, your time to get annual CAP flying hours since 1982) in to the research I'd appreciate the help.  Flying hours may be recorded in CAP's annual reports (and reports to congress) so going back though those might be the best way to ferret out those numbers.  Here is a link to the archives: https://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/cap_reports/

I personally believe the best use of the FRO is purely administrative, as it was.  So far I am not convinced that increasing the FRO workload and involvement will contribute to safer flight outcomes.  And I am not convinced that our personal liability as an FRO is eliminated.  Just because CAP says they will defend us in court and be responsible for any liability (though that is important) I still don't care to risk going through that miserable experience.

Best to all and thanks for the lively and helpful comments.

[RiverAux]

Studying the CAP accidents probably won't reveal much about the possible safety benefits of going through an FRO.  You would probably be better off examining non-CAP accidents to see what percentage of them had factors that an FRO might have addressed.  But first, I guess you'd need to come up with a list of the FRO-related factors that would be considered.  What do we think those would be?

[FW]

Studying the CAP accidents probably won't reveal much about the possible safety benefits of going through an FRO.  You would probably be better off examining non-CAP accidents to see what percentage of them had factors that an FRO might have addressed.  But first, I guess you'd need to come up with a list of the FRO-related factors that would be considered.  What do we think those would be?

Most CAP aircraft "accidents" are caused by the "rental car" mentality of pilots and aircrews.  An FRO has no control over such ridiculousness.  FROs are good to mitigate such problems, however one is only as effective as the PIC is willing to be honest.  This is where a commander is so important in the process.  Commanders must insure FROs are trustworthy, and Pilots/Crew are serious with Corporate Property.  "Free Flying" is NOT free...

[Alaric]

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

[etodd]

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

At last week's meeting we talked of just the opposite. You do not have to be a pilot to be a MS or MO. And a MP needing to go SAR is useless without a full crew. We are trying to encourage our non-pilot members to be MS and MO. As a MP, I'm just driving the bus. The MS and MO with their eyes outside are the ones who will see the target. One blink and they could miss it. Very important and tiring jobs. Huge responsibility.  Sell it to your non-pilot Seniors.

Edited to add AP as well.  Many of our missions are AP in the back instead of MS. You do not have to be a pilot to be an AP.

[IFLY2]

I haven't looked at many other threads here but I'm finding it fascinating in how the posts allude to the variety of experiences members have had in CAP.  I think FW makes a good point but I question whether adding an FRO to the equation will solve that problem.  Why not just adjust the attitude of the pilots?  I would say that could be better handled on a Form 5 but I've seen too many instances where a pilot flies perfectly under "test" situations and then reverts to less than desirable practices on their own.

Still, I can't rid myself of the notion, under the new FRO training, that CAP is providing PICs with a bad girlfriend, who's constantly looking to criticize and question your every decision.  Or is that just my experience?

[etodd]

I haven't looked at many other threads here but I'm finding it fascinating in how the posts allude to the variety of experiences members have had in CAP.

The differences in Squadrons can be vast.  I visited my squadron nearly 10 years ago and it only took 2 meetings to know I couldn't work with these folks. Visited again 7 years later and the whole tone and atmosphere was completely different (several faces no longer there) and I've been very happy here ever since.

Only takes a couple bad apples to spoil a Squadron. How to get rid of them is 'the question'.

[Nick]

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