Cadets not allowed to fly other cadets. Period

[Eclipse]

I recall us beating this up earlier in the year, and ran across the verbiage when looking something else up.

Pretty clear now:

CAP KB Answer #: 2030
Can CAP cadets who are pilots fly other cadets in CAP aircraft?

No. See rules below from CAPR 60-1 CAP FLIGHT MANAGEMENT   5 JANUARY 2009

2-3. Passenger Requirements
d. Only pilots that are qualified as CAP Instructors, Cadet/AFROTC/AFJROTC Orientation Pilots, or SAR/DR or Transport Mission Pilots (during Supervised Missions) may carry CAP cadets as passengers or crew members. At no time may a pilot who is a CAP Cadet carry another CAP Cadet as a passenger or crew member.

[SJFedor]

Yeah, we were discussing that in the other thread about 60-1.

Kind of a shame, as it short changes the few cadets who have the drive and hours to become a MP, TMP, or Cadet O Pilot.

[CASH172]

This is something that I'm personally not completely happy with.  I've still got almost 3 years left until I'm forced out as a cadet and there are a lot of flight activities that I am not going to be able to do now.  A lot of cadets would love to find a CFI that can offer flight instruction in CAP.  Now the regs make finding something not found very often even harder.   

[Timbo]

^ Flight Officer........

[NIN]

Flight officer? Why?

To follow that logic:  by changing a little status flag in the database, 18-ish year old CFI Cadet Justin Highspeed suddenly becomes 18-ish year old CFI TFO Highspeed.  And the difference between one on Tuesday and the other on Wednesday is... exactly what?

If its an insurance thing, I think we have some poor actuaries.

If its a membership status thing, then maybe we either need to revisit the difference between 18 year old cadets and 18 year old seniors, or its time the CAP cadet program was restructured to only those individuals who are considered "non-adults."

Last I looked, even though he or she was participating in the cadet program, an 18 year old cadet is, in most states, not a minor anymore.  So whether or not they're a cadet should be immaterial.

(I also realize that this affects such a tiny percentage of cadets, but why do we even need to take this away?)

[Eclipse]

Flight officer? Why?

To follow that logic:  by changing a little status flag in the database, 18-ish year old CFI Cadet Justin Highspeed suddenly becomes 18-ish year old CFI TFO Highspeed.  And the difference between one on Tuesday and the other on Wednesday is... exactly what?

As a cadet, regardless of age, you accept little to no responsibility for your own safety or that of others, in return are any number of activities and opportunities not open to adult members.

Reverse the above for a TFO.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, somehow, and this way at least allows for late bloomers / joiners to have a run at Spaatz and other opportunities only open to more senior cadets.

[Timbo]

Flight officer? Why?

Because that is the only way around this problem today, and in the future (unless it is changed).

There is no problem here.  I think the issue is the creators of the policy felt that if a Cadet takes other Cadets up in a plane, there may be an issue of "horseplay", or showboating.  I think they felt there needs to be a distinction between the person flying and the Cadets riding.  Easiest way to do that is to make the pilot a Senior Member.  That way subconsciously, there is a feeling of separation between the Cadets and Seniors.

Honestly.....what problem are we trying to solve here.  How many Cadets are pilots, and how many of them want to take a CAP plane up.

If the Cadet wants to be PIC and fly other Cadets, sorry......become a Flight Officer.  Fair.....Not At All!  Stupid Policy......You bet it is.  Should it be changed......I am not sure, but I would lean toward no.     

[caprr275]

The NCAC had a proposal that we took to the author of the new 60-1. They told us "that they didn't know that there were cadets out there who were CFIs and that they didn't know that cadets actually took advantage of the regulation that allows cadets who are CFIs and Mission Pilots to fly."

A 200 hour 18 year old private pilot is not more quailed than a 20 year old CFI with 300 hours. Keep in mind to be a CFI you MUST be a commercial pilot with a instrument rating.  The key is a 18 year old Flight Officer is treated different than a 20 year old CFI who is a cadet.

I was told flat out that it was NOT an issue with insurance! That they didn't know that cadets were qualified under the old regulations

[Flying Pig]

Its just an old outdated rule. If a cadet is a CFI and MP and 18, Id have to say they should be allowed to fly cadets.

I think what needs to happen is to compile some info on exactly how many cadets this affects.  I knew a cadet who was professional CFI-I at a local school and he was 19, and had several minor aged students at the school.

[Mustang]

As a cadet, regardless of age, you accept little to no responsibility for your own safety or that of others, in return are any number of activities and opportunities not open to adult members.

Reverse the above for a TFO.

If you're over 18, the responsibility is yours whether you accept it or not, cadet status be [darn]ed.

[BillB]

As a cadet years ago, I flew several SAR missions (with finds) with Cadet Observers. his was when USAF controlled CAP.

[Eclipse]

As a cadet, regardless of age, you accept little to no responsibility for your own safety or that of others, in return are any number of activities and opportunities not open to adult members.

Reverse the above for a TFO.

If you're over 18, the responsibility is yours whether you accept it or not, cadet status be [darn]ed.

Cite, please, because that's not how it works.

Cadets over 18 may have civil responsibility or liability based on their age, but within the CAP Cadet Program they have the same status from a supervisory position as a slick-sleeve 12 year old.

The adults (i.e. Senior Members), are in charge and responsible, and the cadets are free to disavow.

[caprr275]

Not true because a 18 year old cadet can be issued CAP radios and a CAP credit card where as a younger cadet can not

[CASH172]

Also, an 18 year old cadet can still be a MP and IP, it's just their passengers cannot be one exclusive group of people.  The cadet's responsibility for a safe flight and well being of his/her passengers still stand no matter who is being carried.

[Eclipse]

Not true because a 18 year old cadet can be issued CAP radios and a CAP credit card where as a younger cadet can not

Not in my wing.

[Eclipse]

Also, an 18 year old cadet can still be a MP and IP, it's just their passengers cannot be one exclusive group of people.  The cadet's responsibility for a safe flight and well being of his/her passengers still stand no matter who is being carried.

In that case, the cadet may be the PIC, responsible for the airplane, however the adults in the plane are responsible for the cadet. (wouldn't that be a fun hearing).

I'm not saying its not a mess, but we need to seperate "civil adulthood" from "CAP adulthood" for these discussions.

[lordmonar]

Anyone remember my "over 18 cadets" thread?

It all boils down to that basic premis.

By definition cadets are not "adults" as far as CAP goes.  Does not matter they can work, vote, enter into contracts, or have 10000 hours as a CFI.

IN CAP they are not adults. 

The fix is simple.....eliminate the gray area....when you turn 18 you are no longer a cadet.  Those who don't like this option...then the answer is still simple....cadets over 18 have a choice.  They can be MP and MTPs as cadets....but they cannot fly other cadets.  If they don't like this then all they have to do is submit a form and all is good.

[Timbo]

^ +1

[rightstuffpilot]

As a cadet in the position to be a CFI, I spoke with the CAP DO today.  They have not had someone ask for a waiver before, but seemed fairly pro-cadet.  I was encouraged to submit for a waiver through wing and region.  If you know a cadet in this position they should be encouraged to do the same if they desire.

[Ned]

By definition cadets are not "adults" as far as CAP goes.  Does not matter they can work, vote, enter into contracts, or have 10000 hours as a CFI.

IN CAP they are not adults. 

The fix is simple.....eliminate the gray area....when you turn 18 you are no longer a cadet.  Those who don't like this option...then the answer is still simple....cadets over 18 have a choice.  They can be MP and MTPs as cadets....but they cannot fly other cadets.  If they don't like this then all they have to do is submit a form and all is good.

Patrick, Bob and others,

We've had this discussion many times, so this should be no surprise.

No matter how often you repeat this little gem, it simply isn't true.

CAP Cadets are treated as CAP cadets, nothing more, nothing less.  It has nothing to do with the age of majority.  And cadets, by definition, are military students.  Uncle Sam has cadets above and below the age of 18.  He doesn't care, and there is no reason we should either.


in rare cases, one can be a senior member under the age of 18, and it is unquestioned that 20 year olds can be either cadets or seniors.  No big deal.

The fact that we have some minor regulatory issues - like the point of this thread - is no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater and summarily throw several hundred successful cadets out of our terrific cadet program.  Doing that would damage their future prospects for college, the military, scholarships, and life in general.

We can fix these smaller issues without drastically altering a highly cadet program that has run successfully for over 60 years.


Now back to your original topic . . . .

[Timbo]

Uncle Sam has cadets above and below the age of 18.  He doesn't care, and there is no reason we should either.

So true, but those Cadets that "Uncle Sam has" are contractually obligated to the Military Service.  CAP Cadets have no contract with the Federal Government.  We are only speaking of Cadets at Service Academies, ROTC (not JROTC) and Officer Training Programs (although they rarely call them "Cadet", usually "Officer Candidate")

Cadets in prep schools etc, have no contract, unless they are also in ROTC (then they fall under the ROTC).

Before someone brings it up, YES....I know you can be a Cadet in ROTC without having a military obligation, so technically you are not counted on the rolls. 

We need to stop thinking of CAP as a military program.  It looks like one, it smells like one, but like others have said here, it is not one.  Our Cadets, carry the title Cadet but are MOST absolutely not like a military Cadet.  They may do similar things, but in the end they are not off to War as Officers.....are they? 

In this country (no matter what Wikipedia says) Cadets in military training are future Officers.  CAP is not training young men and women for military service.  Some may enter the military, but that is NOT our mission.......is it?!?!     

NED....I am not at CAP historian, but I do believe the CAP Cadet program of 60 some years ago was a program to train children for military service.  Our modern program is not. 

[BillB]

I'll go back to the arguement that at age 18 the cadets becomes a Officer Training Corp member. This allows him/her to continue cadet training to earn the Spaatz, while at the same time allows senior trainin and responsibilities. This is not a new concept, CAP in the 60's had the OTC program, but it did not allow the OTC member to continue completing achievments. That was the downfall of the OTC program. Cadets did not want to end their training and wanted to continue to be able to earn the Spaatz. Since it was voluntary, few took part. If the transfer to OTC membership was manditory at age 18 and still allowed cadet progression, the idea should fly.

[lordmonar]

Sure there are lots of over 18 cadets...and I am not advocating making them all go gray.....but by that same token....why are we trying to force the thousand of OPS personnel to accept a situation they are not comfortable with (cadets flying cadets) to accomidate the handful of cadets who are also CFIs?

Cadets can't be O-ride pilots.  They can still be MPs and TMPs...they just can't have other cadets on board.

If a cadet has heart burn about that....then, as I am constantly reminded, he can always cross over.  It is called choice.

[Hawk200]

The fix is simple.....eliminate the gray area....when you turn 18 you are no longer a cadet. 

Why is that simpler? I wouldn't be surprised to find that most coverages out there are only concerned with a person over the age of 18 years old. The simple fix would be to say "members over the age of 18". Problem solved. So what if they have cadet status instead of senior status.

....I am not at CAP historian, but I do believe the CAP Cadet program of 60 some years ago was a program to train children for military service.

I don't think our program ever had that as a goal. The original program was designed to educate young people on the military, and to "build better citizens". I don't think CAP membership ever obligated a person to join the military anymore than Junior ROTC did or does.

Many gravitate toward our program because they are interested in the military later, but not to incur an obligation. I have a few cadets in my unit that have no plans for entering the military. They enjoy it for the here and now, and potentially, the near future. I like giving those cadets a place where they feel that. And I make it clear to those that have military service aspirations that not everyone does, and make certain that they don't think less of those that don't.

[Ned]

Uncle Sam has cadets above and below the age of 18.  He doesn't care, and there is no reason we should either.

So true, but those Cadets that "Uncle Sam has" are contractually obligated to the Military Service.  CAP Cadets have no contract with the Federal Government.  We are only speaking of Cadets at Service Academies, ROTC (not JROTC) and Officer Training Programs (although they rarely call them "Cadet", usually "Officer Candidate")

Well, as you yourself point out, ROTC and JROTC have thousands of cadets over and under 18 that are not under contract to Uncle Sugar.  But I think the "contract" thing is a bit of a  distractor that doesn't focus on the key issue -- that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.

We need to stop thinking of CAP as a military program.  It looks like one, it smells like one, but like others have said here, it is not one.  Our Cadets, carry the title Cadet but are MOST absolutely not like a military Cadet. 

I think the single most defining aspect of our program is the military model used for our leadership training.

We can argue for a long time whether we are "military", "para-military", or some other description.  But ever since our program was founded during the early days of WWII our cadets have worn military uniforms (with distinctive insignia), used military customs and courtesies, and engaged in military drill and ceremonies.

Sounds kind of military to me.

Sure, we our cadets are not members of the Armed Forces of the United States.  And that is surely an important distinction to all concerned. 

But the term "military" is far broader and more inclusive than simply members of the Armed Forces.  And it seems to me that our cadets look like, act like, and most importantly learn like cadets in the military.

They may do similar things, but in the end they are not off to War as Officers.....are they? 

Most aren't.  (Many do, of course, but only after additional training from Uncle Sam.) Remember, Uncle Sam does credit portions of the cadet program towards what you would call "Officer off to War training."  For me, the Army was kind enough to waive the first two years of ROTC based simply on my cadet training.

It's also worth noting that during the majority of our history, most officers in the Armed Forces didn't go off to war, either.  Most have served honorably in peacetime.

In this country (no matter what Wikipedia says) Cadets in military training are future Officers.  CAP is not training young men and women for military service.  Some may enter the military, but that is NOT our mission.......is it?!?!     

I guess I disagree with your premise here.  Most cadets in this country are not currently in the armed forces.  I don't have the numbers here, but if we were to add up all the JROTC, USAC, non-contracted ROTC, military school, USN sea cadets, etc., the number would likely be larger than the contracted folks on their way to commissioned service in the armed forces.

Our mission is to provide leadership training to our cadets so that they can become Dynamic American Aerospace Leaders.  Some in the military, but most will be leaders in their communities.

NED....I am not at CAP historian, but I do believe the CAP Cadet program of 60 some years ago was a program to train children for military service.  Our modern program is not. 

Neither am I a historian, but I share your understanding that our program started as a direct training and indoctrination program for the Air Corps.  Those cadets learned basic military skills, wore unifoms, and practiced drill and ceremonies.  Cadets were not obligated to join, but received benefits and advanced placement if they did so.

Is it really so different now?

Ned

[lordmonar]

The fix is simple.....eliminate the gray area....when you turn 18 you are no longer a cadet. 

Why is that simpler? I wouldn't be surprised to find that most coverages out there are only concerned with a person over the age of 18 years old. The simple fix would be to say "members over the age of 18". Problem solved. So what if they have cadet status instead of senior status.

I think the problem is that we have failed to understand what the "problem" is.

On the cadet side of things...they see that they are being excluded from things.
On the Ops side of things they have a problem with cadets being in charge of cadets.

What some in CAP are scared of is a bunch of cadets going rogue on us with not senior supervision.  However, how do you write the rules that puts a SM in charge of the cadets but one of the cadets is the PIC.

Cadets want to be cadets and at the same time have all the rights and privileges of a senior member.

So there are the two view points.

So we got a simple fix for both problems....no over 18 cadets....no cadet PICs....no all cadet aircrews...no cadets flying other cadets.   The over 18 individual becomes a SM and gets all the rights and privileges of a SM.

Is it a win-win?  No of course not....but it is simple.

Am I advocating it?  No.  All I am saying to the cadets who are all upset about it....is cross over to the gray and the problem goes away.  If that does not fit into your plans...then make the choice.

NOTE.....we are not completely excluding cadets from being MPs or TMPs....they just have to have SM crews/passangers.

[Timbo]

Ned... After reading the "other" thread that this one has seemed to transform itself into, I see things from your point of view more so now than a few minutes ago.  

Cadets are Cadets, Senior Members are the "trainers and overseers".  There is a distinction.  I can see where not allowing Cadets to fly other Cadets is both fair and unfair.  Fair in that it would eliminate any chance that the Cadet Pilot decides to take his or her friends for a "joyride" on Cap's dime and eliminating the distraction scenario.  It is unfair because they have the experience, education and training to do something but are told they can't because of an arbitrary title they hold.

This can only be solved by either eliminating the restriction (very unlikely, given the fact that Cadets can't even drive vans in most situations) or getting around the restriction by transferring to Senior Member status.  This is very unfortunate, because (and I am not ashamed to say it) there are some Cadets that are more capable pilots than I could ever be.

This is an issue (not important to many out there) that should be looked into because it limits our capabilities, even in the smallest way.  I would personally allow the Cadet to fly other Cadets.  I know before I was against it, but after thinking about it for a few minutes, that was the wrong choice.  I say this because that same Cadet Pilot can change their status to Senior Member in as little as one week.  What is the major difference between an 18 year old Flight Officer and an 18 year old Cadet??  Only a title.  

   

[rightstuffpilot]

Sure there are lots of over 18 cadets...and I am not advocating making them all go gray.....but by that same token....why are we trying to force the thousand of OPS personnel to accept a situation they are not comfortable with (cadets flying cadets) to accommodate the handful of cadets who are also CFIs?

NCAC and personal in this forum advocating for cadets flying are not advocating for two new solo pilots to go up flying together.  We are talking FAA licensed CFI's.  I do believe there should be some regulations for cadets flying.  By the same token, why discourage CFI's?  Isn't that a group of people who the organization is trying to encourage?  Are our OPS personal more uncomfortable with a  SM private pilot (without an instrument rating) who has an 80% mortality rate upon entering inadvertent IMC or a 20 yearold ASMEL Commercial Instrument with a CFI?  I do agree the situation warrants some regulation, but I think most would unanimously agree that they would feel an increased safety of flight with a licensed CFI(or even commercial or instrument rated pilot).  Really we need to be reasonable by separating the idea of being a cadet from how we related it to aviation and other areas( ES has been doing it for years, some how, cadets are trusted to be AOBD or GBD at AF Evaluated missions entrusted with what could be well over a million dollars in assets).

Cadets can't be O-ride pilots.  They can still be MPs and TMPs...they just can't have other cadets on board.

Believe it or not, up until January 05 they could--all they needed was a CFI certificate.

If a cadet has heart burn about that....then, as I am constantly reminded, he can always cross over.  It is called choice.

There does not have to be a choice.  Why do we want to force the future leaders of our organization (who should be encouraged, not discouraged) into an uncomfortable position because they have excelled beyond what is standard.  This should be a group we try and encourage.  Why take away their ability to lead their peers, apply for scholarships, be members of National Cadet Advisory Council, work towards the epiphany of cadet milestones(Spaatz), and restrict their ability to attend IACE with peers their age from other countries?  A cadet is a cadet.  A CFI is still a CFI even if they are in a cadet uniform.

[lordmonar]

Ned,

When I said cadets are not "adults" I used it in the military sense of being fully ready to take on responsibilty.

"Military students" are not really "adults" in the military sense.  Sure they fly planes and shoot guns but not operationally.  They do them in a training environment.

In CAP we are talking about operational environment.  

I don't doubt that these cadets can do the job....but many in CAP are leary of the concept of an all cadet crew. (PRWG had a big news article about it a few months back).  I heard argued that with no seniors then we are in a CPP violation area.  No supervision.  So how do you write the rules that puts a SM on the plane being incharge of the cadets...and under the PIC who is also the cadet?  So the fix was to simply eliminate the possibilty.

A cadet can be a PIC....he just has to have an all SM crew.

Is this the best fix?  No....it is a simple fix to a complex problem.  Is there a fix to the cadets who feel they are not being take seriously? Sure...go gray.  Is the best fix?  No...it is just a simple one.

The problem is that for every good example of how cadets are mature and capable there are atleast two of how a cadet screwed up and got someone killed or hurt.  (FLWG and the ATV....and the CAP cadet who crashed his plane joy riding with his student pilots ticket and a passanger or two IIRC).  Is this right?  No...not really....but we are dealing with perceptions.

Alot of SM don't know cadets.  The are scared of them, of the responsibilties that come with them and the liability they have to be delt with.  I can't fix that.  I don't have the time/mone/energy to take it on.

I can fix the belly aching on the cadet side of things.

We either eliminate all cadets over 18 (not a good choice) or we just allow our cadets to make an adult choice.  Pick which goals you want to pursue and take the appropriate action.

If your thing is to fly cadets around the sky......go gray.  If you want to finish your Spaatz and fly missions....stay a cadet...just don't try to put another cadet on your crew.

[Hawk200]

What is the major difference between an 18 year old Flight Officer and an 18 year old Cadet??  Only a title.  

I don't have any problem with wholly cadet aircrews, so that is not why I'm addressing this. I don't agree that the only difference is a title. The cadet program and the senior programs are different. Different objectives, different means, different goals. The difference is far more than a title, and minimizing the difference between the two with that is false logic.

As I said above, I don't see any reason that things could be changed to address members over 18. In this case, the liability would apply to either a cadet or a senior. The status there wouldn't be relevant in the eyes of the law if they are aware that a member could hold either status at those ages. The law of the land considers an 18 year old an adult, regardles of status in CAP.

Internally, there is a great deal of difference in the programs. Externally, there probably isn't any to someone not familiar with our program.

[davidsinn]

in rare cases, one can be a senior member under the age of 18,

Say what?

[rightstuffpilot]

in rare cases, one can be a senior member under the age of 18,


Say what?

- Pregnant and under 18, but we really don't need to talk about that under Aviation and Flying

[davidsinn]

in rare cases, one can be a senior member under the age of 18,


Say what?

- Pregnant and under 18, but we really don't need to talk about that under Aviation and Flying

Last time I checked that was on the 2b and does not a senior member make.

[heliodoc]

If I was a cadet and a CFI.....

I'd either turn a senior Member and get moving on building hours rather than worrying about flyin other cadets

CAP MAY be somewhat "cheaper" and Sometimes aircraft are available

But live with the current regs........ Cadets will NOT fly cadets .......let it be

Cadets are great people but I will tell you,  just because a cadet has his /her CFI and whatnot and a whopping 300 hours doesn't mean they have seen alot of the possibilities in flying and that goes for the seniors too.

This reg I can see some merit......

[Timbo]

Here is another (albeit unnecessary) way to relate this to other things in CAP.  The USAF stops funding a Cadets O-Rides when they turn 18.  So to the Air Force an 18 year old Cadet is in a totally different category of membership than say a 17 year old.  I don't find that fair at all, and have not for a very long time.

What does this mean?  Not totally sure, but seems like someone on the AF side decided 18 year old CADET members don't have the same rights as Cadets younger.  

Sucks......yes.  So, should 18 year old Cadets be allowed to fly other Cadets?  Yes.  Perhaps it was a personal feeling  from the person who proposed this regulation.  They were most likely a pilot who believed Cadets flying was outrageous, or they were taken off a plane and replaced by a Cadet with more experience, and they felt slighted.  This is an all too common scenario!

Either way, it is an issue I hope is pushed up the channels to the next national meeting.  We can then see the what, why and by who reasons...... from the person/group that either shoots it down or allows it.  My guess.....shot down, and that will be very unfortunate.    

[Ned]

Ned,

When I said cadets are not "adults" I used it in the military sense of being fully ready to take on responsibilty.

"Military students" are not really "adults" in the military sense.  Sure they fly planes and shoot guns but not operationally.  They do them in a training environment. [. . .]

Patrick,

It is a mild understatement to say that we probably know and understand our respective positions on this issue, if for no other reason that we have been able to productively discuss it on several occasions in this very forum.  

And I know we agree on far more than we disagree on in this area.  Your CP credentials and support are unquestioned and, in fact, greatly appreciated.


But if you would all accept a gentle suggestion,  I would simply like us to avoid using the word "adult" in this discussion because it clouds and obscures the issues.  Let us use "cadet" when we mean "cadet" and "senior member" when we mean "senior member".


You are all welcome to debate whether it is appropriate to have such a restriction in the 60-1.

As a staff officer, for me the time for debate has passed.  Like everyone else, I was asked to provide input on the change to my CAP boss, and did so.  The national leadership debated this very issue and reached a decision.  

It is done, at least for now.

My job is to support the national leadership and help subordinate commanders and other leaders implement the regulations as written.

When and if there is an official proposal to change the regulation, I will again provide my input.  Until then, let's drive on and focus on issues where we can meaningfully improve CAP.


Ned Lee

[Timbo]

Cadets are great people but I will tell you,  just because a cadet has his /her CFI and whatnot and a whopping 300 hours doesn't mean they have seen alot of the possibilities in flying and that goes for the seniors too.

This reg I can see some merit......

So the 18 year old CFI that joined CAP one year ago is automatically more capable than the 20 year old Cadet who has been a CFI for 2 years and has many, many more flight hours??

My opinion......bad reg.

[Hawk200]

I heard argued that with no seniors then we are in a CPP violation area.  No supervision.  

An interesting point. It should be mentioned that cadets over 18 are required to receive CPPT. Why is it required if it doesn't seem to count? It could be argued that it's just a legalistic formality if it doesn't count for them but does for seniors.

A cadet is a cadet. A CFI is still a CFI even if they are in a cadet uniform.

I would have to agree with this. The qualification doesn't alter because of the status of the individual. The FAA doesn't care. If the individual has the appropriate qualifications to fly an aircraft, cadet status is meaningless to them.

I could even understand having a cadet qualified to fly o-rides. We're supposed to administer the program, but cadets should be able to run it themselves with minimal supervision. Something like this would give cadets far more credibility on that account. And it would certainly take a load off the senior side of the house, and eliminate any scheduling conflicts. Want O-rides? Sign out the keys, file your flight plan, have the FRO release you. It's not like a cadet can't do that.

Honestly, I don't see a case of a cadet crew joyriding. Anyone with a license is usually pretty aware of the responsibility. There is a major difference between the younger teenager who had little more than a solo and a few hours, and an 18 year old with a CFI. The one dedicated and motivated to go that far certainly has the brains to realize the responsibilities.

[stillamarine]

I thought there was an article awhile ago about an all cadet aircrew that had a find down in PR. All 3 were over 18 but still cadets.

[heliodoc]

Hey Timbo

Life's not fair anywhere.  I agree about CAP regs....... ALOT more than this needs an overhaul

[Timbo]

Honestly, I don't see a case of a cadet crew joyriding. Anyone with a license is usually pretty aware of the responsibility. There is a major difference between the younger teenager who had little more than a solo and a few hours, and an 18 year old with a CFI. The one dedicated and motivated to go that far certainly has the brains to realize the responsibilities.

Yikes.... when I was younger, and my friends and I would sign out of the Aero Club we took to the skies like allstars, and (hate to show my immaturity) goofed around.  When I look back on that......it was stupid, and dangerous and I am lucky no one got hurt.  Teens are teens and when an older adult is not around, it is common for this same thing to happen.  Not all teens are immature like I was, and they are better than I am in this regard.  There are also adults that should not even be allowed within 100 feet of an airplane, let alone drive a car.  

Peer pressure is a dangerous thing......for everyone.  I think that may have been the idea behind not allowing a Cadet to fly other Cadets.

Listen......I was stupid in my youth.  Everyone has that problem.  That is why we allow mistakes to happen and children and young adults to get off easier than if they were older.  

I would say that maturity doe not necessarily equate to the dedication it took to become a CFI.  My CFI was 47 and acted more immature than I did at 16.          

[Hawk200]

Here is another (albeit unnecessary) way to relate this to other things in CAP.  The USAF stops funding a Cadets O-Rides when they turn 18.  So to the Air Force an 18 year old Cadet is in a totally different category of membership than say a 17 year old.  I don't find that fair at all, and have not for a very long time.

What does this mean?  Not totally sure, but seems like someone on the AF side decided 18 year old CADET members don't have the same rights as Cadets younger.

Interesting. Not only doesn't have the rights of a senior, but also less than younger cadets. It's definitely discriminatory.

Perhaps it was a personal feeling  from the person who proposed this regulation.  They were most likely a pilot who believed Cadets flying was outrageous, or they were taken off a plane and replaced by a Cadet with more experience, and they felt slighted.  This is an all too common scenario!

Wouldn't surprise me. At a previous unit, I had a cadet that truly had a gift for DFing. Definitively, best in the unit, I would be surprised if there was anyone in the wing, much less the region, with the same skill.

If I was running an incident, needed a DFer, and someone told me "We'll get anyone you want, no matter where in the world they are. If they're Airborne qualified, we'll strap a chute on 'em, and toss 'em out the back so they can land right in front of your command post so you don't have to get 'em from the airport", I would give them his name.

We had a senior in the unit that always claimed to be the DF goddess, but couldn't deliver like he could. I would pick his brain sometimes, and would learn a little bit, but it would make this senior livid. She griped to the commander one time, and he replied, "He's better than you". Seems like if she ran anything, that cadet would rarely get any DF time. So I think this is definitely a legitimate suspicion.

Cadets are younger, but too many think that means inferior. That is wrong, and goes against the teamwork that we attempt to teach.

I thought there was an article awhile ago about an all cadet aircrew that had a find down in PR. All 3 were over 18 but still cadets.

I seem to remember such a thing as well. It was in the Volunteer?. If I remember properly, the PIC was 19, and I believe was a cadet light col. Don't recall details on the rest of the crew.

[Hawk200]

Yikes.... when I was younger, and my friends and I would sign out of the Aero Club we took to the skies like allstars, and (hate to show my immaturity) goofed around.  When I look back on that......it was stupid, and dangerous and I am lucky no one got hurt.  Teens are teens and when an older adult is not around, it is common for this same thing to happen.  Not all teens are immature like I was, and they are better than I am in this regard.

How many of you had CFI's, and wore a uniform? I would bet none. I accept if one did, but I have serious doubt if it was more than one.

There are also adults that should not even be allowed within 100 feet of an airplane, let alone drive a car.  

Agreed, and an indicator that young should not equate to irresponsible. There are dozens maybe even hundreds of stories of teenagers in the news that have made positive contributions to their communities, or have touched lives in manners beyond imagining. Lizzie Palmer comes to mind, in the "touching lives" aspect ("Remember Me", look for it on Youtube). Others have provided for the poor and homeless, showing compassion with great responsibility for people far beyond themselves.

Peer pressure is a dangerous thing......for everyone.

No, not unless you allow it. I experienced the pressure to drink, smoke, do drugs while I was a teenager. I didn't give in to it. I ignored those that attempted to exert it on me, or eliminated their ability to do so, by eliminating them from any place of meaning in my life. Indirectly, they would have done me harm. As such, they held no meaning to me.

Listen......I was stupid in my youth.  Everyone has that problem.  That is why we allow mistakes to happen and children and young adults to get off easier than if they were older.

Stupidity doesn't equal ignorance. I was stupid too on a lot of my decisions. I'd probably be a lot further along now if I hadn't been. But it isn't limited to youth.

I would say that maturity doe not necessarily equate to the dedication it took to become a CFI.  My CFI was 47 and acted more immature than I did at 16.

Sounds like a mid life crisis or something. But it could be in how that individual is treated. Treat people like children, and they won't disappoint you in their actions. Low expectations have less than optimal results.

Overall, this idea that youth are inherently irresponsible is wrong, and needs to be eliminated. There are cadets I would trust with my life. I have fellow soldiers that I wouldn't. Age isn't really a factor.

[Timbo]

Overall, this idea that youth are inherently irresponsible is wrong, and needs to be eliminated. There are cadets I would trust with my life. I have fellow soldiers that I wouldn't. Age isn't really a factor.

So true.  In the Silver Medal of Valor thread there are references to Cadets that risked life and limb to save another person.  Honestly, there are many (adult and child) that would run away from a dangerous situation instead of helping out another person. 

[nesagsar]

Overall, this idea that youth are inherently irresponsible is wrong, and needs to be eliminated. There are cadets I would trust with my life. I have fellow soldiers that I wouldn't. Age isn't really a factor.

So true.  In the Silver Medal of Valor thread there are references to Cadets that risked life and limb to save another person.  Honestly, there are many (adult and child) that would run away from a dangerous situation instead of helping out another person. 

I've known people in both scouts and CAP who by all logic should have recieved several awards and decorations that never were awarded, mostly because they never told anyone about thier heroism until years later.

[jimmydeanno]

in rare cases, one can be a senior member under the age of 18,

Say what?

3-2. Requirements for Membership. All applicants for senior membership in CAP must be accepted by the unit and higher headquarters and must meet the following criteria:
b. Age. Be at least 18 years of age or be a member of the Armed Forces on active duty at any age.

[Duke Dillio]

I guess this puts a damper on Col. Chazell's dream of seeing an all cadet mission aircrew....

[jimmydeanno]

^Ironically last year there was a feature article in Volunteer about PRWG and their only distress find in a couple decades being done by an all cadet aircrew...

[Eclipse]

^Ironically last year there was a feature article in Volunteer about PRWG and their only distress find in a couple decades being done by an all cadet aircrew...

All cadet?   I know they have a high-profile cadet pilot, but didn't catch that it was all cadet.

[SarDragon]

All cadet!

Here! Page 10.

[N Harmon]

All cadet!

Here! Page 10.

Looks like a cadet MP and two seniors to me...

Puerto Rico aircrew members, from left, Capt. Jessika Pazol, Cadet Lt. Col. Jose Rafols and 1st Lt. Luadys Rodriguez, stand in front of the CAP Cessna 182 Skylane they used to find the wreckage of a Partenavia Spa P.68C that crashed between Aguadilla and Ponce.

I would also like to point out that cadets over 18 can operate CAP aircraft with non-cadet passengers, but can't operate CAP cars, trucks, and vans with any passengers.

[Eclipse]

All cadet!

Here! Page 10.

Reading is Fundamental - that's clearly one cadet and two seniors, and its indicated as such in the caption.


The odds of finding three, over-18 cadets, who are qualified aircrew, (whatever the rating) in any setting other than NESA is statistically zero.

[NIN]

The odds of finding three, over-18 cadets, who are qualified aircrew, (whatever the rating) in any setting other than NESA is statistically zero.

To borrow a phrase from Smithsonia over in the "largest save" thread: "Is that based on independent research you actually did, or are you guessing?"

Because I'm here to tell you, I've seen your statistical zero more than once. Which leads me to question your knowledge of stats. 

(I learned years ago in a college stats class that a) I don't know squat about stats; and b) what I think I know in a statistical situation is probably wrong, so consult a trained professional when attempting to do statistical heavy lifting.  Much later, I worked with a guy who had a PhD in statistics and he said "Stats are easy!" to which I replied "For you, maybe.  Can I put you on retainer?"  So whenever someone starts talking stats, I'm pretty certain they're not correct.  Unless, of course, you have a PhD in stats or do that stuff for a living every day..)

1984's Operation Wolverine (fully cadet-run SAR), Grosse Ile Airport, Michigan.   We had an ALL-CADET, ALL-FEMALE mission aircrew fly SAR sorties.   I'm going out on a limb here when I say that the MP was  C/Lt Col Mary Read and her two compatriots in the cockpit were C/Maj Sue Bray and C/Maj Aletha King.  My remembery is getting a little fuzzy, but I was  in Ground Ops during that mission and there were TV cameras crawling all over the place (that was also during the Detroit Gran Prix that year, and the Goodyear blimp was staging out of that airport, so we had this big silver thing monstrosity moored next to our mission base burping from the balloonet vents all night long.. that was interesting)

Since Operation Wolverine was a yearly event, I seem to recall subsequent instances of all-cadet aircrews, but mostly in an anecdotal way. I was present and watched the media circus surrounding that particular events in 1984, and recall additional instances of that occurring, which invariably brought up the "yeah, but have you had an all-cadet, all-female mission aircrew?"....  I haven't been to an Op Wolverine in at least 10 years, and even before that I only hit them occasionally.  Maybe some of my comrades in GLR can punch up my remembery a little here....

[caprr275]

2 years ago at Operation Wolverine we had a Cadet as the mission pilot, a cadet (myself) as scanner and a flight officer as observer. The funny thing is that the FO was younger than both of the cadets and had been in cap much less time.

NIN fly up for the 2009 Op Wolverine. its still a blast

[Short Field]

Overall, this idea that youth are inherently irresponsible is wrong, and needs to be eliminated. There are cadets I would trust with my life. I have fellow soldiers that I wouldn't. Age isn't really a factor.

You can make the exact same argument against States that have graduated driver's licenses.  This is from AAA:
Comprehensive graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems ease teens into driving through a combination of mandatory practice and limited driving at night and with peer passengers. Comprehensive GDL systems have been shown to reduce fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers by an average of 38 percent, according to a 2007 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and Johns Hopkins University. AAA is a leading advocate for teen driver safety issues and remains committed to encouraging states to improve upon their graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems.

Age is a factor.

[Short Field]

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html

Here is one of the key sections:  Human and animal studies, Jensen and Urion note, have shown that the brain grows and changes continually in young people—and that it is only about 80 percent developed in adolescents. The largest part, the cortex, is divided into lobes that mature from back to front. The last section to connect is the frontal lobe, responsible for cognitive processes such as reasoning, planning, and judgment. Normally this mental merger is not completed until somewhere between ages 25 and 30—much later than these two neurologists were taught in medical school.

[Eclipse]

The odds of finding three, over-18 cadets, who are qualified aircrew, (whatever the rating) in any setting other than NESA is statistically zero.

To borrow a phrase from Smithsonia over in the "largest save" thread: "Is that based on independent research you actually did, or are you guessing?"

Because I'm here to tell you, I've seen your statistical zero more than once. Which leads me to question your knowledge of stats. 

"Statistically zero" does not equal "zero", it means it happens on rare occasion, but not often enough to change policy, or even generally be concerned about - those rare occasions can be treated as anomalies by local decision makers.

If you have to reach back 25 years for an example, you're making my point.

What may or may not have happened when the year had different leading digits doesn't make a lot of difference in today's CAP.  I've got photos of CAP helicopters, scuba teams, water rescue, and members hanging IV's in the field.

Yay for them, but don't use those pictures on the recruting posters.

I don't have access to the numbers, but I'd still be willing to bet that if you took the total number of qualified cadet aircrew vs. total number of cadets nationally, the number would be at or less than 1% (i.e "0").

[SarDragon]

All cadet!

Here! Page 10.

Reading is Fundamental - that's clearly one cadet and two seniors, and its indicated as such in the caption.


The odds of finding three, over-18 cadets, who are qualified aircrew, (whatever the rating) in any setting other than NESA is statistically zero.

So sue me. I just looked up the article and posted a link. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought it was an all cadet crew. Now we all know that it wasn't.

[snippy remark redacted]

[Hawk200]

Overall, this idea that youth are inherently irresponsible is wrong, and needs to be eliminated. There are cadets I would trust with my life. I have fellow soldiers that I wouldn't. Age isn't really a factor.

You can make the exact same argument against States that have graduated driver's licenses.  This is from AAA:
Comprehensive graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems ease teens into driving through a combination of mandatory practice and limited driving at night and with peer passengers. Comprehensive GDL systems have been shown to reduce fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers by an average of 38 percent, according to a 2007 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and Johns Hopkins University. AAA is a leading advocate for teen driver safety issues and remains committed to encouraging states to improve upon their graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems.

Age is a factor.

So what kind of license is there at age 18? You can get a pilot license at 16, but I'm not talking about 16 year old cadets flying a plane. The individual is going to be at least 18. So would the rest of the crew.

Age is not a factor when it comes to the ability to be responsible. You're providing a perfect example of my point: That youth is not inherently irresponsible, even though many think it is. If that were true, we would have far more juvenile criminals than we do.

Here is one of the key sections:  Human and animal studies, Jensen and Urion note, have shown that the brain grows and changes continually in young people—and that it is only about 80 percent developed in adolescents. The largest part, the cortex, is divided into lobes that mature from back to front. The last section to connect is the frontal lobe, responsible for cognitive processes such as reasoning, planning, and judgment. Normally this mental merger is not completed until somewhere between ages 25 and 30—much later than these two neurologists were taught in medical school.

So the brain isn't fully developed until later in life. Funny, the military trains personnel a few years below the "merger" to do all sorts of things, like handling and firing weapons, work on machinery, drive vehicles, etc, and has very few problems related to their undeveloped brains.

Many pilots are trained well below the age of 30, in both military and civilian sectors. People can drive at 16. If they're responsible enough to handle a car appropriately, they're responsible enough to handle an airplane. It's perfectly logical to distrust someone with an airplane, if they can't treat driving properly.

There's nothing in the article that says anything to the effect of "don't trust anyone under 25".  It's just not there. And if you're using that to attempt to justify not trusting cadets or other people, it's wrong. If you don't like cadets, say so. But don't try to paint them as being incapable of responsibility.

[Short Field]

Bell curve ... Bud Holland is a perfect example of one end of it.   We are talking judgement and resistance to peer pressure - not training and discipline.  All CAP is doing is avoiding a situation where you have an airplane full of Cadets flying without a Senior Member aboard.  Just don't claim age is not a factor in people taking unjustified risks.  The automotive insurance industry definitely believes age is a factor.  Yes, the military does train a lot of young people to do a lot of high tech and and high risk things.  Last time I checked, the military was a highly disciplined environment with fairly regimented and unforgiving training regime - not counting the Bud Hollands of the world.

[Eclipse]

I've met plenty of cadets that are more responsible than "mature" adults.

I've met plenty that never seem to reach a level one would consider "mature".

I've also known my fair share of mature cadets who had a "lights off" or "watch this" moment with consequences that range anywhere from "oops, sorry" to life-long impact on career, finances, and/or freedom.

Considering CAP's generally risk averse nature, is it any wonder they are not interested in doing the ORM numbers on sending three semi-formed humans in a $200K+ piece of equipment and hoping everyone stays mature? Especially when you consider they would not be allowed to do that in a ground vehicle, either.

For the record, in person I tend to give cadets the benefit of the doubt, probably too much, but for snicks I've been asking some experienced, ranking people in CAP what they think of this and the universal answer has been in agreement with the current version of 60-1.

[lordmonar]

Hawk200...

Your argument looses bite when you go to "the military...." argument.

First off.. all those things that young Airman and Soldiers are doing...are beind done under supervision.

Second...Denial is not only a river in Egypt.  Age is a factor in auto accidents....more importantly is the "peer" factor.  A 17 year old driving his car by himself is less likely to get into an accident then that same 17 year old out driving with his buds.....That was the 28% reduction AAA was talking about.  Saying it ain't so..or saying it is only a perception does not make the problem go away.

Now...for the record.....I think this is mostly about perception.  CAP is not comfortable with having to deal with an accident by a cadet PIC that involves another cadet.  They are really scared of the idea of a plane full of 19 year olds out and about with no supervision.

Right, wrong or indifferent....that is definatly a perception problem.

The problem is......moaning about how unfair it is, is not going change those perceptions.  

I don't have an answer of how to fix this perception.  The only solution to the problem is to make it go away.  We can either eliminate the problem by eliminating over 18 cadets (not a good option)...or we let the cadet make the choice about what they want to do.

They can either suck it up....contiune to fly as a cadet pilot with only SMs on board or they can cross over to the gray side and fly anyone they want.

I leave it up to you and those handful of cadets this reg affects to make informed decisions based on your wants and needs.

[NIN]

"Statistically zero" does not equal "zero", it means it happens on rare occasion, but not often enough to change policy, or even generally be concerned about - those rare occasions can be treated as anomalies by local decision makers.

If you have to reach back 25 years for an example, you're making my point.

Certainly statistically zero != zero.

However, as I stated, I am personally (as in "I put my eyes on the crew as they were walking to the plane trailing TV cameras") aware of at least ONE instance that I can easily remember, and I think at least one more where I was present at the mission but my memory is weak as to exactly when.  

And, anecdotally, I am aware of other instances where this has occurred over the years in Michigan Wing since then.  

That the instance I witnessed in person was 25-ish years ago is immaterial.  There have been additional instances, in just one of the 52 wings in Civil Air Patrol,  in the intervening 25 years.  Without going too far out on a limb, it stands to reason that MI wing was not the only wing in the country that has done that kind of thing in that time frame, either.  

Lacking specific research and evidence outside of my own experience, I cannot point and say "On June 23rd, 1991, 3 cadets flew as a mission aircrew from Pascagoula, MS..."   but I have heard, anecdotally, of this kind of thing occurring in other parts of the country, so it stands to reason that Mary Read, Sue Bray & Aletha King in the summer of 1984 were not the only cadets to ever fly as an "all cadet" aircrew. (ie. while I am no NASA  historian, the only space shuttle launch I have ever witnessed in-person was STS-116, but I do know of other instances of the shuttle visiting low earth orbit both before and since. While I cannot quote for you the mission numbers and dates without additional research, I'm reasonable certain I can rely on that information alone to show that shuttle missions other than STS-116, or missions that I did not specifically follow and watch their launch live on TV, have and will be flown..)

What may or may not have happened when the year had different leading digits doesn't make a lot of difference in today's CAP.  I've got photos of CAP helicopters, scuba teams, water rescue, and members hanging IV's in the field.

Yay for them, but don't use those pictures on the recruiting posters.

But they do form a part of our history and knowing where we've been, and WHY we're either not still there, or have evolved from that, is necessary to avoid repeating mistakes going forward and learning from our forebearers.  Ignoring things like that on the basis of "well, we're not still doing that" is akin to jamming your head in a posterior orifice and hoping that "it all just goes away."  Otherwise, we keep making the same dumb mistakes.

I don't have access to the numbers, but I'd still be willing to bet that if you took the total number of qualified cadet aircrew vs. total number of cadets nationally, the number would be at or less than 1% (i.e "0").

Which begs another question: If the number is statistically zero, why do we even bother regulating it?  Have there been a rash of accidents that occurred when there were 3 19-year old cadets joyriding in a CAP plane?  Any hull loss?  Damage to limbs?  Deaths?  

CAP regulations, much like the FARs, are often "written in blood," meaning someone had to go and actually do the stupid thing that you're now being told to not do again, and somehow paid for their stupidity by either bending a plane, getting caught by the Air Force, or being injured in some way.

Did we have an all-cadet aircrew go "off the reservation?"

I have had 2 cadets in my squadron get their licenses while still a cadet.  Both have taken me up in a CAP plane for an hour or so, and while I am not a pilot, I think I know aviation competence and judgment when I see it.   Neither managed to bend the plane, or me, prior to returning the aircraft to the chocks, and the aircraft was even usable by the next 10 people on the flight schedule!  Whether they wore pips or bars, or their ID card said "cadet", they were FAA-licensed aviators who met or exceeded the standard as pilots and as Civil Air Patrol pilots.   That should be good enough.

So why the restriction?

[Hawk200]

Hawk200...

Your argument looses bite when you go to "the military...." argument.

First off.. all those things that young Airman and Soldiers are doing...are beind done under supervision.

Not really. Our cadets have more supervision than younger military members do. Far more.

They can either suck it up....contiune to fly as a cadet pilot with only SMs on board or they can cross over to the gray side and fly anyone they want.

I leave it up to you and those handful of cadets this reg affects to make informed decisions based on your wants and needs.

In other words, leave it alone, or leave other people forced to make choices they shouldn't have to. Seems like washing of hands to me. It also makes a few things clear.

I think NIN's post makes the point quite well. There hasn't been any reason to deny cadets' the ability other than status. Looking at the reality of it, there is no reason an 18 year old totally cadet aircrew shouldn't be able to do a mission, considering that a 18 year old senior member aircrew can by the books.

It's simply a matter of status. Requiring grey epaulets instead of blue ones is complete garbage. Tell me I'm wrong, but make sure you understand the repercussions of doing so.

[rightstuffpilot]

Well, there is officially a Cadet CFI. 

[flyguy06]

Yeah, I dont agree withthis rule. I know cadets that are very good pilots. Why shouldnt they be allowed to fly other cadets? If you are a FAA certificated pilot then it shouldnt matter wheather you are a cadet or senior member. Again,like I asked in a different thread on a different topic, whats the diff between a 20 year old SM pilot and a 20 year old cadet pilot? Nothing. Why is one able to carry cadets and the other not?

And we did one 18 year old cadet CFI years ago in my wing. I think he went on to fly for an airline.

Anyway, I hope they change this rule.

[PlaneFlyr]

I think the comparison between driving a car and flying is a bit weak.  I tend to believe someone spending thousands of dollars training to fly an aircraft, and building up the requisite 200+ PIC hours to become a mission pilot, would make them as safe as any other member with equal time.

I was a ground team leader at 15 (back when such things were allowed), and led several teams that were entirely cadets, with the exception of a new SM driver, with only GES qualification, who we needed to operate the vehicle.  The team was always successful at locating our targets, and there were never any issues encountered due to "immaturity".  We were taught to take our responsibility seriously, and we did. 

I have trouble believing that cadets can't be responsible just due to their age, when I know for a fact that my team and I were.  There are individuals who may be immature (one of our local CFII's who is in his 50s comes to mind), but the check ride and qualification system should sufficiently weed out any who pose a risk. 

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure why this is being resurrected, but so be it.

We need to seperate this idea of a cadet's relative ability from their status as a cadet. 

Cadets are not "adults" in the eyes of the program, period, therefore they are not authorized to be in responsible supervisory charge of other cadets, period.  Being a cadet affords you any number of opportunities such as IACE, NCSA, Encampments, and scholarships.  The trade off is not being considered an adult, regardless of your age, within CAP.

There are good arguments on both sides of the house for whether we should maintain this status, however changing it will fundamentally change the existing CP, and if you're doing it because of cadet aircrews, you're doing it for a very small number of members.

CAP has to have a line somewhere, its 21 today.

I think the comparison between driving a car and flying is a bit weak.  I tend to believe someone spending thousands of dollars training to fly an aircraft, and building up the requisite 200+ PIC hours to become a mission pilot, would make them as safe as any other member with equal time.

Maybe - however one cannot rule out the "watch this" factor of a developing mind, especially in an airplane without an adult in it.  We're also not just talking about mission pilots - by the time you get to that level most cadets would be aged out anyway. 

The real risk here would be transport mission pilots building hours with their buddies, or orientation pilots who, by definition would be flying cadets.

[Ned]

There are good arguments on both sides of the house for whether we should maintain this status, however changing it will fundamentally change the existing CP, and if you're doing it because of cadet aircrews, you're doing it for a very small number of members.

Why do you say that?

Heck, we've had the rule both ways just in the last few years and I haven't noticed any fundamental changes to the cadet program.  What sort of changes have you noticed?

But I certainly agree that the rule affects only a very small number of mission-qualified aircrews.

But if I was down in the wilderness, it only takes one aircrew to find me . . . .

[Eclipse]

^ I was referring to changing the max cadet age, not the sub-set issue of whether cadets can fly other cadets, but it is part of the larger, continuing argument about that issue.

There's so few cadet pilots that changing it either way has little effect on the program itself, except to weaken the argument that cadets can't supervise other cadets.

[SJFedor]

The real risk here would be transport mission pilots building hours with their buddies, or orientation pilots who, by definition would be flying cadets.

For TMPs, yeah, I feel you. But to be an o-pilot, you actually need the same amount of time as being an MP.

I've tried to stay away from this topic, and I'll leave it at this. It sucks that it does short change the few very advanced, high speed cadets that have achieved the ratings and hours that make them eligible for these qualifications/opportunities. But, for now at least, it is what it is, and we just have to salute and execute.

Write letters to your Wing/CC, express your displeasure. Have him do the same up his lines. That's all that can really be done right now.

[flyguy06]

Cadets are not "adults" in the eyes of the program, period, therefore they are not authorized to be in responsible supervisory charge of other cadets, period. 

then why do cadets have leadership positions such as cadet commander? Dothey not supervise other cadets? Thats my whole premise about making the CP more serious because it takes a certain level of maturity to do this

Maybe - however one cannot rule out the "watch this" factor of a developing mind, especially in an airplane without an adult in it.  We're also not just talking about mission pilots - by the time you get to that level most cadets would be aged out anyway. 

The real risk here would be transport mission pilots building hours with their buddies, or orientation pilots who, by definition would be flying cadets.

If the FAA has deemed the cadet to be mature enough toissue them a Private pilots cetificate, then that cadet should understand his responsobility as PIC (FAR 91.7)  So if the FAA considers the cadet mature enough to fly passengers (including his friends) why doesnt CAP?

[Eclipse]

If the FAA has deemed the cadet to be mature enough toissue them a Private pilots certificate, then that cadet should understand his responsibility as PIC (FAR 91.7)  So if the FAA considers the cadet mature enough to fly passengers (including his friends) why doesn't CAP?

Same basic argument as the state indicating a cadet is capable of operating a motor vehicle, yet CAP does not allow a cadet to drive a COV with other cadets in it.

Its simply a risk the corp has chosen not to bear.

[SJFedor]

Cadets are not "adults" in the eyes of the program, period, therefore they are not authorized to be in responsible supervisory charge of other cadets, period. 

then why do cadets have leadership positions such as cadet commander? Dothey not supervise other cadets? Thats my whole premise about making the CP more serious because it takes a certain level of maturity to do this

Maybe - however one cannot rule out the "watch this" factor of a developing mind, especially in an airplane without an adult in it.  We're also not just talking about mission pilots - by the time you get to that level most cadets would be aged out anyway. 

The real risk here would be transport mission pilots building hours with their buddies, or orientation pilots who, by definition would be flying cadets.

If the FAA has deemed the cadet to be mature enough toissue them a Private pilots cetificate, then that cadet should understand his responsobility as PIC (FAR 91.7)  So if the FAA considers the cadet mature enough to fly passengers (including his friends) why doesnt CAP?

Honestly, I'm willing to bet it's an insurance underwriter thing more than anything else. 60-1, in previous editions at least, and probably in this one, restricted any member under the age of 18 (which meant all cadets >18) from flying with ANY passengers on board, SM or otherwise, the exception being a CFI. I'm willing to fully bet that ruling was insurance driven.

[flyguy06]

I bet you are right

[rightstuffpilot]

Interesting Fact: A private pilot is sitting in the front giving an O-Flight to a cadet.  I'm going along for the ride and sitting in the back, as a CFI.  If that private pilot messes up, through FAA case law, I'm still responsible--reguardless of what CAP things--the FAA constitutes a higher authority when it comes to my certificates.

[Eclipse]

Interesting Fact: A private pilot is sitting in the front giving an O-Flight to a cadet.  I'm going along for the ride and sitting in the back, as a CFI.  If that private pilot messes up, through FAA case law, I'm still responsible--regardless of what CAP things--the FAA constitutes a higher authority when it comes to my certificates.

But as a cadet, you wouldn't be sitting in the back as a CFI, right?

Does your mere presence and status as a CFI provide / require the authority?  You can't really do much from the GIB spot but yell "knock it off".

[lordmonar]

Interesting Fact: A private pilot is sitting in the front giving an O-Flight to a cadet.  I'm going along for the ride and sitting in the back, as a CFI.  If that private pilot messes up, through FAA case law, I'm still responsible--reguardless of what CAP things--the FAA constitutes a higher authority when it comes to my certificates.

Which case law is that?

How can any passanger be held liable for the actions or inactions of the PIC?

If the PIC was under your instruction I can see....but as passanger? 

[flynd94]

Pat,

I asked this question to the local FSDO folks and, to the lawyers at AOPA.  My concern was I sometimes like to sit in the back on Mission and play scanner.  Say the private pilot up front makes a mistake and, bends metal. 

According to AOPA and the FSDO, me (ATP, CFII type) could be in trouble also, even though I wasn't the one manipulating the controls.

Their reasoning is that even though I was not manipulating the controls, I as a more experienced pilot should of noticed the situation going bad and, interjected.  It sucks but, thats why I pay for insurance for my CFII and ATP tickets.  I have also started to limit my time in the back seat.  If I am in a plane (CAP or GA), I sit in the front seat so, I can interject to save my tickets.

[Eclipse]

I can't dispute what you were told, but I am also somewhat dubious as to how well that would ever stick in court.

What you're effectively saying is that GA CFI pilots are never allowed to be simple "passengers' in any plane in which they are rated.

What if you're asleep?  What if you're a paying passenger on a charter flight?

[flynd94]

I can't dispute what you were told, but I am also somewhat dubious as to how well that would ever stick in court.

What you're effectively saying is that GA CFI pilots are never allowed to be simple "passengers' in any plane in which they are rated.

What if you're asleep?  What if you're a paying passenger on a charter flight?

Welcome to the world of being a ATP/CFI in a GA aircraft.  Part of the FAA's reasoning is that from the back seat of a GA aircraft, I should be able to effect a change.  Now if I am in the back of a King Air, on a charter flight, I am not responsible.  Generally, the guys/gals upfront have more experience than the avgerage CFI in the back.

Remember there is no "court" really in  the FAA.  At most you would get a "Letter of Investigation" in your file.  Not the end of your career but, it could hamper it.  Once you get your Comm/ATP/CFI you enter into a new world.

[lordmonar]

I can't dispute what you were told, but I am also somewhat dubious as to how well that would ever stick in court.

What you're effectively saying is that GA CFI pilots are never allowed to be simple "passengers' in any plane in which they are rated.

What if you're asleep?  What if you're a paying passenger on a charter flight?

Welcome to the world of being a ATP/CFI in a GA aircraft.  Part of the FAA's reasoning is that from the back seat of a GA aircraft, I should be able to effect a change.  Now if I am in the back of a King Air, on a charter flight, I am not responsible.  Generally, the guys/gals upfront have more experience than the average CFI in the back.

Remember there is no "court" really in  the FAA.  At most you would get a "Letter of Investigation" in your file.  Not the end of your career but, it could hamper it.  Once you get your Comm/ATP/CFI you enter into a new world.

In did quick google search and found a couple of references to this subject.

I'm not a lawyer...but...what I take down from this is that a CFI doing "instructions" is always the PIC no matter what the rating of the guy in the left seat.

It does not mean if a CFI is flying in the back as a passanger they are somehow responsible.

[CASH172]

If there are concrete references to this subject I'd like to see them.  This isn't a discussion of who is PIC, but whether an experienced pilot can be held responsible for not acting or saying something when he/she could have. 

[Eclipse]

If there are concrete references to this subject I'd like to see them.  This isn't a discussion of who is PIC, but whether an experienced pilot can be held responsible for not acting or saying something when he/she could have. 

Ditto - I think you need more than tribal knowledge before most of us are going to believe it.

The FAA must have some written regulations which are applicable.

[lordmonar]

Here is the discussion over at Pilots of America
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27372

[Eclipse]

Can I suggest a split here?

This is a fairly important topic to a lot of our people, but its veered from the original post.

[Flying Pig]

Ill tell you what.  If I am responsible for the outcome of the flight everytime Im the guy holding the highest rating...Im logging the time!!!!

[Bluelakes 13]

I think we're mixing a few things here:

Presuming this is an OFLIGHT (A15/B15) given by a CAP OFLIGHT PILOT to a CAP CADET, then the rules are pretty clear.  CADET in the back is on a 99 ride.  PERIOD.

Any change to any of the capitalized nouns, changes the entire consequence....