POV aircraft to/from AF funded training events?

[skydivnqt]

During AF funded SAREX's or training events in which it is written that fuel reimbursement is available for your POV travel (car/truck) to/from the training location you can submit a form 108 and receive reimbursement for the fuel cost, with the fuel receipt uploaded to WMIRS. There is no pre-approval or release needed before leaving your home for that travel. 

The question is if you own an airplane and flew it to the training event can you submit the form 108, upload a receipt and receive reimbursement for the fuel and/or hourly cost of your POV aircraft? The POV aircraft is not being used to fly any sorties, it is strictly your mode of transport to/from the event, same as your POV car would be. The form 108 does include fields for aircraft usage indicating it would be accepted. With your POV aircraft not flying actual sorties there should be no need for the CAPM 60-1; 2-4g requirements.

Those I have asked have been unable to answer this question. Does anyone have knowledge or guidance on accomplishing this?

[RiverAux]

I think our wing makes you get pre-approval for such flights and last I heard they weren't approving it.  10 years ago it was fairly common for some personal airplanes to be used for such transport purposes.  They usually made it a transport mission sortie as part of the SAREX. 

[lordmonar]

POV aircraft ARE authorised during SARs and SAREXs......and the funding to go with them.......IF they are approved before hand.

When the "ban" on POV aircraft was imposed....it was imposed with the caviate that they could still be used if required.

So...if you and your crew need to get to the mission base and you don't have a CAP aircraft.....there should not be any reason why your transport missions can't be pre-approved and logged into IMU......and used during the SAREX (assuming that it is needed).

The key is getting with your wing/group DO folks and making sure the appropriate hoops have been jumped through.

[PHall]

I think our wing makes you get pre-approval for such flights and last I heard they weren't approving it.  10 years ago it was fairly common for some personal airplanes to be used for such transport purposes.  They usually made it a transport mission sortie as part of the SAREX.

That would be if you were using the member owned aircraft on the SAREX. But for transportation to and from, that's no different then driving your POV.

[bosshawk]

I would suggest calling your State Director, if your DO folks can't answer the question.  When I was in CAP, I often used my own airplane to commute to CAP approved missions.  It was pretty simple to have the sortie(s) entered into WMIRS and then a 108 at the end of the mission.  I have only been gone a year, so doubt that much has changed.

Not sure about SAREXs, my missions were always real, live ones.

[SarDragon]

We had a SAREX last April, where several PO aircraft got reimbursed for transportation travel. No reason why they shouldn't. One even ended up flying a sortie, too.

[Al Sayre]

We have done it in the past, but it needs to be written in the Ops plan up front.  Reimbursement is $31.00/hr + Fuel IIRC.  The reason we gave (and you need a good reason) was no CAP aircraft available in that area of the state, 3+ Hr one way driving time and mission essential personnel.  The aircraft owner must also have a hold harmless agreement on file with the State Director, and the pilot must meet at least TMP requirements.

[RiverAux]

I think our wing makes you get pre-approval for such flights and last I heard they weren't approving it.  10 years ago it was fairly common for some personal airplanes to be used for such transport purposes.  They usually made it a transport mission sortie as part of the SAREX.

That would be if you were using the member owned aircraft on the SAREX. But for transportation to and from, that's no different then driving your POV.

Not in my wing -- if you wanted to get reimbursed back then (or now for that matter) it was going to be done as part of the SAREX and using a SAREX sortie.  I suppose if you wanted to fly on your own back then and not want to get reimbursed you could have done it just like most people who drive and just sign it in aftewards. 

[SarDragon]

AFAIK, all the POA flights were logged in to WMIRS as sorties.

[Radial Interceptor]

Mostly a dead topic, but...

Ten years ago, when flying private planes during actual missions or exercises was a lot more common, you just got your plane on the Form 107 (Flight Operations Log) and submitted a 108 when finished.  Even if you only ferried yourself and a friend to the mission base, and flew a corporate plane during the mission, you could still get reimbursement, if the wing were allowing it.

It's a little different today, with WMIRS becoming the primary tool.  You used to sign your car or plane in on a CAPF 121 (Aircraft-Vehicle Register) and your body in on a CAPF 103 (Personnel Register).  Now, WMIRS takes most of those functions.  If you want to be reimbursed to fly a plane, it has to have a sortie in WMIRS for it.  If the sortie is flown in WMIRS, the fuel receipt is attached to the sortie.  And before it can be flown, the sortie has to have a flight release.  You might say, "But this is just 'local' flying for the wing, on a SAREX."  But it isn't anymore.  The SAREX is an Air Force-assigned mission (AFAM), because even if it isn't TAKNG money from the Air Force (A-coded), then it's at least being flown with the permission of the Air Force liability coverage (B-coded).  The instructions for WMIRS sum it up:  "Because of this, the tail number reporting requirement will be eliminated at the wing level for all NHQ-reimbursed flying thus reducing the workload required.  In addition, the need to separately enter flight hours into the WMIRS FORM18 will be eliminated in the near future."  It has already reached the point where the only use for a 108 is for things that AREN'T in WMIRS, like batteries or protective covers.  I have van drivers come back all the time, handing me a fuel receipt, and my response is, "Scan it and upload it to your sortie."  Their shoulders drop, because they'd hoped that either a) someone will do it for them at the wing-level, or b) no one would catch the extra candy bar they put on the receipt.

What Al Sayre said was really good, and I accept it 100%.  Using a member-owned plane today is done because CAP didn't possess the resource (i.e. a multi-engine plane for a seriously overwater flight), or the wing is so big and the nearest plane was hours away.  [Let's just skip the question, "So why couldn't the local squadron--who had the plane--fly the mission?  Why would someone else have to go get it?  Should they deserve to have the plane if they can't use it?"]  Just remember, your State Director ultimately approves/denies the mission, the sorties, and the reimbursement, and if a wing is going to allow a member to fly a privately-owned plane to a mission, it will have to be clearly requested on the Training/Evaluation Request (also a WMIRS form) under "Member Owned (Not Listed)" and include the hours to be flown, the maintenance rate, and the total money to be spent.  And that's not an ESTIMATE--that's the "not to exceed" money.  So the State Director will see the request and have to approve it before your sorties can make it in WMIRS.  And when the mission is finally closed (in WMIRS!), it will be approved by the State Director before heading upstream to NHQ.  If the State Director doesn't agree, it won't be reimbursed.  I've seen sorties not approved because they didn't have 104s filled out, or because the actual nature of the flight was dubious (just out sightseeing, or using a plane on a REDCAP for a purpose which had nothing at all to do with the REDCAP).

Something you said at the beginning isn't totally correct.  You said that "There is no pre-approval or release needed before leaving your home for [privately-owned vehicle] travel."  While there may be no "flight release" nor even a requirement for a Form 109 (Ground Team Clearance), and the "sortie" won't be logged in WMIRS, it was still included **IN** WMIRS.  During the training request process, the requestor asked for, and the State Director approved, "Estimate for Vehicle Gas and Oil."  It was a catch-all column for ALL vehicle expenditures.  The requester asked for a lot of money, no doubt, and the State Director said yes.  And it wouldn't require releases or 109s.  And it could be tracked through individually-submitted 108s.  But it still comes out of the mission fund, and it's ULTIMATELY going to be entered in WMIRS for approval.  Your airplane costs can't fall under that general kind of blanket.  It will HAVE TO be approved in the request, entered as a sortie, released in WMIRS, and costs tracked through an uploaded receipt.  The reason BossHawk had no problem was because, as he said, it was always on a REDCAP, which doesn't have to be approved so far in advance--but it drags the NOC into the equasion, which can be its own animal.

And because it becomes a CAP flight on a WMIRS sortie...then, at that point, it's a "CAP Aircraft," and 60-1 rules apply, as appropriate.

So my bottom line is:  yes, you still could fly your privately-owned plane to a SAREX instead of driving.  But you can't just show up and get paid for it.  The entire point of WMIRS is to "assist CAP and Department of Defense (DoD) leaders so they can more effectively review, approve and monitor CAP's missions...and...to accurately track how our funds are being spent to support these missions."  No more sweeping it under the carpet at the wing-level!  And if everyone is on board with it--from the mission request through to the 108--you're golden.

[Eclipse]

You're confusing using a member-owned aircraft for the mission with using it to get to the mission.

Flying your own plane, reimbursed or otherwise, to, the mission, does not make it a CAP aircraft, does not mean you need a flight release, and would be no different than a regular transport sortie, beyond the reality of needing prior approval, since one aircraft could break the transport budget for most missions below eval-level.

There's no maintenance budget because we don't pay maintenance on a member-owned aircraft used to get to mission base, any more than the USAF would pay for an oil change or tires on a POV used to get to missions.

I seriously doubt this would ever be approved in most wings, because it would be ripe for an FW&A complaint, since at the end of the day it
would be a matter of convenience for the pilot to no value to the USAF for their money.

However, beyond the fact that it would cost a lot more, I don't see how this is any different than any other vehicle.  It's just a reimbursed mode of transportation.

[Radial Interceptor]

I agree that if you fly the plane to and from the mission, with no expectation of reimbursement, it is "just another form of transportation," and therefore does not make it a CAP aircraft.  But when you expect reimbursement--that makes it a "CAP Aircraft" on a "CAP Flight Activity."

The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments, and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP.  CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule."

Yet...CAP members flying their own or furnished aircraft are also covered by CAP's aviation liability policy while being operated on "corporate missions" as defined in CAPR 60-1. Liability protection for CAP and CAP members arising out of Air Force-assigned missions is provided under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  We're not talking about property damage, just liability.  FTCA is available for AFAMs, and the SAREX is an AFAM.  Therefore, if the SAREX is an AFAM, and you are flying your privately-owned plane to the SAREX, and you expect reimbursement and FTCA, doesn't it follow that *you're flying a CAP Aircraft* for the duration of the flight?

How can one say, "I expect reimbursement and coverage for liability, but this isn't official business--just 'home-to-work' stuff" ?

[Eclipse]

I agree that if you fly the plane to and from the mission, with no expectation of reimbursement, it is "just another form of transportation," and therefore does not make it a CAP aircraft.  But when you expect reimbursement--that makes it a "CAP Aircraft" on a "CAP Flight Activity."

No, it doesn't, any more than my POV becomes a "CAP Vehicle".

Please cite where the liabilty coverage is any different for an airplane than a car or motorcycle.

Therefore, if the SAREX is an AFAM, and you are flying your privately-owned plane to the SAREX, and you expect reimbursement and FTCA, doesn't it follow that *you're flying a CAP Aircraft* for the duration of the flight?

No.

How can one say, "I expect reimbursement and coverage for liability, but this isn't official business--just 'home-to-work' stuff" ?

By filing a CAPF108.  If you're in an accident in a POV on the way to a mission, CAP is not going to cover you for any liability.

[Radial Interceptor]

Let's not work around the subject by saying, "It's no different between planes and cars."  Let's stick to the subject of "Can I fly my plane?"

In my first post, I cited references.  In my second post, I didn't cite it, but I went to CAPR 900-5.  I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who has to file all this paperwork and get it approved by the State Director.  In my first post, I walked you through the correct regulatory way of requesting reimbursement for an airplane.  If you disagree, this is your chance to educate me, so that I may allow some other member to do the same thing in my wing.  But to merely say, "Fill out a 108 and let someone else deal with it" doesn't help me.  *I'M* the someone who has to deal with the paperwork.  I can state for an absolute fact that if I turn in a 108 to reimburse a member-owned plane for fuel, with no prior approval or justification, the State Director will kick it back.  Enlighten me so that I can learn a better way.

I acknowledge that you may have a State Director who does not actually pay attention to the things that cross his desk.  Mine disapproves at least one thing a month.  The lack of proper 104s, etc, were real examples.

[SarDragon]

I gotta go with Radial Interceptor on this. In that April SAREX, every one of the flights by POAs was entered into WMIRS, had a flight release, and had a 108 submitted. I was on one of the flights, and was paying attention to the entire process.

[Eclipse]

The question was whether or not a member may be reimbursed via 108 for aircraft fuel for a plane used transport to / from a mission.

The answer is "yes", if is approved in advance.

"Yes" - because CAP makes it clear that in most cases, transportation to/from missions and other activities is the responsibility of the member.
A WMIRS sortie generated to track your expense, does not turn your vehicle into a "CAP vehicle" in any sense, and CAP is not going to be liable for
an accident you have on the way to the mission base.  A lot of wings, including my own, are under the optimistic impression that having a WMIRS sortie
generated equals "signed into the mission" for the purposes of FTCA/FECA, etc.   Our questions to this effect receive answers which are less than "final",
and we are hoping to be able to get this issue moved up the chain to a point where NHQ will publish some official guidance on it.  As it stands today,
it could be interpreted either way, and a good attorney could pick apart the reasoning on either side fairly easily.  One issue with the reasoning is that
transportation sorties are not required on any level if you don't want reimbursement, and, at least historically, there have been plenty of wings
that consolidate 108's into a single reimbursement and then pay out from there.  WBP, EFT, and some recent policy changes are making that less common, but there's been no changes to any relevant 60-x reg in that regard.

"If approved in advance" not because of any regulatory requirement, but because of the realities of budgeting.  State Directors vet WMIRS sorties
primarily on whether the math makes sense.  Ours regularly asks when the mileage indicated seems too low, such as when an E350 pulls our MCP trailer
fully loaded with 5 people in the van (6MPG!).  A single WMIRS sortie for $300 for a few hundred miles would definitely get "attention", but only on the level as to "Why a POA was used instead of a COA or a POV".  With a fair explanation, that would be the end of the discussion.  CAP-USAF is concerned with good value for the money, not micromanagement of effective operations.

900-5 is only relevant for vehicles covered.  Which in this case they are not, since this is not mission use, not are they COA's or COV's.
The original cite, 60-1 2-4, doesn't apply either, based on the conditions indicated in the text itself, since CAP makes it clear that to/from is a member responsibility.

AFI 10-2701, section 3.6.2.10., doesn't apply either, since again, this is not mission use, this is transportation to/from.

There is no question that a flight release is a good idea for transport flights, but a respective wing's best-practice does not make it a requirement.

In that April SAREX, every one of the flights by POAs was entered into WMIRS, had a flight release, and had a 108 submitted. I was on one of the flights, and was paying attention to the entire process.

WMIRS entry and a 108 a required by anyone, regardless of vehicle, if they want a reimbursement.  The fact that they got a flight release doesn't mean one was required.

Finally, the logic that an expectation of expense reimbursement, whether corporate or AFAM,  automatically equals liability coverage is simply not true.
A 108 is a check for your gas to help offset a small part of the cost of being a volunteer.  Nothing more.

[sdcapmx]

In our wing, yes if approved in advance.  I can tell you that if there is a CAP AC available it should/would have to be used.  If no CAP AC available it is likely the travel by Non corporate AC would be allowed.