New FRO requirements

[Ohioguard]

Before the FRO we would jump in and go flying.  Of course there were a lot fewer corporate ac back then.  A lot of surplus ac and mostly member owned. 


JCW

[MajTbird]

I went back to see if I was missing something - all this over a non-regulatory slide in a
presentation - it's called "rehtoric".  Nothing more, nothing less.

If it's just "rhetoric" then simply remove it.

But, verbatim from the slides:

• To ensure the safety of all flight operations.
• To ensure all personnel involved in the CAP Flight Release program understand the responsibilities/results/consequences of release decisions.

These two are from the second slide entitled "Reason for Refresher Training."  If there are no consequences anticipated or being placed on a FRO then why does CAP feel the need to inform you of them?  This mindset was predicated in the previous FRO course where there is verbiage about the likelihood FROs and their release process of "winding up in court" so at least someone at CAP understands the legal exposure.  That sentence, however, was with regard to if a deceased's family would be awarded CAP insurance or not; thus, it is clear that CAP NHQ anticipates (because they're been through it) lawsuits as the result of accidents.  If that's the case, why isn't the "rhetoric" more closely examined and safeguards put into the FRO program to protect members?

From the third slide (also under the title of "Reason for Refresher Training.")

• Bottom line, don't release a flight you're not comfortable with and feel free to ask for assistance through the chain of command.

Here, intentional or not, CAP isolates you.  I can hear the line of questioning in court now:  "Did you release the flight?"  "Were you completely comfortable releasing the flight on your own?"  "You chose to not check with anyone else in CAP to get their input before you authorized the flight, you chose to release it yourself after reviewing all the information the pilot gave you and review the documents, the weather and other items CAP requires you to review?"  "So authorizing this flight was your decision and your decision alone?"

In a later slide this it's-on-you is repeated:

• MOST IMPORTANT - Are you comfortable releasing this flight?
  

This is on the FRO online release form.  Answering this "Yes" and you've completely isolated yourself and accepted the responsibility.

From the slide entitled "Bottom Line" there is (here it is, Eclipse) this statement:

• The Flight Release Officer (FRO/SFRO) needs to act as the conscience for the PIC.

Be clear about what this is saying:  "...conscience for the PIC."  How is that even possible?  Can you imagine the plaintiff's lawyer questioning you about this?  Because, fellow members, when you complete this new FRO training you explicitly agree to this. 

Start adding together "...ensure safety," "you understand the consequences," "...the conscience for the PIC," the fact that you understand the details and nuances of being an FRO (you even passed a test on the subject matter!) so you certainly understand these "rhetoric" items are embodied in the training and there exists a pretty strong case that the FRO was negligent in releasing a flight that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, should have never been released because Maj Tbird clearly understood the dangers yet approved (yes, "approve" shows up six times in the training) the flight, contributing to irresponsible decisions shared by the pilot and the deaths of the passengers.

Eclipse makes an important observation, however, about rhetoric.  These slides are full of details about very specific duties, levels of ORM that must be released by different FROs, details about checking MX records and various other very specific procedures.  So can we get a little guidance, Eclipse, anyone?  Which is rhetoric and which is not?  It's a pretty important distinction.  There is a lot of ambiguity throughout CAP regs (want some examples?), directives, training, etc., etc.  So I am disinclined to just dismiss certain parts as rhetoric while the body of the training slides are so direct and specific.

Since someone at CAP seems to recognize that there is the likelihood for legal problems due to lawsuits--though that recognition only extends to whether CAP would pay out to a family or not--doesn't it seem reasonable for this training to include an appropriate disclaimer that protects the member acting as FRO?  Maybe make that a part of each flight release, where both the PIC and CAP specifically acknowledges that the PIC assumes all responsibility for the flight and absolves the FRO from any responsibility for flight decisions?  There are plenty of ways to "fix" this but in its present form it's dangerous.

[Eclipse]

Slides aren't regulatory, so the conversation is basically over from there. As a Major you
should well know about all the presentations, curriculum, and other materials in CAP
that conflict with the regs, extend "ideas" well beyond the regs, or even conflict with themselves internally.

The only thing(s) that mandates action are the regs. Clear and simple. 

The rehtoric in that presentation is intended to convey the idea that the FRO is an important, final link
in the chain of CAP flying, that's it, nothing more.

You're also confusing "authorized" with "released".

The FRO is not "authorizing" the flight.  That happens in other parts of CAP, everywhere from the
Form 5, through the sortie approval and other links in the qualification and mission chain.

The FRO is releasing an already "authorized", or more appropriately "approved" flight.
He's just double-checking the administrative side of the mission, and seeing that the PIC's answers
are appropriate for the parameters already entered.'

FROs don't authorize anything or anyone - that's the Wing CC and his staff.

[etodd]

No one would argue the raw point - in an incident involving death, injury, or significant property
loss, the lawyers are going to go after literally everyone. So?  If that's a real concern then
your only option is to quit CAP, because, you know, you could get sued, like every minute of every day.

Also quit driving, eating

^^^ Worth repeating.  Those who can't handle the worry of a possible lawsuit should obviously refrain from being a FRO, MP and many other positions.

Step away and let others who can handle the pressure do their jobs.

Move on ..... take care of yourself.

[Nick]

You're also confusing "authorized" with "released".

The FRO is not "authorizing" the flight.  That happens in other parts of CAP, everywhere from the
Form 5, through the sortie approval and other links in the qualification and mission chain.

Not true. "9.10.2.3. The FRO is responsible for [...] authorizing a CAP pilot to fly as pilot in command in CAP aircraft." It just so happens that the process to authorize/release the flight is very specific, so the subjectiveness in deciding the release of a flight is minimal.

As for the whole lawsuit thing ... I'm with Eclipse. You are at risk of being sued for anything you do that affects someone else. If you're not comfortable with that, then this is not the job for you. Would it be nice if FROs (among many other classes of members) were included in the indemnification reg? Sure. But until then...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MajTbird]

Slides aren't regulatory, so the conversation is basically over from there.

The slides are required study to be a "new" FRO.  You are then tested on the material in the slides.  They may not be embodied in one of CAP's regulation documents but the intent and content are most definitely germane.  So the conversation may be over for you--and that's fine--but it's only just beginning if you're the target of a lawsuit.  Then the stakes are a bit more than a forum discussion.

As a Major you
should well know about all the presentations, curriculum, and other materials in CAP
that conflict with the regs, extend "ideas" well beyond the regs, or even conflict with themselves internally.

Twice you've said that "as a Major..."  We'll I'm not a real Major.  Neither is anyone else a real officer in CAP.  It's basically meaningless other than to indicate that I've taken some online courses, filled a duty position or two and have spent time in the organization.  Otherwise, completely meaningless.  But, as a member, and with the colored glasses of "rank" or "grade" removed I can read documents and understand what they mean, including implications, regardless of their titles.

And your recognition that there are conflicts among CAP documents and publications underscores another troubling point.  Why are there so many conflicts?  If they're prevalent and recognizable then why are they not addressed?  Why is that acceptable?  Seems like the organization would want to root out such impediments.

The only thing(s) that mandates action are the regs. Clear and simple.

Maybe so.  Within the organization.  But in a civil court everything is open for scrutiny.  Including your emails, texts, online courses you took, how you handled previous flights as a FRO, if you taught a class or led a discussion (thus positioned yourself as a subject matter expert) on something, it's all open-season.  CAP regs, unlike those of the armed servises, which have their own legal system, provides absolutely no shield in civil proceedings.  Just like the fallacy of incorporating a small business automatically shields owners from liability--it does not.  The first thing a plaintiff's lawyer does is to pierce that "shield."

The rehtoric in that presentation is intended to convey the idea that the FRO is an important, final link
in the chain of CAP flying, that's it, nothing more.

Your opinion, nothing more.  And your opinion won't matter as the course material clearly says otherwise.

You're also confusing "authorized" with "released".

I don't think so.  And I'm certainly not confusing "approve."  Which appears over and over in the unequivocal context that the FRO approves the flight.  And here is the definition of approve:

ap·prove
əˈpro͞ov/
verb
verb: approve; 3rd person present: approves; past tense: approved; past participle: approved; gerund or present participle: approving

    1. officially agree to or accept as satisfactory.
    "the budget was approved by Congress"
    synonyms:   accept, agree to, consent to, assent to, give one's blessing to, bless, rubber-stamp; ratify, sanction, endorse,          authorize, validate, pass;
    support, back;
    informal give the nod to, give the go-ahead to, give the green light to, give the OK to, give the thumbs-up to

It can't get much clearer than that.

The FRO is not "authorizing" the flight.  That happens in other parts of CAP, everywhere from the
Form 5, through the sortie approval and other links in the qualification and mission chain.

Not quibbling on the words.  But approve is the operative word.  And the FRO, according to the official CAP FRO training course, is approving the flight.  Thus, sanctioning, endorsing, etc., etc...  Again, it can't get much clearer.

The FRO is releasing an already "authorized", or more appropriately "approved" flight.

May be.  But the FRO is the final approval.  The most vulnerable and responsible approval authority.

He's just double-checking the administrative side of the mission, and seeing that the PIC's answers
are appropriate for the parameters already entered.'

That's not what the course is about.  That's generally what FROs did before all this new stuff.

FROs don't authorize anything or anyone - that's the Wing CC and his staff.

Then why does the course say that FROs hold the approval authority--six times?

As a member I just want CAP to get it right.  As has been observed herein, CAP never shares data with us.  So we never know what's driving these changes.  And we're never asked for input.  Well, Ok.  Then when I find something that exposes me to potential liability I am going to ask questions and hopefully get answers.  I'd appreciate answers that are more thoughtful and respectful than to just "move on" or the several other flippant comments I've read here.  If my questioning CAP frustrates you or if you don't have a good answer that's fine.  I don't either; thus, why I am open to discussion here. 

[Eclipse]

Twice you've said that "as a Major..."  We'll I'm not a real Major.  Neither is anyone else a real officer in CAP.  It's basically meaningless other than to indicate that I've taken some online courses, filled a duty position or two and have spent time in the organization.  Otherwise, completely meaningless.  But, as a member, and with the colored glasses of "rank" or "grade" removed I can read documents and understand what they mean, including implications, regardless of their titles.

It's not "meaningless" in this context, as it's a indication that you should well understand how CAP works.

However when you make assertions like the above, then I'm done with the conversation.

[NCRblues]

"Twice you've said that "as a Major..."  We'll I'm not a real Major.  Neither is anyone else a real officer in CAP.  It's basically meaningless other than to indicate that I've taken some online courses, filled a duty position or two and have spent time in the organization.  Otherwise, completely meaningless."

This absolutely grinds my gears about CAP in general. I strongly dislike this thought process, and feel that if we could change this internal perception, as an organization we could address other issues.

I have asked time and time again, why we are not "real (insert grade here)" and we get the answer of not military, or its meaningless, like above. Absolutely disagree.

This is the FDNY job description of a "Captain." (I would like to point out FDNY is not a military organization, in case anyone wants to argue that point)

Captains in the Fire Department, under general direction, are responsible for the command and control of a company. They command and assume responsibility for the efficient operation of a company; are responsible for the discipline of members in their command, and for the maintenance and protection of all department property in or assigned to the unit; perform all other duties prescribed for this position in the regulations of the department; drive a motor vehicle; and perform related work.

That looks like a Squadron Commander Position to me. Also sounds a lot like what CAP requires of all Officers/NCO's/Senior Members and even some Cadets.

Are the FDNY Captains any less official because they aren't military? NO

Grade (rank whatever you want to call it) is not meaningless at all. In our organization, it should, show progress up the PD levels, along with increased roles and responsibilities inside CAP.
In the FDNY, their Grade shows progress up their version of PD, as well as increased roles and responsibilities.
Same for PD's, SO's, State Police, US DOD components.
Stop trashing our Grade system. If you don't feel like a "real Major" than please, hand over the oak leaves. Some of us take pride in our forward and upward progression. 

[RiverAux]

While the slides are not regulatory, in a court case, they would certainly be relevant as they demonstrate how CAP trained the FRO for these particular job duties.  Although not a lawyer, I would suspect that these might be more relevant to proving that CAP was negligent in some way in regards to training the FRO rather than exposing the FRO to more personal liability. 

[FW]

While the slides are not regulatory, in a court case, they would certainly be relevant as they demonstrate how CAP trained the FRO for these particular job duties.  Although not a lawyer, I would suspect that these might be more relevant to proving that CAP was negligent in some way in regards to training the FRO rather than exposing the FRO to more personal liability.

I can't speak as to the intent of our leadership and CAP General Council, however if there are questions popping up as to "liability" of the FRO, I would suggest using your Legal Officer for getting proper answers.  That said, as far as I know (and you can argue I don't know that much), CAP has NEVER let someone hang for doing their job. NEVER!!!  Being an FRO is a responsibility.  If you take this responsibility seriously, you have nothing to worry about if something unexpected happens. 

I'm getting another bag of popcorn.... :angel:

[etodd]

Are the FDNY Captains any less official because they aren't military? NO

Fire fighter's pay is scaled to their rank.

Everyone in CAP gets paid the same, whether its their first day or they have been in for 30 years. LOL

[Ned]

I would suggest using your Legal Officer for getting proper answers.  That said, as far as I know (and you can argue I don't know that much), CAP has NEVER let someone hang for doing their job. NEVER!!!  Being an FRO is a responsibility.  If you take this responsibility seriously, you have nothing to worry about if something unexpected happens. 

I'm getting another bag of popcorn.... :angel:

To add to the popcorn-related festivities, I always enjoy when non-lawyers speak with such earnestness about "liability" or "what juries would do if they heard X." 

If it helps, I spend many years as a CAP legal officer before my law license was suspended, and of course during my term on the BoG I was briefed in great detail on literally every single lawsuit that CAP was involved in as either a plaintiff or a defendant.  Additionally, as a National Staff guy, I have a fair idea of the litigation status since I left the BoG several years ago.  Plus I have conducted several hundred jury trials over the last couple of decades.

And FWIW, I have never heard of an FRO being sued.  Or even deposed.  Or indeed, any involvement in any case at all.  As in never, ever.  But as others have pointed out, sometimes people file frivolous lawsuits, so I suppose it might happen someday.  If that occurs, the CAP legal team is required to defend CAP members who are performing their duties.

I'm not currently allowed to practice law, nor have I been reinstated as a CAP legal officer, so please do not take anything I say or do as legal advice.

But, if you want legal advice, it is pretty easy to get.  Just ask a CAP legal officer, and she/he will give it to you.  Especially if it involves your CAP functions and duties.

Sadly, however, CAP legal officers do not read CAPTalk very often, so you are extremely unlikely to get reliable legal information here.

But by all means continue to discuss technical legal issues.  Just value the legal opinions of non-lawyers as worth every penny you pay for them. 


(But Your Honor, the guy on the internet clearly said that . . . ." )   

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[Live2Learn]

The liability question really seems like a rabbit chase to me.  Follow direction and we have an umbrella.  I got to use that umbrella a few years ago and it worked.  A bigger question seems to flow from "just follow the checklist" and all is done.  What about the CAP's Core Value of "Excellence"?  Are we performing in an "Excellent" manner if we merely ask the pilot "Are you Ill?"  She replies "Nope", check.  "Are you using any OTC or Rx drugs?"  She replies "Nope", check.  etc. and on to "are you current"?  Yep, says the pilot, check.  etc.   Yet, when we ask that first question in IMSAFE we hear the telltale voice of someone with congestion.  But, the pilot said "nope" when asked.  Where's the mentoring aspect of a CAP FRO's job.   How was merely going 'check', 'check', 'check' meeting CAP's Core Values?

[Eclipse]

Where's the mentoring aspect of a CAP FRO's job.

Where is it indicated that the FRO's role includes "mentoring"?

Sometimes "excellence" is "doing what you are told to do / asked to do / expected to do" without filter or deviation.

This is one of those cases.

[etodd]

This whole thread is getting silly.

If you're scared of litigation, then don't be a FRO.

Leave those alone who can hack it and want to be a FRO.

Why argue over something that does not concern you if you are not a FRO?

[TheSkyHornet]

This whole thread is getting silly.

This. It's getting ridiculous.

Quit confusing legality and negligence with CAP policy---CAP regulations are not law; they are internal to this organization only.

A "CAP flight release" is an administrative process to verify that a PIC is acting in accordance with SOPs developed by CAP, to include the information they must obtain prior to conducting CAP flight operations. The FRO is, in no way, verifying the legality of the flight operation; this is the PIC's job. They, therefore, have no legal role, nor operational control, in regarding to any flight operation.

Now that we're past that part---the FAA aspect---The FRO has a role in aiding in the authorization of a CAP flight from an administrative stance. If the flight appears to violate CAP standards, to include a known unsafe operation which is in conflict with legal requirements, then the FRO has a responsibility to, administratively, deny the PIC to conduct that flight. This is purely a CAP matter.

If an FRO is to say "This flight appears to meet all CAP requirements for flight operations," and the flight results in an accident or incident, there is no civil penalty in a sense of the individual FRO. There may be, certificate action and/or additional legal consequences for the PIC and for CAP as an organization, but not the FRO.

An individual or class may file a civil suit against the PIC (or his/her family/estate) or CAP, or other persons involved in that flight operation. It's tough to have a civil immunity against that action; however, this does not mean someone would sue everyone (from the squadron commander on down, say) or that it would stand in court.

But under the law, the FRO is at no fault in the conduct of civil aviation flight operations. It doesn't exist under 14 CFR 91.

Quit making this more than it is. And as others above have stated, if you are so concerned that your role in the decision making of CAP events is posing a liability against you, then you need to consider a change of your role(s) in the organization. You're going to face this in just about most of CAP (from cadet protection, to the prevention of injuries and damage to persons during ground operations).

[MajTbird]

I think TheSkyHornet, and others, are expressing the heart of the issue.

Quit confusing legality and negligence with CAP policy---CAP regulations are not law; they are internal to this organization only.

So true.  Thus CAP has no sway to make a civil action against one of its members "go away" as does certain government agencies and the military.  So we're back to civil contracts governing our relationships with each other.  That is, what we agree to do for and with each other, particularly that which is written down.

A "CAP flight release" is an administrative process to verify that a PIC is acting in accordance with SOPs developed by CAP, to include the information they must obtain prior to conducting CAP flight operations. The FRO is, in no way, verifying the legality of the flight operation; this is the PIC's job. They, therefore, have no legal role, nor operational control, in regarding to any flight operation.

Except we agree to the tenets of the training and to CAP's own regulation (shared in a post above) that we as FROs both authorize and approve flights.  That's getting deep into contract land where we are assuming some amount of responsibility.  See the comments about "conscience of the PIC" and "ensure the safety" mentioned numerous times.

Now that we're past that part---the FAA aspect---The FRO has a role in aiding in the authorization of a CAP flight from an administrative stance. If the flight appears to violate CAP standards, to include a known unsafe operation which is in conflict with legal requirements, then the FRO has a responsibility to, administratively, deny the PIC to conduct that flight. This is purely a CAP matter.

First, it's not just aiding authority.  It's granting authority--clearly stated in CAP regulations expressed, again, in an above post.  And approving a flight.  Once an FRO agrees to this it can't be walked back.

Second, if you argue that an FRO has the responsibility to administratively deny a flight in which known unsafe operations exist, then the FRO's job and responsibility doesn't just evaporate with a claim of, "Well, I didn't know it was unsafe," if an accident happens.  You don't get to have it both ways.  If hundreds of FROs are authorizing and approving thousands of flights then the body of the organization has established a history of FRO - PIC relationships that, in turn, has established a standard of operation.  An accident invites scrutiny of the FRO as the authorizing/approval authority.

And yes, it's time to throw out all the references to FAA regs.  This is not at all about a government regulatory agency rules or aviation law.  It's civil litigation.  But you can't throw out CAP regs because they form the contract (to which you have agreed) by virtue of your role in approving flights.

If an FRO is to say "This flight appears to meet all CAP requirements for flight operations," and the flight results in an accident or incident, there is no civil penalty in a sense of the individual FRO. There may be, certificate action and/or additional legal consequences for the PIC and for CAP as an organization, but not the FRO.

The crash victims' lawyers will decide this.  CAP, nor anyone else, can make it go away.  The civil penalty will be decided in a court, by a jury.  Likely in a county selected by the plaintiffs known to be favorable to "suing the pants off of rich folks," like pilots.  This is no fairy tale.  It happens.  And there is nothing more heart-wrenching than a grieving widow with kids and a deceased husband who would still be there to care for his family had this FRO fella only done his job and been the conscience of that idiot pilot and not allowed them to take-off.

An individual or class may file a civil suit against the PIC (or his/her family/estate) or CAP, or other persons involved in that flight operation. It's tough to have a civil immunity against that action; however, this does not mean someone would sue everyone (from the squadron commander on down, say) or that it would stand in court.

Agree 100%.  The "other persons involved in that flight operation" would obviously be the lone survivor: The FRO.  Who was (it will be alleged) so obviously negligent in authorizing the flight when he had a duty--expressed in the thorough training, proven to work as so many other FROs dutifully exercised their responsibilities by approving thousands of other CAP flights without incident--to prevent this flight and thus prevent this tragic loss.  Yep, SkyHornet, this paragraph sums it up.

I'm not arguing that "it" would stand in court.  But plaintiffs don't go that far without a solid case.  But you start adding up all the strikes against a CAP FRO (conscience of the PIC, responsible to ensure safe operations, training, authorizing, approval authority, this one failure among so many non-incidents) and it isn't pretty.

But under the law, the FRO is at no fault in the conduct of civil aviation flight operations. It doesn't exist under 14 CFR 91.

Won't matter.  See above.  The FRO made a conscious choice to assume some degree of responsibility for the outcome of the flight, agreed to be the conscience of the pilot and to ensure the safe outcome of the flight.

Quit making this more than it is. And as others above have stated, if you are so concerned that your role in the decision making of CAP events is posing a liability against you, then you need to consider a change of your role(s) in the organization. You're going to face this in just about most of CAP (from cadet protection, to the prevention of injuries and damage to persons during ground operations).

In response:  Quit making it less than it is.

And, sir, I will not "let it go" (that's been suggested before) or "change my role" because I am a pilot and I am deeply involved in CAP and flight operations.  I have invested heavily in my CAP activities and, just because CAP's NHQ has foistered something untenable and brimming with liability doesn't mean I should just accept it and move on.  No, my dues are worth just as much as yours.  That is an insult and I would never suggest such to a fellow member.

If you still do not believe that this is a liability just ask ladder manufacturers why there are so many warning stickers all over ladders, and ask how much their product liability insurance has increased over recent years.  Ask gas can manufacturers why there are such confounded nozzles and caps on their cans now rather than simple screw-tops.  You can't get much simpler, product-wise, than a can.  Who would have ever though the folks who made the can would be responsible for someone burning themselves with the contents?  That's our legal system.  And I avoid it--more than anything else--like the plague.  Because it has become a plague that looks for any and every opportunity to drain your bank account, today and for the rest of your life.  For CAP to even remotely open that exposure to its members is unacceptable and responsible, seasoned members need to refute it.

And fixing this is so easy and simple.  Maybe the next question should be, Why didn't CAP think about this and get it right to begin with?

[IFLY2]

It seems the release process has far exceeded it's original goal of preventing members from just flying whenever they want to without telling someone.  There doesn't appear to be any information available on the effectiveness of the process in increasing safety.  I don't see why CAP implies that their pilots are somehow less competent than any other general aviation pilots through this process.  I certainly don't see, in spite of the emphasis on safety in the changes to the release process, that safety is in any way enhanced by the new procedures.

Since no one seems to have an answer to the questions asked, I've submitted my request for an explanation to the paid employees of the corporation.  I'll let you know if I ever get a reply from them.

[Eclipse]

I don't see why CAP implies that their pilots are somehow less competent than any other general aviation pilots through this process. 

Where does anything in the release process imply anything of the sort?

[TheSkyHornet]

MajTBird:
I didn't say "let it go." And my comment was to the board, not any specific person. This discussion got so far left field, like most CAP Talk discussions, that it went from determining what the liabilities would be to determining what the role of the FRO even is. It got way too deep and way too extreme.

I think we're crossing streams here shooting at the same ghost.

I don't see why CAP implies that their pilots are somehow less competent than any other general aviation pilots through this process.

By that notion, virtually every process of releasing a flight in any organization deems someone incompetent.

The FRO is not there to determine the competency of a pilot or protect him/her against "making stupid decisions." It's another block in the Swiss Cheese Model...

Allow me to take a step back here for anyone who no clue what I'm talking about. You take slices of cheese and poke holes in it. Because of the design of the cheese, slices are not always in the same appearance. Some holes are bigger, some smaller. Some are in different locations. If you go through one hole, hopefully you hit a solid piece of cheese behind it. If not, you jump through another hole. When you jump through enough holes, you've created an unsafe condition and have the potential for a mishap. Those slices are your risk controls. Those holes are the risks that you have failed to control.

An FRO is just another step in adding an a risk control. It's not determining someone's competency. It's a step to ensure that, if competency lacks, there is another role in the mix to try and prevent an unsafe situation.

Performing 100 hour checks isn't there to call a manufacturer incompetent. Having an inspector sign off a mechanic's work isn't calling that mechanic incompetent. It's a "what if; let me take a look."