New FRO requirements

[etodd]

Hdqs just sent out New FRO Requirements.  So now that its done .... how many YEARS before its revised again? LOL

It is what it is. No amount of CAPtalk is going to change anything. Gotta just deal with it for a decade or two.

[PHall]

Hdqs just sent out New FRO Requirements.  So now that its done .... how many YEARS before its revised again? LOL

It is what it is. No amount of CAPtalk is going to change anything. Gotta just deal with it for a decade or two.

You know how it is, the stupidity of a few mess it up for everybody else.

[SarDragon]

Well, ladies and germ, I think we're about done here. Any opposition?

[MajTbird]

Well, ladies and germ, I think we're about done here. Any opposition?

Well, perhaps, except for this:  I have learned from a senior wing staffer that CAP powers-that-be will be meeting shortly to revisit the new FRO policy because there has been a lot of push back from a number of members.  I have no other details.  But, that's encouraging news.

Sadly, I have received no answers regarding FRO liability questions from NHQ.  My requests for data to study accidents trends have been unanswered or deflected.  CAP seems to love the chain-of-command when they want something from you yet requests just evaporate when sent up the chain.

[etodd]

Well, ladies and germ, I think we're about done here. Any opposition?

Nope. Overdone, the steak is tough leather now. The first page was enough. 

[Alaric]

Well, ladies and germ, I think we're about done here. Any opposition?

Nope should have been cut off days ago

[PHall]

Wayyyy past it's use by date. Kill it.

[IFLY2]

My request for a definitive statement from appropriate authority that an FRO has absolutely no responsibility for the safety of a released flight nor any responsibility for the flight planning is now in the hands of the National Operations Director.  So far, he has declined to respond.  I read that as we should take the requirements specified as literal instructions, without interpretation.

So, we are left with waiting to see what transpires after we have an accident under the new FRO requirements (unless those running the corporation realize this is about as popular as "New Coke").  Since CAP is really shy about sharing information with it's members, it'll be up to you folks to keep the rest informed.

BTW, I really liked the comparison of a release to getting a 100 hr inspection.  I can picture the poor Mx officer quizzing the A & P in detail about all the work that was done, explaining that they have to be the conscience of the A & P, having to enter all that into WMIRS, and having to take responsibility for the work as well.  Seems to be the direction CAP is going but that's another topic.

[Live2Learn]

Wayyyy past it's use by date. Kill it.

Nah, still a few drops of blood to wring from the discussion...

I think the debate could move in a slightly different, and more productive direction...

It was suggested that there is no role for "mentoring" for FROs (

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

and that

Sometimes "excellence" is "doing what you are told to do / asked to do /

Both are addressed in CAPP 50-7, MENTORING:  Building Our Members, 1 December 2004 discusses CAP's "Core Values", and then goes on to explain how members can help new (and not-so-new) members grow in CAP.

CAP's four core values include "Excellence", which is described as "an obligation to perform to the highest standards, both professionally and personally."  I think merely "doing what you're told to do" is both minimalist and absolutely inconsistent with either performing at 'the highest standards', whether professionally or personally.  I know that, as a supervisor, I don't reward minimalist behaviors.  I hope others in CAP expect more than simply "doing what you are told to do".  Value added is provided only when we go beyond the minimum expectations. Always, and in every situation.

The other part of how CAP defines our Core Value of  "Excellence" is an explicit statement about mentoring:  "Through modeling, coaching, and counseling, the effective mentor guides fellow members in developing a personal road-map to achieve CAP's standards of excellence."

It's very clear from these words that CAP expects more of us than satisficing.  I know when I receive a flight release, I expect some thoughtful interaction with the FRO who will offer a second set of eyes to confirm the quality of my understanding of the four elements of a safe flight which the FAA defines as "Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External factors", a.k.a. "the PAVE checklist". 

[Eclipse]

Trying to run this into a core values discussion is just silly mental hoops to make a point that doesn't apply,
unless to say that the reason the program changed slightly, for an extremely small number
of sorties each year, is because there is anecdotal evidence that some FROs were not taking the situation as seriously as they should,
which is a fair assessment in an environment that still has a monthly release rate that ≠ 100%.

It's very clear from these words that CAP expects more of us than satisficing.  I know when I receive a flight release, I expect some thoughtful interaction with the FRO who will offer a second set of eyes to confirm the quality of my understanding of the four elements of a safe flight which the FAA defines as "Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External factors", a.k.a. "the PAVE checklist".

And that is exactly what an FRO is supposed to do, and that does not take "20 - 45 minutes".

[etodd]

Trying to run this into a core values discussion is just silly mental hoops to make a point that doesn't apply,
unless to say that the reason the program changed slightly, for an extremely small number
of sorties each year, is because there is anecdotal evidence that some FROs were not taking the situation as seriously as they should,
which is a fair assessment in an environment that still has a monthly release rate that ≠ 100%.

It's very clear from these words that CAP expects more of us than satisficing.  I know when I receive a flight release, I expect some thoughtful interaction with the FRO who will offer a second set of eyes to confirm the quality of my understanding of the four elements of a safe flight which the FAA defines as "Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External factors", a.k.a. "the PAVE checklist".

And that is exactly what an FRO is supposed to do, and that does not take "20 - 45 minutes".

Yep. And now the thread has circled back. LOL

[Live2Learn]

Trying to run this into a core values discussion is just silly mental hoops to make a point that doesn't apply,
unless to say that the reason the program changed slightly, for an extremely small number
of sorties each year, is because there is anecdotal evidence that some FROs were not taking the situation as seriously as they should,
which is a fair assessment in an environment that still has a monthly release rate that ≠ 100%.

It's very clear from these words that CAP expects more of us than satisficing.  I know when I receive a flight release, I expect some thoughtful interaction with the FRO who will offer a second set of eyes to confirm the quality of my understanding of the four elements of a safe flight which the FAA defines as "Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External factors", a.k.a. "the PAVE checklist".

And that is exactly what an FRO is supposed to do, and that does not take "20 - 45 minutes".

Don't know how you got to 20-45 minutes???  It doesn't take much time for a competent FRO to review relevant details of a flight (off line from the pilot), then have the requisite telephone conversation to validate plans and get a sense of the only real unknown:  the "P" in "PAVE". 

Frankly, I don't see how that (or any CAP activity) can be divorced from a Core Values screen.  Either do the job (well) or don't agree to FRO, be a Squadron Commander, Staff Officer, or whatever.

I wonder if we're saying much the same thing, but talking past one another?

[etodd]

I wonder if we're saying much the same thing, but talking past one another?

Most of us here seem to agree.  Its just one or two others who seem to be trying to scare away anyone considering being a FRO. Always a few negative folks around who should mind their little corner and let others mind their own.

[MajTbird]

Most of us here seem to agree. 

Group-think?  Prelude to missing even obvious problems.

Its just one or two others who seem to be trying to scare away anyone considering being a FRO. Always a few negative folks around who should mind their little corner and let others mind their own.

Hmmm.  I take umbrage to your comment, etodd.

The suggestion that those of us who find a red flag with a new CAP policy should just change our membership focus and "mind our little corner" is offensive.  And, sadly, a characteristic symptom of an organization in decline--ask former executives of Nortel Networks, Lucent Technologies, Ingres, examples abound on and on ad nauseum.  Arrogance, even the mild version, is particularly ugly in a volunteer organization.  CAP is a corporation depending on volunteers.  It is not, regardless how much some might want to believe otherwise, a military service.  All our memberships are equal.

Uncovering potential problems that may seriously and adversely affect member should be welcomed into the conversation, examined with a critical eye and addressed.  To suggest a member who identifies such, or dares to express concern, is negative is insulting and beneath honest volunteerism and teamwork.  And if this is the prevailing attitude of the membership then I think you're answering a lingering, unanswered question:  Why do so many people quit CAP?  My skin is a bit thicker but if member questions are dismissed as undeserving or beneath serious response then at least part of that mystery is solved.

By posting my original question--which, after consulting my personal lawyer who found more holes and problems with the new FRO training materials than did I--as a loyal member I had hoped to stimulate thoughtful input and proposed solutions, not flippant brush-offs.  I guess I was wrong.  Maybe there are fewer serious members in CAP than I thought.  And maybe that helps explain why the corporation feels the need to micromanage activities; after all, without critical thinking a more strict guidance is needed.

[IFLY2]

Many thanks to Ron Olienyk for his work in spearheading the effort to answer my request.  He returns this from CAP General Counsel :

"All CAP flight release officers are covered and protected under the CAP's Aviation Liability Insurance provided they are involved in a corporate mission and they are acting  within the scope of CAP regulations and their authority.  Please refer to CAPR 900-5, paragraph 11d."

I may be mistaken but isn't any sortie entered in WMIRS considered a "corporate mission", including AFAMS?  To me, that handles the liability issue as best as it can be handled.

It is possible I will renew my FRO status and in each release I will include a note disclaiming any authority or responsibility for the outcome of the flight.  It is also likely that outside of the pilots I know personally, I will choose to be uncomfortable granting a release.

I highly recommend that we, before blindly giving up our critical thinking abilities, take the example of Henry V before Agincourt who stated, " I and my bosom must debate awhile."

Many thanks for the informative and reasoned questions and answers.  As for the rest, well - bless your hearts.

[Ned]

By posting my original question--which, after consulting my personal lawyer who found more holes and problems with the new FRO training materials than did I--as a loyal member I had hoped to stimulate thoughtful input and proposed solutions, not flippant brush-offs.  I guess I was wrong.  Maybe there are fewer serious members in CAP than I thought.  And maybe that helps explain why the corporation feels the need to micromanage activities; after all, without critical thinking a more strict guidance is needed.

Well, let's take a look at that and see if we can decide where critical thinking may be of some benefit.

Let's start by noting that every single one of your posts here have been on this single topic.  No crime, of course, but suggests a bit of a "drive-by" mentality.

Second, although your initial post certainly started off reasonably enough asking for our thoughts on the FRO situation, it appears that you don't really want to hear them.  Indeed, your mind seems pretty closed to the discussion, which is perhaps not surprising since in your very first post you announced that the program was "unacceptable," "dangerous," and a "vulgar overreach" while creating images of CAP volunteers' family savings "wiped out" while dramatically pointing out that member's "future earnings and reputation" were at risk.

Which again, is fine.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion about CAP regulations.  And you are also entitled to voice that opinion, provided it is done while observing our Core Value of Respect towards both the participants here and our volunteer leadership who created the program that you believe to be fatally flawed.  (BTW, we don't work for the paid employees at NHQ; they work for us, the volunteers.  Seriously, none of them has the power to enact a single regulation.  Every single one is enacted by a volunteer, just like you and me.)

But in my view, you are not entitled to appear to seek input into a potential problem and then attack the members' sincere replies that disagree with you while playing the victim card.  (Replies given to you are "arrogant," "insulting," "beneath honest volunteerism," "flippant brush-offs," etc..)

There is a word that describes people who join an internet community solely to post inflammatory information in hopes of provoking emotional or other responses from the community members.  If you are not genuinely seeking information and discussion, and given that your mind was clearly made up as stated in your first post, it is hard to imagine any other reason why you are here.  And that kind of thing is always facilitated by anonymity.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you have asked for our input.  You have received it.  Nobody here seems to be changing their minds over any aspect of the conversation.  It also appears that you have brought the matter to the attention of folks in the chain of command.  Which is probably where this conversation belonged in the first place.

Anyway, it would appear that we are done here.  I look forward to your input on other topics.  Uniform threads are always popular here.

Ned Lee

[SarDragon]

Thank you, Colonel Lee, for your erudite summation.

This concludes our discussion. If anyone has something else they think might contribute to the discussion, PM me, or one of the other mods, and we'll consider it.

Click.

[SarDragon]

Reopened by request.

Keep it clean. Be kind to the horse.

[etodd]

Many thanks to Ron Olienyk for his work in spearheading the effort to answer my request.  He returns this from CAP General Counsel :

"All CAP flight release officers are covered and protected under the CAP's Aviation Liability Insurance provided they are involved in a corporate mission and they are acting  within the scope of CAP regulations and their authority.  Please refer to CAPR 900-5, paragraph 11d."

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

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

[Eclipse]

Many thanks to Ron Olienyk for his work in spearheading the effort to answer my request.  He returns this from CAP General Counsel :

"All CAP flight release officers are covered and protected under the CAP's Aviation Liability Insurance provided they are involved in a corporate mission and they are acting  within the scope of CAP regulations and their authority.  Please refer to CAPR 900-5, paragraph 11d."

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

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

Yes, it is.  Thus the "C".

A & B are AFAMs, meaning you are protected by FECA & the USAF.

C = corporate, meaning you are protected by the corporation's insurance, not the USAF.