CAP Passengers on Proficiency Flights?

[Storm Chaser]

Military style regulations are written in a "only what is written is authorized".

Thus, they tell you what you can do, to the exclusion of anything else.

In the Air Force, yes. In the military as a whole, not quite.

As someone who's been in the Air Force for the past 20 years (active, guard, reserve), I have to disagree. Not every AFI or AF publication is written that way.

[Storm Chaser]

So the typical low-time pilot building hours is not allowed to fly cadets, and if you're an O-ride pilot,
why would you fly cadets on your own nickel when there is funded flying available?

On the other hand.....if you are gonna fly on your own dime and you got an empty seat (and you are a O-ride/instructor/etc) why not put a cadet in that seat? 

Keeping to the no-lone rule for CPP.

Sounds good to me, but others above don't think its a good idea. So whats a guy to do? Stay conservative I guess.  LOL

Or, you can reach out to your wing (through your chain of command) and get clarification. While cadets can fly as passengers outside of orientation flights, it's not clear in the regulation whether they can fly backseat in a self-funded proficiency flight (they certainly cannot in a funded proficiency flight). Without further guidance, you should take the conservative response. That said, getting advise in a public forum from many non-pilot/non-IC/non-Ops guys is not going to help you much. My recommendation is don't do it unless someone with authority in your wing says it's ok.

[JeffDG]

(they certainly cannot in a funded proficiency flight).

I'm not certain you couldn't carry a cadet as "additional ballast" on a Profile #4 proficiency flight on an A12.

[NIN]

"Cadet, please put down your name here, under 'self-propelled ballast'.  Thank you."

[DavidWTilley]

First of all, many wings have extra money to fund O-flights beyond the 5. Secondly, even if that is not available, you could always enter it as a "B" mission and do the O-flight that way. I think the insurance is different for A and B missions as opposed to C missions, so in case the worst happens, the extra insurance of a B mission could be beneficial. I don't know anything in the regs that would specifically prohibit taking a cadet on a C mission proficiency flight, but why do that when there are better options?

[Blanding]

Hey so there are a lot of folks telling you to avoid flying cadets self-funded because there are better ways to do it, but none have yet quoted a regulation that forbids it on a C type proficiency flight. A cadet is an eligible passenger in a CAP aircraft and (as you said) increasing their opportunity to fly provides a huge benefit to the aviation community.

Couple examples where I've exercised this privilege: flying to a Commander's Call / CAC meeting - the cadets need a ride, so why use the van? I've also transported cadets to RCLS and Hawk Mountain on self-funded C type missions without issue.

There should be no conflict with the objectives of a proficiency flight in the eyes of the organization, as you should be entering your sortie objectives and outcomes to include the proficiency you gained as well as the education you provided to the membership.

-Ryan

[FW]

CAPR-60 is a little fuzzy, or I'm not looking in the right place. If I'm on a Proficiency Flight "on my own dime" ....can I take any CAP member along for the ride, including Cadet(s)?

If a Cadet was just going for the ride, would it count against their 5 O-Ride limit if they rode front right seat?

IOW ... why fly alone for my Proficiency Flights when there are empty seats available and folks eager to fly?

You may take any member as a passenger when performing a "proficiency flight".  That said, a proficiency flight is not an O-Flight; two different protocols. Flying with cadets as passengers also requires adherence to CPP. 

I think, though, it would be a good practice to perform proficiency flights with another pilot (safety pilot, or instructor) to actually gain some good experiences while flying.  Shared opportunity, as well as expense is a good thing...

[Mustang]

Military style regulations are written in a "only what is written is authorized".

Thus, they tell you what you can do, to the exclusion of anything else.

In the Air Force, yes. In the military as a whole, not quite.

As someone who's been in the Air Force for the past 20 years (active, guard, reserve), I have to disagree. Not every AFI or AF publication is written that way.

Eclipse has never been in the military, so he's speaking out of turn on this. His statement isn't even true for CAP; while SOME regs are restrictive (39-1, 60-1, for example), others are permissive and serve only as starting points or to define the bare minimum. I can't imagine a successful AE program which did nothing beyond the bare minimum or used only the examples contained in CAP texts.

[Storm Chaser]

My post was not meant to diminish Eclipse' service and contributions in other areas. He's certainly done a lot in CAP and his interpretations of the regulations are usually on the dot. The problem with CAP's regulations is two-fold. On the one hand, they're not always clear, which leaves room for interpretation. On the other, many (most?) of our members and commanders are not trained well enough to interpret those regulations adequately, which sometimes leads to opposing interpretations of the same text.

[etodd]

..... The problem with CAP's regulations is two-fold. On the one hand, they're not always clear, which leaves room for interpretation. On the other, many (most?) of our members and commanders are not trained well enough to interpret those regulations adequately, which sometimes leads to opposing interpretations of the same text.

Yep. Which makes it difficult for folks like me who are willing to to help get Cadets in the air much more often, even if its on my dime.  I pay for the plane when I fly kids on EAA Eagle Flight days. No big deal.  But I'm hearing so much back and forth here at CAP on the matter, that its discouraging. Yes ... I fully understand the constraints these days, CPP, and all of that. It was obviously not a good thread to have started. I'll stick to EAA days for flying the kids for fun as often as I can. And just keep to official "O" rides at CAP.

(If Cadets happen to see EAA posters at the airport and show up to EAA days, sans-uniform, maybe they could enjoy a ride from a EAA pilot. LOL )

[Майор Хаткевич]

..... The problem with CAP's regulations is two-fold. On the one hand, they're not always clear, which leaves room for interpretation. On the other, many (most?) of our members and commanders are not trained well enough to interpret those regulations adequately, which sometimes leads to opposing interpretations of the same text.

Yep. Which makes it difficult for folks like me who are willing to to help get Cadets in the air much more often, even if its on my dime.  I pay for the plane when I fly kids on EAA Eagle Flight days. No big deal.  But I'm hearing so much back and forth here at CAP on the matter, that its discouraging. Yes ... I fully understand the constraints these days, CPP, and all of that. It was obviously not a good thread to have started. I'll stick to EAA days for flying the kids for fun as often as I can. And just keep to official "O" rides at CAP.

(If Cadets happen to see EAA posters at the airport and show up to EAA days, sans-uniform, maybe they could enjoy a ride from a EAA pilot. LOL )

Attitudes like this is why we have to have CPP. For every 100 well intentioned people, there will be a few not so well intentioned people.

[Eclipse]

There is a very fine line between "well intentioned effort" and "grooming behavior".  The latter doesn't show itself until it is too late, which is why the
best course for all involved is to walk down the middle of the road and not push too hard in any direction.

Considering all the O-ride money on the table, anyone too excited about getting cadets in the air outside that paradigm would certainly
raise my concern, and that includes the "meet me at the EAA this weekend and I can fly you by myself and CAP can't do 'nuthin bout it" stance.

In that case, the mitigating factor would be having a non-CAP member EAA pilot fly the Eagle ride, which would be my strong advice for
the members affected.

[Blanding]

There is a very fine line between "well intentioned effort" and "grooming behavior".  The latter doesn't show itself until it is too late, which is why the
best course for all involved is to walk down the middle of the road and not push too hard in any direction.

Considering all the O-ride money on the table, anyone too excited about getting cadets in the air outside that paradigm would certainly
raise my concern, and that includes the "meet me at the EAA this weekend and I can fly you by myself and CAP can't do 'nuthin bout it" stance.

Considering that O-ride money is earmarked for a specific type of flying, why is it automatically concerning if a pilot brings a cadet on a CAP flight that does not fit the O-Flight syllabus?

If I fly a self-funded flight with a SM Mission Observer doing XYZ proficiency and bring a cadet in the back to observe the training and experience the flight, why do I deserve to be labeled as a "groomer"?

[Майор Хаткевич]

There is a very fine line between "well intentioned effort" and "grooming behavior".  The latter doesn't show itself until it is too late, which is why the
best course for all involved is to walk down the middle of the road and not push too hard in any direction.

Considering all the O-ride money on the table, anyone too excited about getting cadets in the air outside that paradigm would certainly
raise my concern, and that includes the "meet me at the EAA this weekend and I can fly you by myself and CAP can't do 'nuthin bout it" stance.

Considering that O-ride money is earmarked for a specific type of flying, why is it automatically concerning if a pilot brings a cadet on a CAP flight that does not fit the O-Flight syllabus?

If I fly a self-funded flight with a SM Mission Observer doing XYZ proficiency and bring a cadet in the back to observe the training and experience the flight, why do I deserve to be labeled as a "groomer"?

Cite please.

[FW]

^ There is nothing wrong about having a cadet fly in the back seat while two senior members are flying a proficiency flight.  It is totally acceptable, however a "one and one" flight is a recipe for trouble.  One senior member taking one unrelated cadet for "a ride" is not, IMHO, good practice. There is good reason we have a CPP, and I would hope all members take it seriously.

[etodd]

.... that includes the "meet me at the EAA this weekend and I can fly you by myself and CAP can't do 'nuthin bout it" stance.

Geez folks. Get your minds out of the gutter.  Even EAA knows better than doing a one on one flight. I personally never fly a kid in the plane on other days without one of their parents in the plane also.  For CAP, I'm talking about a couple Senior Members up front and one or two Cadets in the back.  But even that is getting frowned upon by many, so I'll just leave the whole topic alone.

I'm just a guy who loves aviation  ..... sees the GA pilot age getting older and older .... and too few kids able to learn these days. Too few kids getting past the gates and security at airports to even touch a plane anymore. Once the General Aviation pilot numbers get low enough, we will start seeing our ability to just run out to the airport and fly for fun curbed ... like it is in many countries in Europe.

We need to get kids interested in aviation starting in grade school levels ... or it'll all be gone one day. And the only way to do that is to get them in planes and let them see they can fly. And I just see CAP letting many opportunities pass by.

[Blanding]

As a reminder, this was the original question:

Oh for sure. I didn't mean just me and one Cadet. But if me and another senior are out on a Proficiency Flight, can a Cadet go along, and could they ride front seat without it counting against their 5 official O-Rides.

No one has yet provided any evidence to support the notion that this is a prohibited request. All I've seen is a lot of "that would be discouraged" - yet there is no conceivable reason why it should be discouraged. It's within CPP, it's in accordance with CAPR 60-1 and it promotes our aerospace mission.

Note that cadets can be mission scanners and observers also... How else would they earn those ratings if not for proficiency / training flying? Since cadets are not allowed to fly other cadets, SMs are required to fly cadets outside the O-Flight curriculum for this to happen. It's up to the pilot to adhere to CPP rules, but it can be done.

[Майор Хаткевич]

.... that includes the "meet me at the EAA this weekend and I can fly you by myself and CAP can't do 'nuthin bout it" stance.

Geez folks. Get your minds out of the gutter.  Even EAA knows better than doing a one on one flight. I personally never fly a kid in the plane on other days without one of their parents in the plane also.  For CAP, I'm talking about a couple Senior Members up front and one or two Cadets in the back.  But even that is getting frowned upon by many, so I'll just leave the whole topic alone.

I'm just a guy who loves aviation  ..... sees the GA pilot age getting older and older .... and too few kids able to learn these days. Too few kids getting past the gates and security at airports to even touch a plane anymore. Once the General Aviation pilot numbers get low enough, we will start seeing our ability to just run out to the airport and fly for fun curbed ... like it is in many countries in Europe.

We need to get kids interested in aviation starting in grade school levels ... or it'll all be gone one day. And the only way to do that is to get them in planes and let them see they can fly. And I just see CAP letting many opportunities pass by.

Isn't that what others said? Abide by CPP, have two SMs, and you're all good.


As for aviation trends...


I was out at the unit outfitting a cadet a few weekends back (don't worry, the parent was there as well!), and a gentleman came up to us, curious. Turns out he was a cadet back in the day at the O'Hare unit. Asked if the cadet wanted to check out his plane, and seeing me as someone young, asked if I'm interested in aviation. When I told him it wasn't for me, he said I was still young, and could get into it.


Sounds great. But even being in the "top 10%" of income distribution, flying is prohibitive to my marriage, pets, hobbies, interests, and mortgage payments.

[Майор Хаткевич]

As a reminder, this was the original question:

Oh for sure. I didn't mean just me and one Cadet. But if me and another senior are out on a Proficiency Flight, can a Cadet go along, and could they ride front seat without it counting against their 5 official O-Rides.

No one has yet provided any evidence to support the notion that this is a prohibited request. All I've seen is a lot of "that would be discouraged" - yet there is no conceivable reason why it should be discouraged. It's within CPP, it's in accordance with CAPR 60-1 and it promotes our aerospace mission.

Note that cadets can be mission scanners and observers also... How else would they earn those ratings if not for proficiency / training flying? Since cadets are not allowed to fly other cadets, SMs are required to fly cadets outside the O-Flight curriculum for this to happen. It's up to the pilot to adhere to CPP rules, but it can be done.

That was actually the clarification of the OP, not the original question, which indeed does sound like "one on one", which is what was addressed at first, with the CPP + 2 being the answer to the above, from multiple people, multiple times.

[Storm Chaser]

As a reminder, this was the original question:

Oh for sure. I didn't mean just me and one Cadet. But if me and another senior are out on a Proficiency Flight, can a Cadet go along, and could they ride front seat without it counting against their 5 official O-Rides.

No one has yet provided any evidence to support the notion that this is a prohibited request. All I've seen is a lot of "that would be discouraged" - yet there is no conceivable reason why it should be discouraged. It's within CPP, it's in accordance with CAPR 60-1 and it promotes our aerospace mission.

While I haven't seen anything in the regulation prohibiting it, I also haven't see anything authorizing it. This question should be addressed through the chain of command to be on the safe side.

Note that cadets can be mission scanners and observers also... How else would they earn those ratings if not for proficiency / training flying? Since cadets are not allowed to fly other cadets, SMs are required to fly cadets outside the O-Flight curriculum for this to happen. It's up to the pilot to adhere to CPP rules, but it can be done.

Cadets must be at least 18 years old to train as CAP aircrew members. Cadets under 18 years old must have authorization from the wing commander to do flight training.