CAP Talk

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_090303072619.pdf

ATVs can not be owned or operated by CAP. In fact, the or operated has been added to Humvees, boats, etc. I wonder how that will affect the handful of members who have Hummer POVs based on the Humvee.

I guess this makes canoe trips a no-go for a squadron activity too.

Edit: The subject is a little misleading. While the regulation does prohibit CAP from owning or operating golf carts, it gives you a great big exception when approved by a Wing/Region/National commander.

So, lets see now.

No buses (and after the APJOC crash, are we going to be restricted from military buses, too?)
no ATVs, no golf carts (whoa, what about NBB? That's this week, right?)
no HUMMVEES (I think that probably pertains to the military variants, not the civil ones which conform to federal highway safety standards for things like impact, bumpers, and seatbelts).

I think we're not allowed to have M-151s anymore either (thank god, too, cuz I saw a unit WIWAC that had this ancient military jeep and watching the squadron commander careen down the road at speed with a cadet in the right seat, two or three in the back and towing a trailer, with no roll bars and probably no seatbelts, lets just say that I was always worried that we'd be scraping these poor guys off the pavement someplace..)

Don't stay in those nice FEMA trailers we got, either, OK, until you've had a 3rd party check 'em out to make sure you're not gonna kill someone just for spending time in there... (Can we give radio operators "hazardous duty pay"?)

So we have 12 & 15 pax vans (oh, whoops, 12 pax vans.. if you have a 15 pax, remove the extra seat and enjoy the cargo space) which are known roll-over hazards.

Argh.

If they ban leather personnel carriers, I'm outtie.

Quote from: N Harmon on July 24, 2008, 01:35:06 PM
http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_090303072619.pdf


I guess this makes canoe trips a no-go for a squadron activity too.

If it does and your unit wants to take a canoe trip, just dual charter as a BSA Venture Crew and do it under the BSA charter.

You know, most of the county SAR teams in my state are based on ATV use from what I've read and heard.  There are definetely certain aspects of SAR missions where ATVs can be helpful.   That being said, they do have their dangers, but I see no reason for a total ban.  I would prohibit them from being used by cadets, but a properly equipped and trained senior member on an ATV shouldn't be a big problem.    

why develope proper ways to train and document the prpoer use o a resource when you can ban them

Just a typical knee-jerk reaction to a unique safety situation where someone got hurt.

We just had an ORM briefing from CAP's materials on Tuesday night, and part of the briefing discussed the downside to being 'reactive' to safety hazards as opposed to maintaining a constant well thought out standard.

I wonder if CAP has truly adopted ORM standards, or if it is just lip service.

How is a privately owned ATV being used by the owner any different than using a POV to respond to a mission? I would think same liability to the owner applies. I can see them not being owned by CAP or a Squadron and not allowing Minors to operate, but telling me I can't use my equipment because I have their uniform (which I own) on...that seems a little too Big Brother to me.

Quote from: NIN on July 24, 2008, 02:16:59 PMno golf carts (whoa, what about NBB? That's this week, right?)

Paragraph 2e is plenty of loop hole for NBB, HMRSS, and even encampments(which are wing-level activities):
1)Golf cart type utility vehicles (internal combustion or electric) may be authorized for use at wing-level, region-level or national-level activities by the commander at such level on an individual activity basis. The commander may delegate this authority (e.g. to the vice, chief of staff, or transportation officer.)

2)Golf cart type utility vehicles (internal combustion or electric) may not be purchased unless approved by either the National Commander, the CAP Executive Director, or by both the Region Commander and the National Safety Officer.

Though cadets must now be 18 and have a valid DL to operate:
g.Cadets are not authorized to operate any ATV type vehicle. Cadet use of golf type utility vehicles will be restricted to cadets 18 years of age or older with verification of a valid driver's license and then only with approval of the national/ region/wing commander (as appropriate for the level of activity being performed) or commander's designated representative. There will be no other cadet passengers in or on any vehicle when being operated by a cadet.


However the local fly-in, open house, etc., is now blocked, unless you're able to convince the Wing CC to make it a Wing activity (not really all that difficult).

This had to be in the hopper before the FLWG accident.  If it wasn't, and NHQ was able to update the actual regulation this fast, not simply issue an ICL, you have to admit its impressive.

Quote from: BigMojo on July 24, 2008, 04:56:43 PM
How is a privately owned ATV being used by the owner any different than using a POV to respond to a mission? I would think same liability to the owner applies. I can see them not being owned by CAP or a Squadron and not allowing Minors to operate, but telling me I can't use my equipment because I have their uniform (which I own) on...that seems a little too Big Brother to me.

How is it different?  Insurance.  Our insurance provider is willing to cover the risk of member owned vehicles (cars, trucks) but not ATVs.  It is that simple.

It is Big Brother...because it is CAP and not you who is going to pay the bill when you get killed or someone else is injured....even if there is no negligence involved.

If I am paying the bills......I get to say what happens.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 24, 2008, 06:05:16 PM

How is it different?  Insurance.  Our insurance provider is willing to cover the risk of member owned vehicles (cars, trucks) but not ATVs.  It is that simple.

It is Big Brother...because it is CAP and not you who is going to pay the bill when you get killed or someone else is injured....even if there is no negligence involved.

If I am paying the bills......I get to say what happens.

Good to know. I, apparently naively, thought that when in a POV, you are not under the CAP umbrella, but under the private insurance carrier...ergo, if I'm on my ATV, I am covered under my ATV insurance (yes I have it), not CAP's. This is really too bad, because ATV's are a valuable tool.

Okay, so....

CAP no-go:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Four_wheeler.jpg/360px-Four_wheeler.jpg)

Still okay:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Snowmobile.jpg)

and

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/DumontDunes_2005-04-25_paddle-tire.jpg/400px-DumontDunes_2005-04-25_paddle-tire.jpg)

and

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Sandrail.JPG/400px-Sandrail.JPG)

:P

(Of course, the reg does say "is not limited to" so please take the above as poking fun and not my advice to go out and buy any of the above for ground team work without a serious conversation with your wing king)

Not only do we hold the Guiness world record for ATV Parades in KY..

http://www.harlandaily.com/articles/2006/09/17/news/local_news/news9568.txt (http://www.harlandaily.com/articles/2006/09/17/news/local_news/news9568.txt)

But we also have a SAR certification course that is taught nationwide for ATV users.
http://eeresq.com/_wsn/page9.html (http://eeresq.com/_wsn/page9.html)

I don't know of a Rescue Squad in the state that doesn't have either an ATV on inventory or gaggles of members expected to show up with them.

Aren't ATV's in KY just commuter vehicles? >:D

Yep
:)
:angel:

National put us in the Nerf Suit again... <puke>... our new SAR uniform :
(http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/‌explorations/03edge/logs/aug16/media/doni_460.jpg)

I'm guessing there will now be even MORE local government and law enforcement agencies out there that will rule out CAP as a viable resource. I imagine there are some wings that depend on remote access vehicles VERY heavily, and this will cripple their SAR effort.

So, can we still do horseback patrols like in the ol' days?

-Ace

"Let's kill all the lawyers, let's kill 'em tonight!" - Don Henley

Quote from: alamrcn on July 25, 2008, 02:57:52 AM
So, can we still do horseback patrols like in the ol' days?

Right up to when a horse kicks some cadet in the teeth.  Then they will be outlawed as well.

Dumb cadets should know when they are looking at a horses *&$  that is an essential skill in life

All the more reason for mounted SAR in CAP

Well this certainly is a lively discussion! Definitely this was in response to the FLWG incident. Get this--I've seen memos from the Air Force commenting on CAP members' regard to safety as "unsatisfactory". Shoot, if the Air Force is sending memos saying step up safety, shouldn't someone have been looking to prevent this sort of stuff from happening? I agree that CAP needs unique equipment such as ATV's in wings that have very different terrain and incidents like the Florida one coupled with regs like this have potential to be detrimental. This regulation needs to be read very carefully and interpreted very carefully! National is forced to walk a very fine line here with these sort of things and we all need to be vigilant to safety, especially with cadets. Otherwise, litigation will sink us.

OK, so it's late and I've read it once, but what IS a Golf cart type utility? A Gator or like?

Also, up front it says NO ATV, then over in the shaded areas it confuses me to think there is some way that ATV's can be used...  Maybe I am just tired and will read this tomorrow with clarity.

Also, if they were going to update the reg then why didn't they change the language on the CAP seal to reflect the MAJCOM thing a ma bob (ok so it's late) decal on Corporate Owned Vehicles?

Quote from: KyCAP on July 25, 2008, 05:39:11 AM
Also, if they were going to update the reg then why didn't they change the language on the CAP seal to reflect the MAJCOM thing a ma bob (ok so it's late) decal on Corporate Owned Vehicles?

When they changed the insignia on the vehicles....they did not change the seals on our letter head.  The old round CAP USAF AUX seal is still our offical seal and should still be on our letter head and regulations.

QuoteCadets are not authorized to operate any ATV type vehicle.

Ya know what really grinds my gears?  Not putting thought into safety precautions.  I'll bet a sizeable portion of my left leg that there are many cadets with more riding experience/that have taken a safety course than seniors.  A blanket ban on it is just overkill.  Safety regulations are already in place to prevent the use of ATVs by people who are too young - they're called state laws.

As has been stated many time before - policies are not written for the exceptional. They're written for the majority. The vast majority of cadets (and seniors) have zero experience riding/driving atv's, etc.

From a commercial standpoint: I work at a ski resort (no, I can't get CAP members free tickets, I've already tried it). Every year I have to qualify on a snowmobile to operate one on the mountain. The only time I use one is at  work. Everyone who operates a snowmobile on the mountain has to go through the same qualification - including those who run them every weekend in far more rugged terrain than the ski mountain. If you haven't been signed off, you don't operate a snowmobile on the mountain, regardless of your experience. Why? Say it with me ... L-I-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. 

The same philosophy applies here.

Did anyone actually read the changes??  All they said was CAP can not own these machines, but we can still ride in them at Activities (read Hawk MTN, Blue Beret....etc.etc.etc.)

?

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/189-00/515.pdf (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/189-00/515.pdf)

Survey says... Wrong answer.  ATV's are HEAVILY regulated by State law in KY.  Above link is reference to the law.  One coming to KY should read it or plan to meet local law enforcement.

?

XX

Survey Says Wrong Answer..

The KRS is the Ky Revised Statute.  It is the "law" of the land in Ky since 1942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Revised_Statutes  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Revised_Statutes)

Here's a link to all state ATV laws.

http://www.offroaders.com/atv/ATV-Laws.html (http://www.offroaders.com/atv/ATV-Laws.html)

I didn't get a chance to click on them all to see if there is supporting law.. I ahve to go back to work.

Here are NH's:

http://www.atvsafety.gov/state/newhampshire.html

Quote
State Laws:
All ATV operators and passengers under 18 must wear a helmet and all operators under 18 must wear eye protection at all times.
All ATVs over 95 cc in engine size must be registered, with the owner receiving a license plate for the ATV.
Registration is to be renewed once every year.
No one under 18 can register an ATV.
No one under 18 operating an ATV shall carry passengers at any time.
Any person over 12 must have a safety certificate or a motor vehicle license to ride off their own property.
Any person under 14 must be supervised by an adult over 18 when off their own property.
ATV use on public roads and highways is prohibited, except to cross these roads.
No ATV shall be operated without a lighted headlight and taillight from ½ hour after sunset to ½ hour before sunrise.

If you want the long drawn out legislation: http://www.atvsafety.gov/legislation/NewHampshireLaw.pdf

But there are very much age restrictions and ability level requirements.  The motorcycle license and safety course require proof of skill before issuance in the form of a driving exam.


I think this is the link that the above poster meant to link for "all" laws: http://www.atvsafety.gov/legislation/legislation.html

Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on July 25, 2008, 11:19:06 AM
I'll bet a sizeable portion of my left leg that there are many cadets with more riding experience/that have taken a safety course than seniors. 

Two things.

1- Experience does not equate to being responsible or making good decisions.
2- Lawers and Insurance probably have more to do with these decisions than anything.

Remember - Cadets = Minors.  (Even if you are 20, you're still considered a minor by the corporation... and that affects things like insurance... liability... etc...)

Looks like 2LTShawDSQ601 withdraws to ?

Quote from: TankerT on July 25, 2008, 03:31:33 PM

Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on July 25, 2008, 11:19:06 AM
I'll bet a sizeable portion of my left leg that there are many cadets with more riding experience/that have taken a safety course than seniors. 

Two things.

1- Experience does not equate to being responsible or making good decisions.
2- Lawers and Insurance probably have more to do with these decisions than anything.

Remember - Cadets = Minors.  (Even if you are 20, you're still considered a minor by the corporation... and that affects things like insurance... liability... etc...)

The issue of cadets driving or even seniors under 21 driving is something I have given a lot of thought to. One of the sad things I learned in my research is all of the fatal motor vehicle accidents in CAP over the last 10 years or so have been by drivers over the age of 60....I think our safety focus is at the wrong end of the age line......maybe we should look at those with poor response time, more likely to fall asleep driving, poor vision and hearing, and years of bad habits before we look at those who are at their prime. You know its funny a 19 yr old solider can drive a tank but a 19 yr old senior member can't drive a mini van with 2 other members....even if they are all seniors.

Tanks are significantly more crash-resistant than a mini-van, and that 19-year-old won't be in that tank until he receives specific, hand-ons training and evaluation.

Something which many >drivers< in the US don't even get.

Driving in general in this country is treated as a "given" with little respect to the havoc and consequences that a 2-ton piece of steel can cause in a split second.  Those of us who have invested time and effort in driver / rider safety are all too familiar with this problem, and especially the attitude of "I got this!" related to ATV, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and water craft.

I have no issue with this restriction whatsoever, and am surprised it took so long.

As it stands, the large-scale activities have an (expected) loophole for golf carts, and the need for ATV-based SAR in CAP is so small as to be statistically zero (in most parts of the country), so the impact is minimal.

You can, however, add this to the perpetual list of "things we used to be able to do that someone screwed up for us due to poor decision making or supervision..."

QuoteYou can, however, add this to the perpetual list of "things we used to be able to do that someone screwed up for us due to poor decision making or supervision..."

That, I will agree on!

We should just get a different insurance provider.

There was a long discussion here about CAP, and its insurance.  One of the board Search experts could probably find it

QuoteTanks are significantly more crash-resistant than a mini-van, and that 19-year-old won't be in that tank until he receives specific, hand-ons training and evaluation.

The tank is crash resistant, the occupants are just as damagable in the tank as they are in the mini van....tank moving at 45mph, people in side moving at 45 mph, tank 45-0 in 1 second because hits wall, people in side 45-0 in 1 second hits inside tank...the tank just abosorbs more energy with less damage.

As a national guard medic I drove a M113 APC with 15 minutes instruction on inspection, start and how the levers work, then spent 30 minutes driving on the tank trails out to the range, the next day M113/M557 was on my license.....

mk

Quote from: sarmed1the next day M113/M557 was on my license.....

On your CAPF 75? COOL!!!!   ;D

Can we get the type of personnel restraints in our corp vans that are in the tanks? Safety first, ya know. Well, cost and politcal correctness first - then safety. But I digress.

Now how about bicycles? Many CAP personnel are seen rocketing around airports (and passing golf carts) on these two-wheel safety hazards - without proper equipment or training. I guess there hasn't been a notable (or reportable) incident yet with a bicycle for it to be approched in CAPR 77-1. Of course I'm being facetious and not really helping this discussion, sorry about that.

-Ace

Just got Col. Courter's memo regarding the Fossett search. Here is an excerpt:

QuoteFrom the start of the operation, these areas were searched repeatedly at different times of day and light angles in order for crews to better see into deep mountain ravines. Ground search teams on foot, horseback and all-terrain vehicles simultaneously combed the same target areas.

Was she referring to other agencies using ATVs or was CAP actually using ATVs during this search?

Okay, in classic SARKID style I've illustrated this situation (and my distaste for it) in a humorous flash animation.  As always, enjoy.

http://resdon111.googlepages.com/ATV.swf

QuoteBut our target is on the other side of that mountain range! How do we get there?

Hike in there. Or, the IC can contact AFRCC and attempt to get helicopter assistance to insert the ground team, or a 4x4 asset, or a mounted SAR team, or whatever else that might be available. This might be an operational limitation that we need a better solution for than expecting CAP members to provide safe and well-maintained ATVs.

Quote from: N Harmon on July 31, 2008, 01:17:36 AM

QuoteBut our target is on the other side of that mountain range! How do we get there?

Hike in there. Or, the IC can contact AFRCC and attempt to get helicopter assistance to insert the ground team, or a 4x4 asset, or a mounted SAR team, or whatever else that might be available. This might be an operational limitation that we need a better solution for than expecting CAP members to provide safe and well-maintained ATVs.

Or... we could haul in ATV's sling-loaded under the "CAP Blackhawks" that the British news story on the Fossett search said we used.

Do we really have a force that's capable of "hiking in there?" Obviously there are people that can, but you know very well that a whole lot of CAP GTs are not capable of walking too far from the van. Unfortunately, we have a lot of operational limitations that need to be addressed. With that as our foundation, it's rather reasonable to expect NHQ to be overzealous with the risk mgmt trying to keep us out of court & the insurance rates down.

Quote from: DNall on July 31, 2008, 02:22:44 AMDo we really have a force that's capable of "hiking in there?"

And that is a good point. If our GT can't hike in there, then you shouldn't send them in via ATV because if the ATVs run out of gas or break down then you will have effectively created more victims that need to be rescued.

Quote from: N Harmon on July 31, 2008, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: DNall on July 31, 2008, 02:22:44 AMDo we really have a force that's capable of "hiking in there?"

And that is a good point. If our GT can't hike in there, then you shouldn't send them in via ATV because if the ATVs run out of gas or break down then you will have effectively created more victims that need to be rescued.

Second

So I see everyone point about needing them and such but on the Average how often would they be used?  How often does a GT go out and find it is not just some airplane on the flight line?  Now I understand that there are the cases and locations that would need them more than other so couldnt a better fix than out lawing them be to make them a Group or wing asset and if a GT needs them after specific criteria is meet the the Level of Authority owning the Vehicles be able to deploy them.  We bounce Aircraft around enough why wouldnt it be a smarter idea there.  Then on the insurance side of things we would have that Group or Wing be able to facilitate the safety course and such with the insurance company to see what is required to effective manage this asset.  Just my $.02

Quote from: hatentx on August 02, 2008, 11:14:51 PM
So I see everyone point about needing them and such but on the Average how often would they be used?  How often does a GT go out and find it is not just some airplane on the flight line?  Now I understand that there are the cases and locations that would need them more than other so couldnt a better fix than out lawing them be to make them a Group or wing asset and if a GT needs them after specific criteria is meet the the Level of Authority owning the Vehicles be able to deploy them.  We bounce Aircraft around enough why wouldnt it be a smarter idea there.  Then on the insurance side of things we would have that Group or Wing be able to facilitate the safety course and such with the insurance company to see what is required to effective manage this asset.  Just my $.02

Wavelength; we share it.

What is the info on the FLWG incident?

What happened at APJOC and a bus?

Quote from: Senior on August 17, 2008, 07:38:48 PMWhat happened at APJOC and a bus?

The brakes failed on an AF bus, driven by an AF driver,  causing it to rear end a civilian vehicle. This resulted in a number of minor injuries, boo-boos, and owwies. The students were enroute to go "indoor skydiving" when this occured.

Major Lord

Tags - MIKE

Okay guys, here's one for ya!

At the California Wing Encampment the photographer (a senior member) used his personal Segway to get around.
He wore a helmet and the MP's on post didn't have a problem with it.
Of course, this was the first Segway on post, so they were in the dark too.

So, was it legal to use this at a CAP activity?

Please back up your answers with reg cites please.

Was he wearing a reflective vest on post?

Quote from: MIKE on August 17, 2008, 11:47:41 PM
Was he wearing a reflective vest on post?

Yes he was. 

The best our Safety Officer (an Active Duty Navy Senior Chief) could come up with was wear the same stuff you wear while riding a motorcycle.

Quote from: MIKE on August 17, 2008, 11:47:41 PM
Was he wearing a reflective vest on post?

Ahh the annoying PPE stuff all over the military.  I am glad CAP hasnt caught on to all of that yet.  I know there is some but when I have to wear balistic eye pro to go shower that is crossing the line.

Quote from: hatentx on August 18, 2008, 02:59:39 AMI know there is some but when I have to wear balistic eye pro to go shower that is crossing the line.

You forgot the non-conductive over-garment.  >:D

Quote from: MIKE on August 18, 2008, 03:08:30 AM

Quote from: hatentx on August 18, 2008, 02:59:39 AMI know there is some but when I have to wear balistic eye pro to go shower that is crossing the line.

You forgot the non-conductive over-garment.  >:D

Oh yeah and my power ranger bet (reflective belt)  so I can be seen in the day time while I am in a combat zone wearing ACUs.  The sun is seriously 15 ft above your head.  We can see everything but Bin-Ladin

Quote from: PHall on August 17, 2008, 11:29:42 PM
Okay guys, here's one for ya!

At the California Wing Encampment the photographer (a senior member) used his personal Segway to get around.
He wore a helmet and the MP's on post didn't have a problem with it.
Of course, this was the first Segway on post, so they were in the dark too.

So, was it legal to use this at a CAP activity?

Please back up your answers with reg cites please.

Prior to this regulation....yes....after it gets into a gray area of intent vs letter of the law.

As a wing level event...the segway could be allowed just as golf carts and gators are allowed.

This is obviously a knee jerk reaction that is going to cause a lot of willful disobediance....I know here in Las Vegas we have a golf cart we let the FLS use to run about the airport.....NOT CADETS.....it was donated to the squadron....by regulation we should give it away/sell it/trash it.

QuoteAs a wing level event...the segway could be allowed just as golf carts and gators are allowed.

I'm sure you meant just as golf carts and gators were allowed.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 18, 2008, 05:32:08 AM

QuoteAs a wing level event...the segway could be allowed just as golf carts and gators are allowed.

I'm sure you meant just as golf carts and gators were allowed.

So...still allowed

Quotee. Any special vehicle requests that fall outside the Vehicle Requirements and Allowance Standards (Attachment 2) must be adequately justified and submitted with the wing's yearly corporate vehicle request.

1) Golf cart type utility vehicles (internal combustion or electric) may be authorized for use at wing-level, region-level or national-level activities by the commander at such level on an individual activity basis. The commander may delegate this authority (e.g. to the vice, chief of staff, or transportation officer.)

All you got to do is get your wing king to okay it.