CAPR 60-1 5 Jan 2009 Posted on eServices

[Short Field]

The new CAPR 60-1 with associated policy letter for assessing members the cost of damage to the aircraft is now effective.   It is posted on eServices.

Did I miss something or is the only thing now required in the member's paper file is the Statement of Understanding?  Looks like the rest of it is required on eServices now.  Will need to check the changes to the Pilot section of Ops Quals when it comes back up on 6 Jan 08.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Thankfully, the letter assessing damages keeps them where they have been for years.   Simple Negligence $500.00 cap ; Gross Negligence $5000.00 cap , Willful Conduct - Full Damages possible.

I am happy that every complaint that I made about the proposed 60-1 was changed to reflect common sense in the final product. 

[Eclipse]

Thankfully, the letter assessing damages keeps them where they have been for years.   Simple Negligence $500.00 cap ; Gross Negligence $5000.00 cap , Willful Conduct - Full Damages possible.

Maybe we just need to send more invoices - the amount of hanger rash showing up in the Sentinel lately is completely unacceptable.

[DG]

I am happy that every complaint that I made about the proposed 60-1 was changed to reflect common sense in the final product. 

I posted in this forum on June 24, 2008 that "The revised CAPR 60-1 for comment provides in paragraph 2.7 g. that CAP members may be assessed some or all of the damages due to negligent operation or movement of CAP Corporate aircraft."

The new official 60-1 which takes full force and effect today provides in paragraph 2.7 g. that "CAP members may be assessed some or all of the damages due to negligent operation or movement of CAP Corporate aircraft."

[caprr275]

The new 60-1 also keeps cadets from being o flight pilots and mission pilots if there is another cadet as part of the air crew. The new 60-1 basically will not let cadets fly the missions that they have in the past. It is very anti cadet and needs to be changed!

[lordmonar]

No....it is just consitant with the current definition of cadet.

[IceNine]

The new 60-1 also keeps cadets from being o flight pilots and mission pilots if there is another cadet as part of the air crew. The new 60-1 basically will not let cadets fly the missions that they have in the past. It is very anti cadet and needs to be changed!

It does not limit cadets from being orientation pilots, it simply says that they must be a CFI. 

Be an active CAP pilot at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age with a valid FAA CFI certificate).

CAP VFR Pilot at least 21 years of age (or have a valid FAA CFI certificate).

That "or" means that if you meet this requirement you don't have to meet the other one.

[lordmonar]

The new 60-1 also keeps cadets from being o flight pilots and mission pilots if there is another cadet as part of the air crew. The new 60-1 basically will not let cadets fly the missions that they have in the past. It is very anti cadet and needs to be changed!

It does not limit cadets from being orientation pilots, it simply says that they must be a CFI. 

Be an active CAP pilot at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age with a valid FAA CFI certificate).

CAP VFR Pilot at least 21 years of age (or have a valid FAA CFI certificate).

That "or" means that if you meet this requirement you don't have to meet the other one.

I think he was talking about

d. Only pilots that are qualified as CAP Instructors, Cadet/AFROTC/AFJROTC Orientation Pilots, or SAR/DR or Transport Mission Pilots (during Supervised Missions) may carry CAP cadets as passengers or crew members. At no time may a pilot who is a CAP Cadet carry another CAP Cadet as a passenger or crew member.

[Auxpilot]

If you are an FRO you better read the new reg closely. You are now a full time dispatcher and are personally responsible/obligated to start search procedures within two hours of the estimated time of arrival.

If a plane goes down and the crew dies of injuries sometime post crash, you will be going to court to defend yourself. The estimated time of arrival is subject to you proving that your data is correct and god forbid that you did not start the search on time.

What are "search procedures" and who do you call? The FAA, your CC?

If you can't sit by the phone and wait until the flight is down, better not release a flight.

[heliodoc]

If that is true Auxpilot

Then CAP itself had better send those folks to an appropriately certifcated FBO type dispatcher school...

Or is CAP trying to fly under the FAA radar??

Then there better be some kind of FAA certificate attached and NOTATED to that FRO

If it's true... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot CAP?

[IceNine]

What are "search procedures" and who do you call? The FAA, your CC?

If you can't sit by the phone and wait until the flight is down, better not release a flight.

That will directly depend on your wing's policy.

And let's get real, that's a pretty Exaggerated statement "can't sit by the phone".  Whatever, if you don't know that you have a flight that is overdue by 2 hours then you should not be releasing flights

If you can't sit by the phone GET A CELL PHONE!!!!.  OR pass off to someone that you trust.

Regardless of how you feel about it, you may very well be the only person alive that knows that airplane is out trolling around.  And if they come up missing because you weren't vigilant that they were overdue that will haunt your conscience anyway.  CAP is simply protecting themselves from the non-vigilant.

[Auxpilot]

If that is true Auxpilot

Then CAP itself had better send those folks to an appropriately certifcated FBO type dispatcher school...

Or is CAP trying to fly under the FAA radar??

Then there better be some kind of FAA certificate attached and NOTATED to that FRO

If it's true... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot CAP?

Well it says that you are not a "Dispatcher" but then goes on to say that you are responsible to initiate a search if the aircraft does not land within two hours of the  ETA. Call it what you want but if you drop the ball on initiating the search, you are personally on the hook my friend.

[caprr275]

Cadet and AFROTC/AFJROTC Orientation Pilots.
(1) Current CAP senior member.
(2) CAP VFR Pilot at least 21 years of age (or have a valid FAA CFI certificate

So if you follow this reg the way it looks if your a 20 year old CFI you can except for #1 which clearly states you must be a CAP Senior Member

[heliodoc]

Auxpilot

I'm with you on this one...

FRO's could be dropping when the "agency" isn't backing your six

[Auxpilot]

What are "search procedures" and who do you call? The FAA, your CC?

If you can't sit by the phone and wait until the flight is down, better not release a flight.

That will directly depend on your wing's policy.

And let's get real, that's a pretty Exaggerated statement "can't sit by the phone".  Whatever, if you don't know that you have a flight that is overdue by 2 hours then you should not be releasing flights

If you can't sit by the phone GET A CELL PHONE!!!!.  OR pass off to someone that you trust.

Regardless of how you feel about it, you may very well be the only person alive that knows that airplane is out trolling around.  And if they come up missing because you weren't vigilant that they were overdue that will haunt your conscience anyway.  CAP is simply protecting themselves from the non-vigilant.

There is no room for Wing Policy here. It states that the FRO must initiate a search. How exactly he is to do that is not defined.

Your point about vigilance is well taken but that won't help you in court. You are now on the hook for something that the FAA used to get paid for (VFR flight plans.)

I don't know about you but I work all day and many times am in meetings for hours on end. I can't be responsible to set an alarm for two hours after every flight that I release and have the pilots constantly call me with flight time adjustments because the last guy that flew was a half hour late and so on.

This a job for the NOC, not a volunteer.

I don't see any way that it protects CAP but it places huge personal liability on it's members.

[lordmonar]

If you are not comfortable with the duties...don't volunteer.

As we just stated....sure the FAA is supposed to track flight plans...but so are we as an organisation.

As for "initiate a search"....as Icenice said....follow your wing's policy on who/how you do that.

If you don't know...then you should not be a FRO.

The whole point of having FRO's in the first place is to help protect the organisation.  We started it because people were out flying CAP planes with no FAA flight plan and no one knew they were out tootling around.

All 60-1 is doing...is closing the loop.  We know when they took off, what they were supposed to do and when they were supposed to be back.  If you are not going to be home for that time....transfer the release up your chain of command, get a cell phone or don't release the flight.

[Short Field]

If it is too much trouble to keep track of the flight you released to make sure they got back within two hours of ETA, then it should be too much trouble to release the flight.   CAP just made making sure the aircraft landed within two hours of ETA part of the job of a FRO.  If you can't or don't want to do the job, then don't be a FRO.  

[Mustang]

Worst. Reg. Rewrite. Ever.

[Auxpilot]

If it is too much trouble to keep track of the flight you released to make sure they got back within two hours of ETA, then it should be too much trouble to release the flight.   CAP just made making sure the aircraft landed within two hours of ETA part of the job of a FRO.  If you can't or don't want to do the job, then don't be a FRO.  

My point exactly, I am betting that we will have fewer FRO's than before as a result of this reg change.

I have had many situations where 3-4 flights are going on in a single day that I have released in the morning and logged the times later in the day.

I can't do my job and manage flights all day. People can pound their chests all they want about the duties of an FRO, which never before included being responsible for starting search procedures within a two hour window, but the simple fact is not all of us can conform with this reg, nor do we want the personal financial liability for the failure to start a search at T+2 hours.

This organization is made up of members that have various levels of non-CAP responsibility and the creep of reg changes like this will only move more work to those who have the time to do it.

If this regulation was written as a result of a series of CAP planes going down and nobody looking for them it would be one thing but that is not the case. This is someone at the AF saying that they do it this way and so should CAP. The only difference is that they have paid airman in the command post doing the job.

There is already a procedure for this that has been working for years - it's called a VFR flight plan. If the concern here is that planes are going down without anyone looking for them then mandate that all flights file a flight plan, just like CD flights already have to. Don't make some volunteer potentially become financially responsible for another members actions.

I asked an attorney friend of mine to give me his take on this and the potential liability last night. He told me that unless the crew died on impact, this new reg absolutely transfers a significant degree of liability to the FRO in the event that he cannot prove without out a doubt that he started a search on time.

If you can do this, and find the transfer of personal liability to you and your family acceptable, god bless you.

[lordmonar]

Worst. Reg. Rewrite. Ever.

That's helpful.

[Eclipse]

I can't do my job and manage flights all day. People can pound their chests all they want about the duties of an FRO, which never before included being responsible for starting search procedures within a two hour window, but the simple fact is not all of us can conform with this reg, nor do we want the personal financial liability for the failure to start a search at T+2 hours.

<<*pound*>>  <<*pound*>>  ((*cough*)) ...that really HURTS!

Then what's the point of bring an FRO to start with?

This is another one of those self-evident things I always assumed was a basic tenant of being an FRO - responsibility for keeping an eye on the airplane getting back safely.

Your job allows you to take the time to receive the FRO call, run through the checklist, etc., but a few hours later you can't take the "wheels down" call, or, a few hours later than that, make a call to an IC, etc., that they are considered late but you can't be involved in a search right now?

[Auxpilot]

I can't do my job and manage flights all day. People can pound their chests all they want about the duties of an FRO, which never before included being responsible for starting search procedures within a two hour window, but the simple fact is not all of us can conform with this reg, nor do we want the personal financial liability for the failure to start a search at T+2 hours.

<<*pound*>>  <<*pound*>>  ((*cough*)) ...that really HURTS!

Then what's the point of bring an FRO to start with?

This is another one of those self-evident things I always assumed was a basic tenant of being an FRO - responsibility for keeping an eye on the airplane getting back safely.

Your job allows you to take the time to receive the FRO call, run through the checklist, etc., but a few hours later you can't take the "wheels down" call, or, a few hours later than that, make a call to an IC, etc., that they are considered late but you can't be involved in a search right now?

You miss the point completely. There is a big difference between "keeping an eye on the airplane" and being responsible for initiating a search at a definite point in time.

I can take the calls as I can, or they go to my VM and I deal with them later. I can't be sitting in a meeting with clients and tell them to sit tight while I check on my flight crews. Likewise I will not accept the legal responsibility of starting a search on time. If I am at a mission working as Air Ops or something like that there is no issue with this as I can devote 100% of my time to making sure that the planes come back when they are supposed to.

Common sense tells us that as and FRO we would start making calls if a crew does not call us within a reasonable time but a "reasonable time" was never mandated by regulation. Now that it is my absolute responsibility to start a search within two hours, I cannot always committ to living up to my end of the bargin. During the week I will tell my flight crews that they MUST file a VFR flight plan or I will not release the flight, period.

[Al Sayre]

FWIW, during our Wing CI this weekend, I had a discussion about this with the folks from NHQ who were inspecting Ops.  Starting search procedures would be the standard stuff like calling the pilots home and cell, then the FBO, then notifying the FAA.  Most of us start calling home and cell phones and FBO's if someone is more than an hour overdue anyway.  Once you've made the first call, your phone logs would back you up.  The reg still says we are not dispatchers and NHQ doesn't intend to be shifting any legal responsibilities by adding this to the Reg.

[Eclipse]

You miss the point completely. There is a big difference between "keeping an eye on the airplane" and being responsible for initiating a search at a definite point in time.

No, I'm not missing the point, I'm making it.

FRO's are supposed to be responsible for knowing where the plane is, thats the point of why we have them.

During the week I will tell my flight crews that they MUST file a VFR flight plan or I will not release the flight, period.

In which case one of two things will happen, either resulting in what appears to be what you want, anyway.

A) Pilots will stop calling you and release with someone else.

B) You'll be told to stop making your own rules, and probably quit being an FRO.

[Auxpilot]

FWIW, during our Wing CI this weekend, I had a discussion about this with the folks from NHQ who were inspecting Ops.  Starting search procedures would be the standard stuff like calling the pilots home and cell, then the FBO, then notifying the FAA.  Most of us start calling home and cell phones and FBO's if someone is more than an hour overdue anyway.  Once you've made the first call, your phone logs would back you up.  The reg still says we are not dispatchers and NHQ doesn't intend to be shifting any legal responsibilities by adding this to the Reg.

All good points however NHQ does not determine legal responsibility, blood sucking leaches do. By writing the regulation the way they did FRO's accept the responsibility via their release of the flight. The civil responsibility then shifts from the pilot, who should have arranged someone to start looking for them (FAA via flight plan, wife, etc.), to the FRO who has now taken over the responsibility.

Sounds like a trivial matter until one finds himself in a court of law.

[Eclipse]

Its not like this is anything new, as an FRO you're already accepting huge responsibility in that yo are confirming the pilot is legal to fly the plane (based on documentation provided by your wing, and has the proper uniform and credentials on his person (not to mention the rest of the checklist).

[heliodoc]

So Eclipse

Maybe CAP pilots ought to file an FAA flight plan for local area and put the FRO's out of business, which I know, won't.

I don't know of any FRO's that do not have a job or a life

But you sure stating what everyone already knows about  here.....  "the ability to step up to the plate."

Here's one for you .... how come CAP did this before FRO's?? Simple  LAWYERS

Here's one for YOU  Do those FRO's always know where those CAP aircraft are?? Do those CAP FRO's all sit by a radar screen tracking the flight

CAP had better investing in  dispatcher training for those folks....you think an online test makes you an expert??

Online tests are really not real testing like FAA testing and really how would an online test hold up in a court of law as say, an FAA certificate??

Eclipse, you got some quick answers for that one?? You sure got plenty of answers on this forum for everyone....

[Auxpilot]

Its not like this is anything new, as an FRO you're already accepting huge responsibility in that yo are confirming the pilot is legal to fly the plane (based on documentation provided by your wing, and has the proper uniform and credentials on his person (not to mention the rest of the checklist).

I'm going t bet that the civil liability imposed on an FRO for the pilots not wearing the proper uniform during a crash is pretty insignificant.

There is however a huge liability difference between the release of an aircraft based on currency data provided by CAP and the failure of an uninsured FRO to initiate a timely search.

We most likely have beat this issue within an inch of its life............

[Eclipse]

Eclipse, you got some quick answers for that one?? You sure got plenty of answers on this forum for everyone....

Yep.

If the pilots go somewhere or do something outside the authorization of that mission profile, that's on them, not the FRO.
The FRO can report the infraction to the Wing DO and let them deal with it.

The FRO's are supposed to know who's in the plane, confirm they are authorized to fly it, and why / where they are going.
They are also supposed to know when they are due back.

This "I've got a job stuff nonsense" is just that.  Nonsense.

As to the "online tests", I don't know what your referring to as holding up in court - there is a standard checklist, run through it as directed, record the responses, and get back to your real job.

In "x" hours later, if you have not heard from the pilot, either start making phone calls, etc. (I bet in 99% of the cases a 1-minute cycle of text messaging will confirm its location), or contact your Wing DO and let him know a plane is overdue but you do not have the ability to hand-hold a search.

Hardly onerous or unreasonable.

And maybe better scrutiny by the FROs will help keep our pilots to the reservation schedule and avoid the constant situations of the "next guy" sitting on the ramp with a bunch of cadets waiting for the airplane to be returned.

Can't accept / don't want the responsibility? Don't be an FRO.

"They need me..." Doesn't fly.

"No one else will do it..." Doesn't fly.

If they lose enough FRO's for this reason, they will either adjust the expectation and the regulations, or solicit new ones.  CAP lives on, and you can get back to work.

[heliodoc]

ALL you listed I am sure the current crop of FRO's are already doing

Thanks for the "expert" reply

[Short Field]

or contact your Wing DO and let him know a plane is overdue but you do not have the ability to hand-hold a search.

That totally satisfies the requirement to "start a search".   The DO might be unhappy with you because you didn't track them down to the local pilots hangout or their house, but that is the only legal requirement you have.  The PIC would probably have liked you better if you had called his cell phone or home phone before calling the DO, but that is not the FRO's problem.  The FRO is not the flight's babysitter but its alarm clock.  One hour overdue ----> call DO.  Not that hard.