Young Eagles Pilots versus CAP O-Flight Pilots

[xray328]

I was surprised to learn that the EAA allows brand new pilots, as in 16 years old and just got their PPL yesterday,  fly kids for Young Eagle flights.  Are there really no other requirements?  Seems odd given CAP's requirements for Orientation Flight Pilots.

[etodd]

Youth Protection Course, background checks, proof of insurance, etc.

Plus the parents of the kids wanting to fly. They can always ask for a more experienced pilot.

[xray328]

Doesn't seem like much seat time with CAP wanting 200 hours PIC.   

[Eclipse]

Doesn't seem like much seat time with CAP wanting 200 hours PIC.

CAP is many things, but few can honestly question its conservative approach to flight ops, especially in regards to cadets.

Also, there are likely so few pilots under 21 who have the means to be Young Eagles pilots that the exceptions
are easily managed, especially when you consider that the pilot pays the gas, rents or owns the plane, and
has to cover the liability insurance, etc.

[farsightusf2017]

From the flights I did when I was younger there usually is a stark difference between Orides and EA flights too. All the Young eagle flights I did were essentially extended traffic patterns where an Oride could involve a cross country where more risk is involved and usually young eagles aren't allowed to touch the controls or fly per say like cadets on orides. But really it is The Who is the bottom line on the insurance individual pilot or the AF for orides.

[OldGuy]

A close relationship between the EAA Young Eagles coordinator and your PAO and R and R team can pay gigantic dividends!

[etodd]

A close relationship between the EAA Young Eagles coordinator and your PAO and R and R team can pay gigantic dividends!

^^^^

I'm in CAP and EAA.  Anytime we schedule a Young Eagles day, we have CAP folks manning a CAP Booth, handing out brochures, STEM kit displays, etc.

[redfire122]

I also am EAA & CAP. Whenever I give an o-flight I hand out a young eagle form. That way the cadet gets the free Sporty's ground school and other benefits. Its like giving away $200.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[etodd]

I also am EAA & CAP. Whenever I give an o-flight I hand out a young eagle form. That way the cadet gets the free Sporty's ground school and other benefits. Its like giving away $200.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cadets get the same deal with Sportys.

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/cadets/activities/cadet-flying/cap-cadets--young-eagles

[redfire122]

Great, I am really glad they do that. Did this just start or was I unaware.

[Eclipse]

Great, I am really glad they do that. Did this just start or was I unaware.

It has been available for at least 6 years.

[murphey]

I was surprised to learn that the EAA allows brand new pilots, as in 16 years old and just got their PPL yesterday,  fly kids for Young Eagle flights.  Are there really no other requirements?  Seems odd given CAP's requirements for Orientation Flight Pilots.

Private Pilot age is 17, not 16. Altho the minimum criteria is a PPL, each EAA chapter that conducts YE flights may require more stringent limits. I'm a member of an EAA chapter that requires a minimum of 200 hours AFTER the private and an interview with the YE coordinator. But I'm not a CAP pilot - too much overhead and absurdity with paperwork and if you're not a member of "the old boys club"......besides, I own an airplane so I don't need to use CAP to get flight time.

As for insurance, Young Eagle rides have 2 levels - first is EAA then the individual pilot's policy. You'd be surprised at the paperwork we have to go thru for a YE Rallye.

The ORide is a well-defined syllabus, as opposed to a YE flight which each chapter can define as it chooses. Our EAA chapter has a one-flight, one Young Eagle....we don't load up the airplane with 3 kids and do the pattern. Not only that, but we make sure the YE has hands-on time. Since I have a 4 seater, I often get a parent in the back. One day I'm going to mount a camera pointing to the back seat so when I hand the controls to the YE, and tell the parent I'm not touching the controls, the YE can have a photo of the sheer panic on the parent's face!

[TheSkyHornet]

Are the Young Eagles flights an operational familiarization (i.e., introductory) flight, or an instructional flight like CAP's O-Flights? Obviously, CAP's flights aren't legal instructions (the seated cadet isn't logging time).

[etodd]

Are the Young Eagles flights an operational familiarization (i.e., introductory) flight, or an instructional flight like CAP's O-Flights? Obviously, CAP's flights aren't legal instructions (the seated cadet isn't logging time).

All the Young Eagle flights we do here, are quite frankly, joy rides.  We do put three in the plane and I'll fly them about 20 minutes doing some sight-seeing. Most of mine have wound up being in that 8-12 year old range. Enough to be interested, but not caring much about details yet. Mostly taking cell phone photos out the window. LOL  Every once in awhile the right seat kid will want to make a few turns and be interested in whats in the panel. They are much younger, and I'm just hoping to create that spark of interest and excitement. An 8 year old still has a few years until they can reach the rudder pedals.

[xray328]

I was surprised to learn that the EAA allows brand new pilots, as in 16 years old and just got their PPL yesterday,  fly kids for Young Eagle flights.  Are there really no other requirements?  Seems odd given CAP's requirements for Orientation Flight Pilots.

Private Pilot age is 17, not 16. Altho the minimum criteria is a PPL, each EAA chapter that conducts YE flights may require more stringent limits. I'm a member of an EAA chapter that requires a minimum of 200 hours AFTER the private and an interview with the YE coordinator. But I'm not a CAP pilot - too much overhead and absurdity with paperwork and if you're not a member of "the old boys club"......besides, I own an airplane so I don't need to use CAP to get flight time.

As for insurance, Young Eagle rides have 2 levels - first is EAA then the individual pilot's policy. You'd be surprised at the paperwork we have to go thru for a YE Rallye.

The ORide is a well-defined syllabus, as opposed to a YE flight which each chapter can define as it chooses. Our EAA chapter has a one-flight, one Young Eagle....we don't load up the airplane with 3 kids and do the pattern. Not only that, but we make sure the YE has hands-on time. Since I have a 4 seater, I often get a parent in the back. One day I'm going to mount a camera pointing to the back seat so when I hand the controls to the YE, and tell the parent I'm not touching the controls, the YE can have a photo of the sheer panic on the parent's face!

https://inspire.eaa.org/2019/10/16/16-year-old-glider-pilot-gives-first-young-eagles-ride/

It's happening in the glider world.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheSkyHornet]

Another question to stir up debate:

What's the consensus on allowing CAP cadets to go up for Young Eagles (and EAA) plane rides? For example, if a squadron is working a local air show, should the cadets be permitted to fly on non-CAP aircraft as a "Thank you guys for doing a great job!" I'm specifically speaking about in-uniform and/or during the activity—with CAPF 60-80s signed and annotating permission for flying.

[Eclipse]

Change out of the uniform and go flying.  At that point they are no longer on CAP's clock.

In-uniform, during the activity. No.

Of course nothing stops them from signing out of the CAP part of the activity and taking a flight, then signing back
in, same as if they went to lunch.

Frankly I don't see any real reason they could not fly in an EAA plane in uniform, but why leabe it gray should something happen.

As to a 60-80? Absolutely not.  You want zero implication that flight or plane has anything to do with CAP.
Flying in a non-CAP plane is decidedly a non-CAP activity.

[TheSkyHornet]

Change out of the uniform and go flying.  At that point they are no longer on CAP's clock.

In-uniform, during the activity. No.

Of course nothing stops them from signing out of the CAP part of the activity and taking a flight, then signing back
in, same as if they went to lunch.

Frankly I don't see any real reason they could not fly in an EAA plane in uniform, but why leabe it gray should something happen.

As to a 60-80? Absolutely not.  You want zero implication that flight or plane has anything to do with CAP.
Flying in a non-CAP plane is decidedly a non-CAP activity.

So what's the regulation that cites that it's a non-CAP activity. I guess that's what I'm looking for: teeth in favor of either side.

I guess the same question applies to, say, a squadron who wants to book a flight on a B-17. Is that a no-no activity?

I talked to our Wing DCP about this who said that he couldn't see anything that really prohibits it. We allow cadets to fly on commercial aircraft with parental permission. What's the difference here? (to play Devil's advocate)

[Eclipse]

By virtue of it >not< being an approved activity. You can't really prove the negative.

A B-17 flight would require approval by whatever process the respective wing requires - in that case since it would not presumably be free, Wing or higher would have to sign the contract for the flight anyway.

But I would see it as really important to make it clear those flights are in no way connected to CAP.

Commercial travel and to/from activities are explicitly called out as "not CAP's problem" in the regs, except for the
verbiage related to CPT.

[TheSkyHornet]

By virtue of it >not< being an approved activity. You can't really prove the negative.

A counter to that is the fact that there are a number of activities that aren't approved. We don't have a list of all things pre-approved. We do, however, have a list of activities that require approval and those that will never be approved (i.e., prohibited).

A B-17 flight would require approval by whatever process the respective wing requires - in that case since it would not presumably be free, Wing or higher would have to sign the contract for the flight anyway.

Take cost association out of it. I'm talking on a philosophical level as an activity, plus or minus the affordability of it.

But I would see it as really important to make it clear those flights are in no way connected to CAP.

True.

But if a unit wanted to take the flight, as a CAP activity—briefed at the squadron meeting, a sign-up process, permission slips, etc.—could they?


My only argument for the flights is that they're either something that would qualify as HAA, or that CAP cadets are limited to lights in association with NCSAs or flight training or O-Flights. This is the gray matter that I'm trying to clarify.

I was hoping Ned would chime in. I might just need to go VFR direct via email.

[Eclipse]

How does your wing approve non-meeting / o-ride activities?

[etodd]

How does your wing approve non-meeting / o-ride activities?

I go into WMIRS, enter an Oride sortie into the appropriate Mission Number ... and go fly. As long as the budget is there and it allows me to enter the sortie, we are good to go.  Whats a "meeting" got to do with it?

Some times we schedule full Oride Days ... other times it may be a Cadet or two on an odd day. "Hey the forecast tomorrow is great! Who needs an Oride?"

[Blanding]

I go into WMIRS, enter an Oride sortie into the appropriate Mission Number ... and go fly. As long as the budget is there and it allows me to enter the sortie, we are good to go.  Whats a "meeting" got to do with it?

The fact it's a non-meeting activity is relevant because non-meeting activities have different approval requirements. For example, I'm sure you're verifying each cadet flying with you has a completed CAPF 60-80 or local equivalent for each orientation flight?

CAPR 60-1 provides two avenues for cadets to fly; CAP orientation flights and military orientation flights (ref: Para 8.9) but makes no mention of cadets flying in random, individual owned airplanes with non-FBI checked people.

What scenario is even being proposed? If a cadet parent is present and the cadet is signed out of the activity, why even ask the question? In that case, it's no different than if the cadet signed themselves up for the YE flight.

[TheSkyHornet]

How does your wing approve non-meeting / o-ride activities?

That's arranged through the Director of Operations' team. — The squadron requests the flights. The DO organizes the rest. Cadets show up. Cadets go fly. (And yes, permission slips are a part of it).

CAPR 60-1 provides two avenues for cadets to fly; CAP orientation flights and military orientation flights (ref: Para 8.9) but makes no mention of cadets flying in random, individual owned airplanes with non-FBI checked people.

What scenario is even being proposed? If a cadet parent is present and the cadet is signed out of the activity, why even ask the question? In that case, it's no different than if the cadet signed themselves up for the YE flight.

This is my take on it as well. But there seems to be varying opinion on that matter.

[Eclipse]

My primary issue with allowing cadets to fly YE flights in uniform is that CAP uniforms are only allowed for wear
during properly approved activities, and with that requirement comes implication of organizational involvement.

Manning the check-in table and helping kids on the flightline would be an approved activity through whatever process the respective wing requires for non-meeting / non-local O-ride activities. Many wings require higher HQ approval of anything that isn't listed on the 27.  Those that don't should seriously consider implementing something because there is a lot of tomfoolery in the name of CAP that gets caught in the net of prior approval (Cadets working as free labor at a senior member's tax business, which would then be considered "community service" comes to mind off the top of my head, but there's plenty more).

But getting into someone else's private plane to go flying isn't something CAP will authorize as an approved activity, and any insinuation that CAP is somehow involved should be excised via as many bright lines as possible. This is especially true when you consider that CAP has no way whatsoever to vet the pilot(s) in question for age, experience, or ability, so why would it allow members to imply liability on its part?

As mentioned, having the cadet change their shirt and sign out of the activity, even if it's only for the duration of the flight, insures no one is confused.  To be clear, in the event of a mishap, CAP >is< going to get sued, as is the poor guy in the McD's across the street from the airport who didn't yell "look out" loud enough, but at least that give the organization legitimate grounds to be removed from the suit(s).

[Blanding]

My primary issue with allowing cadets to fly YE flights in uniform is that CAP uniforms are only allowed for wear
during properly approved activities, and with that requirement comes implication of organizational involvement.

Agree - the uniform should not be worn during a YE flight taken by a CAP member.

When the Knowledgebase was a thing there was a question on there that posited, "What if I say the cadets can go to a restaurant after they're done, would that still be part of the activity?" They made it clear that anything announced by an activity director must follow the standards of practice for cadet protection and approval. I don't know if the same standard can be inferred from the current regulation set, but that's how I would operate.

Mentioning Young Eagles at all would, therefore, be implicit approval by the CAP leader (and I would suggest, improper).

[TheSkyHornet]

I think we're on the same page here, philosophically speaking.

We're a Wing that does not require approval for any cadet activity that isn't an HAA, which I'm okay with. Banquets, field trips, social activities...we don't want these to get stuck waiting Wing approval, especially in a Wing that is historically slow at doing so (not to knock the fine individuals that I work with...but additional layers, while great for oversight, or burdensome for lower echelons). The problem that we face is that, sometimes, the lower echelons go beyond the bounds of what I would personally consider appropriate and unsafe for a cadet activity (and I'm usually the odd man out when it comes to the discussions where I stand on the side of exercised caution..."extreme" if you will).

I've seen events where cadets do go for plane rides without their parents there. I can't speak for the permission slips documenting the flight. I've seen events where cadets go on watercraft without life jackets. I can't speak for pre-activity Wing authorization. These activities are not explicitly described/defined in CAP regulations, but I think through the eyes of interpretation and a little reading, we can decipher that there are some safety cautions that need to be taken here of which include Wing oversight (or at the very least, knowledge before the activity occurs). I'd like to see R60-1 and -2 clarified and concise (to the point) on this. I don't want to see every activity suddenly require approval, but I think there needs to be some level of reasonable oversight where the common sense potential exists for "bad things to happen."

All that said, my current instructions from higher as they stand are "These don't technically require approval."

[Eclipse]

This is all reasonable, and sadly, the regulations are both vague enough and interpret-able enough
to allow for both "flexibility" and "hanging people out to dry" / "disavowing", with the always popular
"aware vs. approved" conversations lurking in the wings.

In a perfect world, commanders would make good decisions that protect all sides. Sadly, as you demonstrate,
this isn't always the case, and a lack of definition from NHQ doesn't help.

Considering the conservative nature of what CAP will, and won't, allow, this would be a nice
addition to eservices - Activity Approval Module - with the requisite definitions in an accompanying reg as
well as higher HQ notifications, etc.  This would remove the gray.

However the time an effort to implement something like that is clearly better spent on hounding
unit CC's to complete inventories on equipment that hasn't been moved or touched in a decade,
which is where a big portion of 4QCY's effort is spent in CAP, but I digress.