Vehicle Fleet Age.

[billford1]

The 14 passenger vans are popular for their capacity to carry people and cargo. No one can make a case for their safety. We have 6 passenger pickup trucks, 7 passenger minivans and 4WD SUVs. Having been injured in a car crash I have a big concern for occupant safety above all. As unpopular as they are minivans I've seen nowadays seem to be engineered for maximum safety. If CAP buys vehicles for among other things transporting CAP members I think that the principles of ORM should apply.  If a Military vehicle crashes and Soldiers die nobody sues the Govt although someone could be prosecuted for criminal negligence. If a CAP vehicle crashes and Cadets are killed you can believe there will be nothing to stop the grieving parents from going after CAP and anyone else they can if the CAP vehicle is over 10 years old, and if an attorney has an investigator who can find anything that was wrong with the vehicle.

[Eclipse]

If a Military vehicle crashes and Soldiers die nobody sues the Govt although someone could be prosecuted for criminal negligence.

People sue the federal government and the military every day.  The FTCA allows for waivers in situations which involve negligence of the employee within the scope of their employment.  I can assure you there have been plenty of lawsuits by grieving families over dead soldiers in non-combat situations.

If a CAP vehicle crashes and Cadets are killed you can believe there will be nothing to stop the grieving parents from going after CAP and anyone else they can if the CAP vehicle is over 10 years old, and if an attorney has an investigator who can find anything that was wrong with the vehicle.

There's nothing to stop them from suing if the accident happens coming home from the dealer with a brand new mini-van. The age of the vehicle has little to do with whether surviving parents would sue CAP.  They are likely to regardless.

[c172drv]

I am all for Dodge Sprinter Diesel. Fairly expensive to purchase, but extremely reliable, comfortable and inexpensive to operate. The high roof ones are excellent for mobile command centers and commo vans.

While nice in theory in practice I've seen that these vehicles just don't hold up.   I fly for an airline and a lot of hotels had these vehicles.  I say had because almost everyone got rid of them in a year because of poor maintenance reliability from every area of the vehicle.

John

[billford1]

If a Military vehicle crashes and Soldiers die nobody sues the Govt although someone could be prosecuted for criminal negligence.

People sue the federal government and the military every day.  The FTCA allows for waivers in situations which involve negligence of the employee within the scope of their employment.  I can assure you there have been plenty of lawsuits by grieving families over dead soldiers in non-combat situations.

Don't people have to get the U.S. Govt's permission to sue? I haven't heard much about such suits but you may have better information. What is FTCA?

If a CAP vehicle crashes and Cadets are killed you can believe there will be nothing to stop the grieving parents from going after CAP and anyone else they can if the CAP vehicle is over 10 years old, and if an attorney has an investigator who can find anything that was wrong with the vehicle.

There's nothing to stop them from suing if the accident happens coming home from the dealer with a brand new mini-van. The age of the vehicle has little to do with whether surviving parents would sue CAP.  They are likely to regardless.
[/quote
I agree with you that if there's a tragic outcome there will be lawsuits no matter what. I will however make the case that new passenger vehicles have a lot more safety designed into them then they did in the 1990s. One thing Auto Makers look at more closely now is how their vehicle is rated by insurance companies compared to say a Toyota minivan which will protect its occupants a lot better than a late 90s Chevy Astro.

[ZigZag911]

I think we're skating on borrowed time regarding vehicle maintenance & safe operation -- a serious enough accident involving cadets, besides being a tragedy no one wants to see, could result in devastating litigation against CAP...I hope I'm wrong, I'm certainly no expert in this area, just my opinion....I do understand the economic situation

I'm sorry the above is a text-book definition of a straw-man argument.

You simply drop this on the table and expect it to be accepted at face value.  We're not "skating on thin ice" our vehicles are well-maintained and safe.  If they aren't, it because of local issues, because the money is there as is the will.

Of course an accident involving cadets would be a "tragedy".  So? Its just as likely it would be caused by an outside party, distracted driving, or karma, as poor maintenance.

If you know of a van that's a safety issue, you need to ground it and report it immediately, otherwise don't paint my like-new equipment with your "death trap" brush.

You are citing the example of one CAP vehicle, and I'm truly glad to hear that yours is in good shape.

I am discussing a systemic approach to how we do things, how we've done things for decades...some CAP vehicles are 'hangar queens' soaking up an inordinate amount of maintenance money; some are simply long past any reasonable service life...it needs to be addressed in some better way than saying "this is all we're going to get, deal with it".

[ZigZag911]

BTW, Eclipse, I think FTCA does not apply to cadets, at least those under 18.

[billford1]

I just wonder if the AF/DOD wouldn't have some motivation fund CAP to do some kind of "Clunkers" trade in package deal with one of the big 3. I'm sure Chrysler would be happy to load CAP up with fleet priced Grand Caravans or heck clearance priced 2008 Pacificas all with a 7 year 100,000 mile warranty. Surely someone in Congress could make a case for this in exchange for one less bridge in the Florida Everglades. They could sweeten the proposal by making the case that the new vehicles have far lower green house gas emissions than the 80's and 90's sleds they would replace. Oh yes, Did I mention fuel economy? CAP may be poor but the Govt will print money if they can put a good spin on it.

[Eclipse]

BTW, Eclipse, I think FTCA does not apply to cadets, at least those under 18.

In the case of this discussion, the FTCA applies to the federal government and its agents and entities, and is the law which normally bans people from suing them.  Cadets serving in an AFAM status would be protected under the statuate.  FTCA does not provide protection to us or the corporation for non-AFAM
missions and activities.  This is one of the reasons CAP-USAF has been pushing to fly proficiency hours
as "B" missions instead of "C".  In addition to it being better training for CAP, "B" missions afford FTCA and FECA benefits to members.

You're probably thinking of FECA which provides benefits to members injured in the line of duty on AFAMs,
and in that case I believe you are correct that you have to be over 18 to qualify.

[ZigZag911]

Thanks, I think I did have FECA in mind