Air Branch Director

[Flying Pig]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

Not even the same issue.   

[Flying Pig]

That's the FAA taking action on a certificate.  Being a member of CAP is irrelevant in your scenario.

[JeffDG]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

Not even the same issue.

You said "a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense "

FAA certificate actions are, most definitely, "a legal sense".  Far more "legal" than any CAP regulatory infractions will ever be.  And, again, you've yet to cite your regulatory authority for your assertion, while Phil Hirons, Jr has clearly provided citations that contradict your assertion.

[Flying Pig]

Their status with the FAA has no bearing with their membership in CAP.

[JeffDG]

Their status with the FAA has no bearing with their membership in CAP.

Regardless, their status with the FAA is certainly a liability that they have in "a legal sense" to use your words.

Also, what happens if you issue property to a cadet who is 18-20 years old and they, through negligence, lose or damage it?  CAPR 174-1 (2-15c) only requires parental co-signature for cadets under 18, so certainly, a cadet over 18 can be assessed for negligence in such matters, and that's certainly a "CAP consequence" that attaches to a cadet.

Still waiting for that citation of yours.

[Flying Pig]

So you really don't understand the context of a cadet making a decision as an AOBD vs a cadet making a mistake as an FAA rated pilot resulting in damage?

[JeffDG]

So you really don't understand the context of a cadet making a decision as an AOBD vs a cadet making a mistake as an FAA rated pilot resulting in damage?

You're the one who claimed that cadets can never be held responsible, in a legal sense.  I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of your assertion.

You persist in sticking to this Old Wive's Tale that cadets cannot ever command seniors, and after repeated requests, you cannot back it up with a citation.  Citations to the contrary have been provided, yet you stick to your OWT.

[Flying Pig]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of? 

[JeffDG]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of?

Stick to your OWT.

[Flying Pig]

There ya go. 

[JeffDG]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of?

I guess, since if MGen Vasquez were to give me an order  and I thought it would be an extreme risk I can refuse it, he's not really the National Commander then.  Good to know.

[SarDragon]

OK, kids, back it down. The OP is probably gone, and you've turned this into a urinating competition.

[Flying Pig]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of?

I guess, since if MGen Vasquez were to give me an order  and I thought it would be an extreme risk I can refuse it, he's not really the National Commander then.  Good to know.

Uhh, yes. You absolutely could if it posed an extreme risk to you or anyone else.  Glad I could clarify that for you. But that's not even the same context.   The regs I was citing specifically addresses the senior / cadet interaction.

[JeffDG]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of?

I guess, since if MGen Vasquez were to give me an order  and I thought it would be an extreme risk I can refuse it, he's not really the National Commander then.  Good to know.

Uhh, yes. You absolutely could if it posed an extreme risk to you or anyone else.  Glad I could clarify that for you. But that's not even the same context.   The regs I was citing specifically addresses the senior / cadet interaction.

Yet, that's the standard where a subordinate senior can step in and exercise command discretion...why is it different?

[Flying Pig]

That Reg specifically denotes "adult member" when subordinate in position to a cadet.  Not member over riding member.  The fact that they specify the relationship of adult vs cadet is the key.

[JeffDG]

That Reg specifically denotes "adult member" when subordinate in position to a cadet.  Not member over riding member.  The fact that they specify the relationship of adult vs cadet is the key.

The Adult-Cadet relationship is incidental to that rule.  The "extreme risk" is the key phrase there, but stick to your OWT.

[Larry Mangum]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

Jeff, you are arguing FAA Rules versus CAP rules, they are not the same thing and you know it.

[Flying Pig]

Is there any Reg that states a cadet member can exercise "command authority" over an adult member regardless of whether or not that cadet is in a subordinate portion to the senior where they took steps to specify membership status?   Seriously, I don't know.  In this case I read it as CAP ultimately giving an adult a legal way out from command of a cadet as well as granting that adult the command authority to take control.  But not the other way around.

[JeffDG]

Is there any Reg that states a cadet member can exercise "command authority" over an adult member regardless of whether or not that cadet is in a subordinate portion to the senior where they took steps to specify membership status?   Seriously, I don't know.  In this case I read it as CAP ultimately giving an adult a legal way out from command of a cadet as well as granting that adult the command authority to take control.  But not the other way around.

So, now you're arguing that if a Senior Member orders you to do something that is "extremely risky", you are obligated to follow that order, but if a cadet does so, you're not?

You just made the case for only having cadets in positions like branch director to preserve the ability of members to avoid extremely risky taskings.

[JeffDG]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

Jeff, you are arguing FAA Rules versus CAP rules, they are not the same thing and you know it.

I'm arguing "in a legal sense" which is the standard proposed by FP.  I've also cited CAP rules that say that Cadets can have authority over senior members, and that cadets can be held responsible in CAP for negligent content.

Flying Pig on the other hand has cited nothing but repetition of an OWT.