Young Eagles Pilots versus CAP O-Flight Pilots

Started by xray328, October 19, 2019, 07:15:50 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

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

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2019, 10:28:00 PM
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?"
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Blanding

Quote from: etodd on December 10, 2019, 06:09:14 PM
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

Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2019, 10:28:00 PM
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).


QuoteCAPR 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).

"That Others May Zoom"

Blanding

#25
Quote from: Eclipse on December 16, 2019, 03:31:35 PM
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.

"That Others May Zoom"