Wearing CAP Blues in Airport

[Eclipse]

It troubles me when the very real possibility of being denied benefits because of an ultimately non-mitigating factor
is downplayed.

But granting or denying insurance benefits to a member or their family is not remotely a form of discipline.  Benefits like these are just what we do to take care of our own in times of need.

I never inferred it was a form of discipline, but the reasoning behind the "why" of the denial isn't going to mean much to a
seriously injured member or his survivors.

Are you really going to say that in a situation that incurs significant financial liability on CAP, no one is going to even
consider the possibility that coverage and benefits could be disallowed based on non-compliance with regulations?

If the answer is "no", that's fiscally irresponsible.

If the answer is "yes", then it's simply a matter of where the line is drawn, which is matters of money in usually in inverse proportion to
the amounts being discussed. (i.e. the higher the number, the closer people look).

[Ned]

Bob,

It's OK to admit when you are wrong.  We've all done it.

This is (as usual) a Uniform Thread.  Somebody put out serious misinformation about uniform violations being a reason to deny insurance benefits.  I attempted to correct that by pointing out that it isn't true. 

Uniform violations have nothing whatsoever to do with insurance benefits, and never has been.

I agree that uniforms are required, and we should all wear them correctly.  If we don't, we might get disciplined.  But it sounds like you agree that granting or denying insurance benefits is not a form of discipline.

You should not be troubled by this; you should be happy.

If you want to argue about other regulations, I suppose we can do that.  As a legal guy, I like pointless arguments as much as the next guy.

Consider starting a thread and tell us about exactly what regulation violations - in your experience - have resulted in denial of benefits.  I'll do my best to respond.

[Eclipse]

I don't agree it was misinformation, at least not on the macro.
You also haven't actually answered several direct questions, yet continue to assert I'm wrong.

So a CAP member who crashed a CAP vehicle, required to wear a uniform, but not wearing one,
would still be covered for both injury and liability?

How about if they didn't have a CAP license?

Where's the line on "required"?

If you want to argue about other regulations, I suppose we can do that. 

The power of CAP regulations begins and ends with the value a member places on membership, which usually drops to zero
in situations which involve lawyers.

Personal injury and financial liability will live on well past returning the ID card.

We already know the odds of being disciplined in any meaningful way for uniform infractions, even serious ones, approach zero.
The concern for most members is whether CAP's legal and financial people will use those same "meaningless" infractions to
also deny coverage and benefits.

Arguing it's never happened before doesn't answer the direct question.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The answer is simple. CAP is covered and then the insurance goes after the member. Duh.

[Ned]

So a CAP member who crashed a CAP vehicle, required to wear a uniform, but not wearing one,
would still be covered for both injury and liability?

Yes, I'm saying directly and unequivocally that uniform violations will not deny a member's benefits in the event of a mishap or injury.  And that's all we are talking about.  Why (other than the Urban Legend that started us down this rabbit hole) on earth would you think they would?  Is there a particular regulation or policy that says anything about a denial of benefits in the event of a uniform violation?

How about if they didn't have a CAP license?

I dunno.  What happens if space monkeys ran the member off the road?

Like I said, if you want to talk about other regulations affecting the membership, start a new thread and I will do my best.  But this conversation begins and ends with the incorrect assertion that uniform violations can be used to deny insurance benefits.

And the reason it is important for leaders like yourself to put accurate and truthful information to the membership is based on our Core Values.  Each of our terrific members has to make choices about their level of involvement in our program.  To do that, they need to know about our benefits so that can make their individual choices on behalf of themselves and their families.

Allowing misinformation to remain uncorrected does them a disservice.  Scare stories about denial of important benefits may lead members to take actions that are as poor as the information it is based upon.

[Eclipse]

So a CAP member who crashed a CAP vehicle, required to wear a uniform, but not wearing one,
would still be covered for both injury and liability?

Yes, I'm saying directly and unequivocally that uniform violations will not deny a member's benefits in the event of a mishap or injury.  And that's all we are talking about.  Why (other than the Urban Legend that started us down this rabbit hole) on earth would you think they would?  Is there a particular regulation or policy that says anything about a denial of benefits in the event of a uniform violation?

How about common sense and logic.

The uniform is a required part of the equation.  It says "required".

Out of uniform = violation of the first regulation that allows for participation.

Not allowed to participate = not covered.

Not really a stretch.

Allowing misinformation to remain uncorrected does them a disservice. 

Insinuating a lawyer protecting the corporation won't use anything he can to that advantage, is also a disservice.

[RickRutledge]

Hey, if i'm wrong on that, I will stand corrected. However, as it's been stated before, I'm not one who wants to test the waters and be the statistic that proves what I said is correct or what I said was wrong.

At some point we have to ask ourselves, if there is no enforcement mechanism to regulations that exist then what is the point in following the rules as given? It's true that uniform violations are minutia compared to many other issues that exist in our organization, but as Eclipse has said, where is the line? If we're willing to publish regulations that state clearly "COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY" about uniforms and no one enforces it, why would we suspect that someone will enforce the rules as given for mission participation? (which is a topic of discussion on another thread on a CAP Facebook group relating to the response to Sandy) It seems more than hypocritical and counter-productive to expect all rules to be followed by all members at all times in their membership/participation, yet the leadership won't take the steps to enforce equally all rules under the "law."

As an attorney Ned, I'm sure you can see the disconnect.

So maybe denying benefits is not a likely scenario, as you've stated, but we can't and shouldn't have it both ways.

[Garibaldi]

In order to clarify things, CAP needs to specifically state that there will be a system of...punishments, if you will, for violations of the uniform policy. This "Urban Legend" about not being covered in a mishap if you're not wearing a CAP uniform has permeated the entire organization. Either it's true or it isn't. We can't have it both ways.

Compliance is mandatory. Exactly in what context or sense? Is it ultimately enforceable? If so, what do we do about the "miscreants" who continue to wear the AF style uniform out of h/w standards? Or who show up to events in the wrong uniform? Take away their pay? Tell them that they can't wear the uniform anymore?

Do we sanction the commander or the home units of the individual(s) by taking away funding or assets? Letters of reprimand? Bar them from attending events or meetings until they comply?

Where's the line? Do I have the right to step up to a Lt Col and tell him that his uniform is out of compliance, that his Army Ranger tab over the wing patch is unauthorized? Or do I report it up the chain and let someone else deal with it?

I have more questions than answers. Back in the day, it was an easier concept to deal with. You go to a CAP event, you wear the proper uniform for said event. QED. If you didn't have a uniform, you didn't go. Period. If you had most of a uniform, you didn't wear the uniform. Period. It was more of a pride thing than a legal issue, in my eyes. We respected our unit, CC, and CAP enough to not want to embarrass them in public by being a bunch of rag-bags playing dress-up. Of course, WIWAC, legal issues were something we didn't ever bother with. We were told what to do and what not to do and that was it. There was a reason somewhere that made sense to someone higher up on the food chain and we didn't question it.

So what's the answer? Plain and simple, there isn't ONE answer. There's a ton of circumstances and what-if's and whatnot that go into creating a reg and who's covered and who isn't and why they are or aren't. But as I said, we can't have it both ways. Either proper uniform wear is MANDATORY and ENFORCEABLE, or it isn't.

[Ned]

How about common sense and logic.

Apparently not as common as either of us would like.

The uniform is a required part of the equation.  It says "required".

Yup

Out of uniform = violation of the first regulation that allows for participation.

Well, here's your problem.  "First regulation"?  What the heck is that?  There are countless regs that apply to any situation in CAP, but I've never heard them prioritized that way.  I'd probably assume that something else, like say membership, would be the First Regulation.  But whatever.

And while we agree that the regs require uniforms, I suspect we also agree that there are many perfectly acceptable times for CAP members to be in civilian clothes while on CAP time.  Social activities, working on paperwork at home, taking a shower at encampment.  Etc.

Not allowed to participate = not covered.

Not participating certainly means not covered.  That's just axiomatic.

Insinuating a lawyer protecting the corporation won't use anything he can to that advantage, is also a disservice.

Thanks for the quick lesson on professional responsibility.  (You're wrong again, BTW.  There are many, many things ethical lawyers cannot use to advance the interests of their clients.  But your's is a common misperception held about the legal profession.)

But much more importantly, lawyers don't make corporate decisions.  Commanders do.

And every commander started out as a vunteer just like you and me.

[Eclipse]

But much more importantly, lawyers don't make corporate decisions.

Correct, with the advice of their Counsel, and with big $$$ of a settlement or judgement hanging in the balance,
who is really running that meeting?  I would certainly hope it's the lawyers.  That's why we have Legal Officers.

Not being allowed to participate, because you did not meet "x" requirement, but participating anyway, is fairly common,
and exactly what we are discussing. 

"Upon investigation it was found that Maj Coin was not in proper uniform, therefore he was not authorized to
fly the aircraft which ultimately crashed and caused his death".

It would be unethical for a lawyer not to mount that defense for their client, especially considering it's absolutely a valid defense.
CAP has regs which dictate eligibility for various duties and activities, with the benefit of being protected if you follow the rules.
There's no logical fallacy in not being protected if you break the rules, but you're trying to insinuate that things which are "required",
aren't ultimately important enough to have consequences later.  Ergo, not actually required.

If fact, I don't understand why anyone in authority or influence would insinuate otherwise. It's totally counterproductive, and as unintended consequence, gives merit to the idea that "required" in CAP is a subjective term, which is ultimately the actual problem.

[Eclipse]

Here's what the KB has to say,  Answer ID 1609:
When performing corporate flying missions (C missions), as opposed to Air Force assigned missions (A and B missions), CAP and its members are covered by the corporation's aviation liability policy. This policy covers both CAP and its members when the members are:
1. acting within the scope of their duties as a member of, and on behalf of, CAP;
2. authorized by the proper CAP authority to accomplish official responsibilities or missions;
3. not carrying passengers for a charge;
4. holders of a valid student, private, commercial or airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate ratings;
5. holders of a valid applicable medical certificate;
6. Operating within the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft;

If you are not in uniform (or not complying with similar mandates), then you are not "authorized by the proper CAP authority to accomplish official responsibilities or missions", because that authorization requires and assumes compliance with all relevant CAP regulations and policies, foremost
being wearing a proper uniform.

Further, if we assume for the sake of argument that CAP would never use uniform wear as a means to disavow benefits, that doesn't, in any way,
speak for FECA and FTCA, which are federal programs, outside of CAP's control, and which have employees whose mandate is to limit benefits.
CAP would certainly be consulted during the application process, but the ultimate decisions regarding benefits will be out of CAP's control,
and decided by people who have a much stricter interpretation of the word "required".

[Ned]

The KB answer says it well.

Nothing; not a hint about clothing determining member benefits.

Your attempt to insert a "any minute violation of any CAP regulation - no matter how small or insignificant - means you are 'unauthorized'" clause is a nice try, but does not fit.

And the dedicated civil servants that administer FECA and the FTCA have been dealing with us and other uniformed Federal workers for decades without ever suggesting that uniform violations are anywhere near as important to them as they are to CAPTalk regulars.

It's a non issue.  It never has been an issue.  And it is not starting any time soon.

[Eclipse]

It doesn't need to call out clothing, because wearing the proper clothing is part of getting the authorization.

No uniform = no authorization.  No authorization = no coverage.

Or are you saying the uniform is 100% irrelevant to be qualified and receiving authorization?

[Garibaldi]

It doesn't need to call out clothing, because wearing the proper clothing is part of getting the authorization.

No uniform = no authorization.  No authorization = no coverage.

Or are you saying the uniform is 100% irreverent irrelevant to be qualified and receiving authorization?

FTFY

[Eclipse]

It doesn't need to call out clothing, because wearing the proper clothing is part of getting the authorization.

No uniform = no authorization.  No authorization = no coverage.

Or are you saying the uniform is 100% irreverent irrelevant to be qualified and receiving authorization?

FTFY

UGH!

[RickRutledge]

Uniform police + Grammar Police = Eclipse Frustration Level 10 

[Ned]

Bob,

You dodge and twist all you want.  After all you didn't become our most prolific poster without that skillet.

What I am saying is what I have said all along - uniform violations do not affect insurance coverage.  And it is a disservice to our members to imply that it does.  It just scares them out of doing their important CAP jobs.

Feel free to continue to create elaborate hypotheticals and play "gotcha" if you want.

But my point remains.

Thank you for your service to CAP and especially to our cadets.  It is truly appreciated.

I'm going to be out of the loop for a few days.

Ned Lee

[RickRutledge]

But Ned-- With that logic, FROs should not be required to ask PICs if the members flying in corporate aircraft are wearing the "proper uniforms." In addition, the new business brought up by my Wing CC regarding spousal travel in CAP aircraft would also be a non-starter.

Please understand, I'm not trying to stir the hornets nest but this is yet another situation where CAP leadership has been less than transparent regarding an important issue within the organization. While there may not be any basis in fact with my earlier statement regarding uniforms vs insurance coverage as it pertains to specific regulations, but I have also not seen anything to the contrary. Instead of engaging in a pissing match with "Bob," would you please give me some guidance as to the factual evidence you have to support your claim? I've heard the insurance vs. uniform issue from corporate officers in addition to it being a part of the regular FRO checklist when releasing flights, logically the math makes sense for the two to be inter-connected.

Again, I mean no disrespect and I appreciate your duty as a former Legal Officer and BoG member. Those two jobs alone have done far more than we will ever be able to resolve on this message board and for that I salute and thank you.

[Майор Хаткевич]

"Bob,"

Why the quotes?

[RickRutledge]

Because I can't say for certain if Eclipse's real name is Bob. When Ned is replying to one of Eclipse's retorts he refers to him as Bob, I don't know him as that so...  :angel: