Wearing CAP Blues in Airport

[Майор Хаткевич]

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:

Say it's not...is Ned tarnishing all the Bob-named people in the world? He wouldn't do that, would he? Typically when you call some one "Joe/Pal/Chief/Guy" etc in an argument, it is done to minimize them as an individual.

[RogueLeader]

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:

Say it's not...is Ned tarnishing all the Bob-named people in the world? He wouldn't do that, would he? Typically when you call some one "Joe/Pal/Chief/Guy" etc in an argument, it is done to minimize them as an individual.

No, its usually done to be seen as "not so harsh," or more friendly.

That tone can be used as a put down, but not usually.  Context is everything.

[Майор Хаткевич]

John,

Are you saying picking a random name out of the hat is more friendly?

Why not do the good "My friend" line then?

[SarDragon]

I can say with Ivory Soap certainty that Eclipse's first name is Bob.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I can say with Ivory Soap certainty that Eclipse's first name is Bob.

That or he has fooled many of us for many years! 

[Spaceman3750]

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."

Actually, the responsibility for verifying the crew's eligibility to fly falls to the PIC, though the FRO may withhold the release if they think someone isn't qualified.

[RickRutledge]

Actually, the responsibility for verifying the crew's eligibility to fly falls to the PIC, though the FRO may withhold the release if they think someone isn't qualified.

Correct. But the FRO still asks, at least in my wing, "Is everyone wearing a proper uniform?"

[Eclipse]

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.

I knew the "thank you for your service" was coming at some point.  Its appreciated, but won't deflect the question.

>I'm< not the one dodging.  I've asked you several very specific questions, direct to this discussion, and
you ignored them to simply repeat your earlier statements.

This is neither "hypothetical", nor "elaborate".  It in fact happens all the time - I'll put a Venti on the table that at least two releases
have been done today that would fall into this situation.  With the ops tempo out NE, it's almost certain.

Rick beat me to it on the Flight Release, but it's a 100% on-target point.

No member can fly a CAP aircraft without a proper flight release.  CAP has made it very clear that all
manner of unpleasantness can befall a member who takes off without one - everything from remedial training, through
grounding and ultimately termination.

No flight release = illegal flight (illegal in CAP terms, though it's possible it could actually be considered unauthorized use).

Illegal flight = no coverage.

As Rick pointed out, the first FRO question is regarding the uniform, lie and it's fraud, get caught because of a mishap, and
it was an illegitimate release.

So, the direct, non-hypothetical, non-elaborate question, is would NHQ deny benefits to a member who was injured or
incurred external liability in this situation?

I'd also be more then welcome to any notes, memos, internal policies, or similar that indicate NHQ's legal directorate, as well
as FECA and FTCA administrators have all formally and officially chosen to ignore a perfectly legal an appropriate defense
for their clients on the grounds of compassion and appreciation for the membership.

[SarDragon]

Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.

Bob, you might get answers if you started another thread with your questions, like Ned asked.

[Eclipse]

Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.

Bob, you might get answers if you started another thread with your questions, like Ned asked.

It would probably be more appropriate for the mods to split it where things diverged.

[PHall]

Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.

Bob, you might get answers if you started another thread with your questions, like Ned asked.

It would probably be more appropriate for the mods to split it where things diverged.

Or do like at least four people have asked you to do and start your own thread.   Geesh, it's not Rocket Surgery!

[Ned]

FWIW, I am sailing under the Golden Gate at this moment and will be off the net until Saturday unless I pony up the extortionate satellite Internet charges the cruise line charges.  And as much fun as CT is, I am going to hang out with my wife and celebrate our 31st.

Aloha!

[SarDragon]

Congrats on 31!

[Eclipse]

Have a great vacation!

[Blues Brother]

I agree.   I personally canont see the benefit in people getting so wound up on these uniform issues in an organization that is all volunteers.

Maybe there are two good reasons:

1) When you wear the uniform you are a representative of CAP, USAF (if in AF style) and the military in general. That's the reason 39-1 specifically states that all uniforms will be professional in appearance and well kept; Compliance with the regulation is mandatory.

2) Uniform violations are a reason for denying insurance coverage in the event of an accident. What you may see as "just messy but not a big deal" the organization sees as a blatant violation of rules that have been put in place to protect you and the organization in the event of an incident.

As a volunteer, it's your job to know what you're getting yourself into. Yes, it's tough to recruit and retain quality members, but there is a responsibility in doing your job the way prescribed in CAP. Like it or not, it is the way it is for a reason. Besides, a sloppy senior member is a bad example and can question the credibility of ALL senior members with cadets that we are charged with. That can get into a whole other debate.

I understand the concept of senior members setting an example and I respect that viewpoint. But if a "uniform violation" ( I have a hard time even saying that without laughing) denies insurance coverage, then show me where I turn in my membership card to the human race.  If that is what we have degraded to as a society,  its time to find a better planet to live on.   I am just envisioning a crash scene investigation where the police and FAA are examining the evidence of the crash site, and all of a sudden a fleet of black suburbans from the insurance company show up and agents start shoving police officers out of the way shouting  "DONT TOUCH THE UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!!   BACK AWAY FROM THE UNIFORMS  WE NEED TO INSPECT THEM BEFORE YOU TOUCH ANYTHING!!!!!!!!   Now, you EMTs come over here,  you first responders tell us, were their shirts properly pressed when you found the wreckage???"     

[Майор Хаткевич]

That movie flight? Saved the passengers but had a drink. Hero to fellon just like that

[Eclipse]

I understand the concept of senior members setting an example and I respect that viewpoint. But if a "uniform violation" ( I have a hard time even saying that without laughing) denies insurance coverage, then show me where I turn in my membership card to the human race.  If that is what we have degraded to as a society,  its time to find a better planet to live on.   I am just envisioning a crash scene investigation where the police and FAA are examining the evidence of the crash site, and all of a sudden a fleet of black suburbans from the insurance company show up and agents start shoving police officers out of the way shouting  "DONT TOUCH THE UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!!   BACK AWAY FROM THE UNIFORMS  WE NEED TO INSPECT THEM BEFORE YOU TOUCH ANYTHING!!!!!!!!   Now, you EMTs come over here,  you first responders tell us, were their shirts properly pressed when you found the wreckage???"   

You can't make this "touchy feely", or somehow about the compassion of the leadership, because the decisions won't be made in that way.
When we're talking about hangar rash or a missing static whip, few would make a big deal, because the money isn't life-changing for anyone,
but in the case where we'd be talking about numbers with meaningful commas, it's a different story.

Those decisions, quite appropriately, would be made based on numbers and risk, and while I agree that its the Commanders, not the lawyers,
who make the actual decisions in these cases, when you start talking real money, those decisions might be made, or influenced, over the
heads of CAP's commanders by either the USAF or a jury.  Our insurance carriers will also have an opinion, and they are just private businesses.

Where does real money come from?  Many of our aircraft are based in urban areas where sprawl has encroached on the runways.
In my wing, a number of the major airports are a stone's throw from homes.   One poor judgment on takeoff with full tanks
and you could take out a whole row of houses - real money.

No matter what the actual cause, the lack of following a simple required procedure like wearing a uniform opens the door in a jury's
mind to "What else did the pilot ignore?"  Real money.

And yes, this started based on the supposition that a uniform issue could be grounds for denying a member benefits, but the uniform is
really a MacGuffin.  It's anything, no matter how minor, that could potentially disqualify a member from being "legal" (in a CAP sense) to do "x".

[FW]

I agree with Ned on this.  No member has ever been denied insurance coverage for driving or flying in a CAP owned vehicle (air or ground) when not wearing a proper uniform  (including carriying a valid membership card).

However, CAP-USAF has attempted to decertify some AFAM's when pilots crashed aircraft; denying the families Federal Benefits.  If this happens, CAP's self insurance kicks in. 

(is this the first time a uniform issue has been hijcacked?) 

[RogueLeader]

No, but it is a rare instance.

[Eclipse]

However, CAP-USAF has attempted to decertify some AFAM's when pilots crashed aircraft; denying the families Federal Benefits.  If this happens, CAP's self insurance kicks in. 

OK, so we've gone from "never" to "it's been done". 

CAP's self insurance is not remotely the same as what is provided by AFAMs.  It might cover medical expenses and liability, but it won't provide a
permanently disabled person an income like FECA will.

No, but it is a rare instance.

I agree.  But so is a survivable CAP aircraft crash with fire, yet CAWG decided the risk was high enough that they require(d?) Nomex for years.
My point here isn't that this is something that will likely effect the average member, but that the official stance should be to treat the word "required"
by its actual definition, and never, ever, even hint that a member might not be held responsible for ignoring it.

Better to set the example then be the example.