Flight Suit Wear

[LittleIronPilot]

It is just amazing to me though about how a lot of the things we talk about here come down to:

1) Money
2) Liability

What a sad, sad state of affairs we are in today.

[lordmonar]

It is just amazing to me though about how a lot of the things we talk about here come down to:

1) Money
2) Liability

What a sad, sad state of affairs we are in today.

Planes don't fly for free and if we get sued....what program are you going to cut to pay for the damages?

It is not a sad state of affairs but good management of our program.

[Eeyore]

How often are we actually sued?

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

[JayT]

How often are we actually sued?

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

Well, I said it before, just becasue we haven't gotten sued yet doesn't mean it can't/won't happen.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would serve 'at my own risk.'

[lordmonar]

How often are we actually sued?

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

We get sued all the time!

We also avoid a lot of suits because our legal guys and insurance company make sure that we stay withing the bounds of what they want to cover.

As far as signing away your rights.....those papers are not worth the paper they are written on.  Little Johnny's parents sign a waiver and he goes rappelling (assuming we were allowed to do so) and the rope breaks......guess who pays?

[Hawk200]

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would serve 'at my own risk.'

Not to mention that, legally, we may not even be allowed to.

[mikeylikey]

 Little Johnny's parents sign a waiver and he goes rappelling (assuming we were allowed to do so) and the rope breaks......guess who pays?

Umm........Little Johnny's Parents will pay?  Little Johnny surely did pay!  But his parents will most likely not get a dime, unless it can be proved that malice or intentional foul-play was involved.  Don't you watch Court TV?

CAP Carries liability insurance for lawsuits.  They pay huge amounts so that if they are sued it won't come from the Corporate Books.  However, everytime the Corp is sued, it's insurance rates go up, which is one reason we see dues go up.  Also, When CAP is on an AFAM, it can't be sued, as it is considered a part of the Fed Govt.  Didn't you learn in civics class that the Federal Government can't be sued by a citizen?

[SJFedor]

Also, When CAP is on an AFAM, it can't be sued, as it is considered a part of the Fed Govt.  Didn't you learn in civics class that the Federal Government can't be sued by a citizen?

I thought we can still be sued on AFAMs. It's just that, as an instrumentality of the US Government, we're subject to their protection, and they'll shell out the $$ if we're found at fault (instead of our corporate policy), assuming we've been acting within our scope of practice. The whole FECA/FTCA stuff.

[lordmonar]

It's just a matter of where the money comes from.

Corporate missions....we have to pay (or our insurance) AFAM it is the federal governments who pays.

[T34 Flyer]

Someone needs to read 60-1, not only are military personnel ALLOWED in our aircraft, transport and similar service to military commanders in support of their duties is a specifically authorized mission within the document.

-1 hit point to the people who denied it, and -2 for the people who asked not being familiar enough with the 60-'s to support their request.

i. U.S. government employees to include military personnel (active, Reserve, National Guard, and civil service), Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Forest Service, Federal Aviation Administration (including FAA designated pilot examiners when conducting flight checks), United States Customs Service, United States Coast Guard, and other federal agencies, are authorized to fly on CAP aircraft while performing official duties in conjunction with the CAP. Missions authorized by this paragraph will return with all passengers back at the point of origin without intermediate stops. This paragraph is not authorization to conduct transportation missions. Missions with a sole purpose of providing transportation from point A to point B must be conducted in accordance with CAP's FAA exemption. See paragraph 2-13 and attachment 2 for additional details.

j. State, county, and local government officials are authorized to fly aboard CAP aircraft when specifically approved in advance by the CAP National Operations Center (NOC). Missions authorized by this paragraph will return with all passengers back at the point of origin without intermediate stops. This paragraph is not authorization to conduct transportation missions. Missions with a sole purpose of providing transportation from point A to point B must be conducted in accordance with CAP's FAA exemption. See paragraph 2-13 and attachment 2 for additional details.

You have to then go to the attachments for the rules on transportation, which are primarily related to FAA rules on reimbursements.  I literally just called my SD to ask where the verbiage was because we have been discussing this capability with our base commander.

There's further verbiage which is even more specific in one of the operation regs that defines mission types, I'll post it as soon as I find it. 

I do think that if I knew the regs I may have defended better.  It does seam that we look for ways to not do missions in California and through out CAP. 

As an example; The Navy Flying Club I was president of was asked to provide O rides to Sea Cadets.  Knowing the CAP stance on needing to be a Commercial Pilot, I decided to bring it up with the base JAG.  He cleared all pilots to fly Sea Cadets on O rides and laughed at the CAP stance and said that thing haven't changed much since he was a cadet.

[CASH172]

But things have changed.  You don't have to be a Commericial Pilot in order to fly COFs.  You don't even need it for AFROTC O-Flights anymore. 

[MIKE]

Drift.

[T34 Flyer]

But things have changed.  You don't have to be a Commercial Pilot in order to fly COFs.  You don't even need it for AFROTC O-Flights anymore. 

I know bet at the time it was the law of the land (CAP land) make the aviation/military attorneys I  know laugh and shake there heads.  "Compensated flights HA HA."

[SAR-EMT1]

As far as purchase... what is considered the average range for a new or used suit? Whats too good to be true and whats a ripoff?
Any  websites better then others? (Other then Ebay)

[AlphaSigOU]

As far as purchase... what is considered the average range for a new or used suit? Whats too good to be true and whats a ripoff?
Any  websites better then others? (Other then Ebay)

New green bags range anywhere from $125-$200; if you're paying more than $200, you're getting ripped off.
Used green bags can range anywhere from $40-$100. Condition varies; some are in pretty decent shape and there are others that are only fit to be used as garage coveralls.

[Michael]

Looks like I got to this one a little late...

Is not wearing a flight suit in any CAP aircraft a safety hazard from any perspective?

[jeders]

Looks like I got to this one a little late...

Is not wearing a flight suit in any CAP aircraft a safety hazard from any perspective?

Rather than derail yet another thread about the safety of flight suits, see this thread.

[Pylon]

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

You cannot legally sign away your rights.  For example, you cannot sign a contract with your employer that says you waive your right to file a non-discrimination claim, or a workers comp claim, or right to overtime.  Guess what?  Can't sign those rights away.   That's part of th ereason why liability waivers or signs that say "Not responsible for damage" or whatever never hold up legally.

In addition, CAP gets sued all the time.  They don't post it in the Public Affairs news feed, but there are current pending lawsuits as well as plenty of past ones.

[LittleIronPilot]

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

You cannot legally sign away your rights.  For example, you cannot sign a contract with your employer that says you waive your right to file a non-discrimination claim, or a workers comp claim, or right to overtime.  Guess what?  Can't sign those rights away.   That's part of th ereason why liability waivers or signs that say "Not responsible for damage" or whatever never hold up legally.

In addition, CAP gets sued all the time.  They don't post it in the Public Affairs news feed, but there are current pending lawsuits as well as plenty of past ones.

Which I never understood. They are MY rights correct? MINE? So why can I not sign them away if *I* choose?

Sometimes I think we have the worst legal system in the world, not the supposed best.

[ddelaney103]

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

You cannot legally sign away your rights.  For example, you cannot sign a contract with your employer that says you waive your right to file a non-discrimination claim, or a workers comp claim, or right to overtime.  Guess what?  Can't sign those rights away.   That's part of th ereason why liability waivers or signs that say "Not responsible for damage" or whatever never hold up legally.

In addition, CAP gets sued all the time.  They don't post it in the Public Affairs news feed, but there are current pending lawsuits as well as plenty of past ones.

Which I never understood. They are MY rights correct? MINE? So why can I not sign them away if *I* choose?

Sometimes I think we have the worst legal system in the world, not the supposed best.

Because unscrupulous bosses would make people who had no financial choice sign away a bunch of rights as a condition of employment. 

We've been trying to get away from this since 1865 or so.  "Inalienable rights," you know.