Civil Air Patrol Providing "Security" At an Event?

[Flying Pig]

Yes, if your being hired and paid as a security firm. Asking CAP to help park cars, make sure people stay on that side of the rope, and please dont walk on the wing of that P-51 isnt security.  The misdemeanor is hiring yourself out for compensation without being licensed. 

Your right.....but Apples and Oranges as it relates to CAP. 

[krnlpanick]

I think maybe this is relative to this conversation

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R900_003_506DC1944BAC9.pdf

Crowd-control is generally a passive security responsibility comprised of making sure that no one is being an idiot, intentionally or otherwise. If an idiot is spotted, they are asked to please refrain from being an idiot, if they comply then all is well, if not a call is made to LEO and the cadet(s) simply observe unless there is a safety reason not to.

I would also mention that passive security and crowd control are specifically mentioned in the above document in relation to emergency/disaster or crash site tasks. I see no reason that the same process does not extend to non-emergency situations where there are large gatherings of people and we are asked to help

When requested by proper authorities, CAP members may provide passive crash site security and/or crowd control duties during an emergency/disaster situation.  When on such a mission, the senior CAP member present will ensure the above restrictions are understood and will contact the nearest law enforcement officer if assistance is required.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Especially when it comes to something that most of us should be almost second natured around like an airfield.

[BrannG]

I think maybe this is relative to this conversation

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R900_003_506DC1944BAC9.pdf

Crowd-control is generally a passive security responsibility comprised of making sure that no one is being an idiot, intentionally or otherwise. If an idiot is spotted, they are asked to please refrain from being an idiot, if they comply then all is well, if not a call is made to LEO and the cadet(s) simply observe unless there is a safety reason not to.

I would also mention that passive security and crowd control are specifically mentioned in the above document in relation to emergency/disaster or crash site tasks. I see no reason that the same process does not extend to non-emergency situations where there are large gatherings of people and we are asked to help

When requested by proper authorities, CAP members may provide passive crash site security and/or crowd control duties during an emergency/disaster situation.  When on such a mission, the senior CAP member present will ensure the above restrictions are understood and will contact the nearest law enforcement officer if assistance is required.

EXACTLY! Nice regulation find! See RM, all your issues are addressed. As for a "statement of liability" or whatever you'd call that, once again, with EVERY mission (at least in Texas) we get a Operations Briefing or Scope of Work that is shared with ALL parties related to the mission, and it is very clear on what we can do, will do, how we do it, why we do it and what is NOT allowed. I am sure that covers it without any missing pieces.

[krnlpanick]

Also FWIW RM - this is also referenced in CAPR 60-3 Section 1-23. If you are GES qualified you should already know this information. I know when I took the GES test last week there was at least one question on the subject of aid LEO - there was also a question on the test as to what insurance CAP members are covered by for different types of missions, ie FTCA vs CAP Liability Insurance. If you are GES qualified I would really hope you would already know all this information however - as it is much more applicable knowledge to have in the field than how to handle reimbursable expenses (also covered under GES) or if the Command Center has A/C.

I also think that you need to spend a great deal less time trolling CT for your own sick amusement - feel free to head over to /b/ if you want to troll and get it out of your system there. Every post I have seen from you thus far has been a blatant troll and frankly I am sure I am not the only one who tires of your antics - and I've only been here for a couple weeks!

All that said, if you don't agree with the CAP missions, values, or program as a whole - there are plenty of other civilian organizations out there that will allow you to do exactly what you want to do without the military element that you so despise in CAP.

Let all of us "Wanna Bees" be and find something more befitting to your ideas, everyone will be a great deal happier.

[Extremepredjudice]

/b/ would out troll RM.

[krnlpanick]

/b/ would out troll RM.

Understatement of the year 

[Major Lord]

I find the idea that people can see flying around LEO's in CAP aircraft, at the direction of LEO's, as not being "Police Agents" within the  legal meaning of the term, shear sophistry. This has no bearing on what is meant by "Security". That being said, for the most part, civilian "security" means the process of observation and reporting. No one in their right mind would suggest that CAP members should make the transition from passive "security" to active "protection" . Cleaning FOD off of a flight line and standing at the rope at an airshow is about as passive as it gets. CAP argues that directly supporting Law Enforcement is okay, as long as it is "passive" , is a clear indication that CAP's possible concern in Security issues ( and in Posse Comitatus Act Issues) stems from the possibility of direct intervention. Having been in the direct intervention side of things for many years, there are frankly very few in CAP that I would want to see involved in such things. Most just don't have the training or the mindset, and would only get other people hurt. The question of direct action or intervention is only an issue insofar as it might relate to members of the public hurting or endangering CAP members, Senior or Cadets, in which case, my professional recommendation is to open a class A bottle of first class Whoopazz, and leave the offending member of the public bleeding and crying, waiting for the real police to come and take the neer' do well away in irons.

Major Lord

[Extremepredjudice]

/b/ would out troll RM.

Understatement of the year 

Sorry, I meant they would eat RM whole. 

[abdsp51]

Eh should just ignore him unless he presents something more than conspiracy theories and something constructive about the organization.

[Eclipse]

Eh should just ignore him unless he presents something more than conspiracy theories and something constructive about the organization.

The problem, though, is that unchallenged, this stuff becomes part of the searchable information on the board and the interwebs.

Someone doing a superficial search on the topic may well believe the idea(s) have merit, and the next thing you know it's "I read it on CAPTalk."
Bad on people who go that route, but it is, what it is. 

Bad ideas, unchallenged, are the basis for a lot of wive's tales in CAP and elsewhere.

[abdsp51]

Eh should just ignore him unless he presents something more than conspiracy theories and something constructive about the organization.

The problem, though, is that unchallenged, this stuff becomes part of the searchable information on the board and the interwebs.

Someone doing a superficial search on the topic may well believe the idea(s) have merit, and the next thing you know it's "I read it on CAPTalk."
Bad on people who go that route, but it is, what it is. 

Bad ideas, unchallenged, are the basis for a lot of wive's tales in CAP and elsewhere.

True

[Extremepredjudice]

Eh should just ignore him unless he presents something more than conspiracy theories and something constructive about the organization.

The problem, though, is that unchallenged, this stuff becomes part of the searchable information on the board and the interwebs.

Someone doing a superficial search on the topic may well believe the idea(s) have merit, and the next thing you know it's "I read it on CAPTalk."
Bad on people who go that route, but it is, what it is. 

Bad ideas, unchallenged, are the basis for a lot of wive's tales in CAP and elsewhere.

How about "We need empirical evidence to support this, rather then your unsupported claim. Without data to support your claim, we must reject it as false, and just a conspiracy theory."

[RADIOMAN015]

Eh should just ignore him unless he presents something more than conspiracy theories and something constructive about the organization.

The problem, though, is that unchallenged, this stuff becomes part of the searchable information on the board and the interwebs.

Someone doing a superficial search on the topic may well believe the idea(s) have merit, and the next thing you know it's "I read it on CAPTalk."
Bad on people who go that route, but it is, what it is. 

Bad ideas, unchallenged, are the basis for a lot of wive's tales in CAP and elsewhere.

So please answer this question:

Assume that there's no AF/CAP mission number assigned, and is not a CAP mission, no IC structure just support agreed to by the local squadron commander.

A senior member is assisting at another non profit organization's event in a so called passive "security" role and a deranged person attacks the adult member and he is hospitalized for 3 days, and will be out of work for 30 days.   The person who attacked him has no assets, who is going to pay the medical bills and cover the person's disability for lost wages

A cadet member is assisting at another non profit organization's event in a so called passive "security" role and a deranged person attacks the cadet member and he is hospitalized for 5 days, and may be out of school for 30 days, and may have some permanent disability.  The person who attacked him has no assets, who is going to pay the medical bills, and address the permanent disability    

So is it going to be
A.  Tough luck CAP member, let your insurance handle it, no personal disability insurance, oh well.
B.  The Non Profit Organization CAP is supporting that day, insurance carrier contacts the member/member's guardian to come to an agreement start payments.
C.  Civil Air Patrol pays.
D. Combination of Above

What I'm saying is don't we need to know formally when we are supporting another organization on a ANY community type support (but in particular support called "security"), who's is going to pay for what if something goes astray

Now I personally think a good lawyer will get both CAP Inc and the non profit we were supporting that day to pay those bills.  Wouldn't be surprised if the project officer and even the direct unit leadership got pulled into as part of the lawsuit.  (of course unless some hold harmless waivers were passed around and the member or if a cadet parents were stupid enough to sign it).     

Surely I hope this NEVER happens, likely it won't BUT that's why we have insurance, right

RM


       

[a2capt]

Even challenged, it's still searchable. If they don't bother to read the whole thread, it's still "the first thing" they see.

For a Wing PAO and Comm Officer awardee, it sure does come off as a case of Jekyll and Hyde.  I'd have a hard time being in the same room where the justification on the CAPF 120 was read aloud.

[Eclipse]

...that's why we have insurance, right.

Wrong.  The insurance you are discussing is for external liability, not internal injury, etc.

There is no internal personal injury insurance coverage for members involved in "C" missions, or any other CAP activities which take place during the
normal course of CAP business. 

FECA coverage only kicks in during A & B missions, and notwithstanding what they might do at NBB, CAP-USAF will not approve A or B status for Air Shows.

This is also a useless and unanswerable question, since you've chosen to select a deranged and asset-less perpetrator to do you apparent bidding.
This same deranged individual could just as easily attack someone manning a recruiting booth, or shove his way into a unit meeting and start hurting
people, and the same level of insurance would apply.

None.

[bflynn]

About 1 in 3 negative story I've heard about CAP involve CAP acting in some kind of crowd control or security monitoring role.

Regardless of whether it is allowed, my conclusion is that it's a bad idea.

[abdsp51]

This is one of those things that can be "what if" to death and beat around the bush.  Somewhere in the mix of things there is some aide.  Unless the alleged deranged person in Radioman's case is utterly homeless or has completely decided to live "off the grid"  there are assets that can be used. 

If a local unit wants to provide a level of support to a function in a certain capacity so be it.  I did a couple of Airshows as a cadet where we were in a "security" type role.  Ultimately an incident occurs on a piece of property it can come back on the property owner.

If Radioman is content to just kick back and do the bare minimum and only play on his terms let him, he can be an example of what not to do. 

[BrannG]

So please answer this question:

Assume that there's no AF/CAP mission number assigned, and is not a CAP mission, no IC structure just support agreed to by the local squadron commander.

A senior member is assisting at another non profit organization's event in a so called passive "security" role and a deranged person attacks the adult member and he is hospitalized for 3 days, and will be out of work for 30 days.   The person who attacked him has no assets, who is going to pay the medical bills and cover the person's disability for lost wages

A cadet member is assisting at another non profit organization's event in a so called passive "security" role and a deranged person attacks the cadet member and he is hospitalized for 5 days, and may be out of school for 30 days, and may have some permanent disability.  The person who attacked him has no assets, who is going to pay the medical bills, and address the permanent disability    

Okay, I'm going to ASSUME (since you have a habit of not doing your own homework) that the "non-mission" is something like an Airshow, and by some crazy case of "oh crap I forgot" the Squadron Commander, or Deputy Commander or Operations Officer somehow approved an activity that included the use of cadets without the approval of the Group or Wing Operations Officer or Commander depending on level of "activity".

Once again lets take a look at CAPR 900-5. (as this is the regulation you need to read and understand) In this case I'll just do the homework for you.. Section A-7 (page 3) is titled "AIRSHOWS"...

7. Air Shows.

a. Prohibited Activities.  No unit or member of CAP is authorized to sponsor or
cosponsor any air show. CAP members may not:

(1) Accept rides in an air show as a part of any official CAP activity.

(2) Be used as security guards, or damage control.

(3) Taxi non-CAP aircraft before, during, or after an air show.

(4) Direct parking of aircraft unless having received training on aircraft marshalling
and having a flight line authorization on CAPF 101 or CAPF 101T.

b. Permitted Activities.  CAP units and members may assist with an air show sponsored
and conducted wholly by agencies and organizations other than CAP. Prior permission to assist
or participate in any air show must be obtained from the General Counsel at National
Headquarters.  No such advance permission is required if the CAP assistance or participation in
an air show is limited to the following:

(1) CAP members may be used as guides or to provide directions or information.

(2) CAP units may setup a recruiting booth and/or a concession stand selling food
and drinks on the premises of an air show, providing that CAP is not in any way acting as a
sponsor.

(3) CAP members may be used around parked or static display aircraft for guidance,
information, or direction.

c. Air Force Assigned Mission (AFAM) status. CAP  members attending or
supporting an event on a military base,  are  not automatically provided AFAM status and
associated coverage.  Military commanders who desire CAP support must make the request in
writing to the CAP National Operations Center (NOC).  The CAP NOC will evaluate requests
and coordinate Air Force approval if appropriate.   If Air Force approval is received in

PLUS you have to look at that Section E I spoke about earlier, you know.. "SENIOR MEMBER AND CADET ACCIDENT, LIFE AND MEDICAL
BENEFITS—AUTOMATIC COVERAGE"

I'll quote something key from the first paragraph..

18. General.  As a benefit of membership, CAP provides a self-insured accident coverage for
both senior members and cadets, which  provides benefits in the event of reportable injury or
death that occur during CAP authorized activities.  This is a self-insured program paid out of
CAP's general fund and not a commercial insurance policy

So, for issues of liability, APPROVAL OF EVERY EVENT A FLIGHT, SQUADRON, GROUP, or WING does - it MUST require authorization prior to the use of CAP Personnel and Cadets. I would think this even more important in the way of cadets.

So, if proper "approval" has not be received and someone dropped the the massive large ball - than I can **GUESS** someone can in fact sue the Civil Air Patrol for performing an non-mission operation without approval of group/wing/national as required. And I am even more sure the squadron staff, to include their Safety Officer as he or she didn't remind the rest of the staff to get "liability" taken care of.. would be.. shall we say, replaced?

Once again, your solution is also in need of a problem, as we have a clear chain of command and as you should know, CAP hates wasting any money.. so I am sure they frown on being sued for medical expenses and damages from some random Major / CC not following procedure on a CAP Activity.

Also, I should say that your new question is about INSURANCE not the topic you started and thus I can honestly say - "WE ARE NOW OFF TOPIC!" Have a wonderful day!

[lordmonar]

Eh should just ignore him unless he presents something more than conspiracy theories and something constructive about the organization.

The problem, though, is that unchallenged, this stuff becomes part of the searchable information on the board and the interwebs.

Someone doing a superficial search on the topic may well believe the idea(s) have merit, and the next thing you know it's "I read it on CAPTalk."
Bad on people who go that route, but it is, what it is. 

Bad ideas, unchallenged, are the basis for a lot of wive's tales in CAP and elsewhere.

So please answer this question:

Assume that there's no AF/CAP mission number assigned, and is not a CAP mission, no IC structure just support agreed to by the local squadron commander.

A senior member is assisting at another non profit organization's event in a so called passive "security" role and a deranged person attacks the adult member and he is hospitalized for 3 days, and will be out of work for 30 days.   The person who attacked him has no assets, who is going to pay the medical bills and cover the person's disability for lost wages

A cadet member is assisting at another non profit organization's event in a so called passive "security" role and a deranged person attacks the cadet member and he is hospitalized for 5 days, and may be out of school for 30 days, and may have some permanent disability.  The person who attacked him has no assets, who is going to pay the medical bills, and address the permanent disability    

So is it going to be
A.  Tough luck CAP member, let your insurance handle it, no personal disability insurance, oh well.
B.  The Non Profit Organization CAP is supporting that day, insurance carrier contacts the member/member's guardian to come to an agreement start payments.
C.  Civil Air Patrol pays.
D. Combination of Above

What I'm saying is don't we need to know formally when we are supporting another organization on a ANY community type support (but in particular support called "security"), who's is going to pay for what if something goes astray

Now I personally think a good lawyer will get both CAP Inc and the non profit we were supporting that day to pay those bills.  Wouldn't be surprised if the project officer and even the direct unit leadership got pulled into as part of the lawsuit.  (of course unless some hold harmless waivers were passed around and the member or if a cadet parents were stupid enough to sign it).     

Surely I hope this NEVER happens, likely it won't BUT that's why we have insurance, right

RM     

The same people who pay for when that same deranged man comes through your squadron door on monday nights.
And you can never control who gets pulled into a law suit.....so if you are worried about it....buy personal liablity insurance or don't participate.

Realy RM....it is that simple.   No one is making YOU particapte.  If you don't feel comfortable with your level of risk....go away.  CAP has been doing security and safety patrols at air shows ...with and with out mission numbers for decades!   

If CAP INC has a problem with it.....they have been awfully silent about it....I meant....let's see....CAWG gets at least one mission number a year to support he MARCH AFB airshow.  NVWG gets one for Aviation Nation each year, and one for the RENO Air Races.  Oh.....and there is this thing called Airventer each year in Oshkosh.   I seem to remember CAP being involved with that in a little way.

Dude.......just go away and talk about the radio net.  It is one of the things you actually know about.