Does anyone have know where the Reg or policy letter is requiring CAWG personnel to hold a Class B drivers license is? I can't seem to find it.
Major Lord
A class B isn't needed in general, just for anything over 9 passengers as per the Calif. Vehicle Code. Note thats any vehicle designed to hold over 9, so you can't just take the seats out of it to make it legal.
Mark
*when driven for hire, or for a non-profit operation.
If the Brady Bunchy has a 12 passenger van, they can drive it. Though some might argue that is also a non-profit operation ;-)
We get snared in the non-profit part, by the letter of the vehicle code. The vehicle code is nothing new, that we have generally been operating under a presumed waiver or looking the other way, it seems it was brought to the light early last year as an urgency.
There is a difference between Class B Commercial and Class B Non-Commercial. The attached link lists the restrictions of each class:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/cdl_htm/lic_chart.htm
Quote from: Major Lord on February 10, 2011, 07:59:35 PM
Does anyone have know where the Reg or policy letter is requiring CAWG personnel to hold a Class B drivers license is? I can't seem to find it.
Major Lord
Yeah, it's called the "California Vehicle Code", you may have heard of it.
Short story edition, any vehicle
designed to seat more then 10 people, including the driver, requires a Class B licence to operate it if it belongs to a non-profit organization.
The only exemption is for Van Pool vehicles.
Our Wing Commander, being a serving Police Officer, feels rather strongly that CAP should obey the law.
Playing Devil's advocate: Depending upon interpretation corporate vehicles may also be considered government vehicles. Some states may have exemptions for government vehicles which may include the requirement for license plates and even the licensing of the driver.
I was discussing this topic with some folks up here when I first heard about it a few months ago.
Can anyone tell me why a member of CAWG would tell someone from another wing that they could not use their Non-California drivers license in California?
This requirement only applies to drivers licensed in that state, isn't that right?
As an example, since I can legally drive a 12-passenger van across 48 other states and Canada to get to California, I can still drive that vehicle in California, no?
Quote from: Ed Bos on March 05, 2011, 04:10:48 AM
I was discussing this topic with some folks up here when I first heard about it a few months ago.
Can anyone tell me why a member of CAWG would tell someone from another wing that they could not use their Non-California drivers license in California?
This requirement only applies to drivers licensed in that state, isn't that right?
As an example, since I can legally drive a 12-passenger van across 48 other states and Canada to get to California, I can still drive that vehicle in California, no?
Off the top of my head, no. But you would be well advised to check with a California Police Officer and get an "offical" reading on that.
The rule I was taught was that you're governed by the laws of the state that you're in, right now.
Phil, et al,
I am interested in the actual form of the imposition of Class B driver's Licenses on CAWG members, not the justifications per se. Letter? Smoke signals? Memorandum? Where is it published, or is it just an oral tradition?
Major Lord
California V C Section 233 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc233.htm)
California V C Section 12804.9 (b) (2) (C) (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc12804_9.htm)
Email from CAWG/CC to unit CCs
QuoteCommanders,
It is YOUR job to educate the membership on this issue. The information provided by Maj Hoebink is the exact same information I provide at the very start of the Class B issue. As a 26 year California law enforcement officer, I was dismayed at how many members seemed to express they knew the law better than me.
I now direct that the conversation over Class B requirements and 15 PAX vans come to a close. We have more pressing issues to deal with. The commanders, lawyers, law enforcement officers and transportation professionals have all looked at this issue and come to the exact, same concussion; Class B licensure is required for our 10+ PAX vehicles, modified or not.
Thanks,
Ken
Kenneth W. Parris, Colonel, CAP
Commander, California Wing
Civil Air Patrol, US Air Force Auxiliary
Quote from: Ed Bos on March 05, 2011, 04:10:48 AM
I was discussing this topic with some folks up here when I first heard about it a few months ago.
Can anyone tell me why a member of CAWG would tell someone from another wing that they could not use their Non-California drivers license in California?
This requirement only applies to drivers licensed in that state, isn't that right?
As an example, since I can legally drive a 12-passenger van across 48 other states and Canada to get to California, I can still drive that vehicle in California, no?
You are governed by the laws of your state in that case, Otherwise truckers would be limited to their states for 18 wheelers. Tour buses would be a prime example too. In CA you must apply for a CA drivers license with 10 days after establishing residency. So in CA if you came down for a CAP activity legally you could drive the passenger van as far as the cops are concerned but CAP probably wouldnt allow it
I have this email, sent to all@cawg.cap.gov, on Tue 3/23/2010 4:41 PM:
QuoteAttention All California Wing Members:
Upon conducting some research, it was learned that our CAP vans "designed" to carry more than ten persons, even when the seats have been removed to prevent carrying more than 10 persons, requires a California DMV Class B License to operate. Effective immediately, all CAWG vans designed to carry more than 10 persons is "grounded" and may not be operated by any CAP member unless the driver has a valid CAP Operator's Permit AND a valid California DMV Class B License. Failure to comply with this directive may be a violation of state law, resulting in fines and other penalties for the operator.
The CAWG command and legal staff are continuing to work this issue and we will advise you when we have any additional information.
Thanks,
Ken
Kenneth W. Parris, Colonel, CAP
Commander, California Wing
Civil Air Patrol
The gist of it is- the vehicle code says anyone operating a vehicle that is designed to carry 10 or more persons, for a commercial purpose, or for a non-profit organization (since many non-profits mirror commercial entities in actions) that the operator must posses a Class B commercial license.
If you are the Brady Bunch, you can drive your van full of kids. As long as it's not larger than a 16 passenger vehicle, in which case you need the license anyway.
The vehicle code states it. It's not anything new.
Perhaps there was a presumed, assumed, or whatever waiver that we have been operating under and someone realized that it's not.. or someone got questioned about it, who knows.
The part that we get stung under is the non-profit part.
According to GEICO, they don't care that you have a Class B license, it does nothing to your rate. I understand that any point penalties are doubled and stay on longer. You'll need a medical examination that conforms to the description set forth that is explained on this form: http://dmv.ca.gov/forms/dl/dl51.pdf, http://dmv.ca.gov/forms/dl/dl51.htm (http://dmv.ca.gov/forms/dl/dl51.pdf,%20http://dmv.ca.gov/forms/dl/dl51.htm)
An FAA, FHA, are acceptable as is for the requirement, as well as any others that contain the same data/are based on the at least the same stuff covered.
QuoteAll commercial drivers must submit medical reports to the department on original applications and at least every two years thereafter. Usually, the report is on form DL 51, provided by the department. Medical forms issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), are also acceptable under the vehicle code. Medical reports other than the DL 51, FHA, and FAA forms are acceptable if they meet the requirement of 391.41-49 FMCSR, including a certificate, signed by an health care professional, that the driver meets the federal requirements.
So, you basically take another written test, fork over $64 bucks, plus whatever the doctor wants for that form to be filled out or your last FAA medical certificate thats 2 years old or less, and take a drive test. It's good for 5 years. CAP will give you a two year green card twice and then wince about the single year remaining, I'm sure. ;)
Thanks, the E-mail was what I was looking for.
Major Lord
Quote from: Ed Bos on March 05, 2011, 04:10:48 AM
I was discussing this topic with some folks up here when I first heard about it a few months ago.
Can anyone tell me why a member of CAWG would tell someone from another wing that they could not use their Non-California drivers license in California?
This requirement only applies to drivers licensed in that state, isn't that right?
As an example, since I can legally drive a 12-passenger van across 48 other states and Canada to get to California, I can still drive that vehicle in California, no?
State governments are required to honor licenses issued by other states for people visiting/passing through. While you will still need to follow the local laws, your DL is acceptable for the vehicle you are driving if your state permits it. In your example, you would be able to drive the vehicle you brought in addition to any other vehicles permitted by your state for your DL class. Most states have a 30 day rule with exceptions for military personnel and students (college, typically). Staying over 30 days presumes you are moving to that state and are becoming a resident, therefore you need to get a new D/L and relicense your vehicle.
I wonder how he would feel about a member coming in to support an activity with a non-CA DMV class B license.
That would be a complete CAPism if that were to be the case. In that case, CAP would be holding its members to a standard beyond what the Vehicle Code requires. And, there would be no legal foundation for it, other than someone thinking the CA DMV is the final answer to the worlds problems. Basically saying "Hey all of you other states....your dirvers arent as good as ours."
What I'm gathering is that as of right now, the CA laws prohibit CAWG residents from driving the types of vans that CAP owns. Since I hold an Alaska Class D license, I'm legal to drive that type of vehicle anywhere in the US.
AND
The CAWG/CC prohibits any CAP member who doesn't hold a California Class B from driving said van.
In this case, the Wing Commander's policy is what's prohibiting someone like me from driving a CAWG-assigned-van in that state. If I have a reason to, I'll be sure to call their Wing HQ and get clarification, or a written waiver.
Unless, that is, I'm driving an AKWG van (or any other non-CAWG CAP van). Then I'm in the clear on all counts.
Quote from: Ed Bos on March 06, 2011, 01:36:09 AM
What I'm gathering is that as of right now, the CA laws prohibit CAWG residents from driving the types of vans that CAP owns.
Not necessarily. IMHO, getting a CA Class B license isn't that difficult. A little time, a little money (just like the rest of CAP), and it's yours.
QuoteSince I hold an Alaska Class D license, I'm legal to drive that type of vehicle anywhere in the US.
AND
The CAWG/CC prohibits any CAP member who doesn't hold a California Class B from driving said van.
In this case, the Wing Commander's policy is what's prohibiting someone like me from driving a CAWG-assigned-van in that state. If I have a reason to, I'll be sure to call their Wing HQ and get clarification, or a written waiver.
Unless, that is, I'm driving an AKWG van (or any other non-CAWG CAP van). Then I'm in the clear on all counts.
I think that if you, or anyone else, showed up with an equivalent, or higher, license from another state, permission could be negotiated.
Our friends from Nevada Wing had no problem operating their 15 passenger vans at the CAWG/NVWG Encampment that was held at Camp Pendleton, CA last summer.
And we did discover that chartering a school bus and driver was actually cheaper and way more efficient then doing the CAP van swarm.
Our dining facility was 8 miles away from the encampment area.
Unless I missed something, this is all based on categorizing a van a 'bus.' If that 'bus' (which is absurd anyway!), is not used for hire and endorsement can be provided to a class D license according to California Law. IMHO it is another over reaction by a CAP member without properly evaluating the circumstances. And yes, anyone that is properly licensed to drive a vehicle in their state may operate a vehicle licensed in that state in any state in the USA.
Oddly enough the "C" state on the East Coast has the same issue. Under CT law our vans are "service buses" and require a passenger endorsement on the CT license. The statute has a specific exemption for drivers licensed in other states. As a RI resident I'm currently one of the few CTWG members that can drive the 10 + pax
Quote from: CS on March 06, 2011, 02:47:31 PM
Unless I missed something, this is all based on categorizing a van a 'bus.' If that 'bus' (which is absurd anyway!), is not used for hire and endorsement can be provided to a class D license according to California Law. IMHO it is another over reaction by a CAP member without properly evaluating the circumstances. And yes, anyone that is properly licensed to drive a vehicle in their state may operate a vehicle licensed in that state in any state in the USA.
Well, that's the way that section of the California Vehicle Code is written. And the CAP member who you say is "overreacting" is the Wing Commander who also happens to be a police officer who has this thing about having CAP obey the law. Imagine that!
Understood, as I am also a LEO and have involvement with federal DOT, which is where I derive my over reaction from. As we who have been in CAP a long time every level of CAP has had at least one over reaction . That includes former National Commander's, Region Commander's, and even Wing Commander's.
Quote from: ß τ ε on March 05, 2011, 06:00:11 AM
Email from CAWG/CC to unit CCs
QuoteCommanders,
It is YOUR job to educate the membership on this issue. The information provided by Maj Hoebink is the exact same information I provide at the very start of the Class B issue. As a 26 year California law enforcement officer, I was dismayed at how many members seemed to express they knew the law better than me.
I now direct that the conversation over Class B requirements and 15 PAX vans come to a close. We have more pressing issues to deal with. The commanders, lawyers, law enforcement officers and transportation professionals have all looked at this issue and come to the exact, same concussion; Class B licensure is required for our 10+ PAX vehicles, modified or not.
Thanks,
Ken
It would have been interesting to see the discussion that prompted a reply like this.
Now, I have no particular dog in this fight, but just because someone is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean that they know any particular law very well. There is too much of it for anyone to know it all. Heck, even lawyers can disagree on what a particular law means and the legislators who write the laws can and do disagree on what they mean on occasion. Really not much different than CAP regulations when you come down to it.
If anyone is interested, here is the attachment that came with the above email.
Quote from: ß τ ε on March 06, 2011, 11:31:04 PM
If anyone is interested, here is the attachment that came with the above email.
Just one more reason to stay away from California.
I think it's hilarious, myself. The vehicle code says it right in plain English. If it's operated for a non-profit, you need the license. You'll get one with a passenger endorsement but a capacity limitation if you use one of our vans for the drive test. Sorta like a commercial license w/o instrument rating.
If you are operating it as a private individual there's no issue. Taking 12 kids to lunch during a day of little league might be a stretch in the determination of operating as a private individual, but if your household is the like Eight is Enough or the Brady Bunch, you're good to go.
The question I have is........if removing a seat does not make "designed to carry less then 10)......what does?
Let's be real here.........there are lots of off the shelf vans that have options at time of purchase for 2, 5, 8, 11, 12....the vans are exactly the same except for the number of seats installed.
Simply removing the seats (and maybe the seat belts) of the extra bench should qualify as changing it's designed carrying capacity.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 07, 2011, 06:41:36 PM
The question I have is........if removing a seat does not make "designed to carry less then 10)......what does?
Let's be real here.........there are lots of off the shelf vans that have options at time of purchase for 2, 5, 8, 11, 12....the vans are exactly the same except for the number of seats installed.
Simply removing the seats (and maybe the seat belts) of the extra bench should qualify as changing it's designed carrying capacity.
It also has to do with the size and weight of the vehicle - simply removing a bench doesn't change the overall size of the vehicle.
As explained by CT DMV:
The vehicle was still designed to carry that number of passengers. Whether the seats are actually installed is irrelevant, as is the number of passengers actually on board.
If the vehicle is designed for 10 passengers and only 2 are on board, it's still a 10 passenger vehicle.
The issue is the manufacture is the designer of the vehicle. Not the customer. Not the DMV, not the court system. Or anyone else. The VC is written to be simple and have cut offs that are easy to figure out.
If it's purchased as a cargo van it's not designed to have 12 passengers. Perhaps there's a loophole that someone in some other entity may have explored. Buy panel vans and install seats, windows and carpets. I suspect that it's all the same. Get the license, or don't drive them. It's easier than spending time and resources fighting the rule book.
With the issue of the higher-class license requirement now resolved (we think...) shouldn't the next steps be something like this:
1. Let NHQ/USAF/whoever know that they should be buying smaller vans when procuring new vehicles. We weren't using the whole space anyway. Or, has this shift already been made?
2. Work with PCR or NHQ to shift the large vans out of CA and into States where the higher-class license isn't required. Shift the existing smaller vans into CA.
Those two things together should, over time, reduce the license issue's effect on CAWG.
Or, did I miss something obvious?
Thom
The obvious:
Many Squadron DO need the larger vans even in California
The cost of transferring a title along with the new licence plate can cost up to $100 plus many states
will charge a sales tax on a vehicle brought into the state.
The paperwork headache at National would be very large
Quote from: BillB on March 07, 2011, 08:01:10 PM
The obvious:
Many Squadron DO need the larger vans even in California
The cost of transferring a title along with the new licence plate can cost up to $100 plus many states
will charge a sales tax on a vehicle brought into the state.
The paperwork headache at National would be very large
Why transfer a title? They are all owned by CAP, Inc. Just move them and get new plates when they are due.
Quote from: davidsinn on March 07, 2011, 08:12:27 PM
Quote from: BillB on March 07, 2011, 08:01:10 PM
The obvious:
Many Squadron DO need the larger vans even in California
The cost of transferring a title along with the new licence plate can cost up to $100 plus many states
will charge a sales tax on a vehicle brought into the state.
The paperwork headache at National would be very large
Why transfer a title? They are all owned by CAP, Inc. Just move them and get new plates when they are due.
Differeing laws.
In NV we don't have to register the vechilces....we have a blanket waiver....but other states require them to regestered and plated.
So even if the title owner does not change the title and registration may have to be transfered.