Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 18, 2019, 01:29:20 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Confusion over requirements to check out in 182
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Confusion over requirements to check out in 182  (Read 5958 times)
rgr84
Recruit

Posts: 26

« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2010, 10:02:17 PM »

Nothing provides for or authorizes a CFI giving an "FAA endorsement" for high performance.  Where the CFI is acting as an evaluating check pilot for the FAA.  Same with an FAA IPC.  So if a CFI attests to the ability of a pilot for an FAA high performance endorsement, or an FAA complex endorsement, or an FAA IPC as to instrument ability, show me where it is formally, specifically authorized in 60-1.  If it is not authorized in 60-1, it is not covered by CAP insurance.

1-3. Definition of Terms.
g. CAP Instructor Pilot – Qualified to give flight instruction and FAA endorsements to other members using CAP aircraft.


 
Same with an FAA Flight Review, required every two years.  But there, the CFI is only attesting that a certain time amount of instruction was given, not that the pilot has demonstrated an FAA required level of performance.

 
AC 61-98A states that the flight review is “an instructional service designed to assess a pilot’s knowledge and skills.” The regulations are even more specific: 14 CFR 61.56 states that the person giving the flight review has the discretion to
determine the maneuvers and procedures necessary for the pilot to demonstrate “safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.” It is thus a proficiency exercise, and it is up to you, the instructional service provider, to determine how much time and what type of instruction is required to ensure that the pilot has the necessary knowledge and skills for safe operation.
Some CFI's train to time while others train to standard!
Report to moderator   Logged
DG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 502

« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2010, 10:58:18 PM »

Nothing provides for or authorizes a CFI giving an "FAA endorsement" for high performance.  Where the CFI is acting as an evaluating check pilot for the FAA.  Same with an FAA IPC.  So if a CFI attests to the ability of a pilot for an FAA high performance endorsement, or an FAA complex endorsement, or an FAA IPC as to instrument ability, show me where it is formally, specifically authorized in 60-1.  If it is not authorized in 60-1, it is not covered by CAP insurance.

1-3. Definition of Terms.
g. CAP Instructor Pilot – Qualified to give flight instruction and FAA endorsements to other members using CAP aircraft.


 
Same with an FAA Flight Review, required every two years.  But there, the CFI is only attesting that a certain time amount of instruction was given, not that the pilot has demonstrated an FAA required level of performance.

 
AC 61-98A states that the flight review is “an instructional service designed to assess a pilot’s knowledge and skills.” The regulations are even more specific: 14 CFR 61.56 states that the person giving the flight review has the discretion to
determine the maneuvers and procedures necessary for the pilot to demonstrate “safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.” It is thus a proficiency exercise, and it is up to you, the instructional service provider, to determine how much time and what type of instruction is required to ensure that the pilot has the necessary knowledge and skills for safe operation.
Some CFI's train to time while others train to standard!

OK.  So 60-1 in para. 1-3 specifies that the CAP Instructor Pilot is qualified to give flight instruction and FAA endorsements to other members using CAP aircraft.

And, CAPR 60-1 Section 2-8 refers to authorization for flight instruction but not the term "FAA endorsements."
a. CAP cadets and qualified SAR/DR mission pilots are authorized to use CAP airplanes for flight instruction toward any FAA certificate or rating.
b. All CAP members are authorized to use CAP gliders for flight instruction toward any FAA certificate or rating.
c. CAP senior members that are not current SAR/DR mission pilots must obtain permission to receive flight instruction in CAP airplanes toward FAA certificates or ratings as follows:
(1) Senior members who hold a Private Pilot Airplane Certificate or higher and have been an active CAP member for at least 1 year – Wing commander written permission.
(2) All other senior members – Written permission from the wing commander, region commander and the CAP Executive Director is required and may be granted provided the members lives more than two hours driving time from a commercial training facility.

So, what are we left with here?

1.  FAA endorsements are not authorized in 60-1.  That CAP Instructor Pilots are qualified, but that does not necessarily mean authorized (If it did, then no need for Section 2.8.)  And only flight instruction is authorized, and then only if you qualify in Section 2-8, and not to everyone.

or

2.  FAA endorsements are authorized in 60-1 because CAP Instructor Pilots are qualified and flight instruction is authorized, but only if you qualify in Section 2-8, and not to everyone.

So, which is it?  1., 2., or not 1. or 2. but something else?




« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 11:19:12 PM by DG » Report to moderator   Logged
rgr84
Recruit

Posts: 26

« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2010, 12:46:00 AM »

The opening paragraph of 60-1 says:
This regulation prescribes the responsibilities of all Civil Air Patrol (CAP) personnel as applicable to the control and management of CAP flying programs, aircraft, and aircrews. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements are minimum standards; however, in some instances CAP has established higher standards than FAA minimums.  The practices, procedures, and standards prescribed in this regulation are mandatory.

So if 60-1 does not specifically address a higher or more restrictive standard, then the FAA regs apply. 

You can add to regulations but not detract from.  What does your wing Stan/Eval say about this issue?
Report to moderator   Logged
DG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 502

« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2010, 02:20:25 AM »

The opening paragraph of 60-1 says:
This regulation prescribes the responsibilities of all Civil Air Patrol (CAP) personnel as applicable to the control and management of CAP flying programs, aircraft, and aircrews. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements are minimum standards; however, in some instances CAP has established higher standards than FAA minimums.  The practices, procedures, and standards prescribed in this regulation are mandatory.

So if 60-1 does not specifically address a higher or more restrictive standard, then the FAA regs apply. 

You can add to regulations but not detract from.  What does your wing Stan/Eval say about this issue?


No.  No.  No.

You are missing the point completely.

The issue is whether 60-1 authorizes CAP flight ops and professional services by a CAP CFI as part of a CAP flight activity to provide the FAA endorsement to a CAP member under CAP flight management.

Or, rather, if the CAP member must get the FAA endorsement outside of CAP, at the local FBO / Flight School.

So to present herself to CAP as "Qualified and Current."

Or look at it in another way.  We can only use CAP aircraft and CAP CFI's for CAP flight activities which are authorized in 60-1.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 02:24:25 AM by DG » Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2010, 08:28:41 AM »

No.  No.  No.

You are missing the point completely.

The issue is whether 60-1 authorizes CAP flight ops and professional services by a CAP CFI as part of a CAP flight activity to provide the FAA endorsement to a CAP member under CAP flight management.

Or, rather, if the CAP member must get the FAA endorsement outside of CAP, at the local FBO / Flight School.

So to present herself to CAP as "Qualified and Current."

Or look at it in another way.  We can only use CAP aircraft and CAP CFI's for CAP flight activities which are authorized in 60-1.

I can see how you arrived at this conclusion, but when the 60-1 states,

Quote
1-3. Definition of Terms.
g. CAP Instructor Pilot – Qualified to give flight instruction and FAA endorsements to other members using CAP aircraft.

it is obvious that the intent is for CAP Instructor Pilots to actually "give flight instruction and FAA endorsements to other members using CAP aircraft." 

Your conclusion that although training for all advanced certificates and ratings beyond Private Pilot is specifically authorized, that somehow the training for a high performance endorsement is not, is faulty IMHO.  NOWHERE does the 60-1 require a pilot to obtain a high performance rating elsewhere.  In fact, the only EXPLICIT requirement is that they obtain their private certificate elsewhere, unless the member in question is a cadet.

I'd also like to know what makes you an expert on CAP's insurance policy.

Really, this debate is but another symptom of the atrocious last rewrite of the 60-1.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 08:34:59 AM by Mustang » Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

DG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 502

« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2010, 12:15:45 PM »

CAP has excellent insurance covering CFI's, including negligent acts.

10 million dollar limits.

But it only covers CAP flight activities specifically authorized in the CAP Regulations.
Report to moderator   Logged
rgr84
Recruit

Posts: 26

« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2010, 12:16:34 PM »

Think about it another way.  60-1 allows SM's to obtain certificates and ratings.  So to become a solo pilot, you must receive log book endorsements from a CFI in several areas.  Thus endorsements are authorized.

Report to moderator   Logged
DG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 502

« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2010, 01:02:50 PM »

Think about it another way.  60-1 allows SM's to obtain certificates and ratings.  So to become a solo pilot, you must receive log book endorsements from a CFI in several areas.  Thus endorsements are authorized.


Everyone please understand that I do not have a permanently fixed position here, except to establish what is in the regulation.

When you say "60-1 allows SM's to obtain certificates and ratings," do you mean to say that "60-1 authorizes a CAP CFI to use a CAP aircraft to give FAA endorsements to a CAP member as part of a CAP flight activity"?


Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2010, 02:19:08 PM »

When you say "60-1 allows SM's to obtain certificates and ratings," do you mean to say that "60-1 authorizes a CAP CFI to use a CAP aircraft to give FAA endorsements to a CAP member as part of a CAP flight activity"?
Would you agree that 60-1 authorizes CAP Instructor Pilots to give instruction to a private pilot in preparation for that pilot's initial CAPF 5 checkride? (If not, why do we even have CAP Instructor Pilots, if not "to give flight instruction and FAA endorsements to other members using CAP aircraft".)  If so, such instruction would certainly satisfy the requirements of 14 CFR Part 61.31(f).  If you'll recall the previous edition of 60-1, such instruction was in fact mandatory

I agree that para. 2-8a and 2-8c(1) ought to read "...FAA certificates, ratings or endorsements...", but that doesn't mean training leading to a high performance endorsement is prohibited. Unlike CAPM 39-1, which explicitly states "Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.", the 60-1 contains no such restrictive language.  Which leads us back to your statement,

Quote
If it is not authorized in 60-1, it is not covered by CAP insurance.
Again, I'd like you to prove this.  60-1 makes no such statement.  And since your stated purpose in this thread is "to establish what is in the regulation", how 'bout we hold your statements to this standard?

« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 02:24:20 PM by Mustang » Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

flynd94
Forum Regular

Posts: 174

« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2010, 04:46:40 PM »

Boy, I am glad I am no longer active in CAP.  I guess when I was back in CAWG giving instruction for CAPF5's and, giving a high performance endorsement I was out of line. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Keith Stason, Maj, CAP
IC3, AOBD, GBD, PSC, OSC, MP, MO, MS, GTL, GTM3, UDF, MRO
Mission Check Pilot, Check Pilot
DG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 502

« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2010, 06:30:12 PM »



Note to Mustang:

1.  Big difference between (a) giving instruction and (b) making a formal certification of a pilot as proficient by FAA endosement.

2.  Did you not see the first word in the sentence "If"?

Note to Keith:

CAP CFI insurance only covers flight activities specifically authorized in 60-1.

The point is not that you were out of line giving an FAA endorsement.

Rather, the question is did you give an FAA endorsement for which CAP does not cover with insurance?

One way to handle this is to get your own CFI insurance.

Which I choose not to do.

The point is that you give an FAA endorsement that a pilot is proficient, the pilot goes out and bends metal or, worse, crashes and burns because of pilot error, and the estate sues the CFI for negligent certification of a pilot as proficient who obviously was not proficient or he would not have crashed based on pilot error.

This concern, of course, does not matter to a CFI who is "judgment-proof," such as is the case if he has no money or assets.   

Those folks do not appear to be concerned about or understand this liability risk.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 06:45:25 PM by DG » Report to moderator   Logged
rgr84
Recruit

Posts: 26

« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2010, 08:09:38 PM »

Veritasamo:

Has your original question been answered?

I think we have gone off topic and may need to start a new thread.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2010, 11:06:02 AM »

DG: way to not answer any of the questions I posed.  ::)
Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

Pages: 1 [2]  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Confusion over requirements to check out in 182
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.06 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me