Should CAP go back to mostly using member-owned aircraft?

[RiverAux]

Like, I don't know, fly their POA to an airport with a COA?

Sure, spend personal money to get to the COA rather than have CAP pay for some fuel for the POA to do the o-rides at the original airport.  In other words, double the total cost of the activity. 

[Eclipse]

Apparently they were incapable.... They aren't the most proactive when it comes to going through with solutions like you said. Still think POAs should be utilized.

And >that's< the real issue.  At least in my wing, we get the occasional member asking about his POA, but those members are rarely active
enough to justify it, aren't actually CAP pilots, or own aircraft not likely to be approved regardless.

The few that fall into a useful category are being proactive and are able to justify the aircraft's use.

Like, I don't know, fly their POA to an airport with a COA?

Sure, spend personal money to get to the COA rather than have CAP pay for some fuel for the POA to do the o-rides at the original airport.  In other words, double the total cost of the activity.

I'd challenge "double", and in fact it might not cost anything.  Schedule some B12's or A7 and move the plane where it needs to be, fly the rides, and bring it back. We get excuses all the time about why a given group of pilots have dropped off F-5's, aren't flying, don't do O-Rides, etc.  Just about any time people ask we can move a plane TDY to any airport requested.

In many case the plane then sits with zero hours and is returned.  And on more then a few occasions we find out through the back channel
that our planes sat because the pilots preferred to do burger runs in their own planes then be "bothered" with CAP.

[RiverAux]

As a reminder, here is what 60-1 says about use of member-owned aircraft:

g. CAP corporate aircraft are the resource of choice for AFAMs. Member owned/furnished aircraft, with the exception of gliders and balloons, should only be used on AFAMs when CAP corporate aircraft are not available or when mission requirements dictate the usage of non-corporate aircraft. The use of member owned/furnished aircraft requires wing or higher commander approval for corporate missions and CAP-USAF Liaison Region commander or higher approval for each AFAM in which the aircraft's use is requested.
CAPR 60-1 16 APRIL 2012 9
(h) Before utilizing a member-owned/furnished aircraft for AFAMs, CAP-USAF policies require that the aircraft be inspected by CAP-USAF LR personnel utilizing the CAPF 71, CAP Aircraft Inspection Checklist. Inspections must be conducted annually and are valid for one year. A facsimile of the aircraft airworthiness certificate must also be provided to the CAP-USAF LR for their files when the aircraft is submitted for inspection. CAP-USAF also requires the aircraft owner annually to sign a hold harmless agreement (HHA) (see National Stan/Eval web page) waiving any claims for damage to the aircraft arising from the use of the aircraft. The CAP-USAF LRs are required by their policies to review the current HHA and aircraft inspection paperwork prior to approving the use of member-owned/furnished aircraft for each AFAM use. Requests for use of member-owned/furnished aircraft will not be approved unless a copy of the airworthiness certificate, current HHA and CAPF 71 are on file with the CAP-USAF LR.
NOTE: FECA and FTCA coverage are provided to CAP members executing properly released AFAMs in member owned/furnished aircraft, but the HHA excludes reimbursement for damage or loss of member-owned/furnished aircraft.

So, is it impossible to use member-owned aircraft?  Technically, no.  But, if it used CAP won't pay a dime if it gets dented.  And with the SD elimination, I suspect it will become even more difficult to get the required annual inspection accomplished. 

Now, it is pretty much in the eye of the beholder on whether or not a CAP corporate aircraft is not-available or inappropriate and if a MOA can be used.  If the AF is willing to pay the fuel costs pretty much any CAP aircraft is available even if they have to fly it in from out of state. 

And in practice if a Wing Commander or CAP-USAF regional commander has to approve each individual use of a member aircraft, its just not going to happen.  No one is going to go to that trouble to get a few o-rides accomplished for a unit without an aircraft.  And the "or higher" clause for both CAP and AFAM missions is a little vague -- why not just say who can give the ok?

So, how would I modify this regulation?

Well, I do like the inspection requirement, but I'd say that once a MOA has been inspected and approved it should be available for use by a Wing in the same way as corporate planes are.  It should be just another asset. 

Let the wing decide which aircraft are best to use for particular missions. 

[BlueLakes1]

We did have occasion a couple years ago to use a member provided club airplane to perform o-rides towards the end of the fiscal year, due to a large number of corporate planes in 100 hour at once.

I have to agree that this feels like a solution looking for a problem. If there is a need to use member provided aircraft, there's a mechanism in place to do so. However, its very uncommon for a need to arise.

As far as making a transition away from corporate airplanes back to member provided, I'd say a good look at the USCG AUXAIR program may provide insight. While this certainly may not be indicative of participation nationwide, I flew with a Captain at work a couple weeks ago who is in the Aux in the Pacific Northwest, and a former CAP member. He actually asked me (unofficially) about the possibilities of partnering with CAP to fly missions in partnership with them, because they don't have enough airplanes or pilots to fly what they need, and mentioned the difficulties associated with pilot qualification and aircraft availability - especially in regards to mounting a marine band transceiver in the airplane at owner expense. Again, YMMV but I think this is probably indicative of what we'd run into as well.

[Phillip]

I'm one of those that thinks there isn't a problem here that needs to be solved.  The process for allowing member-owned aircraft to be used within CAP probably needs to be reviewed/updated as needed, but that's about it.  Going totally member-owned aircraft will be a disaster from multiple angles.