Funded Form 91s and Form 5s

[KyCAP]

In our Wing if you're a Transport Mission Pilot or SAR/DR/CD mission pilot then your Form 5 is considered to be funded from our CAP-USAF funds.    I know that many wings do this but not sure just how many.   If your wing does it, then reply with the wing's name so we can get a picture of this practice nationally.  And if it's just the Form 5 or the Form 91 or both..

example:  Kentucky Wing -Form 5 and Form 91 - TMP or higher

Modifying from here down to keep a tally

Wing        Form 5           Form 91
CA            YES                YES
KY            YES                YES
TN            YES                YES

[SJFedor]

Tennessee- Both for TMP and higher.

[bosshawk]

CAWG seems to be willing to fund recurrent Forms 5 and 91: no initials.  That said, the only time that you can get a ride supported is during a SAREX or other funded training exercise.

That is one reason that we have gone from over 300 MPs to less than 100 at the moment.

[Duke Dillio]

I heard that someone said something bad about the regs and a bunch of CAWG pilots bolted.  Something about if you bend the plane you have to pay for it out of your pocket?  I don't know a whole lot about it, just something I heard at a CLC here a while ago.

On the topic, CAWG just held a SAREX in which they were trying to 5 and 91 a bunch of pilots.  It was up here in SAC.  Apparently the mission runs through this week and it is all about reimbursed missions for the pilots.

[bosshawk]

Yes, I knew about the SAC SAREX: in fact, know the IC quite well.  It was well though out and executed and Norcal should have some new pilots pretty soon.  I instructed at the ground school for those folks a month or two ago.

You are correct that there appears to be an attitude among some CAP commanders that says if you bend the plane you pay for the damage.  In fact, 60-1 goes into that in some detail.  If the pilot is negligent, no reason to me that he/she shouldn't pay for the damages.  Most of the damages that I have seen in recent years has been sheer lack of attention to detail.

[Eclipse]

You are correct that there appears to be an attitude among some CAP commanders that says if you bend the plane you pay for the damage.  In fact, 60-1 goes into that in some detail.  If the pilot is negligent, no reason to me that he/she shouldn't pay for the damages.  Most of the damages that I have seen in recent years has been sheer lack of attention to detail.

I would think this goes without saying, and isn't specific to CAWG.

Hanger rash, especially, seems to be on the increase - you bash a wing or dent someone else's plane because you were too busy to pay attention, get out your checkbook.

Stuff happens and things break - damage in the course of normal (or emergency) operation of equipment is expected, but negligence is unacceptable and the responsibility of the pilot.

And that should be a big incentive to do a proper pre-flight to catch the last guy's shenanigans.

[SJFedor]

As well as a really good post-flight to make sure you DIDN'T leave any dings, in case finger pointing starts when someone else makes an oops, and says "it was there when i got to the plane!"