SUMMARY REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

**PREPARED BY**

IMA TO THE XXXXX LIAISON REGION COMMANDER

AIR, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING COMMAND

CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL

TREATMENT AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS

WITHIN THE CIVIL AIR PATROL, XXXXX WING

XXX XX XXXX

**Report of Investigation**

**Section II, Tab A - Authority and Scope**

\"The Secretary of the Air Force has sole responsibility for the
function of The Inspector General of the Air Force (Title 10, Section
8014). When directed by the Secretary of the Air Force for the Chief of
Staff, The Inspector General of the Air Force (SAF/IG) has the authority
to inquire into and report upon the discipline, efficiency, and economy
of the Air Force and performs any other duties prescribed by the
Secretary or the Chief of Staff. (Title 10, Section 8020), Pursuant to
AFI 90-301, *Inspector General Complaints,* authority to investigate IG
complaints within the Air Force flows from SAF/IG to IG offices at all
organizational levels.\"

\"The commander, appointed the IMA to the XXXXX Region Commander on XX
XXX XXXX to conduct the investigation into the complainant\'s
allegations. The complainant filed his complaint with the Inspector
General, on XX XXX XXXX. The Investigation was conducted from XX XXX
XXXX to XX XXX XXXX at XXXXX Liaison Region.

**Section II, Tab B - Introduction: Background and Allegations**

On XXX XX XXXX, the XXXXX Rescue Coordination Center (RCC) contacted the
Squadron Fight Release Officer, the complainant, and requested an
aircraft be launched to locate an active emergency locator transmitter
(ELT), in the local area. The complainant released aircraft XXXXXX on
mission XX-XXXX to search for the ELT.

The ELT was located at XXX XXXXXX, a private airfield (also known as
XXXXX airstrip) in the XXXXX city area. The pilot notified RCC of the
location and was requested by RCC to land and deactivate the ELT. The
pilot told RCC in order to land at a private airfield he would require
authorization from Civil Air Patrol (CAP). The RCC contacted the
complainant to request the authorization needed for the landing. The
complainant told RCC he could approve the landing and to have the pilot
land and deactivate the ELT.

The pilot landed at XXX XXXXXX airfield and deactivated the ELT. The
pilot then taxied to the end of the runway for takeoff. At the end of
the runway the pilot taxied off of the gravel surface to turn the
aircraft around so he could use the entire 2200 feet of runway. As the
aircraft taxied off the runway surface, the nose wheel sunk into a soft
spot and the prop struck the ground.

The pilot notified RCC of the situation. The RCC notified the
complainant the aircraft had sustained damage. The complainant notified
the squadron commander and the squadron maintenance officer (SMO). The
complainant and the SMO drove to the airfield to visually assess the
damage to the aircraft. They both decided the damage to the prop was not
significant and because of high winds forecasted for that evening, they
felt it would be best to fly the aircraft back to the maintenance hangar
located at XXXX XXXX Airfield. The SMO piloted the aircraft back to the
XXXX XXXX Airfield.

The wing commander ordered an Incident Review Board to investigate the
accident. It was composed of five members that convened on XX XXX XXXX
at the Wing Headquarters. The complainant and the other two respondents
were requested to attend. Each appeared separately before the board and
explained what part he had in the incident. The board forwarded their
results to the wing commander who then decided on final punishments and
assessments. The final results were sent to the region commander for
approval.

The assessments amounted to more than \$500, so approval by the National
Commander was required. The national commander approved the assessments,
but requested the region commander be sure the members had been given a
chance to present statements and evidence as required by regulations.
This request was forwarded to the wing commander. The wing commander had
his chief of staff send the respondents a letter requesting any
additional information concerning the incident. No allegations, charges,
or assessments were contained in the letter.

The final punishments and assessments were presented to the three
respondents on XX XXX XXXX at the Wing Headquarters. They then met with
the wing commander and were asked if they had any questions and when
would they pay the assessments. The other two respondents agreed with
the assessments, but the complainant disagreed and filed an appeal to
the region commander on XX XXX XXXX.

The region commander assigned the vice-commander to examine the appeal
on XX XXX XXXX. When the review was finished, the region commander said
he sent a letter to the complainant on XX XXX XXXX denying the appeal.
The complainant stated he never received the letter.

The complainant claims he has not received due process because he still
has not received an answer to his appeal. On XX XXX XXXX, he sent a
letter to the national commander requesting his appeal be moved to
another region for investigation. He has not received an answer to that
request.

On XX XXX XXXX, the complainant sent a letter to the CAP-USAF/IG
requesting an investigation into his appeal. In a letter dated XX XXX
XXXX, the IG informed the complainant the appeal would be investigated.
On XX XXX XXXX, the IMA to the XXXXX Region Commander was assigned as
the Investigating Officer to investigate the allegations submitted by
the complainant.

**Additional Background**

Approximately five months after this incident occurred, a search was
launched for a missing pilot in a remote area. Two of the pilots
involved in the search landed at an unapproved airfield without
authorization and located the missing pilot. The missing pilot was not
hurt and was flown back to the XXXXX area in one of the CAP planes.

The complainant claims the pilots were not punished for violating the
regulations by landing at a similar unapproved airfield and bringing
back an unauthorized passenger.

**Allegations**

The following are the five allegations submitted by the complainant:

A. On XX XXX XXXX, the complainant acting as Flight Release Officer
authorized a CAP aircraft to land at an unpublished/private airstrip in
violation of CAPR 60-1, 2-2, b, and was unjustly punished. This practice
occurred unpunished both before and after this incident in the XXXXX
Wing.

B. Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to make a statement or
present evidence in his behalf as required by CAPR 62-2, 7c, before an
assessment of \$X,XXXX.XX (later reduced to \$X,XXX.XX, was made in the
final finding letter XX XXX XXXX.

C. Complainant\'s appeal per CAPR 62-2, Par 7B, on XX XXX XXXX, to CAP
XXXXX Region Commander, was not handled in accordance with CAP
regulations.

D. On XX XXX XXXX, three CAP aircraft flying mission XX-XXXX landed at a
similar unapproved airfield and embarked a non-member passenger in
violation of CAPR 60-1, 2-2, b, and CAPR 60-1, 2-6, i, without the prior
approval of the XXXXX Wing Commander.

E. In a cursory investigation to determine if the allegations were valid
complaints, the CAP-USAF/IG discovered the three individuals involved in
this incident, the complainant and two other respondents were assessed
for aircraft damage. Determine if the wing collected these assessments
and if national headquarters was billed for any damages to aircraft
XXXXXX. Also determine if this is a common practice in the XXXXX wing.

**Section II, Tab C - Findings, Analysis, and Conclusions**

**Allegation A** \-- On XX XXX XXXX, Maj. XXXXX acting as Flight Release
Officer authorized a CAP aircraft to land at a unpublished/private
airstrip in violation of CAPR 60-1, 2-2, b, and was unjustly punished.
This practice occurred unpunished both before and after this incident in
the XXXXX Wing.

The investigation found this allegation to be exonerated as to the issue
of the punishment, but sustained as to the issue of the practice
happening in the XXXXX Wing.

**Findings -** Maj. XXXXX stated in an interview and before the Incident
Review Board, (acting as Flight Release Officer) he did authorize, after
being requested by RCC the pilot on mission XX-XXXX to land at XXXXX
airfield knowing it was in violation of CAPR 60-1, 2-2b.

CAPR 60-1, 2-2b states:

> *Unless otherwise authorized, CAP aircraft may operate to and from the
> following: a. Civilian airports listed in the current FAA
> Airport/Facility Directory.*

*b. Other civilian airfields for which prior written permission has been
obtained from both the owner/operator and either the Executive Director,
region commander, or wing commander depending on the level of aircraft
assignment.*

The practice of landing at airfields without authorization has happened
in the past at the XXXXX Squadron. A few pilots in the squadron stated
in interviews on occasions they had landed without authorization at
unapproved airfields. They knew it was in violation of CAP regulations,
but due to circumstances at the time, felt it was the best option. Some
stated they were not aware of the regulation until after this incident
occurred. When violations did occur they were usually not reported to
the wing staff.

**Analysis** \-- Maj. XXXXX admitted he authorized the aircraft to land
knowing he did not have wing commander and owner/operator approval. He
thought he was the mission coordinator (MC) for the mission. Being the
MC, he felt he was in control of and responsible for the CAP assets he
had released to RCC as stated in CAPR 55-1, 4-3c. As the MC he thought
he had the authority to authorize the aircraft to land at XXXXX.

CAPR 55-1, 4-3c states:

*Command and Control. Command and control of CAP resources remains
within the CAP at all times. The CAP mission coordinator exercises full
authority over all CAP personnel for matters pertaining to the mission.
The CAP mission coordinator must exercise prudent judgement in
prosecuting the SAR mission. A thorough assessment of all risks
associated with the mission must be accomplished and appropriate
controls put in place to ensure safe operations.*

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USAF HQ 11 Air Force and
the State of XXXXX (see Exhibit 30) says when a search is conducting by
RCC, it is the only MC. CAP does not appoint an MC unless a search is
conducted in a remote area where RCC cannot conduct the search.
According to the MOU, Maj. XXXXX could not have been the MC and was not
assigned as one by CAP.

In his appeal (see Exhibit 14), Maj. XXXXX stated one of the reasons he
authorized the landing was because CAP trains its pilots to treat all
ELT signals as a life and death emergency. This he said is stated in CAP
Pamphlet 2, section 3-4, c. Even though XXXXX was located in a populated
area and could have been driven to, he felt the fastest way to determine
if an emergency existed was to allow the pilot to land and assess the
situation.

The Wing Commander said this was not the case at XXXXX. The fastest
access to emergency help in a populated area if required would be to
have RCC dispatch the police or fire departments. They could have been
there in a matter of minutes to assess the situation. 1st Lt. XXXXX said
he flew over the runway twice before landing and did not observe
anything on the ground requiring immediate help. The XXXXX Squadron is
approximately a ten-minute drive from XXXXX. A member could have easily
driven to the airfield and deactivated the ELT.

Additional ELT guidance can be found in CAPR 55-i, 4-3h:

*An ELT emitting a signal should be deactivated as quickly as possible
as it presents a serious problem to the emergency alert system.*

After the incident occurred, Maj. XXXXX and Capt. XXXXX (the Squadron
Maintenance Officer) arrived at the scene to assess the damage. Maj.
XXXXX said high winds were forecasted for that evening. After inspecting
damage, they decided it would be best to fly the aircraft back to the
maintenance hangar at XXXXX. The maintenance hangar is located
approximately ten miles from XXXXX or about a six-minute flight (see
Exhibit 25).

Capt. XXXXX ran the engine at high power setting and said he observed no
unusual vibrations. He felt the aircraft was airworthy and could be
flown back to the maintenance hangar. Maj. XXXXX agreed and authorized
the flight. Capt. XXXXX taxied the aircraft to the end of the runway and
powered the engine up to full power for a short field takeoff. It was
determined during this power up, more rocks were sucked up into the prop
and caused additional damage (see Exhibits 27, 28).

Although it was a short flight, the flight path took the aircraft over a
heavily populated area (see Exhibit 25). Capt. XXXXX stated if the
aircraft would have had an engine failure, he was sure he could have
glided into the XXXXX airfield. The flight was uneventful and the
aircraft arrived safely at the hangar. Had the aircraft failed in flight
and crashed, the CAP would have been subjected to numerous legal and
financial problems.

Some pilots before and after this incident have landed at unapproved
fields in violation of the regulation and it went unreported and
unnoticed by squadron and wing staff. No punishments were issued.

CAPR 60-1,2-2,b states owner/operator approval is also required to land
at an unapproved airfield. Maj. XXXXX did not request or have
owner/operator approval to authorize a landing at XXXXX airfield. In
interviews with wing and squadron personnel, it was stated this approval
is rarely sought for various reasons. Some airfields are abandoned, some
are government owned, and in many cases the owners cannot be found or
contacted. Many of the landings made by CAP aircraft at unapproved
airfields with wing commander authorization are still in violation of
the regulation because they have not received owner/operator approval.

**Allegation B:** Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to make a
statement or present evidence in his behalf as required by CAPR 62-2,
7e, before an assessment of \$X,XXX.XX (later reduced to \$X,XXX.XX,
(see Exhibit 13)) was made in the final finding letter XX XXX XXXX.

The investigation found this allegation to be sustained.

**Findings -** On XX XXX XXXX, the wing commander appointed five
qualified members to convene an Incident Review Board to investigate the
accident on XX XXX XXXX. CAP Board Procedures were required as stated in
CAPR 62-2, 6b(2).

*If a Board of three or more members is appointed, it should use the CAP
Board*

*Procedures attached to this regulation is conducting its hearing and
investigation.*

CAP Board Procedures state in CAPR 62-2, Attachment 6, Item 7:

*Notice: Notices of hearings must be given to the respondent in writing
at least seven calendar days in advance and must contain a summary of
the allegations or charges, the time, date, and location of the hearing,
and a copy of the procedures.*

CAP Board Procedures also state in CAPR 62-2, Attachment 6, Item 6:

*Service of Notice: All notices or decisions shall be served personally
or sent by first class mail to the last known CAP address of the
respondent.*

Maj. XXXXX, Capt. XXXXX, and 1 st Lt. XXXXX were notified by fax at the
XXXXX Squadron evening meeting on XX XXX XXXX, an Incident Review Board
would convene on XX XXX XXXX, (see Exhibit 2). This was only six
calendar days before the board was to meet. The chairperson of the board
was Wing Safety Officer, Lt. Col. XXXXX. He stated the 20th was selected
because it was the only day all the board members could attend the
hearing. He notified the respondents by fax at the squadron when the
board members confirmed the date. He explained the Incident Review Board
was meant to be an exploratory look into the incident. No allegations or
charges were sent to the respondents

At the Incident Review Board Maj. XXXXX and the other two respondents
explained how the incident occurred and what part they played in it. The
information presented was to help examine why the incident occurred, not
to protest assessments or punishments. The board members then sent their
finding (see Exhibit 3-7) to Lt. Col. XXXXX. He sent the wing commander
the combined board findings in a letter on XX XXX XXXX(see Exhibit 7).

The wing commander sent his final finding, assessments and punishments
in a letter, XX XXX XXXX(see Exhibit 9), to the region commander. Since
the assessments amounted to more than \$500, the region commander was
required by CAPR 62-2, 7, e, to send the finding on to the national
commander for his approval.

CAPR 62-2, 7c, states:

*Assessments Beyond \$500. The National Commander may, in an appropriate
case, increase a member\'s assessment beyond the first \$500 after,
affording the member an opportunity to make a statement and present
evidence*

The National Commander, Brig. Gen. XXXXX, approved the assessments and
punishments with the stipulation the region commander make sure each
respondent had had a chance to present statements and evidence as
required by CAPR 62-2, 7, c. The region commander passed this
information on to the wing commander. The wing commander had his Chief
of Staff, Maj. XXXXX, send a letter, XX XXX XXXX(see Exhibit 10), to
each respondent requesting they answer four additional questions
concerning the incident. The letters did not contain or refer to any
information regarding allegations, punishments, or assessments. All
three respondents returned very simple answers to what they felt were
redundant questions concerning the accident (see Exhibit 11, 12). They
stated later in interviews had they known the intent of the letter or
been informed of what the punishments and assessments were going to be,
they would have responded much differently.

The final findings were presented to each respondent by the wing
commander at the Wing Headquarters on XX XXX XXXX (see Exhibit 9). This
was the first time Maj. XXXXX and the other two respondents were made
aware of the allegations, assessments and punishments against them. The
wing commander invited the three respondents into his office and asked
if they had any questions or comments concerning the findings. Maj.
XXXXX, after reading the final results, left the office immediately
without comment. The other two respondents made arrangements to pay
their assessments.

Analysis \-- CAP Board Procedures CAPR 62-2, attachment 6, 6, says Maj.
XXXXX must be notified by mail, seven calendar days in advance of the
hearing. He was instead notified by fax, six calendar days in advance.

The wing commander said he felt Maj. XXXXX had three different
opportunities to make statements on his behalf. One was at the Incident
Review Board, another was in the response to the letter from the chief
of staff and the last was at the meeting in his office when he presented
the final results.

The Incident Review Board was exploratory in nature. At that time, the
board members did not know what or if any allegations or punishments
would be recommended. The letter sent to Maj. XXXXX by the chief of
staff (as requested by the national commander) did not mention or refer
to allegations, assessments or punishments and the intent was not clear.
The wing commander\'s findings were never known until presented to Maj.
XXXXX at the Wing Headquarters. At that meeting Maj. XXXXX did not have
a chance to analyze the findings nor was he prepared to present
statements or evidence on his behalf.

The wing commander stated from the time of the incident until the
present, Maj. XXXXX has never asked him for any information concerning
allegations or given him statements or evidence supporting his position.

**Conclusions** \-- Throughout the incident review process, Maj. XXXXX
was never given a summary of allegations, charges or assessments as
required by CAP Board Procedures in CAPR 62-2, Attachment 6, 7. Maj.
XXXXX had three opportunities where he could have presented evidence and
statements in his behalf as required by CAPR 62-2, 7c, but did not
because he was not aware of the charges and assessments.

Allegation C: Complainant\'s appeal per CAPR 62-2, 7b, on XX XXX XXXX to
XXXXX, CAP XXXXX Region Commander, was not handled in accordance with
CAP regulations.

The investigation found this allegation to be sustained.

**Findings** \-- Maj. XXXXX filed an appeal on XX XXX XXXX to the region
commander (see Exhibit 14). Col. XXXXX answered the request for an
appeal on XX XXX XXXX (see Exhibit 15) and stated he had assigned Col.
XXXXX to examine his claims. Col. XXXXX stated in a phone interview he
examined the claims and sent his findings to the region commander. He
did not recall what his final findings were and did not have any copies
of his review. Col. XXXXX was asked to provide a copy of the review sent
by Col. XXXXX, but stated all the paperwork concerning the examination
of the appeal was lost during a break-in at the region office at XXXXX
AFB earlier this year. The XXXXX Wing LO, Lt. Col. XXXXX said a report
of the theft was never filed with the security police because it went
unnoticed for two months. Col. XXXXX did have a copy of the letter
denying the appeal he said he sent to Maj. XXXXX on XX XXX XXXX (see
Exhibit 17). Maj. XXXXX said he has never received the letter and the
appeal still remains unanswered.

The investigation found this allegation to be sustained as to the issue
of landing without wing commander approval, but exonerated as to the
issue of embarking a passenger.

**Findings** \-- On XX XXX XXXX, fifteen aircraft were launched to
search for a student pilot that had been missing for three days. The
search area was located in a remote region several flight hours from the
XXXXX basin and out of radio contact with RCC. A C-130 (High Bird)
aircraft is normally deployed to relay radio transmissions, but it was
not launched on that day.

Three of the pilots (Lt. Col. XXXXX, Maj. XXXXX, and a third pilot) were
searching a grid that included the XXXXX airfield. The airfield had two
gravel ranways, was well maintained and is owned by a British oil
company. The airfield sells aviation gas and is widely used as a
refueling stop by pilots flying out to remote areas. It is not in the
FAA Airport Supplement and is considered an unapproved airfield.

Lt. Col. XXXXX field established radio contact with a woman working at
the airfield. She concluded from the conversation that a person on the
ground had information about someone who had crashed several miles
inland. It could not be determined from the conversation if this was the
search victim.

The weather forecast was for an approaching storm front due to hit the
area within three to four hours. This caused a great deal of concem to
end the search as soon as possible and get the all the aircraft back to
the home base.

Lt. Col. XXXXX and Maj. XXXXX (XXXXX Squadron Commander) made the
decision to land at XXXXX and sort out the information. The third pilot
advised them XXXXX was an unapproved field and they needed authorization
to land. They did not have enough fuel to fly back to establish radio
contact and get authorization so they landed, knowing it was a violation
of CAP regulations.

Once on the ground they were informed by a teenager that he and his
father had come across a young man who said he had crashed his plane and
needed a ride out. Their plane held only two persons, so the father flew
his son back to XXXXX, then flew back to get the crash victim. While
interviewing the teenage, the father\'s plane landed. The passenger
turned out to be the missing student pilot. He said his plane had
crashed and burned on takeoff three days earlier and escaped with only a
sleeping bag and lantern. He was not injured but was exhausted and
dehydrated.

XXXXX is accessible only by water or air. With bad weather approaching,
it would have been at least a couple of days before the student pilot
could find a ride out. By then it was possible he would become a medical
emergency due to his immediate condition. Lt. Col. XXXXX made the
decision to transport the student pilot back to XXXXX airfield so he
could seek medical attention.

Lt. Col. XXXXX stated after she arrived at the home base, she went to
see the wing commander and explained what had happened and why she made
the decisions she did.

Neither pilot was punished for the landing. Lt. Col. XXXXX received a
Lifesaving Award from the RCC for her actions on this mission.

**Analysis** \-- Mission XX-XXXX was conducted at a great disadvantage
without the High Bird C-130. In XXXXX, many of the airfields are in
remote areas and are not in the FAA Airport Supplement. Without radio
communications to obtain authorizations and advice, pilots are forced to
rely on their own judgement as to when and where to land depending on
the circumstances (gas, weather and emergencies).

The three pilots searching the grid around XXXXX airfield were placed in
a situation in which pilot judgement was an important factor in the
decision making process. The radio communication with the ground
established the fact someone at the XXXXX airfield had information about
a crash. It became apparent the only way to sort out this information
was to land and talk to the persons involved.

Lt. Col. XXXXX and Maj. XXXXX had both landed many times at XXXXX in
their own private aircraft. They were familiar with the runways and
surrounding environment and felt comfortable making a landing there.

The weather front was moving in and time became a factor. It would have
taken over two hours to fly back and make radio contact with RCC and get
the necessary authorization to land. There was not enough fuel to do
this. They felt the information gathered on the ground would help bring
the search to an end before the bad weather arrived. They had owner
permission to land but not wing commander authorization as required by
regulations. After considering these factors, they decided to land at
the airfield without authorization.

Once on the ground, they interviewed the teenager who was waiting for
his father to return with the crash victim. The father landed moments
later and it was confirmed the passenger he brought back was indeed the
student pilot they were searching for. He had spent three days in the
wilderness with no food or water and was very tired. He had no means to
get back to the XXXXX area and there are no overnight facilities at the
airfield.

Maj. XXXXX (XXXXX Squadron Commander) authorized Lt. Col. XXXXX, as
required by CAP regulations, to transport the student pilot in her
aircraft back to the home base so he could get medical attention. This
was done without incident.

Conclusions \-- Lt. Col. XXXXX and Maj. XXXXX did willfully violate CAPR
60-1, 2-2, b, by landing at XXXXX without wing commander authorization.
They felt that considering the circumstances and the inability to
contact RCC, landing was the best course of action.

CAPR 55-1, 1-8, b, states the following:

*Upon locating survivors, all personnel must assume that immediate
assistance is necessary and act accordingly. The condition of survivors
cannot be determined accurately through aerial observation alone.*

Lt. Col. XXXXX did transport the survivor back to the home base, but did
not violate CAPR 60-1, 2-6i, which states:

*The following individuals are authorized to fly aboard CAP aircraft: i.
Any individual approved by a designated mission coordinator or unit
commander when such action would contribute to saving a life.*

Maj. XXXXX was the XXXXX Squadron Commander and he authorized the
student pilot to be transported back to XXXXX for medical treatment.

CAPR 55-1,1-14 states the following:

*\...CAP may be used to transport persons seriously ill, injured, or in
distress to locations where facilities are suitable, or when other
suitable modes of patient transportation (commercial or public) are not
readily available \...\.... This type of mission is normally categorized
as a rescue mission, with authorization obtained through the AFRCC
\....*

Mission XX-XXXX was classified as a search and rescue mission.

**Allegation E:** In a cursory investigation to determine if the
allegations were valid complaints, the CAP-USAF IG discovered that three
individuals involved in this incident, Maj. XXXXX, Capt. XXXXX, 1st Lt.
XXXXX were assessed for aircraft damage. Determine if the wing collected
these assessments and if national headquarters was billed for any
damages to aircraft XXXXXX. Also determine if this is a common practice
in the XXXXX wing.

The investigation found this allegation to be exonerated as to the issue
of billing damages for aircraft XXXXXX, but sustained as to the practice
of billing and collecting assessments.

**Findings -** A review by the Aircraft Management Office at
Headquarters of claims filed for damages to aircraft XXXXXX showed no
claims were filed (see Exhibit 29). The wing commander stated it was
common practice for the wing to submit for damages to headquarters and
collect assessments from pilots for negligent damage to aircraft. He
said the assessment money collected is put into the aircraft maintenance
account to help maintain CAP aircraft.

The assessment practice has been in place in the XXXXX wing for many
years. Other pilots have been assessed in the past. It is used as a tool
to motivate pilots to be more responsible for CAP aircraft. The pilots
who fly in the XXXXX wing are aware of the assessment program and have
signed a Statement of Understanding which states they can be assessed
for negligence or intentional damage to CAP aircraft.