SUMMARY REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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:

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).

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

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

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:

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:

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

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:

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.