Space A(vailable) Info

[B.M.]

Well, you see, traveling on Space Available flights is virtually free.

Traveling via commercial airlines costs hundreds to thousands of dollars.

So traveling Space-A can save you hundreds to thousands of dollars....which is a good deal.

They're going to significantly cut back on Space A...a good deal.

So this is a good deal that is going away.

Did I go too fast for you?

Nope. That was perfect.

You did say "going away", implying they are "here" and would soon be "gone". I just didn't see how anything was "going away", as your space-A privelages are "here" and will remain "here".

I guess people will have to summon the courage to fly an AMC aircraft, or simply fly one of the other contract flights as they're not all "going away".

[Guest]

Yea.. fuck the vets is totally what I was saying.

I know.

[Toro]

You did say "going away", implying they are "here" and would soon be "gone". I just didn't see how anything was "going away", as your space-A privelages are "here" and will remain "here".

For fucks sake, stop being an idiot. They're slashing Space-A travel - the number of carriers will greatly decrease and therefore the number of flights will decrease. While the possibility of Space A remains, the overall ability to get a Space A flight will decrease. A lot less people able to travel = good deals going away. I have personally never taken Space A, and never plan to. Stop trolling.

[GearMonkey]

Anyone know of an AFI which outlaws operating a jet on which family members are traveling space-available?

A lot of folks mention this restriction but I have yet to find it in print anywhere. The only thing I've ever found was the Flight Authorization AFI which states that immediate relatives cannot be on the same set of flight orders.

I missed a chance to fly my brother out of Afghanyland a few years ago, despite the fact that nobody could show me an applicable AFI, and would like to find out if there is any basis for this belief in case I encounter a similar opportunity in the future. It would be relatively easy to make it happen, since the pax terminal doesn't know I'm the AC and I never look at the manifest, but I'd still like to know if there is actually a rule against it.

Sorry if this is a repeat. I thought I may have asked a few years ago without success but after I UTFSF it appears that was all in my imagination.

Thanks!

[guineapigfury]

I know family members frequently traveled Space-A on planes flown by spouses at my last location*. This was OCONUS, where dependents can Space-A without being accompanied by the sponsor while the sponsor is on leave. They are a lower category, so have less chance to get on the plane. The rules are different CONUS.

[Champ Kind]

Pretty sure it is in 11-401.

[GearMonkey]

Pretty sure it is in 11-401.

It is but it specifically uses the term "airborne duty" which applies to aircrew and/or MEP but not passengers. The Spouse Orientation Flight section doesn't even include a restriction although this is the most obvious case where one would exist.

I'll check the Sup.

[C-21.Pilot]

It is in the AFI 11-401. Only exception is General officers flying VIP/SAM or OSA/JOSAC cut missions.

[GearMonkey]

It is in the AFI 11-401. Only exception is General officers flying VIP/SAM or OSA/JOSAC cut missions.

Got a reference?

The word "family" appears only three times in the 11-401 and they are all in paragraph 1.10.2. Nothing in this this section is applicable to passengers.

All mentions of "spouse", "parent", and "relative" are equally inapplicable.

Edited January 6, 2013 by GearMonkey

[Wolf424]

11-401 has not such spouse restriction (since Space A is not a orientation flight).

However, many units have restrictions in the form of a SRF or a sup. Our unit, for instance, has a SRF that says we will not allow our spouses to fly Space A on a plane we are on if we are listed on the orders. Our SRF came about from the "one person ruins it for everyone" file.

Long story short, a few years back, an AC released 20 seats, thinking his wife and kids would make it. They didn't. He then reduced the number to 15, told his wife to stick around in the terminal after everyone had left, and then called back and increased the seats back to 20, allowing his family to make it on the plane since nearly everyone in front of them had left the terminal...expect for one old retiree who called BS when he saw they were related once they were on the plane.

[Azimuth]

That is B.S.

[Herkdrvr]

Got a reference?

The word "family" appears only three times in the 11-401 and they are all in paragraph 1.10.2. Nothing in this this section is applicable to passengers.

All mentions of "spouse", "parent", and "relative" are equally inapplicable.

Mods: Can I get a bit closer to a solid answer before we bury this in a thread that might not get as much traffic? I agree this should go here eventually but think two hours in is a bit hasty.

The applicable paragraph is 1.10.2:

1.10.2. Family members will not be assigned to airborne duty on the same aircraft for a

given mission. Family member is defined as spouse, brother, sister, parent, and child.

It's poorly written, but this is the interpretation.

If your brother is on the aircraft, then you will not be assigned to airborne duty on that same aircraft.

Hope that helps,

Herkdrvr

[disgruntledemployee]

Didn't some Herk pilot drop his Army brother paratrooper out at Pope a few years back? I seem to recall reading the article somewhere.

Out

[Wolf424]

Didn't some Herk pilot drop his Army brother paratrooper out at Pope a few years back? I seem to recall reading the article somewhere.

Yeah, I think I recall the same thing. It's completely legal. We have people who are married in the squadron fly together when we go to exercises. (one on the orders and one Pax manifested) The only requirement is that they can't be on the orders together. 1.10.2 is very vague, so it really depends on how your local STAN/EVAL interprets it.

[Techsan]

The applicable paragraph is 1.10.2:

1.10.2. Family members will not be assigned to airborne duty on the same aircraft for a

given mission. Family member is defined as spouse, brother, sister, parent, and child.

It's poorly written, but this is the interpretation.

If your brother is on the aircraft, then you will not be assigned to airborne duty on that same aircraft.

Hope that helps,

Herkdrvr

Your brother CAN be on the aircraft...as long as he's not being 'assigned to airborne duty' (I.e on orders) on the same aircraft. You can fly your family (minus spouse) all you want if they are riding as self loading cargo via the pax terminal.

Although I think there does say something about not being able to fly your spouse in any capacity.

[uhhello]

Remember sitting on the ramp at Kadena inside a 135 in the middle of summer watching the aircrew and various ground folk having this very conversation for a good half hour while everyone is overheating. There was actually an infant on board they had to kick off because it was starting to "overheat". In the end, the AC's wife was allowed to stay on board.

[ExBoneOSO]

Although I think there does say something about not being able to fly your spouse in any capacity.

If I remember right (and yes, I'm that old..), this was the incident that caused the AF to stop allowing spouses to fly together.

1981 ARIA Crash

On 6 May 1981, EC-135N, Serial Number 61-0328, call sign AGAR 23, departed Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, at 1005 Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT) on a routine training mission. On board the aircraft were 17 crewmembers and four authorized passengers. The flight proceeded uneventfully as planned for approximately 45 minutes. Then in a few brief moments, a sequence of very rapid events resulted in a crash with the loss of all onboard.

At 1049:48 EDT, The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lost radar contact with AGAR 23. The aircraft was cruising at Flight Level 290, at .78 Mach while performing a navigational training leg. The aircraft commander, Capt Emilio, occupied the right pilot seat and a passenger, Mrs. Emilio, occupied the left pilot seat. Also in the crew compartment were the 2 navigators, Lt Col Frederick and Capt Fonke, and 2 passengers, Mrs. Fonke and SSgt Brundige.

For undetermined reasons, the aircraft pitch trim moved to the full nose-down position. The aircraft then a rapidly pitched over, most likely upon release of the auto-pilot, and induced sufficient negative "G" forces to cause the generators to trip off line, resulting in the loss of all AC electrical power. The pitch trim could not then be moved electrically. This condition, while unusual, can be controlled if prompt corrective action is taken; however, if corrective action is delayed approximately 8 seconds, the aircraft pitch angle will be greater than 30 degrees nose-down in the airspeed in excess of 350 knots indicated airspeed. Under these conditions, the aircraft cannot be controlled until the pitch trim is moved toward neutral. While it is evident that recovery was delayed, the reason for the delay is unknown. The aircraft became uncontrollable and entered a steep descent. During the rapid descent, an explosion occurred at approximately 1300 feet above ground level followed immediately by catastrophic failure, and complete break-up of the aircraft. TABs 1, 2, and 3 of this report provide a summary of the accident and can stand alone as a complete document. The remaining TABs provide more detailed information and supporting documentation.

[Azimuth]

1.10.2 is very vague, so it really depends on how your local STAN/EVAL interprets it.

No it's not. It's how your MAJCOM/A3V interprets it, which I can tell you AMC won't allow it.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Azimuth

[GearMonkey]

No it's not. It's how your MAJCOM/A3V interprets it, which I can tell you AMC won't allow it.

Can you tell us this based on precedent or are you assuming? It is difficult to distinguish facts from opinions on the internets.

Edited January 6, 2013 by GearMonkey

[Azimuth]

Can you tell us this based on precedent or are you assuming? It is difficult to distinguish facts from opinions on the internets.

Sure, when I was in Stan Eval, I asked OGV how they interpreted something vague, if they didn't know, they'd call A3V, who then gave both of us guidance. If anyone ever had a question about something, we would always at least talk to OGV/A3V to make sure they had thoughts on it, unless we knew 100% where their stance on the subject was.

I also don't selectively read when researching pubs.

1.10.2.1. MAJCOMs are authorized to waive this prohibition on a case-by-case basis,

only when unusual conditions dictate.

After spending eight years in AMC, seeing multiple flyer-to-flyer marriages, they were never allowed to fly together if they were on the same AO's. I never saw this waived, ever.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Azimuth

[schokie]

I've seen flyer to flyer marriages where they weren't allowed in the same formation, much less the same aircraft. However, those several cases have been where both of them were AD. I have also seen a C-130 AC fly his family (wife included) in the aircraft he was PIC for to an airshow. I didn't ask what AMC/A3V thought of it.

All of those cases were in USAFE FWIW.

It seems to be a distinct difference between being on the flight orders or just being a pax. There also seems to be a large difference between MAJCCOMs. That would explain the varied answers in this thread.

[GearMonkey]

With all due respect.

or

Permission to speak freely?

Sure, when I was in Stan Eval, I asked OGV how they interpreted something vague, if they didn't know, they'd call A3V, who then gave both of us guidance.

I know I can ask OGV or A3V for clarification and may do so some day.

I asked you the question because your previous post gave the impression that you personally knew what the AMC/A3V answer would be. I was curious if you knew this because of interactions with or as them on this specific topic. If not, your previous statement is confusing and misleading. I don't need or want you to say "I work in A3V and this is our interpretation", I would simply like to know if your previous post was a fact or an opinion.

I also don't selectively read when researching pubs.

I don't think I do either. I've looked in AFI 11-401, AFI 11-202v3, and AFI 11-2C-(X, XX, or ###)v3 as well as the related MAJCOM and Base Supplements, FCBs, and FCIFs. Based on the specific wording in the only two sentences related to my question I'm convinced (as are about 50% of the folks contributing here) that there is no restriction against transporting family members as passengers.

In addition to not reading selectively I also don't read added meaning into what is presented. When the AFI says that family members cannot perform airborne duties on the same aircraft it means exactly that. Passengers don't have airborne duties. The Air Force tends to be very clear when detailing prohibited actions (passengers occupying primary crew positions in flight, unauthorized aerial displays, etc.) so I don't think my interpretation of paragraph 1.10.2 is unreasonable or selective. 11-401 could just as easily say "members will not serve as aircrew on missions transporting family members" but, currently, it doesn't.

After spending eight years in AMC, seeing multiple flyer-to-flyer marriages, they were never allowed to fly together if they were on the same AO's. I never saw this waived, ever.

Nor have I, but that isn't the issue as married flyers on the same AOs are clearly prohibited by 1.10.2. I have, however, seen multiple cases of one pilot spouse operating while the other pilot spouse is on the passenger manifest. These cases, authorized by multiple FAAOs from at least three different Wings, lend further credence to my interpretation of 1.10.2.

Edited January 7, 2013 by GearMonkey

[ThreeHoler]

Why would you ask A3T? It's not a training issue...

[Azimuth]

Why would you ask A3T? It's not a training issue...

2

[GearMonkey]

Fixed it.

Occupational hazard having worked with A3T for almost a year. And by "worked" I mean I emailed them questions when the Vol1 was ambiguous (pretty much all the time). They would routinely ignore my questions (which may be part of why I like to interpret the AFIs myself) since they were as undermanned as we were. If they'd spent a little less time adding random simulator requirements without first modifying the TS contract they would have had far more time for customer service. But I digress. . .