What is Civil Air Patrol's mission?

[Pylon]

What is Civil Air Patrol's real mission these days?  Not the three mission mantra or a "Missions for America" tagline.  But what is our organization's true purpose right now?

We've got active ES programs in some states.  In other states, we don't have any ES at all.

We've got dozens of programs competing for units' attentions: Wreaths across America, DDR, Safety, CISM...   

We've got about ten different "operational" missions:   CounterDrug, Aerial Damage Assessment, Aerial Photography, sometimes we do Aerial Searches, Ground searches, UDF for ELTs (which is going away soon), Cadet O-Flights, Border Patrol, training TACPs for the AF and ANG, we're hoping (begging?) we can do some real Homeland Security or Homeland Defense missions, but only a few actual jobs have come through.

Our Aerospace Education"mission" often goes completely by the wayside unless it's within a Cadet Programs context.  Sometimes, some areas have some external AE programs or seminars or school-based programs... but these are few and far between.  We're now adding these younger "school-based programs" under the AE hat, but again - in a few cities (and I'm still unclear what we're really trying to accomplish there).

Our Cadet Program is the only "mission" I see that we have that has a clearly defined mission statement, clearly defined five program components, and is applied - for the most part - fairly consistently in every Wing in CAP.

Now throw this VSAF mission into the mix.  We're going to help the Air Force out with there stuff... maybe family-centered stuff.... we're not sure in what capacity yet, but we're going to help out the Air Force on their bases.

So with our ELT missions going away, with our growing "mission spread" of CAP,  with our zeal to try to get just about any job or task from any federal or state agency we think we could do, and with our operations varying so very much from wing to wing what CAP actually does operationally - what is our organizations purpose?  What is CAP here for?  Are we "Volunteers and Aircrafts for Hire?" to the any municipal, state or federal org?  Do we have a focused mission?     

It would just help to know what our organizations clear and defined purpose is for a whole heck of a lot of reasons.

[mikeylikey]

It is very difficult to tell these days!  In the near future I think NHQ wants CAP to be the "FRG stand-ins" at AF Bases.  I seriously hope all of NHQ efforts are not placed on this new VSAF program.  We need to start doing what we did on Sept 12, 2011.  Flying and perfroming Homeland Defense assignments would be KEY for our organization.  Scrap all "new and neat" ideas, until we can at least figure out why we are sucking in our stated primary missions TODAY!

[Smokey]

What is CAP here for?  Are we "Volunteers and Aircrafts for Hire?" to the any municipal, state or federal org? 

There are many within CAP who want to be "Volunteers and Aircrafts for Hire."  They are mostly the corporate folks who want to fly on someone else's dime. They really don't care why they are flying or for who , as long as they get to fly for free.  They are the folks you hear in this forum wishing to loose the AF uniform, have issues about customs & courtesies, and following the focus and goals of our parent the Air Force.

They usually use the excuse of "flying to check for stray rabbits in the forest" or "flying to check if there is enough water in the reservoir" as training to improve our skills.

And you will hear them flaming on me for this post !!!

[isuhawkeye]

I know this is a political issue, and that many will not agree but I cant help myself. 

This question is the national application of the Iowa issue. What is CAP, what is our mission, and who will we work for in the future?

[RiverAux]

1.  Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.

2.  Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.  

3.  To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.

4.  To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.

5.  To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.

6.  To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.

I'd hardly call wreaths across america a mission -- it is a 1 day public relations event.  

Our ES missions haven't really changed since CD was added in the 1980s.  Just some new gizmos added in.  

I also wouldn't say that Safety and CISM are really "missions" either.  They are part of our other major missions.  

Frankly, except in those few states with a superabundance of ELT & EPIRB missions, CAP is being underutilized for ES since we primarily think of ourselves in terms of air SAR.  If there is a wing not doing ES, it is by their choice.  There are plenty of ways of getting involved and if the air searches are being done by another state agency, then focus on ground SAR and other DR issues.  Plenty of work to go around.  

I've said it before, but in regards to our actual assigned purposes (quoted above) we have failed to even basically address our duty to encourage civil aviation and I'll agree that we do not do as much external AE as we probably should.  

[arajca]

The single most critical problem I see in CAP is a complete lack of guidance and direction from the top. Ideally, and once upon a time, CAP was a true national organization with all parts supporting the known mission of CAP. Today, as witnessed by this and other discussions going on here, NO ONE IN CAP HAS CLUE WHAT CAP'S PURPOSE IS OR HOW TO TRANSLATE THE VARIOUS MISSION STATEMENT INTO A COHESIVE PROGRAM! I am not excluding myself from this.

The interim national commander is, according to what I have been able to read, supposed to be a top-notch businesswoman. Based on her actions and apparent lack of communication, I am starting to wonder about this.

Here, and throughout CAP, there are ALOT of hard chargers and Type A personalities who can be harnessed by a true leader to take CAP to great heights and make it a truly functional organization. Without a true leader, we have one organization comprised of 52 separate operating agencies made up of anywhere from 10 to 100+ individual programs, few of which can work together for any significant length of time. There have been some attempts to change this at the lower and middle levels, but no real systemic improvement has happened, nor do I see anything happening soon.

For now, what CAP needs is a LEADER! We need someone to stand up and say "This is our goal. This is how we get there." It may be painful, organizationally, as some folks will quit. Believe it or not, those folks deserve our respect. Others will stay to torpedo the plan. Those folks need the boot. Most, I believe, will stay and, like a team of horses under an expert driver, take CAP where it needs to go.

[Eclipse]

I have never had any doubt of what are assigned missions are.

The fact that we may not be executing on them doesn't change what they are.  The fact that many commanders, and even whole wings have chosen to ignore one or more of them does not change what they are.

I participate in 2/3rd's of the mission as a matter of course, and the last 1/3 as a matter of coincidence and
in support of the first 2/3rd's.  I'm sorely aware of the places we are not executing fully, which means I know what they are.

Pylon, I agree with River in that all you've done is identified individual activities or component parts of a still coherent mission.

I don't think that anyone would say similar things about police or fire personnel, but you could also argue things like  "Toys for Tots", or the local Oktobeerfest are not part of their mission.  These are simply things the organiztions do as part of their mission, not in lieu of it.

[RiverAux]

I will say that while the SAR part of our ES mission is quite clear, we have absolutely no policy or guidance on disaster relief missions other than taking aerial damage assessment photos and light transport missions.  No guidance at all in regards to ground forces. 

[ZigZag911]

It comes down to the 3 missions or nothing....the problem is every NB member has his/her own interpretation of what that means, and to some degree guides their own wing in their own vision....which may not mesh with the national vision.....then squadrons like to go off in their own directions.

Should there be individuality in units & wings? Sure....within the parameters of a common perspective.

The problem is lack of accountability.....the senior leadership is elected by those they command!

And don't bother pointing to Coast Guard Aux, because as I understand it, Auxiliarist leaders do not command!

CAP has been running under our own equivalent of the "Articles of Confederation" for almost 70 years....perhaps it's time for a "constitutional convention"!

[RiverAux]

CAP has nothing at all to worry about in terms of too many missions if you look at the huge variety of things CG Aux is supposed to be doing.  They've got a couple of dozen different programs and thats not even counting the wide variety of things that can be done to augment the CG. 

[NIN]

BTW, in my coining of the term "Seven Mission Spread™," I did not intend to say that Safety, DDR, Wreaths Across America, etc, are truly our "missions," but merely that often there is sufficient emphasis placed upon them, and other fairly nonsensical things, that they compete heavily with the "core competencies" of the organization, or that there is such serious interest in the "maximum performance" of these functions that they very nearly become de facto missions unto themselves.

That's all

It was very tongue in cheek...

[cap235629]

It is interesting that the "what is our mission" subject is in full swing.  At our squadron meeting last week we were discussing how UDF/ELT missions would all but dry up in the near future.  To remain relevant, we have to adapt.  As such, our squadron is talking about CERT training, NASAR certifications and fully integrating the Homeland Security/Disaster Relief officer position at a SQUADRON level.  The vision I have of this course is having a fully capable force available that can integrate with our State and Local Emergency Management Agencies in such a way that we are all working out of the same book.  CAP units would present themselves as a UNIT, be it a ground team or CERT team, to the local IC when needed and say "where do you need us".  This is of course in addition to our standard Air Search and Rescue role.  In effect we can be the most versatile and capable group in the area. We are blessed here in Arkansas that CAP is completely integrated into the emergency plans of the State and in fact are the primary responder on the states roster for Air Search and Rescue, and we are listed as a secondary resource for all other missions. 

By taking "civilian" certification courses and training we will speak the same language as our "customers".  They have no clue what a GTM3 can do but do know what a Sartech3 is.

This is just an example of how ES one of our 3 missions is going to have to change due to the changing world we live in

[isuhawkeye]

i'd invite you to my es academy where we cover all the recognised quals, but

drop me a line.  I can help

[Senior]

Why are the ELT missons drying up?

[flyguy06]

Thats not an easy question to answer because the answer wil very with where you are from and what your units goals are. My unit is inthe inner city of ATlanta GA. We have a lot of youths that come from a certain income level household. Our young people are interested in flying and being pilots. I think only one has expressed an interets in going to the woods and doing first aid typr thigs. The others have no interest in that. So in my unit, we emphasize flight training, aerodynamics, flying careers and cadet programstuff. What I meanby that is we are raising a color guard, we are trying to do community service projects and we encourage our youths to go on to college and pursue technical type degrees. 

Again, thats my unit. Across town there is a unit that all they do is ground team stuff and that sok because thats what they are interested in and since they are paying their money, I think they should be happy with the product

[ColonelJack]

The single most critical problem I see in CAP is a complete lack of guidance and direction from the top. Ideally, and once upon a time, CAP was a true national organization with all parts supporting the known mission of CAP. Today, as witnessed by this and other discussions going on here, NO ONE IN CAP HAS CLUE WHAT CAP'S PURPOSE IS OR HOW TO TRANSLATE THE VARIOUS MISSION STATEMENT INTO A COHESIVE PROGRAM! I am not excluding myself from this.

I don't see where the actual stated missions of CAP have changed at all.  They are the Cadet Program, Aerospace Education, and Search and Rescue.  (Not necessarily in that order.)  There are areas where SAR is the sole reason CAP exists; there are areas where CP is the sole reason CAP exists.  Unlike its parent Air Force, Civil Air Patrol's program is adaptable to its local needs.  Some areas don't need active Cadet Programs; some do.  Some areas don't need active SAR units; some do.  The idea of creating one cohesive Civil Air Patrol is a good one; how to avoid losing the local aspect of CAP is the difficult step.  For as has been said elsewhere, Civil Air Patrol is at its best a local program.  Groups, wings, and regions exist to support the local CAP unit, not the other way around.  (At least, that's how I've always heard it.)

The interim national commander is, according to what I have been able to read, supposed to be a top-notch businesswoman. Based on her actions and apparent lack of communication, I am starting to wonder about this.

I'm not wondering about her abilities at all.  See, General Courter inherited in some respects a pretty rancid can of peas when she became interim CC; anyone who expected her to turn things around 180 degrees within moments was expecting far too much.  Even as national commander, she cannot be everywhere and do everything.  The existing support structure -- National staff, Region CCs, etc. -- has to work with her to get her vision out there.  And before anyone says, "What's her vision, then??" I say consider -- she's the interim National CC, keeping the ship afloat for now.  Only after she's elected to a full term as commander (if indeed she is) will she have the mandate to do what is necessary, whatever that turns out to be.  Patience, Grasshopper; things will happen.

Here, and throughout CAP, there are ALOT of hard chargers and Type A personalities who can be harnessed by a true leader to take CAP to great heights and make it a truly functional organization. Without a true leader, we have one organization comprised of 52 separate operating agencies made up of anywhere from 10 to 100+ individual programs, few of which can work together for any significant length of time. There have been some attempts to change this at the lower and middle levels, but no real systemic improvement has happened, nor do I see anything happening soon.

And some of those changes are fantastic ones; others are not so good.  If you're referring to the Iowa Wing approach, remember -- what works in one wing will not necessarily work in others.  Or, as we say in show business, just 'cause it plays here doesn't mean it'll play in Peoria.  CAP is capable of much, much more than it does, I fully agree ... but as long as you have different people, you'll have different views of what it can/should do.  A strong leader (a Fuehrer?) isn't what's needed, in my never-to-be-humble opinion ... what is needed is a group of leaders willing to follow a stated plan of direction.  And for that, we need to wait until General Courter has her mandate to lead, if indeed she gets one -- or whoever gets that mandate.

For now, what CAP needs is a LEADER! We need someone to stand up and say "This is our goal. This is how we get there." It may be painful, organizationally, as some folks will quit. Believe it or not, those folks deserve our respect. Others will stay to torpedo the plan. Those folks need the boot. Most, I believe, will stay and, like a team of horses under an expert driver, take CAP where it needs to go.

I like the way you think, sir, but I have to ask -- where, in your opinion, does CAP need to go?  If you got the nod tomorrow, where would you take CAP?

My two cents.  Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Jack

[isuhawkeye]

properly registered 406 beacons allow AFRCC to process false alarms by contacting the owner of the beacon directly.

GPS enabled 406 beacons allow AFRCC to contact the local authorities directly and tell them exactly where the beacon is.  

Those beacons with out GPS availability will still require some "search"

121.5 will still be around as legacy, but satellites wont be listening for them.  

with that small number of missions can we justify our multi million dollar SAR budget

[mikeylikey]

with that small number of missions can we justify our multi million dollar SAR budget

Simple answer...NO.

Long answer......NO.

[RiverAux]

The flipside is that in the medium term we may see an increase in large scale missing airplane searches after the satellite stops monitoring 121.5 and no longer picks up signals from crashed planes with the old ELTs on them.  What once could have been a quick distress ELT find may take days. 

Also, people forget the rise of personal emergency beacons.  Pretty soon it just won't be GA aircraft and big boats that will be putting out signals, real and false.  Heck, Cabelas is selling them for as little as $450 now. 

We won't be getting those calls from AFRCC, but the states will very likely want our help. 

[Pylon]

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying by combining the problem of internal programs which take unnecessary precedence and work burdens and the missions of Civil Air Patrol.  Forgive my confusion in the matter.

However, how does something like VSAF fit into Civil Air Patrol's mission?  Is that Emergency Services?   Is that Aerospace Education?

My point in starting the thread was to perhaps point out that our missions are becoming quite varied and we seem eager to take on just about any type of work.  Isn't it better to have a "scope of work" for Civil Air Patrol to define "this is what we do and this is why we're here"?   Things that fall outside that scope might be nice additions when we have spare time or resources, but don't take center stage over our primary focus.  But what is our primary focus evolving to?  Can we create a concise statement of what CAP's missions are supposed to be in today's terms?

[RiverAux]

However, how does something like VSAF fit into Civil Air Patrol's mission?  Is that Emergency Services?   Is that Aerospace Education?

I already quoted the law earlier, but it it fits exactly into one of the purposes for which Congress chartered us -- noncombat missions of the AF.  It is actually one of the missions that we should have been doing more of all along, but haven't. 

[Pylon]

I already quoted the law earlier, but it it fits exactly into one of the purposes for which Congress chartered us -- noncombat missions of the AF.  It is actually one of the missions that we should have been doing more of all along, but haven't. 

Quoting law is great, and perhaps legally it is a purpose for CAP.  I wasn't arguing that we could or couldn't do VSAF or other missions.  I am asking how do we define our mission and purpose as an organization?   

Let me put it this way, when a prospective member asks "What does Civil Air Patrol do?", I'm not going to start spouting off our three public mission names, names of programs, some excerpts from public law and a few extra fringe missions we've tacked on.    How do we define what our organization's purpose is?

[JohnKachenmeister]

properly registered 406 beacons allow AFRCC to process false alarms by contacting the owner of the beacon directly.

GPS enabled 406 beacons allow AFRCC to contact the local authorities directly and tell them exactly where the beacon is.  

Those beacons with out GPS availability will still require some "search"

121.5 will still be around as legacy, but satellites wont be listening for them.  

with that small number of missions can we justify our multi million dollar SAR budget

I wouldn't be so sure.  We have already had 406 false alerts with no personal registration.  I am also not sure that the 406's will take over from the 121.5 ELT's real soon in the GA community.  We will lose the 121.5 false alarms, but we are still going to be in the SAR business, which is where we should be.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I already quoted the law earlier, but it it fits exactly into one of the purposes for which Congress chartered us -- noncombat missions of the AF.  It is actually one of the missions that we should have been doing more of all along, but haven't. 

Quoting law is great, and perhaps legally it is a purpose for CAP.  I wasn't arguing that we could or couldn't do VSAF or other missions.  I am asking how do we define our mission and purpose as an organization?   

Let me put it this way, when a prospective member asks "What does Civil Air Patrol do?", I'm not going to start spouting off our three public mission names, names of programs, some excerpts from public law and a few extra fringe missions we've tacked on.    How do we define what our organization's purpose is?

How about:  "The United States Air Force Auxiliary?" 

[AlphaSigOU]

How about:  "The United States Air Force Auxiliary?" 

Well said, Maj. K! Last time I checked it's still inscribed on our seal.

[M.S.]

Well said, Maj. K! Last time I checked it's still inscribed on our seal.

not well said at all.  that doesn't say what we do.

How about:  "The United States Air Force Auxiliary?"

"Hi, I'm interested in CAP.  What do y'all do?"

"We're the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY!!"

"Uh, that's great.  Uhm, so what types of things does your typical member do?"

"Oh, well, uh let's see... we have a Cadet Program and we have aircraft... and around here we fly cadets for orientation flights and we prepare for disaster relief, air and ground search but the we're 7th on the state's list of people to call, we also have CAP missions like border patrol, aerial damage assessment, this VSAF program where we work on AF bases, counterdrug work and homeland defense..."

"COOL!"

"...yeah, but not in this region...

"oh"

"...actually, the vast majority of our squadron's members support our internal structure of bureaucracy, like professional development, safety, finance, admin, personnel, logistics...  some of them fly, but if you're not a pilot, we do need good paperwork and support people"

[RiverAux]

How do we define what our organization's purpose is?

When you're talking about recruiting and public affairs you should focus on what your unit is actually doing.  If your're in a senior squadron you obviously wouldn't be talking about the cadet program.  If your unit isn't doing any homeland defense or counterdrug work then obviously you would leave those out. 

CAP does different missions in different areas depending on the needs of the AF and our other partners at the local and state levels.  It has to be that way. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Somebody was engaged in some self-loathing last week and said:

"We do the jobs that Air Force cannot or will not do."

As their Auxiliary, that is absolutely correct.

We serve the AF by providing a light-plane resource to the Air Force for SAR or any other missions that the AF needs us for.  When we are not serving the AF, we are free to provide light air support to local and state agencies.  If they are too stupid or too mired in local politics to use this resource it is not our problem and not the problem of the Air Force.

We also manage a cadet program that has grown out of the wartime necessity of providing pre-induction military and aviation training to offset the aircrew losses we were suffering in World War II.

We provide a community presence for the Air Force, and are mandated to provide educational programs to enlighten Americans regarding the benefits of aviation and air power.

Yes, some of our members are involved in support missions.  We, like every other military organization, has a tooth-to-tail ratio of operators backed up by support personnel.  In the Air Forceit is something like 1:7, the Army is 1:5, and the Marines have the best, about 1:3, but a lot of their support is provided by the Navy.

As the AF Auxiliary we stand ready to perform any non-combat mission that the AF chooses to assign to us.  It looks like we might be picking up a base support/augmentation mission.

So... what was your point, M.S.?

[RiverAux]

I was reading some old CAP News recently and we're at about the 10 year anniversary of NJ wing chaplains providing chaplain support on an AF base. 

[mikeylikey]

^ In uniform right?? 

[DNall]

I am asking how do we define our mission and purpose as an organization?   

Let me put it this way, when a prospective member asks "What does Civil Air Patrol do?", I'm not going to start spouting off our three public mission names, names of programs, some excerpts from public law and a few extra fringe missions we've tacked on.    How do we define what our organization's purpose is?

I sympathize hardily with your question. CAP has failed to adapt to a changing world now for going on 30 years. There's always been enough base left in the center though to keep our members satisfied. That's changing now & what we've seen is a whole lot of mission creep into piss ant or fringe stuff. Obviously we lack a whole ton of focus, and that is a leadership issue in a mighty way.

I'd answer your question by saying we exist to support the Air Force, either directly or in service to the public on their behalf (that includes non-AF missions, considering we're using highly AF subsidized resources to complete them). It seems pretty simple to me. Toss out mission statements, regs, laws, etc. It boils down to the AF takes millions out of their warfighting budget every single year to invest in this program. They aren't doing that out of charity, they expect a return. So step back & look at those missions from their perspective.

Cadet programs was founded in WWII to create a pool of aerospace minded leaders qualified to enter the military. Since that time, the military competes against high tech, high paying, etc jobs for the best & brightest of each generation. CAP attracts some of those brightest kids, inspires them with aviation, & indoctrinates them as disciplined leaders in a military environment, and instills a very strong sense of service above self. It isn't about how many people go to the military, it's about the quality of the ones that do.

AE has a dual role. Directed at youth (internally & externally), it's a second line effort to accomplish the same things as the cadet program. Directed at adults (internally & externally), it creates aerospace advocates among the taxpaying/voting public. At least since the gulf war the public is sold on the need for a strong air/space force & investment in mil technologies. As a result, our AE program isn't a strong focus, because it isn't currently a real strong need. That may be changing as budgets shift more to ground forces, including tech investment there. As that need fluctuates, the attention given to our AE program will fluctuate with it.

And ES. The AF is really only responsible to provide AFRCC, not all the stuff we do. States are responsible for inland SaR, disaster response, etc. The problem is some states can afford to have the kinds of resources we bring to the table on constant standby, and some cannot. The fed govt doesn't want to assume those responsibilities (or expense) from the states, but it does have an obligation to make sure the state can get the minimum stuff to do the job w/o detracting from real military readiness. That's where CAP comes in.


You want a simple answer? We're part of the total AF team & everything we do is in support of that team. You want something more concrete that tells people what they can expect to be doing? I can't easily give you that. But, what's a typical day in the AF like? Well that's going to depend highly on your job/unit/station.

You want something like a vision? I'd say we need to get fully up to speed with FEMA training standards. Our ES folks should be training like they're volunteer firemen or part of a serious rescue organization, and that includes a serious need for EMTs & the like.

What I'd like to see us put out there as a resource is a highspeed combined air/grd/tactical command & control team. We should be able to do a lot more serious search, a little bit of actual rescue, and all kinds of assessment, interpretation, communications, etc. If you have a resource that isn't needed, then you're going to spend a lot of time looking around for something to do. Whereas, if you make yourself essential then you can stick to a common skill set & focused mission.

Overall, I think it does require bold national leadership. And, yes of course that does require a large group of leaders at every level. The person at the top can really only give direction & guidance. All the actual change has to occur down the chain, and that's where people have to step up. I really think CAP could be a great thing. I think we're at a point in our history where we either have to step up or fade on out of relevance. We really do a very horrible job of training leaders though, particularly on the adult side. That's not to say we don't have some good people, but it wasn't any CAp training that made them that way. I really think that has to be a major focus of any response effort.

[sparks]

I have struggled with this question for many years too. Flying occasional ELT/missing missions the odd state support effort provided an obvious partial answer. The more complicated piece of the puzzle surrounds cadets. They're wonderful kids who are great to work with but don't fit into the concept of an actual emergency responder. EMT's aren't cadets nor are volunteer fire departments. Fitting them into that mission and tackling he public perception of "boy scouts in military uniforms"  is a big challenge.

Next, as noted by others, CAP is local. The wing and groups are around to help squadrons do their job and insure success. In another string a map of the Texas wing was dispayed to show the extensive distance the wing covers. Most units don't get beyond their group and may never interact with any other squadron. The nature of their community and funding will dictate the mission they adopt. If it's an inner city unit ES searches will probably receive less emphasis. 

The Air Force has closed many bases in the North and interior of the country so the announced VSAF program won't be in effect for those areas.

ELTs and missing aircraft searches will still need to be done. There are a lot of older ELTs out there that will still be broadcasting false signals. That mission won't be going away completely, we'll get fewer satellite hit and will be tasked to search without that first clue.

The answer is to do what the community requires within the guidelines of NHQ. Not much of an answer but it seems to be what is being done and what works.

[JohnKachenmeister]

^ In uniform right?? 

Right!  CAP Chaplains have been supporting the AF for a while.  Funerals, Sunday services, the whole spectrum of Chaplain support.

[John Bryan]

couple random things:

* Chaplains unlike the rest of CAP "officers" meet the same educational and training standard as AF Chaplains. Most CAP Wing Commanders are not equal to AF O-6's.

* Someone brought up CERT teams....so again why be in CAP just join the CERT team...the one in my county does not charge dues and when they sent members to LA and MS after Katerina they were given hotels and federal credit cards  and earned per diem.

* Cadets are a great assest. I think we need to get past the idea of all cadets being childern or "KIDS"......The federal park rangers near where I live get along great with the 16 and 17 yr old life guards in the park. I have never heard a park ranger, fire fighter or paramedic ask a life guard how old they are......I think we make the cadets a bigger issue then those outside CAP but thats because many people in CAP would love to get ride of them. I don't know about your state but here in Indiana you can be a state certified EMS First Responder at 14. Maybe the Indiana EMS Commission and our law makers feel different then the poster who questioned the use of cadets.

[John Bryan]

By the way...the orginal question is the one CAP needs to consider....who are we and why are we here?

I think we need to have a long range plan. If we had focused on U-boats as our long term reason to be then we would have been gone years ago. Like the U-Boats....ELTs are going away for the most part and some day the war will be over and HLS will be old news.....we need to address the needs of today but also plan for the next 10, 25 and 50 years.

[DNall]

regarding cadets versus ES... some folks are under the false belief that our ES mission is all important. The govt provides those resources to the community through us, but they absolutely do not have to do so. What we bring to the table, even under the very best of circumstances with lots of reform, is still not close to being worth the money spent to aquire & maintain those resources. Likewise, it would be ludicrous to purchase & maintain those resources for cadet transportation, o-flights, flt training, etc. It takes all those resource demands in one package to make CAP a worthwile investment, and even at that it regularly spawns debate about our worth. If you seperated the cadet program from CAP, there would absolutely not be a CAP, not a funded one anyway.

Cadets don't have to participate in ES at all, and ES focused members don't have to deal with cadets if they don't want to. BUT, the two things do have to co-exist in CAP. That said, I understand there are restrictions on cadets in some ES situations/roles, both real & legal, and that's legitmate. However, there are also a lot of roles they need to fill for us to get our job done.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I just want to make clear that we HAVE to keep some of our mission diversity in place or we aren't worth the investment the govt makes in us.

[FW]

My point in starting the thread was to perhaps point out that our missions are becoming quite varied and we seem eager to take on just about any type of work.  Isn't it better to have a "scope of work" for Civil Air Patrol to define "this is what we do and this is why we're here"?   Things that fall outside that scope might be nice additions when we have spare time or resources, but don't take center stage over our primary focus.  But what is our primary focus evolving to?  Can we create a concise statement of what CAP's missions are supposed to be in today's terms?

In my opinion, we can't get any more consise than: Cadet Programs, Emergancy Services and Aerospace Education.

However, if you would like a consise description of what we are doing in each of these missions, look at our strategic plan, and business plan (yes, we do have them).  These corporate documents give us a view of where we are and where we're going.  It also descibes our secondary activites such as DDR and "Wreaths Accross America", etc.
And yes, they are reviewed and updated.

[Michael]

It does seem that the term "emergency services" could be broadened a little bit to something to the effect of "community service". 

The last lines of the Cadet Oath are "service to my community, state, and nation".

Nearly all of my squadron's functions are supporting some other organization in an event where a semi-military force is needed.