Air Force Base Augmentation Program

[DNall]

There are proceedures in place for low level cross-support. The AF doesn't need permission to provide support to CAP or vice versa. The reg spells that out. Obviously though we're talking about consolidating these efforts & stepping up to the next level. At some point that's going alter regs & the SOW to accomodate, as well it should.

[RiverAux]

There are proceedures in place for low level cross-support.

If this was the case, they wouldn't have thought it necessary to specifically spell out procedures for using CAP Chaplains. 

The AF doesn't need permission to provide support to CAP or vice versa.

Wasn't talking about permission to support, I'm talking about the regulatory framework for these missions.  Are they being done as AFAMs or CAP missions?  If they're AFAM missions, they golly-well gee have to follow the specific guidelines in the AF reg I cited for requesting them.  And as I pointed out these are geared for flight missions and not augmentation missions and it is not clear to me exactly how I can get AFAM status for doing real augmentation work for the AF. 

So, if it is going to be an AFAM there will be a series of vaguely defined hoops to jump through.  Now, if it is to be done as a CAP mission, though not really spelled out in the regs, I'm sure it could be approved on the CAP side.  Though as I pointed out earlier in this, or another thread, the AF still seems to be required to get some approvals.  I understand that apparently people are doing it without going through that process.  No skin off my nose or their's until something goes wrong.

Because, as is talked about all the time, the AF sees CAP as a big ball of potential liability.  You're darn skippy they're going to care if a CAP member manages to get seriously injured or killed (or does it to someone else) while augmenting.  That is when we will see how big a deal getting the proper approvals to do the mission in the first place is (on both sides of the house). 

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, just that I favor altering the regs (AF & CAP) to provide for very easy approval of augmentation missions as AFAMs before we get into it on a large scale.  If we do a lot of semi-official augmenting we run a risk, albeit slight, of something happening which brings up these issues and sinks the program before it starts. 

[DNall]

you don't need written permission to wipe your butt. Regs don't work like that, least of all this one. 10-2701 defines a broad range of ways in which the AF is authorized to support CAP w/o need of a mission number or anyone's permission, and vice versa. Suggestions are made but not limited to. The only time a formal request would be made would be for operational support.

[SAR-EMT1]

I think the regs need to address it - at least briefly- if for no other reason the to assure we have the injury protections and the like (maybe job security)  maybe reimbursement for a room if we stay overnight,  even to verify that we have done the OPSEC before we go filling through personnel records etc. (BTW would the AF really accept the OPSEC slideshow as valid or would we need to get a secret clearance? - on a case-by-case basis )
I'm not saying the AF should hand out a clearance to everyone.

[O-Rex]

I'm glad we pared down the categories to technical and  operational tasks.

There is a segment of our membership that did KP and other "mundane" tasks for King & Country in their former lives, and might not be inclined to turn back the clock to when they were E-1s, and take time away from family and work to do it.

Something like having a CAP member assist at AFRCC has merit (If you've actually ever seen it, its not the NORAD-like ops center some might envision, nor are there legions of personnel manning it.)

But again, has anyone in USAF actually requested this type of support??

Until that happens, all this rhetoric is for naught....

[SAR-EMT1]

I'm glad we pared down the categories to technical and  operational tasks.

There is a segment of our membership that did KP and other "mundane" tasks for King & Country in their former lives, and might not be inclined to turn back the clock to when they were E-1s, and take time away from family and work to do it.

Something like having a CAP member assist at AFRCC has merit (If you've actually ever seen it, its not the NORAD-like ops center some might envision, nor are there legions of personnel manning it.)

But again, has anyone in USAF actually requested this type of support??

Until that happens, all this rhetoric is for naught....

To answer your question in a word: NO    The AF hasn't asked for this type of support. For mainly two reasons;
1) they dont know we are willing to do things like this
2) They might not think alot of us COULD

Thus why several: like Mr. K here have taken it upon themselves to do things like this.
And guess what: the AF loved the idea, reread his posts...they are even letting some cadets in on the project. CAP wins in that they get to do something for the AF. And the AF wins in that they get to resume tours that had previously fallen along the wayside.

[O-Rex]

Sarcasm, and Nay-saying aside, I do recall paying a courtesy call on the CO of the Mil installation where my squadron met when I was the CC: he started the meeting with "What can we do for CAP today?" 

I replied with "Nothing: we are very happy and appreciative of the facilities you have povided-what can we do for you??"

The guy nearly fell out of his chair. In the nearly 20 years that the squadron was a tenant, nobody ever reached out in that manner.  They never took us up on the offer, but we never had a problem getting on/off base, and conducting training and actual SAR events from there was never a problem.

The intent of this post is noble, but there's our ideal of what CAP and its members should be, then there's reality:  I also recall CAP getting a booth at our local county fair, 9 days total, 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, and 18 hours on the weekends-that was a tall order.  The event management got peeved because we couldn't support it: folks no-showed, and unsupervised cadets abandoned the booth when their friends came by.   The next year, I tried to get a booth at the fair: when I said who I was with, the fair administrator actually groaned "not you guys again. . "

I'd hate for us to do that with USAF: I almost think they half-expect it.

This is something we should wait to be asked for, or have a real good plan of execution if we were to present it.  By "we" I mean CAPNHQ, it would not recommend freelancing this kind of thing on local levels without a blessing by the wing cc.

[DNall]

Sarcasm, and Nay-saying aside, I do recall paying a courtesy call on the CO of the Mil installation where my squadron met when I was the CC: he started the meeting with "What can we do for CAP today?" 

I replied with "Nothing: we are very happy and appreciative of the facilities you have povided-what can we do for you??"

The guy nearly fell out of his chair. In the nearly 20 years that the squadron was a tenant, nobody ever reached out in that manner.  They never took us up on the offer, but we never had a problem getting on/off base, and conducting training and actual SAR events from there was never a problem.

That's funny. I always enjoy that moment. I did that with a recruiter just last week. When I told him we could stuff envelopes & I thought he'd pass out. He was pretty amazed at all the things CAP does as well & interested in getting more involved. We're moving on to develop that as we go.

The intent of this post is noble, but there's our ideal of what CAP and its members should be, then there's reality:  I also recall CAP getting a booth at our local county fair, 9 days total, 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, and 18 hours on the weekends-that was a tall order.  The event management got peeved because we couldn't support it: folks no-showed, and unsupervised cadets abandoned the booth when their friends came by.   The next year, I tried to get a booth at the fair: when I said who I was with, the fair administrator actually groaned "not you guys again. . "

I'd hate for us to do that with USAF: I almost think they half-expect it.

This is something we should wait to be asked for, or have a real good plan of execution if we were to present it.  By "we" I mean CAPNHQ, it would not recommend freelancing this kind of thing on local levels without a blessing by the wing cc.

CGAux does this NOW, SDFs do this NOW, and both VERY effectively. I don't think it's all that big a deal, just no one has ever developed the infrastructure to support it on a very large scale. That's what we're talking about here. You can already do loads with your base, area recruiters, reserve units, etc. Hell, help out the Army/Navy/Marines if you don't have any AF close by, that's fine.

I think the key to your concern though is just not biting off more than we can chew. What SDFs do is they're paired with a guard unit & they have slots devoted to augmentation. You as a member apply for one of those staff slots & are selected or not. If they don't have anyone to fill it then they go targeted recruiting. Neither of these are very large programs & I wouldn't expect ours to be either. The point is to create a mechanism & start the flow of support. It's going to start small & build, just like anything else, but it can work.

Far as the work itself, you check with your coordinator, they have a list for the next month of when they expect to need help, you scedule times you can work & then you need to make it or find a replacement from within the program, or else you're going to be rapidly out of the program, just like everything else. You also list your additional availability for the next month, so if something comes up the AF can look at that database, call you up & see if you could make it out. It's not that complicated, hell it's not so unlike things we do now for ES, HLS, CD, etc.

[Guardrail]

Here's an idea: start the base augmentation program at Air National Guard bases first.  They would be a lot easier to augment (I would think) than Air Force bases, and the Air National Guard is closer to CAP than Active Duty AF. 
By augmenting the air guard, CAP would also become more like the state defense forces in that it would be performing tasks for the national guard that are needed.  This makes sense, because CAP is more like a state defense force than part of the Air Force Total Force structure.   

[DNall]

ANG already has SDFs at least in some places, ours os very advanced with lots of members wearing both hats. Hell my Sate Director is the State Air Guard Wing Commander. There are lessons to be taken from SDFs that can be applied at the federal level where they don't have that kind of help. Try partnering with a reserve unit to start.

[Guardrail]

ANG already has SDFs at least in some places, ours os very advanced with lots of members wearing both hats. Hell my Sate Director is the State Air Guard Wing Commander.

Yes, but SDF's are not everywhere.  CAP is, however (at least in the U.S. and Puerto Rico).  That's one advantage to CAP augmenting the Air National Guard and their bases - everywhere there's an ANG base, there's some CAP unit to augment it.  

There are lessons to be taken from SDFs that can be applied at the federal level where they don't have that kind of help. Try partnering with a reserve unit to start.

I agree, but I still think augmenting ANG bases is a better starting point.

There is a lot CAP can learn from SDF's (especially the Air SDF's), and SDF's do way more for the National Guard than CAP.  But unfortunately, SDF's are not in every state.  CAP is, including D.C. and Puerto Rico.  

[JohnKachenmeister]

I completed my training today.

There was a CAP captain and me as tour guides, the captain had already completed his training (The program was HIS idea.)  He was to evaluate my tour-guiding skills.  We have a written training and orientation program that can take from 1 to 3 months to complete.

We had two regular NASA tours, and one "Special" tour of VIP's from ITT Defense Operations, that came as guests of the Air Force.  We had a total of 141 persons through the museum today.

The neatest part... To the ITT Defense executives, to the tourists from the UK, to the tourists from the Yankee states, CAP from now on IS the US Air Force.  We gave a tour, talked about the early days of the space program, showed them the space monkey's capsule, and generally kept their interest for about 45 minutes or so before letting them roam the "Rocket Garden."  The guys in the flight suits WERE the Air Force, even though we introduced ourselves as the "US Air Force Auxiliary."

The little kids from the UK all wanted their pictures taken with us.  Just like I was Posh Spice or something.

Note to the uniform nazis:  We are wearing flight suits at the request of the Air Force.  That is the uniform of the day for aircrew and missile qualified personnel, and that is the uniform worn by the Air Force tour escorts when they are available.

We will start doing this in greater numbers come April, especially now that there are TWO of us qualified to train other CAP folks.

I'll keep you guys posted on this.

[RiverAux]

The reason that CG Aux members and the CG can work together so easily on a local level so that CG Auxies can augment to fill in what the unit needs is because CG regs are set up to allow them to do so.  Both organizations are much less "stovepiped" than CAP is in regards to AF relations which makes some sense given the fact that there aren't a whole lot of AFBs out there where such opportunities might exist.  So, we need a little more formalized system, such as one presented earlier, for making these opportunities available. 

Personally, I would be in favor of also using CAP to augment Air NG units though that might also be tricky in regards to status of the mission since they would most likely be in state status if CAP were augmenting them and the state would need to be assuming all the responsibilities associated with using CAP for a state mission or it would be done solely as a CAP mission with associated less protections. 

[Guardrail]

Both organizations are much less "stovepiped" than CAP is in regards to AF relations which makes some sense given the fact that there aren't a whole lot of AFBs out there where such opportunities might exist.

True.  But I'm sure there are a lot of Air National Guard bases where the opportunity for CAP to augment personnel exists.  The problem is, the stovepipe atmosphere between CAP and the AF still exists, making it hard to execute such a program.

Any ideas as to how to fix this?   

Personally, I would be in favor of also using CAP to augment Air NG units though that might also be tricky in regards to status of the mission since they would most likely be in state status if CAP were augmenting them and the state would need to be assuming all the responsibilities associated with using CAP for a state mission or it would be done solely as a CAP mission with associated less protections. 

Good point.  I'm all for CAP augmenting Air NG units too, but I agree this would be difficult.  I think having the state assuming all the responsibilities associated with using CAP for a state mission would be the ideal situation, but if this were to happen tomorrow, it would be done solely as a CAP mission with associated less protections. 

This is a great idea, but it's also very expensive.  Where would the money come from?

[DNall]

Reserve units are pertty widespread. Recruiters even moreso. Then there's some stuff that can be done by telecommute. Of course the heavy lifting would be near AFBs. Otherwise there are good things to develop in conjuction w/ AFA.

[Dragoon]

This is a great idea, but it's also very expensive.  Where would the money come from?

I think the point of the augmentation is that there isn't any money (or at least, very little money) needed.  Folks volunteer.

[Dragoon]

The intent of this post is noble, but there's our ideal of what CAP and its members should be, then there's reality:  I also recall CAP getting a booth at our local county fair, 9 days total, 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, and 18 hours on the weekends-that was a tall order.  The event management got peeved because we couldn't support it: folks no-showed, and unsupervised cadets abandoned the booth when their friends came by.   The next year, I tried to get a booth at the fair: when I said who I was with, the fair administrator actually groaned "not you guys again. . "

I'd hate for us to do that with USAF: I almost think they half-expect it.

Yup, this gets back the whole SUSTAIN vs. SURGE thing.  CAP just isn't very good at sustained, long term operations.  As an you found out, long term can be as short as 2 weeks.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think we can susain at low levels indefinitely.  We can have a CAP volunteer agree to work like 2-4 days per month as his or her volunteer assignment.  It could actually be in lieu of attendance at meetings, as long as there was some kind of CAP contact and supervision. 

Maybe the commander could stop in for a visit from time to time, or establish e-mail contact to make sure the member is still alive.

If you wanted a higher level of support, sustainability would be a big problem.  There is only a limited number of hours that CAP members have available to volunteer.

[DNall]

No full-time postions wuld be filled, no even part-time positions would be filled. A couple Saturdays a month is the most your talking about & the norm for the people involved int he program will be closer to four or fewer hours per month. No attempt is being made to sustain in any position. Oh I grant you can put some retired tour guides up & cover a museum or some such pretty well, that's how those things are done now for the most part. But don't misunderstand that we're talking about taking away job, we aren't. The level we're talking about falls more into the category of reducing overtime, making more efficient use of time, and taking some pressure off resources which may go as far as saving a reservist from coming up for a few days here and there. That's the limit though. 

[SAR-EMT1]

Ok, after listening to the conversations here is my  list, no particular order, this is just how they came to me after contemplation.
ALSO, Im listing who might be qualified/ interested in doing these tasks

1 Personnel / Admin Flight Assistance - Personnel Officers, Admin Officers, Pro Dev. Officers and TSOs, members who are HR in the "real world"

2 Inventory and other Assistance (parts delivery service) with Supply or Logistics Units  - Logistics and Supply Officers

3 Assistance with FlightLINE tasks: briefings, chart markups, light admin etc ... ELT DEACTIVATIONS?! - Pilots, Aircrew, Safety

4 Communications Support- IT Support to Comm units, Internet Security Teams, Base Engineers, Tower Comms? - Comm Officers, IT folks

5 On Base Guide/ Taxi Service to include taking folks to / from train station/ etc. - Anyone

6 Support for Base Security Forces - non LE, to include working at the Pass Office, checking IDs etc...  - anyone

7 Support to Base Legal Office - IG and JA types, degree'd lawyers, members with parlegal experience

8 Medical Support - CAP MDs Nurses EMTs PAs etc...

9 Base Tours / Museum Support  ; anyone, Historians, PAOs etc

10 Base Public Affairs Office Support  - POAs, ICs

11 Chapel Support - Chaplains etc.

12 AF Inn Desk / Commisary Work- not scullery- desk work at the gym etc...  -- Anyone

13 Support for Base Engineers / Grounds Dept  assist with plans, paperwork, groundskeeping, admin/paperwork etc.  - folks with Engineering degrees/ plumbing/electrical certifications etc

Let me know what you think, ALSO, I asked this earlier but didnt see any replies; would we need something other then "OPSEC"  to get this stuff done? -- like with comm support. ??