Change to Title 10 For CAP

[DNall]

I agree with you John, for example take a look at the Alaska SDF. They actually have commissions as State Troopers (MP units) and wear a (stinkin') badge when called up.

The UAV angle is a facinating one and I think in line with what CAP should pursue.

Really? Wow, that's interesting. They do everything wierd in Alaska.

One of the big tasks for the Texas Air Guard is to have SF qual'd (and I mean really by AF standards by doing the AFIADL correspondence & OJT w/ ARNG/ANG personnel) folks in SDF units stationsed w/ non-SF ANG units for the purpose of protecting them. Got an SDF-SF unit stationed w/ a Comm Sq. They guard the Sq on station of course (saves private security), then in case of a disaster when that ANG Sq would deploy in to restore comms, the SDF-SF's would tag along to protect them.

They do other non-LE stuff as well. Overall though it seems like they use the unit pairing concept to take a combined force into a disaster zone w/ all the right skills.

Milage varies greatly by state though.

[afgeo4]

When it comes to SDFs, I only know how the NY State Guard operates and their duties are to augment and train to augment the NY ARNG unit they're assigned to, train to respond to disasters and emergencies, and as of a few years ago, be a large part of an NBC (nuclear, biological & chemical)rapid response team for the State of NY.  That team is made up of NY Guard, ARNG, and ANG personnel. CAP units have participated in training for this unit in past and further cooperation and training is in works. Although the soldiers and airmen of the NY Guard are considered to be combatants, they do not currently train with or are assigned weapons. I believe the law does allow them to be armed.  Just think of these SDF's as the reserve for the national guard.  Military to support military. In spirit it's similar to what we do.  We support the military.  However, by our nature we are not the military.  No matter how much we want ourselves to be, we just aren't.  If you think we are, you're probably in the wrong organization.

[JohnKachenmeister]

George:

SDF's and us are different animals.  Yes, we co-exist in the same jungle, but we are different species.

SDF's exist under the exclusive authority of the state.  The are to serve as the National Guard when the NG is in federal service.  Yes, some SDF's have been seeking and getting missions to support NG organizations, their basic mission remains the same.  The support they provide to NG/ANG units or local governments is "Training."

I commanded a military police battalion in Ohio's SDF.  Yes, I would volunteer my battalion to support community festivals, directing traffic, interacting with the local police, sheriff, and highway patrol, responding to incidents, etc.  That was good training.  The skills of traffic and crowd control, and the techniques of interacting with various law enforcement organizations are EXACTLY the skills we would need to respond if the town were ravaged by a tornado, and the NG was deployed.

During drill weekends, my battalion supported two Air National Guard bases.  One we provided ALL military police and security services, gate, interior patrol, investigations, etc.  The other we augmented an ANG Security Forces squadron.  The ANG base that we augmented required our MP's to be armed, and they were.  The other ANG base housed a civil engineer unit, and weapons were not required by ANG regulations.  Again, this was training.  My MP's were exercising the individual and collective skills that they would need if mobilized.

Civil Air Patrol is a federal organization.  We are, when so requested by the Air Force, an integral part of the USAF.  We provide any light plane support that the USAF may require.  Historically, we have provided inland SAR, relieving the AF from having to maintain a fleet of small aircraft and a string of US bases to support the inland SAR mission.  Congress, however, has given the authority to the Air Force to use us for ANY mission, other than combat.

Congress also provided a mechanism for CAP to, when not needed by the AF, to provide light plane support to states and local communities.  This is our "Title 36" mission, and is executed my establishing MOU's with states, local governments, and non-governmental organizations.

How you make the leap that "CAP is not military," when we can be and are used as an integral part of the USAF is a contention I do not understand.  Many of the posters realize that this "We ain't mlitary" attitude has been counterproductive to our role with the Air Force, and has seriously degraded our mission readiness.  We have been discussing ways to, within the framework provided by Congress, bring CAP back up to the wartime readiness that we had during the Second World War so that we can meet the challenges of the Homeland Defense battle as professionals, and as a part of the Air Force team.

Do you have a problem with that?

[afgeo4]

A leap...

CIVIL Air Patrol

I think you're the only one leaping when you say that we ARE the military.

CAP is a benevolent non-profit corporation that is tasked to assist the Air Force, Federal, State, and local agencies (or anyone else who pays for the mission and we make an MOU with). We work with the Salvation Army... does that make us a religious organization? We work with the Sheriff's Office... are we deputies? I suggest that we and our employers are not the same.

The Oxford Dictionary defines military as: noun (the military) the armed forces of a country.
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

The Air Force is not allowed to task us with combatant missions anymore. Used to, but not anymore. No other agency we work with is allowed to do it either. Why?  Well that's what BENEVOLENT means. The way I see it is we have a difficult mission before us to begin with. We aren't even 100% ready to respond to things we're tasked with yet. I know a lot of people here wish we were running around with M-16s and flying F-16s, but that's what the Air Force is for. The Civil Air Patrol isn't for those things, so...  what makes me think we aren't the military? Everything we say and do. Take away our military uniforms and the USAF writing on our logos and we are still tasked with the same duties and still do them the same way. Heck, even if our Auxiliary status went away, we wouldn't change a bit. The cadet leadership programs would go on (they don't require military elements), the ES programs would go on, the HS missions would go on, the anti-narcotics missions would too...  So what makes you think we are the military (today, not in 1942)?

Having said all of that, I'd like to say that I am not a supporter of the "corporate" movement. I was prior USAF and am all in favor of moving closer to the branch in our workings, professionalism, and manner, but... we aren't them. I know that and most other people know that. Some wish we were (because they for some reason cannot go into or back into the military) and some wish we were nothing like them (because they are anti-military anything), but I think most of us realize that we're civillians that help out the military and other government and civillian agencies when asked to do so and that THAT is all that we are and are happy being that as long as we get better at it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

A leap...

CIVIL Air Patrol

I think you're the only one leaping into wishful thinking when you say that we ARE the military.

Look, I am myself a prior serviceman, but I know a duck when I see one and CAP is a benevolent non-profit corporation that is tasked to assist the Air Force, Federal, State, and local agencies (or anyone else who pays for the mission and we make an MOU with). We work with the Salvation Army... does that make us a religious organization? We work with the Sheriff's Office... are we deputies? I suggest that we and our employers are not the same.

The Oxford Dictionary defines military as: noun (the military) the armed forces of a country.
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

The Air Force is not allowed to task us with combatant missions anymore. Used to, but not anymore. No other agency we work with is allowed to do it either. Why?  Well that's what BENEVOLENT means. The way I see it is we have a difficult mission before us to begin with. We aren't even 100% ready to respond to things we're tasked with yet. I know a lot of people here wish we were running around with M-16s and flying F-16s, but that's what the Air Force is for. The Civil Air Patrol isn't for those things, so...  what makes me think we aren't the military? Everything we say and do. Take away our military uniforms and the USAF writing on our logos and we are still tasked with the same duties and still do them the same way. Heck, even if our Auxiliary status went away, we wouldn't change a bit. The cadet leadership programs would go on (they don't require military elements), the ES programs would go on, the HS missions would go on, the anti-narcotics missions would too...  So what makes you think we are the military (today, not in 1942)?

Having said all of that, I'd like to say that I am not a supporter of the "corporate" movement. I was prior USAF and am all in favor of moving closer to the branch in our workings, professionalism, and manner, but... we aren't them. I know that and most other people know that. Some wish we were (because they for some reason cannot go into or back into the military) and some wish we were nothing like them (because they are anti-military anything), but I think most of us realize that we're civillians that help out the military and other government and civillian agencies when asked to do so and that THAT is all that we are and are happy being that as long as we get better at it.

Title 10 makes CAP an "Instrumentality of the AF" when performing any federal mission.  The "Corporate" mindset and attitude has been sapping our strength for years, limiting our flexibility, and reducing our utility as a force multiplier to the Air Force.  Our country is at war.  The fact is that the Air Force will be facing personnel cuts as priorities favor the Army and Marines.  Placing CAP in a position to help the AF do more with less is why we exist, and what I mean by being a force multiplier. 

Our corporate identity should only come into play when it benefits us, which is when we contract through MOU's with non-federal entities.  Otherwise, our organization needs to be professional, linear, agile, and fully competent to perform ANY mission that comes along, including combat support missions.  Our corporate nature should NOT be an excuse for failure.

About 90 percent of the personnel in the Air Force never even HEAR a gun.  The "Non-combatant" status of our organization is far less of an issue than you make it out to be.

[DNall]

A leap...

CIVIL Air Patrol

I think you're the only one leaping when you say that we ARE the military.

Like Civil Defense, from which the word came to our name, it refers to operating in the US rather than overseas & for the protection of the civilian population rather than primarily as a warfighter.

CAP is a benevolent non-profit corporation that is tasked to assist the Air Force, Federal, State, and local agencies (or anyone else who pays for the mission and we make an MOU with). We work with the Salvation Army... does that make us a religious organization? We work with the Sheriff's Office... are we deputies? I suggest that we and our employers are not the same.

Yet we are bound by the same laws that cover them because they fund our resources. Furthermore, that instermentailty of the AF line may not hold water in a court of law. It merely means they admit responsibility for us on AFAMs, but that does not mean the govt cannot or will not be named in a lawsuit in which a case is made that their funding enables our activities.

The Oxford Dictionary defines military as: noun (the military) the armed forces of a country.
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

The Air Force is not allowed to task us with combatant missions anymore. Used to, but not anymore. No other agency we work with is allowed to do it either. Why?  Well that's what BENEVOLENT means. The way I see it is we have a difficult mission before us to begin with. We aren't even 100% ready to respond to things we're tasked with yet. I know a lot of people here wish we were running around with M-16s and flying F-16s, but that's what the Air Force is for. The Civil Air Patrol isn't for those things, so...  what makes me think we aren't the military? Everything we say and do. Take away our military uniforms and the USAF writing on our logos and we are still tasked with the same duties and still do them the same way. Heck, even if our Auxiliary status went away, we wouldn't change a bit. The cadet leadership programs would go on (they don't require military elements), the ES programs would go on, the HS missions would go on, the anti-narcotics missions would too...  So what makes you think we are the military (today, not in 1942)?

Congress specifically states in the law an order to AF not to task us w/ direct combat missions, but combat support is perfectly fine & happens regularly tasked out of 1AF (mostly as a target to be tracked or transport/observation). Af is instructed to that effect because we are by international law considered combatants & that cannot be changed. Many restrictions are put in place (use of AF Aux on planes, use of weapons, etc) strictly to prevent CAP from getting too far over the line, but that doesn't change our legal status. What we're tasked with right now is for the most part civil support, but that's going to change. Many of those civil support jobs are going away. Good technology & training standardization is being applied to dramatically improve the service rendered, and that's a good thing, it just happens to put us out of that business. There's a few nick nacks laying around in state/local that can be picked up for temporary use, but nothing of a national character that requires this big org & all it's associated costs. The only thing there is, and coincidently the place where our help is desperately needed, is in supplementing the AF in military missions (not assistance to civil authorities).

Having said all of that, I'd like to say that I am not a supporter of the "corporate" movement. I was prior USAF and am all in favor of moving closer to the branch in our workings, professionalism, and manner, but... we aren't them. I know that and most other people know that. Some wish we were (because they for some reason cannot go into or back into the military) and some wish we were nothing like them (because they are anti-military anything), but I think most of us realize that we're civillians that help out the military and other government and civillian agencies when asked to do so and that THAT is all that we are and are happy being that as long as we get better at it.

As you know, I am in the Army & of to get some wings soon. I fully understand we're not & will never be THE Air Force. That's not what I'm trying to do. What I'd like in the long term to change CAP to is a federal level version of an SDF.

SDF officer gets state commission that's only good in state & only within certain strictly defined limits, etc; we can get a federal Auxiliary Commission that works the same way, only good when we agree to active TDY contract, limited powers/right/privledges within very stictly defined guidlines. The roles would be much the same. An SDF exists to fulfill the state missions of the national guard when they are called away from the state, and to augment them when they're around as a force multiplier. CAP under this arrangement would be there to fulfill the full range of domestic & on up to combat support roles of the AF, within certain statutory limits, as a force multiplier of the AF & especially when they are short handed or short funded. In that sense I think you can see that as we increasingly prove ourselves capable in those roles the AF & Congress will take that capability into account in future budgets, shifting resources to other needs & leaning more heavily on CAP, as we earn it of course & still within limits. This vision for Auxiliary officers & enlisted personnel doesn't make you the AF, just as being in an SDF doesn't make you the national guard, but it's darn close, and in certain narrow & temporary situations it's just about the same thing.

NOTE: Yes I know creates problems for co-serving AD/Res/NG personnel. We're already talking about a serious change to title 10, I think we can include soemthing to cover those people while we're at it.

[afgeo4]

A leap...

CIVIL Air Patrol

I think you're the only one leaping when you say that we ARE the military.

Like Civil Defense, from which the word came to our name, it refers to operating in the US rather than overseas & for the protection of the civilian population rather than primarily as a warfighter.

CAP is a benevolent non-profit corporation that is tasked to assist the Air Force, Federal, State, and local agencies (or anyone else who pays for the mission and we make an MOU with). We work with the Salvation Army... does that make us a religious organization? We work with the Sheriff's Office... are we deputies? I suggest that we and our employers are not the same.

Yet we are bound by the same laws that cover them because they fund our resources. Furthermore, that instermentailty of the AF line may not hold water in a court of law. It merely means they admit responsibility for us on AFAMs, but that does not mean the govt cannot or will not be named in a lawsuit in which a case is made that their funding enables our activities.

The Oxford Dictionary defines military as: noun (the military) the armed forces of a country.
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

The Air Force is not allowed to task us with combatant missions anymore. Used to, but not anymore. No other agency we work with is allowed to do it either. Why?  Well that's what BENEVOLENT means. The way I see it is we have a difficult mission before us to begin with. We aren't even 100% ready to respond to things we're tasked with yet. I know a lot of people here wish we were running around with M-16s and flying F-16s, but that's what the Air Force is for. The Civil Air Patrol isn't for those things, so...  what makes me think we aren't the military? Everything we say and do. Take away our military uniforms and the USAF writing on our logos and we are still tasked with the same duties and still do them the same way. Heck, even if our Auxiliary status went away, we wouldn't change a bit. The cadet leadership programs would go on (they don't require military elements), the ES programs would go on, the HS missions would go on, the anti-narcotics missions would too...  So what makes you think we are the military (today, not in 1942)?

Congress specifically states in the law an order to AF not to task us w/ direct combat missions, but combat support is perfectly fine & happens regularly tasked out of 1AF (mostly as a target to be tracked or transport/observation). Af is instructed to that effect because we are by international law considered combatants & that cannot be changed. Many restrictions are put in place (use of AF Aux on planes, use of weapons, etc) strictly to prevent CAP from getting too far over the line, but that doesn't change our legal status. What we're tasked with right now is for the most part civil support, but that's going to change. Many of those civil support jobs are going away. Good technology & training standardization is being applied to dramatically improve the service rendered, and that's a good thing, it just happens to put us out of that business. There's a few nick nacks laying around in state/local that can be picked up for temporary use, but nothing of a national character that requires this big org & all it's associated costs. The only thing there is, and coincidently the place where our help is desperately needed, is in supplementing the AF in military missions (not assistance to civil authorities).

Having said all of that, I'd like to say that I am not a supporter of the "corporate" movement. I was prior USAF and am all in favor of moving closer to the branch in our workings, professionalism, and manner, but... we aren't them. I know that and most other people know that. Some wish we were (because they for some reason cannot go into or back into the military) and some wish we were nothing like them (because they are anti-military anything), but I think most of us realize that we're civillians that help out the military and other government and civillian agencies when asked to do so and that THAT is all that we are and are happy being that as long as we get better at it.

As you know, I am in the Army & of to get some wings soon. I fully understand we're not & will never be THE Air Force. That's not what I'm trying to do. What I'd like in the long term to change CAP to is a federal level version of an SDF.

SDF officer gets state commission that's only good in state & only within certain strictly defined limits, etc; we can get a federal Auxiliary Commission that works the same way, only good when we agree to active TDY contract, limited powers/right/privledges within very stictly defined guidlines. The roles would be much the same. An SDF exists to fulfill the state missions of the national guard when they are called away from the state, and to augment them when they're around as a force multiplier. CAP under this arrangement would be there to fulfill the full range of domestic & on up to combat support roles of the AF, within certain statutory limits, as a force multiplier of the AF & especially when they are short handed or short funded. In that sense I think you can see that as we increasingly prove ourselves capable in those roles the AF & Congress will take that capability into account in future budgets, shifting resources to other needs & leaning more heavily on CAP, as we earn it of course & still within limits. This vision for Auxiliary officers & enlisted personnel doesn't make you the AF, just as being in an SDF doesn't make you the national guard, but it's darn close, and in certain narrow & temporary situations it's just about the same thing.

NOTE: Yes I know creates problems for co-serving AD/Res/NG personnel. We're already talking about a serious change to title 10, I think we can include soemthing to cover those people while we're at it.

DNall...

CIVIL means civillian which means we don't bare arms and don't fight.  That's what Civil Defense was... defense of the nation by means other than combatant.
MILITARY means organization that bares arms.  Which clearly we are not.
SDF - State Military (yes, they're expressly classified as such by the states themselves and the federal government and are allowed to be armed (again, not us)
The federal version of SDF is the Reserve element of each branch. Part timers who train in peace time and fight while activated in war time.
What exactly would change if our officers got a paper that stated they were commissioned? 
SDF officers get paid for their State Active Duty, are you suggesting that our officers should get paid for being Activated too?  If not, how can you expect us to fulfill the same requirements and duties as people who get paid to do it?

DNall... brother... I love your enthusiasm, but if you want the military, stick to the Army.  CAP is CAP. We're a different kind of an animal... like it or leave it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Frankly, George, I don't understand what you are saying.

1.  Civil Air Patrol is limited to non-combatant support of the US Air Force.  We all know that. 

2.  Civil Air Patrol's "Corporate" mindset and organization is dysfunctional, and does not work for us.  We know that too.

Therefore, DNall and I are proposing that CAP return to its roots, and establish a more military organizational structure, a closer relation with the Air Force in this time of war, improve our officer corps, and carry out a greater share of the non combat missions of the Air Force than we currently do.

What purpose is served by lecturing us on the dictionary definitions of words?

I am taking this one step farther, suggesting that there should be changes in the basic statutes that govern CAP, since I see a combat mission that we can perform.  If we were to perform this mission, we would accomplish two significant objectives:  We would put ordnance on target and perform the other missions done by UAV's, and we would simultaneously help alleviate the USAF pilot shortage by freeing up pilots who are currently involuntarily assigned to UAV operations.

I joined CAP to serve my country, as I am sure you did too.  Why do you object to changing the character of the organization in order to serve more efficiently? 

[Hawk200]

Civil Air Patrol uses a "paramilitary" structure,  however, there is the point that we don't bear arms at present (hence the "para" part of the word). Historically, we have had missions of that type (CAP Guards that served as sentries on airfields, the sub chasers that carried bombs). Personally, I'm not advocating that we return to such things, but we do need to perform our own missions with the same bearing as the seven uniformed services.

The lesser known services still function using the same rank structure as the armed branches, and seem to do it well. We should study those organizations, find what works for them. We should maintain the same standards of a uniformed service, not necessary a military one.

Part of behaving like a uniformed service involves keeping a promise. Joining CAP involves wearing of a uniform, doing the job you volunteered for, and following the direction of those appointed above you. It shouldn't matter that you wear certain clothing (uniforms), train in a certain job (specialty track), and obey directions (so what if they're called "orders"). Shirking your duty because you're "not in the military" is the first step to the system falling apart. And a lot of these attitudes start with people refusing to wear a uniform properly. (I know a few people will vehemently deny this, but I've seen it as a fact more times than I can count.)

The attitude of "stick to the Army" (or Navy or Marines or Air Force) is a damaging one. Even though CAP is a corporation, our roots and actions are deeply entrenched in the military structure. CAP members should honor the obligation they decided to accept. That includes the mlitary structure. We're not a cafeteria, take the whole thing or don't be part of it.

[afgeo4]

Civil Air Patrol uses a "paramilitary" structure,  however, there is the point that we don't bear arms at present (hence the "para" part of the word). Historically, we have had missions of that type (CAP Guards that served as sentries on airfields, the sub chasers that carried bombs). Personally, I'm not advocating that we return to such things, but we do need to perform our own missions with the same bearing as the seven uniformed services.

The lesser known services still function using the same rank structure as the armed branches, and seem to do it well. We should study those organizations, find what works for them. We should maintain the same standards of a uniformed service, not necessary a military one.

Part of behaving like a uniformed service involves keeping a promise. Joining CAP involves wearing of a uniform, doing the job you volunteered for, and following the direction of those appointed above you. It shouldn't matter that you wear certain clothing (uniforms), train in a certain job (specialty track), and obey directions (so what if they're called "orders"). Shirking your duty because you're "not in the military" is the first step to the system falling apart. And a lot of these attitudes start with people refusing to wear a uniform properly. (I know a few people will vehemently deny this, but I've seen it as a fact more times than I can count.)

The attitude of "stick to the Army" (or Navy or Marines or Air Force) is a damaging one. Even though CAP is a corporation, our roots and actions are deeply entrenched in the military structure. CAP members should honor the obligation they decided to accept. That includes the mlitary structure. We're not a cafeteria, take the whole thing or don't be part of it.

WELL PUT!

[aveighter]

Personally, I see the mission of providing UAV pilots (Remote as it might be) as the natural extension of our historical development.  We began service filling in for pilot and aircraft shortages in World War II, and freed up AAF pilots to fly the fast airplanes by flying not only coastal, forest, and border patrols, but the "Ash and trash" missions.  Replacing qualified pilots at the controls of a UAV, so that the AF pilot can do what he is trained to do, is keeping as close to our historical roots as one can get, considering the changes in technology in the past 65 years.

I'm sure you read with interest in the latest AFA magazine what the new UAV pilot corps will consist of.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I just got the new AFA magazine, and I haven't read it yet.  What will the new UAV Corps be?

[flyguy06]

You al are forgetting one important thing. CAP is a VOLUNTEER organization. As a combat commander what guarrante do I have the CAP is even going to show up to work to runthe UAV? If I need a UAV RIGHT NOW, I dont have time to beg some guy to come and run it. he needs to be here yesterday. The problem is I cant MAKE this CAP do it. What if he doesnt feel like coming in or what he says he will but then deosnt? That happens with voluneteer all the time. Itsjust the nature of the beast

[DNall]

Well, it's under the heading of changing Title 10, so you can change some things to make that work. I tell ya what I can see...
1) federal employment protection when you're called to duty, that's a must;
2) members can sign a contract for on-call service. The conditions of this contract can require them to be called to duty & spell out financial penalties for not doing so - like cancelling your cell phone eary ya know.
3) Once you've signed this contract then you can hold an appropriate security clearance & do the training needed for the job. See that makes it a legal contract something given in exchange for something lost.
4) Contract should also spell out per diem for extended duty & reimburable travel/billeting, pretty standard stuff.

[flyguy06]

Well, it's under the heading of changing Title 10, so you can change some things to make that work. I tell ya what I can see...
1) federal employment protection when you're called to duty, that's a must;
2) members can sign a contract for on-call service. The conditions of this contract can require them to be called to duty & spell out financial penalties for not doing so - like cancelling your cell phone eary ya know.
3) Once you've signed this contract then you can hold an appropriate security clearance & do the training needed for the job. See that makes it a legal contract something given in exchange for something lost.
4) Contract should also spell out per diem for extended duty & reimburable travel/billeting, pretty standard stuff.

I could see that working only if it were voluntary. If you force a member to sign a contract you will loose a lot of CAP members

[RiverAux]

Somehow the CG trusts that the CG Auxies who've committed to standing radio watch or other jobs regularly held by Coast Guardsmen will show up so I don't think it is a major concern for CAP.  Just hold to a 1-strike policy --- if you don't show up once without being excused ahead of time, you never come back. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, it's under the heading of changing Title 10, so you can change some things to make that work. I tell ya what I can see...
1) federal employment protection when you're called to duty, that's a must;
2) members can sign a contract for on-call service. The conditions of this contract can require them to be called to duty & spell out financial penalties for not doing so - like cancelling your cell phone eary ya know.
3) Once you've signed this contract then you can hold an appropriate security clearance & do the training needed for the job. See that makes it a legal contract something given in exchange for something lost.
4) Contract should also spell out per diem for extended duty & reimburable travel/billeting, pretty standard stuff.

I could see that working only if it were voluntary. If you force a member to sign a contract you will loose a lot of CAP members

Then lose them.  What good are they?

They only want to volunteer when there's nothing to do?

"The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot?"

[DNall]

You can't be forced to re-enlist or enlist fo the first time or any other contract.

They anticipate shortages in a slot/AFSC at a location during the next 1-2years. They take applications from CAP, offer a contract to a couple people to be on-call backup. If you sign then you get any extra training needed to fill the slot & are on call for that specified period. Conditions obviously to let you take vacation & such w/o getting in trouble if they go on alert.

[aveighter]

I just got the new AFA magazine, and I haven't read it yet.  What will the new UAV Corps be?

They are taking pilots from units that have lost their aircraft and (drum roll) navigators with a private pilot license to be the new predator and reaper drivers.  There may be a new crop of non-line pilots working these things very soon.

Your original comments on driving UAVs was really quite insightful.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Aveighter:

I made a point of reading it today.

So, the AF is taking BOTH pilots and navigators out of airplanes.  Then they give the navigator a private pilot ticket, say 50 to 70 hours stick time.

We have private pilots with stick time measured in the hundreds to thousands of hours.

We could not only provide a force to fly the infernal machines (Airplanes without pilots-- its like selling your soul to the Devil) but every pilot we kick in releases a pilot or navigator to go back into the air. 

Can you spell "Force Multiplier," boys and girls?