Maj. General Pinada's comments at the TX Wing Conf.

[ZigZag911]

While it does not constitute a formal vision statement, General Pineda's remarks @ the TX Wg Conf certainly provide us with two things we've needed:

1) some rationale behind some of the high level decisions over the past year or so

2) some near term goals set by the National leadership

Thank you for posting this summary; while I may still disagree with some things (I continue to think it was a mistake to have the TPU so closely resemble USAF service dress; I think I understand better, now, the the General & NB thought it would help with retention), I have a clearer, more positive  sense of where the National CC stands.

[LTC_Gadget]

Finally, it is not necessary to raise your right hand and take a new oath of office each time you are promoted.  The military does not even do that any longer.

FYI, I went to an AF 1stLt's promotion just a couple of months ago, and they did...

V/R,

[Smokey]

Some of you may remember a few months ago I said I was attending a promotion ceremony for a Col to Brig General......well   he was given the oath during the ceremony.

It would have been nice for TP to tell us all this stuff before ( or even now since this was only for the TXWG.)  Although I don't agree with it all, I have a better idea of where he is coming from.

[DNall]

Geez, just accept the fact that it is required and move on. Come on already.

No offense to anyone.  All I want to know is why CAP wears the American Flag on the BDU.

I think the uniform is patiotic enough without the flag.  When I get back into CAP, I won't need an American flag on my shoulder to remind me of who I am or why I wear the uniform.  YMMV. 

Okay, well you argued that point extensively in another thread. The fact is we wear it cause the NB decided we should and that's all that matters. Most of us don't like it cause it's not an AF thing & it's a little wierd that the Army does it CONUS, but it doesn't matter what we think. It also doesn't matter why the board at the time decided we should, they jus tdid & it passed so that's the end of it. If you can get them to reverse it then by all means have at it, but asking about it or arguing techinicalities out here isn't going to do any good.

I'm one of the ones who wear the 'TPU' corporate combination in my CAP duties. Still has a couple of minor tweaks (mainly the addition of CAP to the grade slides) that need to be done  The flight officer slides already have them; I don't see a problem with Vanguard adding them to the officer grades.

Really? They put CAP on the FO slides? Well I guess they'd have to if they want to distinguish them from AFROTC. I agree whole heartedly they should ass that on the rest of them as well, and thereby lay the groundwork to standardize to that down the road. Plus in adding that you can make a case for going to the stadard one line AF nametag that would be MUCH cheaper & more readily avail. Or at least standardize the two-line blue nametag for everything cadet & senior both, blues/whites/etc... only exception being hte silver for the service coat (and I didn't like when the AF added that).

[AlphaSigOU]

Geez, just accept the fact that it is required and move on. Come on already.

No offense to anyone.  All I want to know is why CAP wears the American Flag on the BDU.

I think the uniform is patiotic enough without the flag.  When I get back into CAP, I won't need an American flag on my shoulder to remind me of who I am or why I wear the uniform.  YMMV. 

I don't know the exact reason why, but I'd heard that some CAP ground teams working Katrina and Rita in the few days after the storm had guns pulled on 'em, possibly because civilians did not know who they were.

[Chaplaindon]

"No offense to anyone.  All I want to know is why CAP wears the American Flag on the BDU."

Answer: CAP wears it because our uniform rules specify it.

Besides that definitive point, CAP is an American organization and I am proud to wear it.

[JCJ]

The "USAF Aux" off the aircraft and vehices is not just about Posse Comitatus (PC).  There are many non-PC missions we do that we are not allowed to do as the USAF Aux.  For example, DR or photo missions for state or local EMA (for incidents that don't rise to the significance of a federal disaster) are usually flown as "C" missions.  The USAF can't do these missions without jumping through the MSCA Federal Disaster hoops, and the USAF can't task it's auxiliary to do missions it isn't allowed to do itself.  Hence our "dual-role" (always CAP, sometimes CAP functions as the USAF Aux) allows us to do these as corporate missions.  (I realize that there are a few exceptions to this but this is the general case).

A legal opinion was given that we may not use equipment (aircraft and vehicles) marked with "USAF AUX" on missions that the USAF was not allowed by law to do (i.e non AFAM'S - state/local DR, as well as PC) - hence the removal of that marking so the equipment can be used on all CAP missions, not just AFAM's.  That opinion came from USAF JAG's, not CAP.  Of course, USAF administers the funding that provides all of this stuff, so we do need to follow their rules.  CAP's counsel just found the way to make it work.

I also realize that this is different from the National Guard, which doesn't seem to have a problem using federal-provided equipment (marked as U.S. Army, or whatever) for state missions (some of which would be prohibited in federal status).  I don't know what the difference is.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The part about the USAF Aux. coming off planes and vans doesn't sound right to me, either.  It MAY be that one or more of the CAP lawyers running things has a case of being overly cautious, or one or more of our potential user agencies has overcautious lawyers.

I don't know why it was necessary to place the American Flag on the BDU, either.  But its on the flight suit, so why not?  The Army paces it on there because of their frequent overseas deployments (taking it off when in CONUS and putting it back on overseas can get old).

If we wear it as a statement of solidarity with our forward deployed forces, cool.  If it is a statement of our innate patriotism and spirit of National Service, also cool.  If we wear it because some of us operate near international borders, cool as well. 

If we wear it because we might end up deploying our medics and chaplains on non-combat overseas missions, surprising, but also cool.

[Chaplaindon]

Kach,

This chaplain's ready to go ...

:angel:

[DNall]

There are many non-PC missions we do that we are not allowed to do as the USAF Aux.

That doesn't matter. We can do corporate missions in USAF marked aircraft. There is no issue with that... well a slightly distastful ethical situation if we start doing BS missions just to get paid (moutain lions & such).

The only issue is that the AF can not order us to do missions the AF is not allowed to do itself. In other words it cannot violate PCA by proxy. The markings on the side of the plane have zero legal meaning whatsoever. There is however an AFI that says if they are on there then the AF gets a legal review before the mission to ensure we aren't making them look bad by going too far over the line.

IMO, this is CAP folks not underrstanding why we can't get any work, blaming PCA instead of problems with our qualifications & capabilities, and stripping off these markings so they can go volunteer us for LE missions that are going to seriously endanger our federal funding. What they need to do is take the painful steps to look ourselves in the collective mirror & fix our real problems that keep us from doing anything useful for the federal govt.

[JCJ]

There are many non-PC missions we do that we are not allowed to do as the USAF Aux.

That doesn't matter. We can do corporate missions in USAF marked aircraft. There is no issue with that... well a slightly distastful ethical situation if we start doing BS missions just to get paid (moutain lions & such).

The only issue is that the AF can not order us to do missions the AF is not allowed to do itself. In other words it cannot violate PCA by proxy. The markings on the side of the plane have zero legal meaning whatsoever. There is however an AFI that says if they are on there then the AF gets a legal review before the mission to ensure we aren't making them look bad by going too far over the line.

IMO, this is CAP folks not underrstanding why we can't get any work, blaming PCA instead of problems with our qualifications & capabilities, and stripping off these markings so they can go volunteer us for LE missions that are going to seriously endanger our federal funding. What they need to do is take the painful steps to look ourselves in the collective mirror & fix our real problems that keep us from doing anything useful for the federal govt.

In fact it does matter - we had a major group of missions cancelled on short notice becasue of it.  They were non - LE corporate missions for a state agency (Game and Fish Commission) that, since G & F has a major LE component, were determined to be a no-go with aircraft that have "USAF AUX" on it but OK for aircraft without (which we didn't have at the time).

I agree that a continuing effort on professionalism will bring more federal missions but I don't think the leadership, or most of the members, want to be a "federal only" agency - it would make much more difficult, or prohibit some of the very important state & local missions that are being flown.  Right now we have the flexibility to do good things at the state and local level as well as as teh "USAF Aux" when tasked as such

I disagree with your "slightly distasteful ethical...BS missions" comment.  I don't have a problem with missions that are permitted by law and our regulations, are safe and similar to our emergency mission flight profiles (and therefore helpful for our pilots to maintain their proficiency) and are funded by an appropriate customer, such as a state or local government. 

[DNall]

In fact it does matter - we had a major group of missions cancelled on short notice becasue of it.  They were non - LE corporate missions for a state agency (Game and Fish Commission) that, since G & F has a major LE component, were determined to be a no-go with aircraft that have "USAF AUX" on it but OK for aircraft without (which we didn't have at the time).

I don't know who's making that call, but they are flat wrong. It absolutely doesn't matter. The AF cannot subisize LE missions, they can provide support to civil authorities. We are bound by those rules all the time. Now, the dif in it being a corp mission or not is the approval authorities & legal review.

I agree that a continuing effort on professionalism will bring more federal missions but I don't think the leadership, or most of the members, want to be a "federal only" agency - it would make much more difficult, or prohibit some of the very important state & local missions that are being flown.  Right now we have the flexibility to do good things at the state and local level as well as as teh "USAF Aux" when tasked as such

The fed govt does an extensive amount of support work for state/local govts. There is no reason that has to be excessively restrictive. That's a contrived situation that's never existed before. I'd also mention that I don' think people are that particular. I think if the Congress came along & said CAP can do missions for the fed govt only, and that the number of those missions increased by 10 times, I don't think anyone would care about border patrol or animal population counts or environmental surveys.

I disagree with your "slightly distasteful ethical...BS missions" comment.  I don't have a problem with missions that are permitted by law and our regulations, are safe and similar to our emergency mission flight profiles (and therefore helpful for our pilots to maintain their proficiency) and are funded by an appropriate customer, such as a state or local government. 

If those missions are about getting paid & putting our pilots up but otherwise are not part of our congressionally designated mission then we have no business doing it. Pilots are supposed to fly at least 10hrs/mo on their own dime & bring that proficiency to us for use on critical missions in service of AF missions for America. If they happne to get some of those hours in by flying those missions then fine, but that's supposed to be bonus. We are not supposed to be ubsidizing people's flying habbits. This whole state/local movement over recent years is jut far too commercial for my tastes. Much of it seems like a conflict of interests & unethical to me & I want no part of it.

[JCJ]

In fact it does matter - we had a major group of missions cancelled on short notice becasue of it.  They were non - LE corporate missions for a state agency (Game and Fish Commission) that, since G & F has a major LE component, were determined to be a no-go with aircraft that have "USAF AUX" on it but OK for aircraft without (which we didn't have at the time).

I don't know who's making that call, but they are flat wrong. It absolutely doesn't matter. The AF cannot subisize LE missions, they can provide support to civil authorities. We are bound by those rules all the time. Now, the dif in it being a corp mission or not is the approval authorities & legal review. )

NOC, after discussion w/ CAP-USAF.  Perhaps based on AFI 10-2701 para 2.8 available here http://level2.cap.gov/documents/AFI_102701.pdf

I agree that a continuing effort on professionalism will bring more federal missions but I don't think the leadership, or most of the members, want to be a "federal only" agency - it would make much more difficult, or prohibit some of the very important state & local missions that are being flown.  Right now we have the flexibility to do good things at the state and local level as well as as teh "USAF Aux" when tasked as such

The fed govt does an extensive amount of support work for state/local govts. There is no reason that has to be excessively restrictive. That's a contrived situation that's never existed before. I'd also mention that I don' think people are that particular. I think if the Congress came along & said CAP can do missions for the fed govt only, and that the number of those missions increased by 10 times, I don't think anyone would care about border patrol or animal population counts or environmental surveys.

That's not the issue.  Anytime CAP supports any federal agency, it must be in AFAM status (see 10 USC 9442 available here http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt.  The USAF may not task it's auxiliary to do anything it isn't allowed by law to do itself, such as support to state or local governments (under most circumstances).  Corporate status allows us to do many beneficial things that we couldn't do in AFAM status.

I disagree with your "slightly distasteful ethical...BS missions" comment.  I don't have a problem with missions that are permitted by law and our regulations, are safe and similar to our emergency mission flight profiles (and therefore helpful for our pilots to maintain their proficiency) and are funded by an appropriate customer, such as a state or local government. 

If those missions are about getting paid & putting our pilots up but otherwise are not part of our congressionally designated mission then we have no business doing it. Pilots are supposed to fly at least 10hrs/mo on their own dime & bring that proficiency to us for use on critical missions in service of AF missions for America. If they happne to get some of those hours in by flying those missions then fine, but that's supposed to be bonus. We are not supposed to be ubsidizing people's flying habbits. This whole state/local movement over recent years is jut far too commercial for my tastes. Much of it seems like a conflict of interests & unethical to me & I want no part of it.

I think you'll find yourself on the minority side of the aisle on this one.  Support to state and local government is consistent with our charter.  No one's talking about subsidizing anyone's personal flying.  I think it would be unlikely for anyone to have an ethical objection to a safe and legal flight operation in support of a state or local govenrment (at their request and on their dime) that also provides a good training or proficiency opportunity.  Frankly, I'm surprised that you would object to that.

[RiverAux]

I think it would be unlikely for anyone to have an ethical objection to a safe and legal flight operation in support of a state or local govenrment (at their request and on their dime) that also provides a good training or proficiency opportunity.

I AM NOT ONE OF THEM, but you will find people who will make such objections here. 

[SAR-EMT1]

Kach,

This chaplain's ready to go ...

:angel:

So is this med tech

[A.Member]

I've never met Gen. Pineda but expect to soon (within the next 6 months or so).  As such, I certainly have nothing against the man personally.  That said, his leadership and decision making skills certainly appear to have significant room for improvement. 

While it's "nice" that he eventually shared his reasoning behind a number of recent decisions, his answers almost result in many more questions/concerns.  For example:

*  My membership began long before he assumed command.  He states the TPU was a result of member feedback.  How was the feedback collected/obtained?  Was a formal survey conducted?  Nonetheless, it was surmised that some members wanted blue epaulets back.  So, the solution was to create an entirely new uniform?  Is that a truly reasonable solution to the issue?  Of the times I've ever heard grumbling over the epaulets, I never once heard it suggested/requested that we invent yet another whole new uniform as a solution - especially one as silly looking as the TPU.  In essence, his reponse was that wearing blue epaulets was so important to members that we needed a new uniform so that they could have them.  That's just absurd.  In addition, there seems to be a lack of foresight as to it's impact.   

*  The explanation of the removal of USAF Aux from vehicles is poor.  DNall has addressed this.  The Gen. says he doesn't want to move us further from USAF but, in practice, that's exactly what his decisions are doing.

*  I'm fine with his response on membership.  We shouldn't try to be all things to all people.  We need to increase our standards.  How does he propose that we do this?   Vision is needed here.  I don't see that coming from NHQ.

*  Flying a new mission...but it's a secret.  Great (sarc). 

*  U.S. CAP.  What a crock explanation.  Again, I've seen/heard from very few people that warmly receive this change and even fewer that felt this was any type of issue to begin with.  It was a solution in search of a problem...like a number of the other items listed above.

As mentioned by many others, we still lack a strategic vision/direction statement from NHQ.  What's more, is that NHQ did not recognize the importance of communicating/discussing virtually any of these changes with membership  until long after the fact.

[RogueLeader]

Some of you may remember a few months ago I said I was attending a promotion ceremony for a Col to Brig General......well   he was given the oath during the ceremony.

It would have been nice for TP to tell us all this stuff before ( or even now since this was only for the TXWG.)  Although I don't agree with it all, I have a better idea of where he is coming from.

As for how it sounds, it all comes down to timing.  For example, here in the Iowa Wing, there were policies being instituted that I had a very negative perception about- to the point where I actively worked to derail it from being spread to other wings (see some of my earliest posts).  Since then, and having gotten to talk to the Wing Commander, and the Chief of Staff, the reasoning for their decisions made more sense.  That doesn't mean that I liked it then and to some extent now.  I can accept the policy and work with the system.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I've never met Gen. Pineda but expect to soon (within the next 6 months or so).  As such, I certainly have nothing against the man personally.  That said, his leadership and decision making skills certainly appear to have significant room for improvement. 

While it's "nice" that he eventually shared his reasoning behind a number of recent decisions, his answers almost result in many more questions/concerns.  For example:

*  My membership began long before he assumed command.  He states the TPU was a result of member feedback.  How was the feedback collected/obtained?  Was a formal survey conducted?  Nonetheless, it was surmised that some members wanted blue epaulets back.  So, the solution was to create an entirely new uniform?  Is that a truly reasonable solution to the issue?  Of the times I've ever heard grumbling over the epaulets, I never once heard it suggested/requested that we invent yet another whole new uniform as a solution - especially one as silly looking as the TPU.  In essence, his reponse was that wearing blue epaulets was so important to members that we needed a new uniform so that they could have them.  That's just absurd.  In addition, there seems to be a lack of foresight as to it's impact.   

*  The explanation of the removal of USAF Aux from vehicles is poor.  DNall has addressed this.  The Gen. says he doesn't want to move us further from USAF but, in practice, that's exactly what his decisions are doing.

*  I'm fine with his response on membership.  We shouldn't try to be all things to all people.  We need to increase our standards.  How does he propose that we do this?   Vision is needed here.  I don't see that coming from NHQ.

*  Flying a new mission...but it's a secret.  Great (sarc). 

*  U.S. CAP.  What a crock explanation.  Again, I've seen/heard from very few people that warmly receive this change and even fewer that felt this was any type of issue to begin with.  It was a solution in search of a problem...like a number of the other items listed above.

As mentioned by many others, we still lack a strategic vision/direction statement from NHQ.  What's more, is that NHQ did not recognize the importance of communicating/discussing virtually any of these changes with membership  until long after the fact.

In the General's defense, prior to the TPU, there WAS a lot of activity/grumbling/grousing on the net and at conferences about blue slides, cap rank on the flight cap and BDU's, and returning to metal grade on the blue jacket.  He DID go to the AF with those requests, and got told no, except that we are allowed to wear embroidered bright rank on the BDU cap.  The plan was for a crest to be placed halfway up the blue jacket epaulet to be worn along with the metal rank.  The AF said "Not only NO but HELLNO!"  So TP did the next best thing, in his mind.

I just wish he had done away with the white and gray at the same time.

[alexalvarez]

I am ready to go!

[Eagle400]

In the General's defense, prior to the TPU, there WAS a lot of activity/grumbling/grousing on the net and at conferences about blue slides, cap rank on the flight cap and BDU's, and returning to metal grade on the blue jacket.  He DID go to the AF with those requests, and got told no, except that we are allowed to wear embroidered bright rank on the BDU cap.  The plan was for a crest to be placed halfway up the blue jacket epaulet to be worn along with the metal rank.  The AF said "Not only NO but HELLNO!"  So TP did the next best thing, in his mind.

I see where you're coming from, but there is a reason the Air Force said no to the blue rank slides, metal rank on the flight cap, metal rank on the blue windbreaker, and metal rank on the service dress coat for the Air Force service dress uniform for CAP.  Unlike the Coast Guard, they do not want their auxiliary to closely resemble the service they represent.

By creating a corporate uniform that incorporates all the items that the Air Force did not allow on the AF style service dress uniform, the Air Force was slapped in the face.  I'm amazed they even allowed CAP to use Air Force uniform items on a CAP corporate uniform.

And I'm not buying the whole "it was what CAP members wanted" argument.  That's BS.  I've neither seen nor heard of any system for feedback at all regarding the CAP corporate service dress uniform.  This uniform is what general Pineda wanted, not the membership.     

I just wish he had done away with the white and gray at the same time.

Then what corporate service-type uniform would be worn by those who are not within grooming standards?  There are events that are too formal for the polo shirt combination.