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

[CadetProgramGuy]

However, when someone looks like Animal, the drummer in the Muppets band... No, your appearance sucks.

Whatever do you mean...

Please note that while this 'likeness' may look like someone we know, it was not at all an attempt to degrade the person in the 'base' picture, just a readily available CAP photo.  Also, please excuse the poor use of MSPaint

All I can say is look out for the black vans.....They are most certainly coming for yo................

[A.Member]

So you're saying that all uses of the term volunteer automatically are bad.  Great.

"Often"?  Not sure that the perception is "often" that way.  There's a chance that's overstating the frequency of occurrence.

And just because someone is paid doesn't automatically make them a "professional" either.. Used car salesmen, hit men, begars .. Hmmmm..

So, what's your 'fix.'  The fact is that we're not conscripted into this organization.  By definition, we join as volunteers.  We don't get paid, we're volunteers.  What word do you want to use?  And if the word volunteer is so bad, why does it not reflect badly on all the organizations that I named?  You didn't even address that..

V/R,

I'm not the one you need to convince.  I get it.  And of course all uses of the term aren't always "automatically bad".   No one here has said that.

Who, where, what, how things are being referred to must be taken into account.  You must understand your audience.  Alternatives?   I don't know...perhaps Auxiliarist (may or may not even be a word - not certain)?  Officers?  Members?  

[LTC_Gadget]

And of course all uses of the term aren't always "automatically bad".   No one here has said that.

I believe that DrJbdm at least implied  it:

that term carries lots of negative connotations. it envisions a less then professionally trained person. We should run from that term,

So, why is it that seemingly no other volunteer organization is cast in a negative light when using that word, and it's only us ?

V/R,

[JCJ]

Sorry I've been pretty busy lately...
PCA based mission dissapproval:

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

Again, that is not correct. We fly missions for federal LE agencies, we fly for the US forestry service, in my state we fly border missions for both the state & 1AF that are so close to LE that I can't tell the difference other than the creative writing in the requests.

If you had missions disapproved then they were either a) way over the line and you should have known better; or, b) you wrote it up so it sounded like LE when it isn't.

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.

The first part, AF cannot order Aux to break the law by proxy, is 100% right. The second part of that sentence is just wrong. The military is allowed to extensively support civil authorities in a wide variety of situations. You're good to go if any of the following are true & you're not physically aiding in arrest & siezure:

...save lives; protect critical infrastructure, property, and the environment; contain the event; and preserve national security.

Specifically... it may be funded by the military under Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (public law 93–288), if it "alleviate(s) suffering and mitigate(s)
damage resulting from major disasters and civil emergencies." Or more broadly:

...support during natural disasters, special security events (e.g., the Olympics), and man-made incidents (terrorism, oil spills) which have evoked a presidential or state emergency declaration.

That includes things like base fire depts responding into town to assist civilian fire depts, and doesn't involve a big headache to get them rolling.
-OR-
The military can, under the Economy Act, do routine activities that do not negatively effect readiness if they are reimbursed.

In short, we can do just about anything under a an AFAM status & can significantly streamline that approval process. CAP has to be stupid about things though. The easiest way to fix these sorts of issues is to become NIMS compliant & be listed as a federal mutual aid resource.

I'd encourage you in addition to further researching MCSA, to look into MSCLEA (Law enforcement), and mil asst for civil disturbances. A good starting poitn is Homeland Security Presidential directive-5.

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.

I'm sure I am in the minority on this, but where do you draw the line? Is wildlife spotting okay? How about transporting people on state business? Packages/cargo? How about searching for escaped prisoners on the state's dime? How about kidnappers & robbery suspects? How about tracking car chases from the air? What about a trooper in the right seat tracking speeders? I mean if PCA doesn't apply then bring it on right?

Where's the line, and where does it become an ethical problem? I mean I can create a justification for anything I want to do & sell it, but that doesn't make it right. And that right or wrong is ultimately what's going to gurantee or threaten our funding. You just cannot weasle around the technicalities in the law & FAA exemption to do what you want. If you abuse priviliedges, they will be taken away.

I'm well familiar with NIMS, MSCA, MSCLEA, and HSPD-5.  In return, I'd respectfully suggest that you familiarize yourself with our own regulations (particularly 60-1 and 60-3), AFI 10-2701 (referenced above) and 10 USC 9442 (also referenced above) - and the NOC telephone number.  This may prevent you from getting yourself, or your colleagues involved in something that is either prohibited by the rules that you agreed to follow when you joined, or federal law.

I don't beiieve we'll see eye-to-eye on this so I don't think there's any need for further discussion. Be safe...

[Al Sayre]

Volunteers are generally not a problem until you have a big emergency, and that's where you find the word "volunteer" taking on a negative connotation...  When untrained people come out of the woodwork to volunteer, they cause problems.  There is an entire course on the FEMA website on how to deal with volunteers.  Untrained volunteers are of limited use, and cause an agency to expend needed resources simply to classify and identify them, not to mention feed them, and provide water and sanitation facilities.  We all understand that there is a big difference between a trained group of volunteer responders and the local church group that gets together to "volunteer" on the spur of the moment.   Unfortunately during a crisis if you show up at a command post and report in a group of "volunteers" the general consensus is going to be "Oh great just what we need another 50 people getting in the way and using up resources!"  However, if you show up and report in with a group of "professional responders", "auxiliarists",  etc.  who are donating their time and treasure to their community, you (hopefully) won't be seen as a drain on resources, but as a useful resource.

[A.Member]

So, why is it that seemingly no other volunteer organization is cast in a negative light when using that word, and it's only us ?

V/R,

Denial is not a river in Egypt.  My concern is with this organization, not every other one.  Like I said earlier, you don't have to like it but you do need to recognize it and adjust your approach accordingly.

[DrJbdm]

for many years volunteer fire departments faced this same issue as being seen as less then well trained professionals. They where considered in general to be "playing" firemen. In many areas they where not taken seriously, even by those who lived in the communites served by volunteer fire departments. In order to combat that, they had to completely remake their image and to a large degree they have reshaped themselfs into being viewed as highly trained professional fire-fighters. Most of them, if not all of them are licensed by the Texas agency that licenses paid fire-fighters and there is no difference in that certification.

  When it comes to public safety personnel or emergency services personnel, the term volunteer is not viewed as being professional. The issue we have to be concerned with, is what others perception is of volunteers. While we may get warm fuzzies with that term, others may view us as being untrained or under-trained and neither is the perception you want people having of us. The worst perception we could be faced with is people thinking we are "playing" at what we are doing. paid or unpaid, that's not an issue and really that makes no difference to anyone, but we seem to want to emphasize that point.

  When people see us respond during a SAR mission or Natural Distaster or even a terrorist incident, they don't want to be faced with someone who isn't ready to view themselves as being AS capable as those who are getting paid for being there. Certainly the volunteer fire departments don't view themselves in that regard. We could take a lesson from them.

[jimmydeanno]

The issue we have to be concerned with, is what others perception is of volunteers.

We should be concerned about the publics perception of us, which I agree with, but you can't 'rename' what we are, a rose is a rose.

they don't want to be faced with someone who isn't ready to view themselves as being AS capable as those who are getting paid for being there. Certainly the volunteer fire departments don't view themselves in that regard. We could take a lesson from them.

Who said we don't view ourselves as capable?  Or that we have the perception that we are not trained?

[DrJbdm]

CAP has a whole does not view it's self as capable as the paid professionals. CAP tends to view it's self as a group of citizen volunteers who can or want to help in some small way. It's not viewing it's self the same as even volunteer fire departments.

  At the Wing Conference I asked Lt. Col. Cima if CAP was going to get into compliance with the NIMS standard, she said that CAP was going to pick and choose what standards it felt it could comply with and then say we are trained up to our standards. The problem is we can not train up to our standards, we have to train up to the standards set for those wishing to play in this arena. She further stated that CAP is not even in full compliance with the ICS standards, that we developed our own ICS standard and then called it ICS because thats the name other agencies can relate too. Thats our problem, we are not willing to train to the standards set for us.

[sardak]

At the Wing Conference I asked Lt. Col. Cima if CAP was going to get into compliance with the NIMS standard, she said that CAP was going to pick and choose what standards it felt it could comply with and then say we are trained up to our standards. The problem is we can not train up to our standards, we have to train up to the standards set for those wishing to play in this arena. She further stated that CAP is not even in full compliance with the ICS standards, that we developed our own ICS standard and then called it ICS because that's the name other agencies can relate too.  That's our problem, we are not willing to train to the standards set for us.

Exactly.  That has been pointed out in a number of threads on this forum.  This is also not the first time that CAP has acknowledged that it doesn't necessarily try to comply or meet other standards.  As a minor example, CAP "agency liaison" is "agency representative" in ICS.  CAP changed the term deliberately because an AL does not represent CAP in the capacity that an AREP does in ICS.

This though, has nothing to do with CAP being a volunteer organization, it's CAP being...CAP.  There are many volunteer organizations who are compliant with these standards.  Many of these volunteer agencies are also recognized as players in the emergency services community.  Just complying or meeting standards does not bring this acceptance.   It is a matter of presentation and performance. 

Volunteer started to get a negative connotation after Katrina.  To try to separate the good from the bad, "convergent volunteer" and  "spontaneous volunteer" have come to be recognized in the industry as the terms for volunteers who aren't part of an organized and trained group of volunteer responders.  "Unpaid professional" is being adopted by many trained volunteer organizations to further separate themselves from convergent and spontaneous volunteers.

CAP and other volunteer groups must use "volunteer" for their fundraising and recruitment, but not when they are trying to sell their capability to other organizations.  They must perform as professionals in thought, training, compliance, capability and response.  Those that do are recognized as such, and not as volunteers, by the rest of the ES community.

Mike

[DrJbdm]

Mike I agree with you, although I don't think we need to sell ourselves as volunteers for recruitment. perhaps for donations and other areas along the same route. CAP in my opinion needs to take a good long hard painful look in the collective mirror and do a radical change on it's image. We need to remake ourselves. We seem to be better known as a youth oriented organization then a true Air Force Auxiliary emergency services unit. While I think the cadet program is very important, after all i was a cadet myself. it shouldn't be the reason for existence.

  We need strict membership standards, we need unit commanders held responsible to a set policy and be given efficiency reports by the group comanders. Unit commanders should be given a two year term with additional terms decided upon by the efficiency reports.

  We need to follow the tougher standards in NIMS or ICS or whatever the major players are using. We need to be fully compliant and stop making our own rules. We should be fully prepared to play in the major league

  We need to get away from terminology that hurts our image and remake ourselves in the Air Force image, after all we are the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary. I think it's obvious that Big Brother Blue wants us to be closer to them, I think we should come into the Air Force Image. Lets stop trying to change them, it simply won't work.

General Pineda wants to see some tougher membership standards, I don't think he'll go far enough in those standards, but at least it's a start. CAP has strayed far from what it once was in the 80's, we need to start a hard swing back to the right and get back on course.

[ZigZag911]

I hope you don't get mad at me, but...

I have it on very reliable authority (Although my source was confidential and this was discussed over a cocktail at an Officer's Club at a certain well-known Air Force Base) that the Air Force gave unofficial approval to the TPU.  Contrary to your assertion that the Air Force wants us all marked with the Scarlet Letter "A" (for Auxiliary), they are annoyed at the disparity of uniforms. 

They realize that THEY created the monster by insisting on unrealistic weight standards given the age of the average CAP member, but they saw the TPU as a way of controlling the monster, and get us all in pretty much the same jersey.

The Air Force WANTS us in Air Force Blue and on the team.  Their standard is that the CAP Air Force uniform must have such special insignia as to be recognizable at a distance or in low light conditions as identifying the wearer as a CAP rather than Air Force officer.
[/quote]

John, I am flabbergasted to hear this....but also very, very pleased....hopefully this means the relationship between CAP & USAF is better than many of us thought.

[RiverAux]

Their standard is that the CAP Air Force uniform must have such special insignia as to be recognizable at a distance or in low light conditions as identifying the wearer as a CAP rather than Air Force officer.

Yes, because not being able to tell a CAP member from an AF member within nanoseconds could shake the entire service to its very core. 

If this was really a problem they would not be trying to solve it by encouraging the creation of yet another CAP uniform.  It only gets harder to tell who is in CAP when any given CAP member might be wearing one of a half-dozen or more uniforms depending on their mood that day. 

If CAP had a bit more "brand identity" in our uniforms it would be so much easier to spot the CAP member at a glance.  Your average airman is not going to memoraize all these potential CAP uniforms anyway.  If we just had 1 set of uniforms for any type of activity they would get used to associating those few uniforms with CAP and there wouldn't be a "problem".

[lordmonar]

I have it on very reliable authority (Although my source was confidential and this was discussed over a cocktail at an Officer's Club at a certain well-known Air Force Base) that the Air Force gave unofficial approval to the TPU.  Contrary to your assertion that the Air Force wants us all marked with the Scarlet Letter "A" (for Auxiliary), they are annoyed at the disparity of uniforms. 

There is no secret about this at all.  The orginal TPU had the US cutouts on them and rank on the hat.  The USAF asked us to take them off and we complied.

[/quote]The Air Force WANTS us in Air Force Blue and on the team.  Their standard is that the CAP Air Force uniform must have such special insignia as to be recognizable at a distance or in low light conditions as identifying the wearer as a CAP rather than Air Force officer.[/quote]

I got a real easy fix for this.  CAP cut outs vice US and a big honking CAP patch on the Sholder of all AF uniforms, not a wing patch, but a big round CAP (like maybe the old CAP Crest we wore on our flight suits or the patch the use for overseas squadrons).

That way it would be instantly recognisable that the individual approching you is a member of CAP and not the USAF.

On the flight suit we have already solved 90% if that problem with our current patch mix.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Lord M:

Instead of a patch, I have always advocated using the CAP crest from the mess dress on ALL uniforms.  Make an embroidered one for the BDU or use the Command Patch from the flight suit on the BDU.

[ColonelJack]

I am noticing something very interesting and, if accurate, very bothersome:

Now that we have it somewhat "confirmed" (albeit unofficially) that AF not only approved but encouraged the corporate service uniform, there are still people decrying it as unnecessary, unneeded, un-American, whatever.  It sounds to me as if those opinions wouldn't change if the Secretary of the Air Force himself came in here and said, "We love it, go with it." 

I guess what I'm saying is ... Some don't like it.  We got that.  Some won't wear it.  We got that too.  Some think it's unnecessary, etc.  The Air Force doesn't think so, and their opinion -- in the end -- is really the only one that matters.

Isn't it at last time to move on?

Sorry for my tone in advance,

Jack

[RogueLeader]

The Peace Corp is staffed with volunteers and no one thinks their efforts are inept.

 

Really?  Guess I'm no one.

[ZigZag911]

We now (and have had for many years) an all volunteer military, and most seem to agree they are professional indeed!

We need to describe ourselves as 'professionally trained & qualified volunteers'....of course, we need to ensure that we really meet that standard, first!

[mikeylikey]

We now (and have had for many years) an all volunteer military, and most seem to agree they are professional indeed!

We need to describe ourselves as 'professionally trained & qualified volunteers'....of course, we need to ensure that we really meet that standard, first!

It was all-volunteer until the STOP-LOSS (slavery) "program" started back up for Iraq 2.

-So I don't find myself transfered to GITMO.......DISCLAIMER:
I FULLY Support the United States, and it's policies regarding the military services.  I make no claims that it's policies, management or senior leadership are inept, idiotic, or outright insane.

[LtCol White]

We now (and have had for many years) an all volunteer military, and most seem to agree they are professional indeed!

We need to describe ourselves as 'professionally trained & qualified volunteers'....of course, we need to ensure that we really meet that standard, first!

It was all-volunteer until the STOP-LOSS (slavery) "program" started back up for Iraq 2.

-So I don't find myself transfered to GITMO.......DISCLAIMER:
I FULLY Support the United States, and it's policies regarding the military services.  I make no claims that it's policies, management or senior leadership are inept, idiotic, or outright insane.

I think I just saw a blackedout CAP van turn onto your street!! Its one of those new classified missions CAP has now.