Corporate or Auxiliary

[BillB]

It looks like CAP is divided on "is CAP a corporate organization, or an USAF Auxiliary?".  All of the uniform changes are on the corporate side along with revoving the USAF Aux from the aircraft. If you get down to that, removing the CAP seal and replacing it with the CAP emblem on aircraft several years ago would have been the start of that.
Most members want CAP to be the USAF Auxiliary, but in that respect the problems of liability rest not with the Air Force but the corporation. What is needed is an explaniation to the membership of what CAP is doing and why as to the USAF-CAP relationship. It's the not understanding the path CAP is taking that seems to be the root of all the problems including retention to an extent.
Doing missions for Homeland Security is understandable to members that they are not Air Force Missions. But nobody is sure what the overall mission of the organization is. And that is the problem.

[mikeylikey]

The organization is sold to most prospective members as "The Air Force Auxiliary".  Then they learn it rarely is the Auxiliary, and when it is, it is only the Auxiliary to a select few individuals who are more part of a flying "good ole boys club" than anything else.  The organization has moved itself away from ties with the military and is only interested now in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.  We have seen many changes that make one consider if it is for the better or worse.  I hope for the better, but what is happening now makes me think we will only distance ourselves from the Air Force even more in the next few years. 

The Company has successfully taken every military position over the last twenty years, and filled it with either a volunteer or a paid employee except for CAP-USAF, and even then has been able to limit what they say, do and where they do it. 

Go back 15 to 20 years and you will see a totally different organization then we have now.  From what I read and who I speak to, it seems CAP of then was surely better than what it is now. 

The programs of today are failing.  Retention measures are not working and the politics of CAP seem to be more prominant at all levels now than they were five years ago.  We need an overhaul, and a major one.  Keep the Corporation, but the AF needs to step in and correct some issues.  Most significant, the supply issue.  Try to get into a DRMO to acquire surplus.  It is almost impossible.  WHY?  BECAUSE CAP Corporation does not trust the membership, and got with the Defense Logistics Agency and changed the process for CAP to acquire surplus.  The Government did not make it harder, CAP Corporation made it harder.  The Air Force gave CAP a "blank check" and the ability to acquire what they needed, and CORPORATE in their infinite wisdom decided they could do things better and have screwed it up.

Here is a good one!  GSA was preparing to allow CAP the ability to draw and sign for GSA vehicles from their fleet.  CORPORATION decided that it would be a "bad" idea and decided not to agree to the proposal.  How many units out there could use a GSA vehicle or a GSA VAN now and then?  Every single one!  Don't believe me, call Logistics at Maxwell and ask.

We need to find our identity and go with it.  We are either the "Official Air Force Auxiliary" or are strictly the Corporation.  In my mind the two can no longer exist side by side, because the Corporation has taken over during the past 20 years. 
 

[lordmonar]

Well, one thing you have to remember is that the USAF was very different too 10-15 years ago.

We had a lot more people, and money to fund and man CAP on the USAF side.  As the USAF drew that down CAP had to pick up the slack or let it fall off.

DRMO is the one who has changed policies.  It is difficult even for Active Duty Account Custodians to get anything from DRMO.  They have also regionalised and streamlined their process and those make it harder for CAP or anyone else to get things for free.

I don't know about the GSA Fleet thing...but it may be possible that there were a lot of hidden strings attached to joining up.  I'm sure it was not as simple of just sign for a vehicle and it is yours.  Just off the top of my head, CAP may have had to become responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles and that may have been the reason they decided not to buy into it.

Just to let you know....it has always been about the money.  We cannot do anything without money.  And the USAF is just a guilty of moving away from CAP as CAP is guilty of moving away from the USAF.

[ELTHunter]

Under the Uniforms topic, a discussion generated regarding whether the Corporation was moving, intentionally or unintentionally, away from the U.S. Air Force.  What's your opinion?  If you think it is, do you believe its a good thing or a bad thing?

Here's my $.02 worth.

I think, currently, the Corporation wants it both ways.  They want to move further from the USAF to get more sources of funding, and some think, more missions.  I think they want to move away from the USAF on Corporate uniform things that the USAF has repeatedly stopped over recent years.  However, they want to be close to the USAF to keep getting the funding they get, keep the fleet of aircraft, and keep the USAF tie in for marketing reasons.

Personally, I don't see how we can be both the CAP Corporation when it suits CAP and the USAF Auxiliary when it suits CAP.  The CAP was established as a Corporation for some specific reasons, and I don't think getting other missions, funding and uniforms was the reason.  At the zenith of the CAP's really vital missions to the country, we were closely tied with the Army Air Corp in not only funding, missions and uniforms, but leadership as well.

CAP gets missions because we are the USAF Auxiliary.  We get cadets because we are the USAF Auxiliary.  I joined the CAP because I wanted to support the USAF mission and be in the USAF Auxiliary, not a corporation. CAP will never, no matter how hard it tries, or how it markets itself, be able to come close to obtaining the same amount of funding from other sources as it gets from the USAF.  I believe we would get more missions and have better opportunities to support the AF directly if we stopped being the "Civil Air Patrol Corporation" and started thinking of ourselves as "The" U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.  If the USAF announced tomorrow that they were starting a separate Auxiliary that they controlled to support Air Force missions, I'd be there tomorrow.

[captrncap]

The biggest reason I see CAP moving to a corporation is the leadership.

They don't like gray epaulets so create a corporate uniform with blue ones. They don't want to be associated with USAF so change the command patch.

Our leaders, which are not elected by the membership, need to stop with the temper tantrums and "I want, I'll cry if I don't get it" attitude.

They need to be more interested in what the members want, then we [CAP] could move forward with a better relationship with USAF.

[lordmonar]

CAP gets missions because we are the USAF Auxiliary.  We get cadets because we are the USAF Auxiliary.  I joined the CAP because I wanted to support the USAF mission and be in the USAF Auxiliary, not a corporation. CAP will never, no matter how hard it tries, or how it markets itself, be able to come close to obtaining the same amount of funding from other sources as it gets from the USAF.  I believe we would get more missions and have better opportunities to support the AF directly if we stopped being the "Civil Air Patrol Corporation" and started thinking of ourselves as "The" U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.  If the USAF announced tomorrow that they were starting a separate Auxiliary that they controlled to support Air Force missions, I'd be there tomorrow.

I think you have it the other way around.....we are the USAF-AUX because we get USAF missions.  It is the USAF who wants it both ways.  They will insure us and protect us only when we are "working" for them.....the other six days of the week we are on our own.  As far as getting more USAF mission....what do you propose that we do for them?  Fly cargo?  Fly DVs?  Fly combat missions?  The USAF wants us to take on their inland SAR mission, we do it cheaper than they can and we do it well.  I am sure that if there were anything else we can do they would let us know.

By moving a little be away from the USAF and fixing our CAP status FIRST AND FOREMOST in the public's eye we can get more mission.  That would mean that CAP can continue to exist even if/when the USAF no longer needs a fleet of cheap air frames for their inland SAR missions.

That is the crux of the whole situation.  We are a cheap fleet of airframes that can do a mission for the USAF and that is all.  If we want to pick up a larger or different mission form the USAF we have to look at the USAF's missions.  We have to find ways of either building the capability and fielding it and then offer it to the USAF as a cheaper more efficient option than a blue suit USAF mission.

So I challenge anyone to find a mission the USAF is doing today that we can do cheaper and easier than the USAF's current solution.

As far as finding alternate sources of funding....I just have to point out the Iowa Wing Solution.  They found a customer with a bag full of missions who is giving them $100K a year and next to unlimited use of state facilities.  Yes that is no where need what the USAF doles out in a year...but you multiply that by 50 and then you are a little closer to th $21M we get from appropriated sources(FY05). Then you throw in other federal agencies who may need a low cost air force for their needs and it would not take you long to quickly recoup the lost monies from the USAF.

So...what does this mean?  It means that a legal shift (not cultural or even operational) form the USAF could mean access to a greater number of paying customers who need our services.  The Ability to serve not only the USAF but also the state, county and local levels as well as other national level customers.

Except for the loss of history and fine relationship with our USAF parent I can see nothing bad coming from divorcing ourselves from being just the USAF-AUX and being prepared to be the DEA-AUX, HSA-AUX, TSA-AUX, USDA-AUX, FDA-AUG, USA-AUX, or any other AUX who needs a low cost air force.

[DNall]

Actually, we're covered by an insurance policy which Congress mandates the AF pay above & beyond our budget regardless of the cost. The legal distinction merely covers if the govt can be sued for limitless amounts of money or if CAP is sued under our own insurance policy. There is no other difference, and frankly I think it has been presented very badly to the members because that was never remotly the intention of congress.

What other missions can we do? Well everything the AF is assigned by the govt that doesn't involve direct combat or overseas deployment. So yes transport is fine. Our current planes may not be perfect for the role, but a few multi-mission twins could get more hours than we can support. The Army is realigning their fixed wing fleet for the future, and would love to hand off some of the load & save some money. There are a lot of missions that the AF, ANG, & ARNG fly with small to mid-sized fixed wing & we can pick up a lot of that if we can modularly plug in gear as has been suggested. There's some very serious HLS work that is not being done at all & CAP is capable of at a price that makes it feasible, and that is 1AF's mission. Some of these things require new gear, but money is there for all of it. The limits to what missions we're handed is not because there's nothing to do & nothing more that CAP can do. The limitation is the ability of CAP members to accept & perform in those taskings. You have to prove your quality by reaching their standards & earn their trust & respect, then you can play in the major leagues. If you want to talk mission details we can do that, but I prefer not to do so in the open now that some of those conversations have progressed beyond theory.

Flat out, the govt paid for these toys & pays to keep them working. If & when CAP leaves govt service or even takes on enough non-federal service to threaten our role with the AF, Congress WILL take back the toys & redistribute them in another way. I know they are purchased by CAP in the corp's name, but I've heard the plan to do it & if Congress wants to they'll just change the law & do so - what can you do about it, pay a few million to drag it out in court? Have fun with that. Menwhile they'll go ahead & send them off to state Hwy Patrol aviation units who can then do the SaR missions on state funds. If you win the case five years later, CAP will already be dead & permenantly cut off from govt credibility & funding. Don't think for a second of going against their will.

Real quick with the math, 100k times 50 = 5mil, which is less than a quarter of 21mil, which was the budget number in 1995. We've been as high as 38mil of late, but that included a lot of new planes. You have to add four different funding sections each year to know what the direct funding number is, and that doesn't include the millions in non-financial support we get each year.

We belong to the AF lock stock & barrel, even if it's conveluted, and we are not free to do as we please or go off on our own. They & Congress tolerate a certain degree of misbehavior when it is of service to the country & doesn't cause them too many problems, but it doesn't ammuse them & at some point they will apply blunt force trama to correct the situation. We cannot be the Aux of any other agency, nor can we keep the funding we're graciously granted, nor the stuff we currently have unless we submit to & play ball with the AF. They are the parent & we are the child, and you will listen or you will be grounded & punished. That's all there is to it. The only other alternative involves the disolution of CAP either quickly or over time, and I don't even want to watch such a terrible thing happen.


Let me warn everyone else though, being more a part of the AF family doesn't mean members get more say. The AF is the military & they rule from the top down w/ zero democracy. I'm in favor of restructuring NB as an elected body, but ONLY if the Wg/Reg/Nat CC roles are divorced from postions on the NB - actually specifically stating that you cannot hold both at the same time. Actually, now that we have a BoG in place from Congress, the NB & NEC should be dissolved as governing bodies. It's fine to hold the conferences & serve in an advisory role but Congress has determined we should be governed in a different way. Oh and by the way, you can be a corporate officer with authority to sign contracts, MOUs, etc & not need to sit on a corporate board of directors.

[lordmonar]

I think that you are under the mistake that we serve at the behest of Congress.  Yes we get a majority of our funding from congress but congress did not/cannot dictate how a corporate entity is organized.  Granted if we changed too much they can pull the funding and the congressional charter....but congress cannot pull assets already sold to the corporation with out declaring eminent domain!

But that is all beside the point.

I am not advocating a complete separation between CAP and the USAF.  Nor am I saying that CAP would not have an easy time raising money to do it's mission.  I am saying that we can look for source of money and mission outside of our relationship with the USAF with damaging that relationship.  But there are current road blocks to that....one of those road blocks is the USAF-AUX designation. 

You are correct that if we want to increase our mission and take on more responsibilities from the USAF we have to be professional and prove that we are up to the job.

We currently exist to assist the USAF, that is true, but we are the USAF-AUX by congressional fiat.  If they can make us the USAF-AUX they can also make us the (insert federal agency here)-AUX as well.

Let's look at each and every thing people are complaining about.  The CAP command patch vs the USAF-AUX command patch.  Well  we are alway the CAP and only USAF-AUX on USAF missions.  So....let's wear a patch that says who we are all the time not just one and a while.

We took USAF-AUX off our aircraft.....because an USAF AFI says we cannot fly certain missions with USAF-AUX painted on the side.  We want to fly more mission....off it comes.  If we were not allowed to do this, USAF would have said something.  Does congress care if we take USAF-AUX off the air plane? No...because it was done so we can increase our service to our nation.  Maybe not at the federal level but it is still a service.

I like the idea of picking up the light cargo mission.  But can we realistically pick it up?  That would be a 24/7 mission with lots of RON's at CAP member expense.  Would we need to increase our credentials (i.e. require CPLs for mission qualified pilots) to be able to pick up this mission.  How expensive would it be to start up a transport line and train up enough pilots to run it?  The Army and USAF are looking into filling the light cargo node....but the USAF is not really interested in it, the start up costs are too much and they do not have a lot of money right now.  In fact the USAF and Army have having a knock down-drag out fight over this right now.  Last I heard the USAF was walking out and the Army was going to get into the transport business by itself.

So again....I see a future where CAP may not be the USAF-AUX any more.  When the number of airborne SAR missions starts to drop the USAF may just see that the $21M+ they drop on to use could be better used elsewhere. 

We as CAP either need to beg USAF to give us a new mission or we have to go to our other customers and offer them our services.

[DNall]

Congress does not think of CAP as a seperate corporation & never has. CAP has never until very recently thought of itself that way. The law that created the BoG & redefined the Aux status said nothing about "in order to recieve federal funding," that was implicit of course, but it was an order to a subordinate, and that is how the AF & Congress view CAP. True or not, if CAP defies that perception to leave the box & violate the first commandment, then it will result in ager & action.

Congress desires for CAP to be the Aux of the AF & no other. They made that clear in writing 10 yeas ago when they refused to transfer ADCON of CAP to DOT where the CG was at the time. The legal distinction made in 2000 was at request of the AF & MERELY states that the govt should not be sued for CAP actions when we're chasing off in our own direction & the AF doesn't have oversight authority over what we're doing. It doesn't free us from restrictions that come with federally funded gear, maint, training, programs, & facilities.

Emminant Domain applies to land/structures, not vehicles/planes/radios/etc. Those would be reclaimed in another way. Actually siezed & frozen under congressional seopena while a multi-year investigation & legal action over use of federal funds occurs. Again, that may not be completely on the level & CAP may have the high ground, but we don't have the money to fight congress. Plus theyc an just pass a law that says property purchased with federal funds by federally chartered non-profits will revert to the govt if the federal charter is revoked or suspended. Honestly it's a slick little plan that'd kick our butts & I don't want to go into much more detail than I have because you don't like to give ammo to people opposed to CAP, so I'll leave it at that.

Obviously that's the extreme for ultimate defiance of congress & AF. Between here & there it is a zero sum equation on the money. You take more from outside supporters, that makes you beholden to others, that means less money from the AF. You can't switch directions, you can grow additional limbs with the permission of & in concert with the trunk to the extent that it serve the overall agenda of the tree. You don't cut your nose off to spite your face.

The AF does in fact want "USAF AUX" on the side of our planes. They want it there because the AFI you mention then gives them the legal power to stop us from flying missions they do not want us involved in. That's for a number of reasons, but the key one is it can be technically illegal in some cases, not for us to do the mission, but for them to have funded the equipment, and could because of that endanger future funding. It's tricky territory legally, but that's the take that AF & DoD lawyers have on it.

Yes the Army is working up their fleet requirements for light to mid fixed wing (think king air). CAP could make extremely good use of those planes in SaR/DR, HLS, & an advanced Comm support mission. I don't for a moment think we can take over light transport from Army/AF, but with a modular design we can pick up enough scheduled work to make the airframes cost effective From what I understand, operation of a CAP-owned twin will require a commercial license regardless of the mission.

Our customer is the AF. To the extent we need to evolve, and I think we do, we need to do that for ourselves. We need to practively find other ways to serve the AF, then take those to the AF asking to run some test cases. We need to work with our partner rather than looking outside the marriage for something to keep us busy. CAP doesn't exist to fly generic missions, it exists to do the bidding of the AF. If you want more money & growth into new areas, market that to the AF & show them ways you can help them do beeter at their mission or even take a little bit away from other agencies. If you can for instance show them how to take things away from Army fixed wing & do it on the cheap, they'll love you.

[lordmonar]

I still don't understand your point of view.  Everthing I have seen is moves by the USAF to separate from use.  To push us away.  Again...I think you don't really understand the status of CAP.  We are a corporation with a congressional charter, just like the Red Cross and the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and a whole host of other corporations.  We get funding from congress and there are limits on what we can do with that funding but....that is all.  They cannot change their minds and say...give it all back.  Nor am I advocating a complete split from the USAF/Congressional charter.

But in the case of USAF-AUX on our planes.....if it prevents us from doing certain missions then lets get rid of it.  The USAF is not our only customer (or should not be) Iowa is doing a great job supporting the state as the IOWA-AUX (but no one expects them to paint that on the side of their planes).  The USAF AFI does not say "all CAP assets will be painted with USAF-AUX" it just says USAF-AUX will not be used for certain missions and if we are USAF-AUX only when the USAF is paying for it....how does that hurt our relationship with the USAF?

That is the question I keep coming back to.  How is it hurting our relationship?  I don't see any move by USAF-CAP or any congressional investigation to stop us from doing that.  I don't see them pulling any money from us (except that they are pulling money from everwhere to pay for the war and buy F-22s).  I don't see them asking other agencies to fly our missions.  I don't see any of the bad things you think are happening because we are changing patches and repainting our planes.

As for congressional funding...they can pay us to fly DEA missions as easily as they can to fly USAF missions.  So long as their is a federal need for a low cost/part time air fleet, CAP will still be able to tap into congressional funding.

So...my bottom line is and always will be....CAP needs to work on its business relationships with all of its customers.  We provide a valuable service to the USAF and will continue to do so for the for next 10 years or so.  After that I don't see the USAF wanting to spend any more money on us if they don't have to.  If we want to remain an organization and continue to serve our country then we have to find other customers.  We need to do this in a way that does not neglect our commitments to the USAF, but we need to do it all the same.

I think that is what I am seen CAP doing.  They are using the current status quo as a bench mark of how far we can legally go and cultivate other mission sources.  And I think that is the right thing to do.

[ZigZag911]

My observation is that DNall is correct.....CAP is pulling away from USAF....USAF is NOT pushing us away....there are indeed those who chafe under  AF restrictions on CAP activities, uniforms, and so forth, who are trying to wriggle loose of USAF control....hence the movement from within to become more "Corporate"....

earlier the excellent point was made that most of our members respond to joining USAF AUX, NOT "CAP Corporation"

It seems we may be on the verge of schism (usually an internal split in a religious group!), to the general detriment of all

Perhaps those who want to belong to a 'congressionally chartered organization like the Red Cross or Scouts" ought to establish such an organization -- there may, indeed, be a legitimate need for it, and people ready to sign up and pitch in

The existing Civil Air Patrol, however, is, and should remain, the Auxiliary of the USAF!

[RiverAux]

It was the AF lawyers that caused a significant amount of mayhem that destroyed many local relationships that CAP had built up with local agencies over the years.

It is the AF that came up with the absurd Air Force instruction about USAF Aux markings on aircraft.  Again, the lawyers causing problems. 

CAP has always been on the lookout for money from other sources and getting money from the state as Iowa has done is actually typical.  What is abnormal is to have a CAP Wing that isn't getting state money (read the annual report). 

[Pylon]

What is abnormal is to have a CAP Wing that isn't getting state money (read the annual report). 

Enter New York state.  Highest taxes in the nation, every state bordering it gives annual appropriations to CAP, New York does not give a dime.   

[DNall]

River,
Actually that wasn't about lawyers. That was AF not wanting CAP assuming obligations or committing govt financed resources out from under the AF chain. For instance, if money from teh AF finances the maint on a plane used to conduct LE activities, there's question if that's legal or not, & that creates the danger of some yahoo in Congress or whack job trial lawyer forcing the edn of all AF funding. It's AF trying to protect CAP from itself.

Capt Harris,
I'll try to keep this a bit shorter. CAP was established as a coporation to preserve it after WWII. Then after the new AF was created & before it even had its own uniforms it sought to make CAP the permenant Auxiliary. That second law superceded the first, though the corporate status was preserved chiefly to make donations tax deductible. For most of that time CAP was commanded by an AF officer & placed directly in the chain of command, answering to CAP-USAF all the way to the commander-in-chief.

I don't know what anyone else has seen, but I've seen the AF move us from maroon to gray grade slides, allow a distinctive paint on the planes, a command patch that says AF Aux, sewn on grade for flt suits & BDU hats, goretex parkas, the rondel, they've paid almost 50 million to dramatically update our fleet of aircraft at a faster rate then I think has ever occured before while cutting back their fleet of beloved F22s, bought millions upon millions in state of the art new comm gear, funded advanced tech testing & deployment of systems like ARCHER & SDIS, plus ongoing tests & consideration of other advanced gear, they've included us in critical HLS missions directed by the people actively defending US airspace, they run us out in Katrina, they gave us unmatched front page publicity not given to combat units in desperate need of more funding, they gave us a ton of additional training funds & provided a lot more freedom in how to use it. CAP has gotten major attention as a topic of study at War College on Army, AF, & Joint Forces sides, even with so many critical strategic threats facing our country & military. They've faught to keep CAP from being stolen away by the Army & the National Guard. I'm not sure what the AF has to do to tell you the like us, but it seems to me they've been trying pretty hard in the face of us trying to chase off in another direction.

It seems to me they care an inordenant amount about us, and I for one prefer to return the favor. I prefer to speak their language by going straight to them & laying down a visionary plan for the future that fits with the tactical & strategic objectives of the Air Force, and brings us into the total AF system. I prefer to lay down a stack of things we want & another stack right beside it of what we intend to do to earn those items, and ask AF to be the judge of when we have. I prefer to dance with teh one that brung us & stay true to that relationship come hell or high water, just as they've stood by us in up & down times for 65 years. Do I want more from them, hell yes, but I prefer to spend my energy earning it than giving up & running off to some other suitor to see who we can make jealous enough to buy us more crap. If you need funding from another agency, say you want DHS to buy us NRBC detection gear for HLS flights, you go to the AF & have htem support your request for that funding, either directly or to have congress earmark those funds to states to equip CAP planes in those states.

[lordmonar]

I'm going to disengage on this topic after this post.

Yes...all is good. USAF loves us and we love them and that is good.

All I am saying is.....simple changes that open more missions and more money to us are NOT jepordising our relationship to the USAF.

They care about how we do our mission and about accountability to the moneys they provide and that is all.

[arajca]

The view from my trench is that the AF doesn't have a clue what to do with CAP. Sure, there are a very few new missions they've thrown at us, but unless you're on an aircrew and have an in with the alerting officer, you aren't involved. It has been claimed many times that the SAR misions will be drying up in a couple years. If so, why hasn't the AF put forth ideas of how CAP could be used afterward? Since 9/11, CAP has been waiting for some type of mission to get involved in. We've uprooted an entire wing headquarters to put it close to 1AF, with no noticiable increase in missions. We've been claiming to serve "Missions for America" and to "Return to our roots" with only a huge retention problem.

Now, when CAP goes out to find missions, everyone jumps up and down and screams about how we're abandoning the AF and how we're going to lose our USAF Auxillary status. If the AF really cared about it, don't you think they could do something about it now?

If you look at why and how the boundaries are being pushed, it seems to me to be because no one really knows where the boundaries are. Uniforms are a miniscule part of this, although probably the most visible.

How hard would it be for the AF to tell CAP how the AF envisions CAP being used in the future? If the AF did that, do you think CAP would move to that vision? We complain the CAP/CC hasn't shared his vision for CAP with us, but has the AF shared its vision for CAP with CAP? Without that guidance, CAP is a ship with no one who knows what's going on at the helm and where we go changes eveytime the helmsman changes. Or, could it be that the AF has and CAP IS moving to that vision?

No one disputes that the AF has spent a few bucks on CAP. I think most members appreciate that, even if they don't receive a direct benefit. The problem is the AF doesn't have a vision for CAP.

[jayleswo]

Another thing to keep in mind: after every major conflict, historically there has been a significant drawdown in our armed forces. I expect the same will occur after we begin withdrawing forces from Iraq/Afganistan in the next few years. The signs this will happen are there right now. This is an opportunity and a risk for CAP. We need to demonstrate our relevence in this environment and look for niches to fill in AF missions.

[AlaskanCFI]

As far as the "corporation mindset" types, you have to take a quick look at history.

From WWII up until the late 1960s, almost EVERYBODY in the U.S. had either been in the military, had an immediate family member(s) in the military or had supported the war effort in some manner.  Farmers were so important to the country, they were often barred from joining the armed forces, but they knew they were still part of Team America.

Since the post Vietnam draw-down and the switch to an all-volunteer military, there is now a huge segment of the US population with no connection to the military other than the 6 o'clock news. 
In fact there may be a large percentage with anti-military sentiment.   The lack of mutual experience leads to a lack of understanding.  This becomes fear or jealousy and eventually animosity.

Here is Alaska we have the highest percentage of Veterans per capita,  yet there was a time when my wife (13 years Army)and I were the only military  folks in our local squadron.   In fact more than a couple of the old regulars referred to the squadron as the "Flying Club".

After being chastised by the ranking squadron member, for wearing the "scary military uniform" at the High School during an attempt to recruit cadets,,,, my wife quit.    Maybe it was the remark about not wanting one of his kids to ever join the military.  Particularly while we had two over in the sandbox at the time.

So, you may continue to see a rift develop in the CAP between the Air Force types and the social flying club types.  In a way, it is a reflection of our current society as a whole.

By the way, the last laugh is on the non-mil who made the mil uniform comments.  His kid up and joined  the big Green team... bravo-zulu..

xx

[DNall]

It's not the AF's responsibility to define the future for CAP. If you wait for them to do that, you'll still be waiting when they close us down. That's not how the govt works. They create/buy things for one purpose & when that purpose is over it's called obselete or surpluss. If a unit/org/etc sees that situation coming & wants to stick around, it is the reponsibility of the unit/org/etc to figure out how to fulfill other parts of the AF's responsibility to the country. How much of that pie chart you can cover versus how much it costs you to do it is the cost benefit analysis that determines if you get funded or not.

What CAP has been doing to branch out is to look for new customers. That's not a huge deal in & of itself, but it's managing those customers itself rather than working them thru the AF process & that gets very hairy with razor then lines between okay & not. That's not the point though. Those missions keep us busy, but they don't replace the sections of the AF's pie that are dwindling away & they don't pick up anything new from that pie. That means we are worth less to the AF than we were before. Which means what should happen to our funding & support?

The absolute chizeled in stone fact is Congress & AF will not allow CAP to exist in any capacity other than under the AF. A certain amount of missions for states are tolerable in the interim while we find a new way to be of service, but ultimately CAP has nothing to do with missions & everything to do with the AF. That is the way it must be, or CAP will simply die, and none of us want that.

[lordmonar]

It's not the AF's responsibility to define the future for CAP. If you wait for them to do that, you'll still be waiting when they close us down. That's not how the govt works. They create/buy things for one purpose & when that purpose is over it's called obsolete or surplus. If a unit/org/etc sees that situation coming & wants to stick around, it is the responsibility of the unit/org/etc to figure out how to fulfill other parts of the AF's responsibility to the country. How much of that pie chart you can cover versus how much it costs you to do it is the cost benefit analysis that determines if you get funded or not.

Then we are between a rock and a hard place.  If the USAF and Congress define who we are....and we cannot wait for them to find us more jobs to do...we have only one recourse and that is to in fact distance ourselves from the USAF and find new customers.

What CAP has been doing to branch out is to look for new customers. That's not a huge deal in & of itself, but it's managing those customers itself rather than working them thru the AF process & that gets very hairy with razor then lines between okay & not. That's not the point though. Those missions keep us busy, but they don't replace the sections of the AF's pie that are dwindling away & they don't pick up anything new from that pie. That means we are worth less to the AF than we were before. Which means what should happen to our funding & support?

If the USAF won't or can't help us find other customers then we look for sources of funding and support from other agencies.  If the size of the SAR mission is diminishing (which is a good thing) the Air Force will at some point drop that mission form it requirements list and us with it.  Just like any other mission that is no longer necessary they drop it.  They don't do looking for more things to do with old equipment.  That is not cost effective.  As the SAR requirement goes away so does our funding and support (as it should).  If we as an organization wishes to stay alive we have to find new customers who will pay for our services.  It is as simple as that.

The absolute chizeled in stone fact is Congress & AF will not allow CAP to exist in any capacity other than under the AF. A certain amount of missions for states are tolerable in the interim while we find a new way to be of service, but ultimately CAP has nothing to do with missions & everything to do with the AF. That is the way it must be, or CAP will simply die, and none of us want that.

Here you are totally wrong.  There are several completely civilian SAR organizations out there, even some that do Aerial SAR.  If the USAF were to drop us tomorrow and our federal funding dried up...we will still exist.  We would not enjoy all the benefits we have today of being associated with the USAF but there is nothing stopping us for existing.

The ACA exists, wears military uniforms and has a robust cadet program and they are not officially affiliated with the military (IIRC).  There are any number of military academies that have cadet programs and are not officially sanction by congress or the military.

We can continue to be a SAR function with out congressional or military backing.  It will just mean we have to look for other source of funding and interface with our customers just like any other private ES operations.

It would then just be a matter of advertising your capabilities to your perspective customers and then writing the MOA's.

We are NOT dependent on Congress or the USAF for our existence.

[RiverAux]

How hard would it be for the AF to tell CAP how the AF envisions CAP being used in the future?

It's not the AF's responsibility to define the future for CAP.

Just for comparison, this is the policy statement released by the new Commandant of the CG about the CG Aux and is apparently a first of its kind:

U.S. COAST GUARD AUXILIARY
POLICY STATEMENT
The U.S. Coast Guard is America's maritime first responder and stands ready to
protect the public from all threats and all hazards. All members of the Coast Guard
forces play a critical role in every mission area – supporting maritime security,
safety and stewardship. The Coast Guard Auxiliary provides capabilities and
proficiencies that support these capacities and ensure we remain responsive to our
communities and the Nation.

The Auxiliary is a force multiplier of vetted and trained volunteers devoted to the
support of Coast Guard missions and provides a broad inventory of vital skills,
assets, and experience for our units across the nation. As the leading volunteer
organization in the Department of Homeland Security, it is an essential component
of our daily operations and an effective resource primed to prevent and respond to
catastrophes in the maritime region. Fittingly, the core strategic purpose of the
Auxiliary is to continuously hone its expertise to perform three prioritized
functions:

(1) Promote and improve recreational boating safety;
(2) Support Coast Guard maritime homeland security efforts; and
(3) Support the Coast Guard's operational, administrative, and logistical
requirements.

The Coast Guard Auxiliary shall remain Semper Paratus, providing a dynamic
flexibility within its organizational programs in order to meet today's needs and
tomorrow's challenges. Through focused partnerships and public outreach, it shall
advocate and advance maritime domain awareness and the principles of safe
boating. Its diverse assortment of vessels, aircraft, radio facilities, and vehicles
shall be kept poised for the multi-mission tasking that characterizes Coast Guard
operations. To its fullest measure, it shall engage opportunities to augment Coast
Guard units through targeted recruitment and professional development among its
membership.

Every commander, commanding officer, officer-in-charge, and program manager
shall work closely with their Auxiliary counterparts to fully leverage the resources,
skills, qualifications, and profound dedication that reside within the Coast Guard
Auxiliary. Such focused collaboration is essential to our unwavering commitment to
mission excellence in serving and protecting the public trust.
//S//
Thad W. Allen
Admiral, United States Coast Guard

Sure, there is some boilerplate stuff in there, but it certainly sets a direction for the CG Aux.  I would very much like to see something similar from the AF.  Sure, you can find various documents that set out purposes of CAP, but nothing of a similar nature from the AF leadership.  Has this revolutionized things over at CG Aux?  No, but this and putting the head of the CG Aux at the table during regular briefings to the Commandant sure lets everyone know that we're an important part of the organization. 

CAP, on the other hand, is buried so far down in the AF chain of command that I bet many of the top AF leaders don't know they have 30,000 adult volunteers that they could potentially use.  Yes, having CAP getting included in some of the 1AF briefings is a good step in the right direction, but not far enough. 

[mawr]

All in all, it's no different that when the Secretary of the Air Force stated that CAP was a force multiplyer when reporting to Congress a few months ago.

Of course, the document that you have pasted appears to be a policy statement carrying more clout than a oral statement made by the Secretary of the Air Force.

[ncc1912]

We currently exist to assist the USAF, that is true, but we are the USAF-AUX by congressional fiat.  If they can make us the USAF-AUX they can also make us the (insert federal agency here)-AUX as well.

Too late, folks.  According to the Air Force we

[are] an auxiliary of the Air Force when [we] assists the Air Force or any Federal agency in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions. [Our] support may include, but is not limited to, Air Force-assigned missions in support of homeland security operations, consequence management, support to civilian law enforcement, and other civil support. [We] may only support an agency or department of the Federal government in its capacity as the Air Force Auxiliary. Certain CAP programs, such as cadet orientation flights, may be approved and assigned as Air Force missions when these support Air Force non-combat programs and missions.

However, we are CAP, the "Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Corporation," when we

provide assistance requested by state or local governmental authorities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to perform disaster relief missions and other emergency or non-emergency public purpose missions and activities. [We] may also use Federally provided resources to perform certain missions that fulfill [our] corporate purposes as described in paragraph 1. of this Policy Directive.

Sure, there is some boilerplate stuff in there, but it certainly sets a direction for the CG Aux.  I would very much like to see something similar from the AF.  Sure, you can find various documents that set out purposes of CAP, but nothing of a similar nature from the AF leadership.  Has this revolutionized things over at CG Aux?  No, but this and putting the head of the CG Aux at the table during regular briefings to the Commandant sure lets everyone know that we're an important part of the organization. 

AFPD 10-27 is as close as you get to that and you will find that it has the same effect on this organization's members, but I don't really think that CAP/CC spends much time at any table with the CSAF.

[ELTHunter]

CAP was born because Gill Robb Wilson and others saw a need that CAP could fill in the war effort, and they lobbied civilian and military leadership to take on those missions.  Luckily, Hap Arnold and later Carl Spaatz also saw a need that a civilian volunteer organization could fill, and they helped establish CAP as the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.  If the early Flying Minutemen had waited around for the Air Corp to ask civilians to fly missions for them, there would never have been a CAP, and there would not be one today.

DNall's right, it's not up to the USAF to find us missions.  Commercial corporations do not stay in business long if the say to customers "give us your business, what ever it might be", they say "here is what we can do for you, and here's why we can do it better, cheaper and/or faster than you can or anyone else".  Our leadership should be looking at everything the Air Force is doing and what they need, whether it's being done by contractors or active duty/guard/reserves, and seeing what we can do for them.  When CAP asks for AF funding or support, the first thing that goes through the LO's mind is "how can this help the USAF".  Then CAP leadership should make a pitch to the USAF saying "here is how we can help you, and here's why you should let us".  CAP's problem at present is that the leadership is more concerned with uniforms and finding other customers and sources of funding, and not concentrating enough on how we can help the organization that provides us with the majority of our funding.

Lordmanor, while it is true that there are other SAR organizations out there, most of them are accrediting organizations who's members operate tactically in other organizations like law enforcement agencies, fire departments and rescue squads. How many of them own and operate thousands of vehicles and over 500 aircraft?  It takes millions of dollars to support the organization.  While many states get a few thousand to a hundred thousand dollars to operate, the USAF gives $20 - $30 million annually for CAP to operate.  That does not include tens of thousands of dollars in other funding for things like communications equipment and other special things.  If you think CAP is going to get that kind of funding from another source, or even put together enough other sources to get it, you're dreaming.  It's much easier to grow current customers than to establish new ones.  Your statement that CAP is not dependant upon congressional or air force funding is absolutely ridiculous.

The USAF gives CAP legitimacy and name recognition.  Without the USAF Auxiliary tie in, it would be more difficult to recruit members, both cadet and senior, as well as get missions from other agencies and customers.  Lets face it, CAP probably gets more credit than it deserves for being professional and competatent because people  know we are backed by the USAF.  They may not know exactly who we are and what we do, and they might not know what standards we are trained to, but in their minds, we must be good because we are part of the Air Force.

[Smokey]

I have to question those that want to find missions outside of the AF.  While I too would like to have more AF assigned missions, going to other sources will be the demise of CAP.  The undertone of those seeking other sources for funding sound like they just want to fly on someone else's dime. Have you noticed the other sources they are seeking are all flying related. None are Ground Team type missions. (Note: I am a pilot/obs/scanner and not GT). Sounds to me like those seeking  outside sources  for flying missions are of the flying club mentality. Is flying with someone else paying the bill so important to those who seek outside sources that they are willing to pull away from the AF??

What is the obsession with flying a mission for anyone who will pay the fare?? Are you folks who want so desperately to be coprorate willing to sell out just for the chance to fly?

[floridacyclist]

Disaster RECON (not aerial reconnaissance) is typically done on the state's dime, yet is a GT function. We have also been talking about negotiating with the National Weather Service here in Tallahassee to find and return their weather balloons.

[lordmonar]

I have to question those that want to find missions outside of the AF.  While I too would like to have more AF assigned missions, going to other sources will be the demise of CAP.  The undertone of those seeking other sources for funding sound like they just want to fly on someone else's dime. Have you noticed the other sources they are seeking are all flying related. None are Ground Team type missions. (Note: I am a pilot/obs/scanner and not GT). Sounds to me like those seeking  outside sources  for flying missions are of the flying club mentality. Is flying with someone else paying the bill so important to those who seek outside sources that they are willing to pull away from the AF??

What is the obsession with flying a mission for anyone who will pay the fare?? Are you folks who want so desperately to be coprorate willing to sell out just for the chance to fly?

Well let's face it...that is what CAP is about, flying.  I don't understand how you think looking for other ways to support our country and to indulge our love for flying is a sell out?  And I keep hearing about the "fly club" mentality...but what is really wrong with that?  If you like to fly and you want to help your community.....CAP is the place to be.  And again....how does looking for more customers spell the end of CAP?  No one is saying we should walk away from the USAF and stop supporting their missions, but we can certainly establish ties with local and state agencies to provide them with an air borne capability.  But because of Posse Commutates we are severely limited on what support we can give to local and state law enforcement.  If there is anything we can do (like taking USAF-AUX off our planes and uniforms) that facilitates more local missions to me seems like a good thing.  The name change does not affect our ability to fulfill our commitments to the USAF and our federal mandate.

Another thing to consider is that in 15-20 years we will not being doing nearly as many SAR missions as we do today, just as we do not do as many as we did 20 years ago.  Planes are getting safer, technology is making finding a downed aircraft easier and more local agencies are able to do the same thing in a limit basis.

We need to start cultivating state DR and Law enforcement missions.  We need to do this with the blessing of USAF but we still need to do this or CAP will really be defunct.

[DNall]

Then we are between a rock and a hard place.  If the USAF and Congress define who we are....and we cannot wait for them to find us more jobs to do...we have only one recourse and that is to in fact distance ourselves from the USAF and find new customers.

I specifically said the AF & Congress have ZERO responsibility to determine our future role. The only responsibility they have is to dissolve us when we are no longer useful in accomplishing THEIR responsibilities (not the states). If CAP wants to survive, WE have to evolve ourselves & go to the AF with new ways we can impact THEIR mission. Outsourcing to ouside customers may keep us as busy as we were before, but it doesn't replace the lost contributions to the AF mission, & that means the cost benefit analysis gets swung the whole other direction & CAP becomes a liability to be cut to help the AF.

If the USAF won't or can't help us find other customers then we look for sources of funding and support from other agencies.  If the size of the SAR mission is diminishing (which is a good thing) the Air Force will at some point drop that mission form it requirements list and us with it.  Just like any other mission that is no longer necessary they drop it.  They don't do looking for more things to do with old equipment.  That is not cost effective.  As the SAR requirement goes away so does our funding and support (as it should).  If we as an organization wishes to stay alive we have to find new customers who will pay for our services.  It is as simple as that.

Actually the problem is we are refusing to change. The need for the mission we've been doing is diminishing so the AF need for us in that role is diminishing. Instead of changing who we are & looking for completely different roles in the AF mission, we're trying to go to outsiders who will pay for us to keep doing what we have been all along. The problem is the AF will pay for most CN, SaR, or HLS missions requested by states. That process is not being followed because CAP is under the impression it's free of things like Posse Coomitatus when not flying for the AF & that's not the case, nor does the AF want to push that boundry into political territory & have anti-CAP folks use it as a wedge to divide us from our federal funding for good.

Here you are totally wrong.  There are several completely civilian SAR organizations out there, even some that do Aerial SAR.  If the USAF were to drop us tomorrow and our federal funding dried up...we will still exist.  We would not enjoy all the benefits we have today of being associated with the USAF but there is nothing stopping us for existing.

The ACA exists, wears military uniforms and has a robust cadet program and they are not officially affiliated with the military (IIRC).  There are any number of military academies that have cadet programs and are not officially sanction by congress or the military.

We can continue to be a SAR function with out congressional or military backing.  It will just mean we have to look for other source of funding and interface with our customers just like any other private ES operations.

It would then just be a matter of advertising your capabilities to your perspective customers and then writing the MOA's.

We are NOT dependent on Congress or the USAF for our existence.

We are very much dependent of Congress. There is NO funding source that can allow us to operate a $150+ million fleet, or even a 20million dollar fleet. There's no funding source for our HQ operations or any of our programs. There would be no further federal support in terms of surplus or facilities. The fact is CAP cannot exist w/o federal support. To think otherwise is nieve at best. I've worked for a fomer CAP cadet Congressman who faught to keep CAP funded & against people that wanted to cut it. I've seen the alternatives that are out there, and I promise you if the ties are cut between the AF & CAP by either side, that nothing purchased with federal funds will remain in the custody of CAP. You can fight that all you want, but Congress makes the rules & there's not one slim chance in hell they let you walk with 150-180mil worth of stuff tehy paid for so you could use it working for them. They'll sieze all that material & redistribute it to state govts - specifically hwy patrol aviation units is the proposal I heard. Also, don't discount for a moment that the only reason we get any missions in the first place is because of the credibility gained from being associated with the AF. If that tie is cut then we're a bunch of yahoos running around thinking someone should care what we can or can't do. They don't & we don't be called. All those private SaR orgs are privately financed by members & work directly for offcial agencies. That's not even close to possible on even a quarter of the scale CAP is now. And finally, don't think remotely half the members you actually see at meetings now will stay involved if this becomes a private club.

Oh and also, there would be no further need for our cadet program & just about every single cadet would quit anyway, cause they're here if the AF, even if you aren't.

[RiverAux]

AFPD 10-27 is as close as you get to that

You're missing the point.  All that does is lay out some things that CAP can do.  Did you notice that the CG Commandant was putting them in priority order?  Who has a clue what the AF really wants us to focus on?  Not me. 

All in all, it's no different that when the Secretary of the Air Force stated that CAP was a force multiplyer when reporting to Congress a few months ago.

Are you kidding?  Some generic language about being a foce multiplier is bull since we know that the AF doesn't really view or use CAP in that way.  Sure, we do a few tiny missions for them, but in terms of operational use they don't really consider us in their plans. 

For comparison, read again this part of the Commandant's statement:

Every commander, commanding officer, officer-in-charge, and program manager shall work closely with their Auxiliary counterparts to fully leverage the resources, skills, qualifications, and profound dedication that reside within the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

He is telling everyone to get on the stick and use the CG Aux.  I would eat my hat if anyone in the AF has ever said anything similar about CAP.  The AF has all the same authority and ability to use CAP as a real force multiplier as the CG has for the CG Aux, they just don't chose to use it.

In an era when the AF is being forced to kick out thousands of people it stuns me that they obviously have not given any thought to trying to use CAP to help fill in some of the gaps. 

[DNall]

River, That's all great, really it is. The CG took the initiative tehre & defined the Aux for their service. The AF COULD do that on CAP if they wanted to, BUT they are not required to do so, nor is that how things tend to work in Govt, especially the military.

If SAC for instance had seen the end coming but wanted to stay SAC after their original mission dwindled away, then they would have needed to work long & hard to show the AF how a transformed SAC could accomplish XYZ specific critical responsibilities of the AF in the future, that the cost benefit worked out for the best on it, and what the transformation process would look like. The AF had no responsibility to tell the SAC/CC how to change his command to keep it useful, only to use it for it's designated purpose till it wasn't worth the money, then canabilize it to build something that did function for the AF.

The CG has full authority over their Auxiliary & so was allowed to tell it & the rest of the CG what the future would be. The AF doesn't have that authority over CAP & isn't actually allowed to make such statements, not even as suggestions. Now, if they were really motivated & felt strongly about a list of things they wanted to do with CAP, I'm sure there would be a way to work the system & get that message across, but they don't have those answers for us (they're a little busy these days getting shot at), and they wouldn't be required to tell us even if they did have something to say. It's CAP that has to take the initiative, come up with creative ways to take more load off the AF, & bring those things to the AF. Once we start the ball rolling then yes I think they might be able to provide a bit more insight as to what we should be doing, but you have to get tehir attention first. What we're doing now is taking our ball (the one they bought for us) and trying to go play the same game on a dif team even though the season is over & it's time to start teh next sport with the same team we've been playing with forever.

[Major_Chuck]

I disagree with the comment that we shouldn't look outside of AF missions for funding.  With budget crunches forcing military cuts (stupid in a time of war);  personnel being forced from the services (stupid in a time of war); and decisions about whether to fund weapons systems or the volunteer auxiliary it is only logical to look to other customer bases for financial income.

Look beyond the hype and public affairs news releases and you'll see that AF really doesn't use us for much.  Outside of a few HLS missions that a very small percentage of our members actually get to participate in you'll see a membership wanting to do something.  Perhaps that is why our membership is dropping so fast...nothing to do.

But hey, we lose another 10,000 to 15,000 people in the next two years and that reduced AF appropriated budget may be just the ticket we need to operate.

[DNall]

We aren't supposed to look for something to do just for something to do, or to get the org paid. We exist to help the AF do thing better cheaper faster so they can turn that savings/enhancement into warfighting capability (critical in time of war).

We need to invest some serious time, effort, & money into finding how we can get rid of the obselete & add new ways of helping the AF, otherwise we're meaningless & need to quit wasting their budget (especially in time of war). We need to change who we are & what we do so that we really are a force multiplier & interoperable with the rest of the total AF.

I'm not saying there isn't a LITTLE space to fly missions for other customers, IF you keep it under a tight leash & watch the big honkin legal issues that threaten everything. However, right now it's being pushed as a way to get us paid & to keep us busy. That's short sighted & will eventually lead to loss of AF funding & ability to do anything positive for America. Big picture.

[Smokey]

DNall and I are on the same page.  As I pointed out, those that want so badly to seek outside funding and missions are in CAP for one reason...to fly on someone else's dime.  C'mon now be honest......look at what you are saying. If the AF won't give us more missions to FLY or if our flying missions may decrease due to the decline in SAR, then we want someone else to pay for my flying.

Some have said that any type of flying is good for currency and training. Yeah right...again an excuse to say, I want to fly and have someone else pay for it. You claim it's for service to the state, county or city, but what you are really saying is "I joined the CAP flying club and if the AF won't pay my flight time, I'll find someone who will."

We were made the auxiliary to serve the Air Force, not to provide a cheap way for you to enjoy flying.  I hear alot of moaning that the flying missions are dropping off. Sounds selfish to me. If CAP is to continue to exist we need to find ways to make ourselves useful to the Air Force.....and some of those ways might not be flying.  How many of you are willing to stay around if the AF finds other ways of using CAP that don't include free flying??

Seeking funding from other sources would vary from state to state (wing to wing) . The result would be a viable organization in one state and nothing in another. We are a national organization, not a state organization. Without the AF CAP will not exist.

[RiverAux]

I really don't understand what you guys are worried about.  CAP Wings have been getting separate funding from states for years and years.  Don't forget, part of one of the stated purposes of CAP is to assist in local emergencies and more generally to, "Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare."  To me, that says CAP has a fairly broad spectrum of ways in which to help.  Assisting the AF is only one of our six purposes. 

[Smokey]

We are only able to assist in local emergencies by being the AF Aux.  Do you think that if we were 52 separate CAP organizations funded at the state level that we could respond to other states in many cases?  Would New York or California Wings be able to respond to the Gulf for a hurricane like Katrina?

What if the AF decided to end funding for flying in CAP and took back the planes? What if the AF said, we'll give you 500 or more vehicles to do SAR from the ground? How many folks would stay around?  What if the AF said CAP would be tasked with relieving airman at various bases to free airmen up for combat duties? How many would be willing to serve in ways that don't involve flying? I'd bet my next CAP paycheck (note: for those from Rio Linda that's sarcasm)  if the free flying went away so would a large number of members. All the talk about serving the country would would be proven to be a lie. Just lip service.

Some Wings get no or very little funding from the state. What happens to them if the AF funding goes away?? They then cease to exist. What if the state that is willing to fund CAP but not for flying, but for assisting state Ofc of Emerg Services or the local fire dept without flying?? My guess is a mass exodous. So much for the "service" attitude.  What it boils down to is FLYING for free.

I don't hear anyone here seeking funding for anything but FLYING missions. So much for your comment that assisting the AF is  1/6 of our purpose. I haven't seen one post seeking state funding for a cadet program, or ground team equipment, or money for office equipment. The only talk is seeking outside funding to FLY. Sounds a bit selfish to me. (And I am in a flying squadron- I'm pilot/obs/scanner rated)  But I also perform other duties. I'd love to fly more, but I'm willing to serve in other ways. I've assisted with a cadet squadron for a number of years for example.

Some folks here refuse to admit the reality is they care only about free flying. It has nothing to do with service. They have never heard of the Air Force Core Value of "Service before Self". Maybe that is why they seek to separate from the Air Force and seek outside funding. That "Service before Self" thing makes them uncomfortable.

[DNall]

I really don't understand what you guys are worried about.  CAP Wings have been getting separate funding from states for years and years.  Don't forget, part of one of the stated purposes of CAP is to assist in local emergencies and more generally to, "Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare."  To me, that says CAP has a fairly broad spectrum of ways in which to help.  Assisting the AF is only one of our six purposes. 

True wings have been getting a little extra assistance from states for many years. If I'm not mistaken, that total number plus all dues money equals less than a third of what the AF invests consistently, year in & year out, during good times & bad, for as long as there has been an AF.

CAP is supposed to be a widely distributed federal resource that can step in to help local authorities when something gets beyond tehir capabilities. For instance, you need to find lost kid but you got no aviation assets in 3 counties w/ trained crews, call the AF they'll send CAP on the Govt's dime. CAP will then look friendly on the news & encourage by example other citizens to do their civic duty to their fellow man, in the broad sense or the phrase, and in some cases the specific of signing up w/ CAP.

CAP is not supposed to be a hired gun. There are companies out there that do that type of commercial flying, there's also already established & funded flying orginazations doing some of the misisons infered there with specialists in those fields. We need to tread very lightly down those paths, and again I don't so much have a problem with SOME of that within strict limits with a wHOLE lot of consideration of the big picture.

None of that is at issue. The problem is we're losing market share w/ teh AF, which means we're quickly losing the reasons why they spend so much to keep us going, and also the link to them that gives us any credibility at all. We're trying to replace the lost mission volume to keep our members happy by serving outside customers, but that doesn't do anything to change the numbers the AF is looking at when they ask what cAP is worth to them & why the govt should allow it to continue to exist when it's more pain in the butt than it's worth.

[Hotel 179]

We are only able to assist in local emergencies by being the AF Aux.  Do you think that if we were 52 separate CAP organizations funded at the state level that we could respond to other states in many cases?  Would New York or California Wings be able to respond to the Gulf for a hurricane like Katrina?


Some folks here refuse to admit the reality is they care only about free flying. It has nothing to do with service.

I'm calling, "Bull [mess]".

Many pilots flew to the area affected by Katrina and did it on their own dime.  If CAP took back the planes then I would do what I have done for years and fly other planes.  God knows that there would be fewer reports to do and I wouldn't be up flying at 3:00 AM just for the fun of it.

I have made posts regarding our squadron's success at finding local funding.  Last week I bought 2 lap-top computers, 2 gps units with mapping software, 3 radios, projector and screen for training and making presentations.  These toys were purchased with funds provided by our County Commissioners using their discretionary monies. 

These planes have to fly a couple hundred hours per year.  If there is a way to make a mission out of flying and have someone else pay for it that's fine with me.  Taking off and flying down the beach on a sundown patrol may not be everyone's idea of fun, but people save their money for a year to spend a week down here and we get to fly for free AND provide a service to the community and guests. 

It's called the Civil Air Patrol because of the AIRPLANES.  It's called the Air Force because of the AIRPLANES.  We often coordinate with SAR outfits that have no AIRPLANE because of the value of looking for something from the AIR.  We get involved in local emergency operations because of meetings with the Emergency Operations Director and Staff, not because we are AF Aux....

It's all about the marketing...it really is that simple.  None of the customers care about our internal arguments regarding rank or color of ribbons or whether someone wants to fly for free.  They say, "We need photos of this or that.....please take this person to look at this area or that....fly around this area and tell me if anything is on fire....fly along this water route and tell me if anyone is stranded....fly in this sector and attempt to locate this missing aircraft....there's an emergency signal coming from this area, please find and silence it."  Anything else is self-imposed. 

The only real limitations are those you place in your own mind. 

Semper vi, y'all.

Stephen

[lordmonar]

We are only able to assist in local emergencies by being the AF Aux.  Do you think that if we were 52 separate CAP organizations funded at the state level that we could respond to other states in many cases?  Would New York or California Wings be able to respond to the Gulf for a hurricane like Katrina?

Why not?  That is how the Red Cross is organized and funded.  Each chapter is a distinct entity withing the larger corporation.  Each cheaper is responsible for funding most of its activities.  They work mainly at the local level but are controlled at the national level for large scale responses.

What if the AF decided to end funding for flying in CAP and took back the planes? What if the AF said, we'll give you 500 or more vehicles to do SAR from the ground? How many folks would stay around?  What if the AF said CAP would be tasked with relieving airman at various bases to free airmen up for combat duties? How many would be willing to serve in ways that don't involve flying? I'd bet my next CAP paycheck (note: for those from Rio Linda that's sarcasm)  if the free flying went away so would a large number of members. All the talk about serving the country would would be proven to be a lie. Just lip service.

And that has always been my point.....CAP is a flying club that want to help our nation.  I don't have a problem with that idea.  People join CAP because they get to fly.  They get to fly free or cheap, they get to meet and interact with other people who like to fly and serve their country.

Even if the USAF cut off our funding and took away our corporate airplanes....there will still be a large body of people out there willing to fly their own airplanes and PAY for the privilege to serve their country.  I know in the last four months half of our SAREX's have been self funded.  That means we paid for our gas and oil.  We would have a lot more airplanes at the SAREX if we were allowed to fly member owned aircraft.

So...my take on it...if all the funding went away and the planes too, we will still be flying SAR missions because that is the type of people who join CAP.  We don't care if it is the USAF we are helping or the local sheriff.

I don't hear anyone here seeking funding for anything but FLYING missions. So much for your comment that assisting the AF is  1/6 of our purpose. I haven't seen one post seeking state funding for a cadet program, or ground team equipment, or money for office equipment. The only talk is seeking outside funding to FLY. Sounds a bit selfish to me. (And I am in a flying squadron- I'm pilot/obs/scanner rated)  But I also perform other duties. I'd love to fly more, but I'm willing to serve in other ways. I've assisted with a cadet squadron for a number of years for example.

Well taken as a whole....the flying mission is the most expensive.  AND we are looking at providing a service to our customer.  Does the state have a need or a want for a cadet program?  Maybe...but they may already be funding a similar program such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boy/Girls Club and many other similar organizations.  Ergo....you can't sell something to someone who is not buying.  Ground teams....maybe....but what sort of ground teams?  SAR?  Most states do not have a SAR requirement because that is currently being paid for by the USAF.  If the USAF stop doing inland SAR and pushed it onto the states....maybe then you would see the states interested in paying for SAR ground teams.

So what is left.  Flying.  We have a small fleet of cheap planes.  Does the state have a need for this?  Could be...not SAR...but DR, and missing persons, game and fish management, pollution control, law enforcement and a host of other tasks that CAP does not or cannot currently do.

Some folks here refuse to admit the reality is they care only about free flying. It has nothing to do with service. They have never heard of the Air Force Core Value of "Service before Self". Maybe that is why they seek to separate from the Air Force and seek outside funding. That "Service before Self" thing makes them uncomfortable.

I'll admit it.  I like flying.  I like GT and Cadet Programs too....but if CAP did not have the flying aspect to it...I would be more interested in the Boy Scouts (where I do volunteer as well) or the ACA or the CG Aux.

[RiverAux]

Do you think that if we were 52 separate CAP organizations funded at the state level that we could respond to other states in many cases?

I get your overall point, but technically we can undertake these missions as corporate missions and in some cases the AF wouldn't allow them to be conducted as AFAMs.  

The problem is we're losing market share w/ teh AF

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  I believe there has been a very small, and nowhere near as much as hyped, increase in missions from the Air Force relating to homeland security.  The AF isn't switching from us to other resources that I'm aware of.    

I don't hear anyone here seeking funding for anything but FLYING missions. So much for your comment that assisting the AF is  1/6 of our purpose. I haven't seen one post seeking state funding for a cadet program, or ground team equipment, or money for office equipment.

I know in our Wing we have gotten significant support for general operations, cadet programs, ground ES, as well as air ES items from both local and state organizations and private business.  

If I'm not mistaken, that total number plus all dues money equals less than a third of what the AF invests consistently, year in & year out, during good times & bad, for as long as there has been an AF.

That only counts state support that goes to the Wing.  Don't forget that the vast majority of our squadrons are probably getting non-monetary support from local government in the form of free housing for the squadron and other such items.  Also, as mentioned above, local monetary support would not be included in the annual reports (by the way, the total support from state's was about 10% of that from the AF).

All I'm saying is that CAP has always depended a great deal on local and state support.  I don't see that this has actually changed and I don't see any problems with it at all.  

Some folks here refuse to admit the reality is they care only about free flying. It has nothing to do with service. They have never heard of the Air Force Core Value of "Service before Self". Maybe that is why they seek to separate from the Air Force and seek outside funding.

I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone on this board say this.  We get lots of people complaining based on little evidence that OTHERS are trying to separate CAP from the AF, but that certainly does not appear to be a common opinion here.  

By the way, seeking additional funding or missions from other sources doesn't separate us from the AF at all.  In fact, I bet they would encourage it as it puts less preassure on them to fund and equip us and allows us to make fuller use of the equipment and money they've already spent on us.  

[davedove]

I really don't see a problem with getting funding from other sources to do their missions, as long as we always give the AF missions priority.  The same thing is happening WITHIN the federal government right now.  I work for a contracting agency in the Army.  Our primary mission is to support one command, and we receive funding for that.  However, we also accept work from other agencies and charge a fee for that.  It works fine as long as we continue to service the command.

The same thing should work for CAP.

[Smokey]

The idea is corporate vs. aux.  I am all for states supplementing AF funding. But when outside funding is more important that your moral compass, I have a problem.

One person so far has been honest enough to admit he is here for himself. He said in a post "And that has always been my point.....CAP is a flying club that want to help our nation.  I don't have a problem with that idea.  People join CAP because they get to fly.  They get to fly free or cheap, they get to meet and interact with other people who like to fly and serve their country."   Notice the bit about serving is last, almost an afterthought.

Many who post here who want CAP to be a corporation who only works for the AF part time are those who believe in "Self before service". It doesn't matter to them who pays or what the mission as long as they can fly. If CAP operates as a corporation willing to fly for anyone who will pay the bill, they are no different than banner towers, cancelled check haulers, etc. just cheaper.

The origins of CAP revolved around folks sacrificing to serve our counttry in the war effort. Read about how many gave up jobs and family to help out in "The Flying Minutemen" history of CAP.  They didn't come to CAP to fly for free but to serve. It was not self serving. That's where my roots are. Not with " I fly for free or I'm outta here."

I know there are some coporate side folks out there who will fly for the local dog rescue , looking for a lost poodle and call it "training." After all. it's free flying.  I however refuse to prostitute myself.  I'll save myself for the Air Force and missions I will be proud to tell my kids about.

[lordmonar]

One person so far has been honest enough to admit he is here for himself. He said in a post "And that has always been my point.....CAP is a flying club that want to help our nation.  I don't have a problem with that idea.  People join CAP because they get to fly.  They get to fly free or cheap, they get to meet and interact with other people who like to fly and serve their country."   Notice the bit about serving is last, almost an afterthought.

I would not necessarily say that I am her for myself.  I am here to help my country and my state and my city AND to do indulge my love of flying.  That is what CAP is.  We are first and formost volunteers who want to help AND they have a love of flying and the Air Force culture.  If I wanted to help and had a more medical bent, I would join the Red Cross.  If I wanted to help but had a more pyromania bent, I would join my local volunteer fire department.  If wanted to help but had a more criminal justice bent I would join my local police axillary.

If I just wanted to fly...I would just rent a plane and fly, it would be a lot cheaper to mean in terms of time spent.

Many who post here who want CAP to be a corporation who only works for the AF part time are those who believe in "Self before service". It doesn't matter to them who pays or what the mission as long as they can fly. If CAP operates as a corporation willing to fly for anyone who will pay the bill, they are no different than banner towers, cancelled check haulers, etc. just cheaper.

Again I think you are mis-representing the aims of most of the members of CAP AND you are not really state the true status of our organization.  We are current only part time USAF-AUX right now.  I am only looking for ways to keep CAP viable if/when the USAF starts to drop our funding and mission support.  And in no way do I think we should become a business enterprise, but with our focus mainly on the USAF assigned mission, we are loosing a lot of opprotunities to help our country.  The search for the Kim family is a prime example.  The local sheriff may not have even known that he had a small air force just chomping at the bit to help.  There are lots of law enforcement missions that would be perfect for us if we did not have posse commutates holding us back.

The origins of CAP revolved around folks sacrificing to serve our counttry in the war effort. Read about how many gave up jobs and family to help out in "The Flying Minutemen" history of CAP.  They didn't come to CAP to fly for free but to serve. It was not self serving. That's where my roots are. Not with " I fly for free or I'm outta here."

Again you are res-representing what I, and others have said.  I would still join CAP even if I had to pay for ever flight and every ground mission that came my way.  No one (at least not me) has ever said....I fly for free or not at all!  In fact if you look back you will see a post where I already stated that in the last four months we have had two self funded SAREXs and there was not a peep from the squadron and we had the same exact turn out as when we had CAP funded SAREXs.

I know there are some coporate side folks out there who will fly for the local dog rescue , looking for a lost poodle and call it "training." After all. it's free flying.  I however refuse to prostitute myself.  I'll save myself for the Air Force and missions I will be proud to tell my kids about.

And what is wrong with that?  You say that we are self before service...but you would refuse to help your community when called upon because it was beneath your dignity?!  No sir!  It is you and your pride that marks you as a self before service individual.  If the local animal shelter wanted our assistance to conduct an area search for a lost pet....like that would ever happen...and they wanted to fund it....again like they have that kind of cash laying around...why not fly it?  Looking for a single animal in the woods is execellant training for SAR and HLS missions.  But you would ignore the free training because it was below your dignity.  I think you need to go back and check your assumptions about what is really service before self.  Service before self is doing the jobs that help your community with out taking in to account things like home life and personal dignity.

[Smokey]

This has nothing to do with being below me.....my post was meant to show those who would use searching for a lost pet with an aircraft( as ridiculous as that would be) and claim it is for training are again not honest with themselves.  You obviously missed illustrating the absurd by being absurd. Please....if you feel it is so necessary for you to fly for free that you would search for a lost dog in the woods...well there is nothing I can say.  You obviously feel the risk of flying over the woods for a lost dog is important.  If it wasn't for free would you rent a plane for $100/hr and fly the mission. I'll bet my CAP paycheck you would not.

We will always disagree on this...you want to fly for free no matter the mission. I have other standards. If I want to fly for proficiency or for the joy of flight...I rent a plane. I stand willing to fly AF missions, searches for lost  PEOPLE, disaster recon, disaster relief, WADS missions and the like.    But I refuse to take anyones money to fly silly missions ( looking for  Millie the poodle, flying a survey mission for the local real estate agent looking for land to sell(but  who is on the local govt. redevelopment committee using govt funds, etc. ) in a CAP aircraft just so I can log hours.

If someone wanted to pay me outside of CAP for surveying real estate, or checking on their flock of sheep, etc. that would be fine. 

You and I have different standards.  My grandkids will hear how I searched for a missing aircraft, located a stranded hiker in the mountains, flew a WADS mission to train AF pilots in intercepts.  Yours will hear how you found fluffy in the woods.

I wish you luck in your CAP endeavors.

[lordmonar]

This has nothing to do with being below me.....my post was meant to show those who would use searching for a lost pet with an aircraft( as ridiculous as that would be) and claim it is for training are again not honest with themselves.  You obviously missed illustrating the absurd by being absurd. Please....if you feel it is so necessary for you to fly for free that you would search for a lost dog in the woods...well there is nothing I can say.  You obviously feel the risk of flying over the woods for a lost dog is important.  If it wasn't for free would you rent a plane for $100/hr and fly the mission. I'll bet my CAP paycheck you would not.

Well we have never been asked to look for lost dogs (that was your suggestion not mine) but CAP has flow animal tracking missions for a university recently (can't remember what wing but it was in the news...and someone on this board complained about it!).

And again...I would not fly the mission because it was free flying...I would fly the mission because it would be helping my community.   As for paying to fly...I have done so.  I have payed for the privilege to get my CAP training on more than one occasion and I will do so again.  If we ever get the call to go out and help someone for real and we got to pay for it ourselves...I will be one of the first to pony up the money.  Would I do the same for a lost dog or a animal tracking mission?  Maybe...depends on the situation.  That has nothing to do with my want to serve my community.

We will always disagree on this...you want to fly for free no matter the mission. I have other standards. If I want to fly for proficiency or for the joy of flight...I rent a plane. I stand willing to fly AF missions, searches for lost  PEOPLE, disaster recon, disaster relief, WADS missions and the like.    But I refuse to take anyones money to fly silly missions ( looking for  Millie the poodle, flying a survey mission for the local real estate agent looking for land to sell(but  who is on the local govt. redevelopment committee using govt funds, etc. ) in a CAP aircraft just so I can log hours.

So again...you do not want to support your community if the missions below your level of dignity.  That is like a leader saying....I will clean the office but I don't do windows...because that is silly.  And again...I am NOT saying we should be doing business missions.  We should not be for "hire" but we should be available to any public service organization that has a need for aerial support.  The local real estate agent would have to go to a commercial service for his survey flight....but the local county surveyor should be able to call on us for support to do the same job.

If the local realestate agent cons the county in doing the job for him....that is not my look out and assuming such a thing were legal...who cares?  Yes it is not a "real" mission.  But you can't say the techniques and skills developed flying such over flights do not prepare you to fly the same profile during a DR damage assessment survey.  Just as looking for the lost dog is a fine training for looking for a lost child.  If you can find Fido in the woods a child should be child's play.  Yes Fido is not anywhere near as important as little Johnny....but finding Fido make you better at finding Johnny.

You and I have different standards.  My grandkids will hear how I searched for a missing aircraft, located a stranded hiker in the mountains, flew a WADS mission to train AF pilots in intercepts.  Yours will hear how you found fluffy in the woods.

Yes...and I would be proud to say that I helped my community. 

And I am proud of any contributions I make to my nation and community.  I fought the first Gulf War...manning a telephone in Japan.  Was that duty beneath me?  I mean I trained to be a tactical communcations technician.  I don't tell my boss that sorry I don't want to be a job controller because I want to tell my kids I fought in the big war.  No.  I understand how my little job impacted the bigger picture and I am proud of that.  I understand how each little and silly mission makes CAP better and helps our community.  And from our communites point of view...finding fluffy is vastly more important to someone out there than being a target for F-16s (talk about making a silly mission into something bigger than it is!)

Where we differ....is that you thing only the national missions rate your consideration.  I however, know that our community is the house next door and the city over the hill just as much as it is part of our nation.  I want to help everyone...not just the federal government.

[Smokey]

Capt Harris......You win....I surrender....I was wrong......


I will fly missions for anyone, absolutely anyone who will pay the bill.  Fly to find fluffy,   got it. Fly to check on the sheep,  got it.  Fly to check for a good Wal Mart location, got it.   I'm on it....you have shown me the error of my ways.  Oh....that WADS mission to help train Viper pilots to intercept a possible terrorist....I'll have to pass on that...not enough community interest in stopping a terrorist act....and that would benefit the AF, besides I'm too busy looking for fluffy.




I guess flying 200 hours a year on someone else's dime is the way to go. Just call me Trixie, your local whore.

Now...I've got to go.....Santa needs me to scope out a route to all the good CAP member's houses. He said he'd pay well.

[Psicorp]

Do you ever wonder how much out of pocket expenses the original CAP pilots paid in order to fly missions before we became Federally funded and called CAP?    Adjusting for inflation, I'd wager it was quite a bit.   

Ever wonder how much flight time you could pay for if you weren't buying every new uniform and accessory every time the regs changed? 

When I was in a volunteer fire department, every year we'd dress up in santa suits and ride around the community on the fire trucks blasting christmas music and tossing candy to the kids.  Why did we do it?  Public Relations and a chance for the public to see us when we're not racing through town on the way to a fire.   

Maybe looking for a lost dog is "beneath us", but that is the kind of public service that gets notice.   And absolutely, if you can find a lost golden retriever, you can find a lost 5 year old child.    Go ahead and wait for an anti-terrorist mission or a mission that isn't "beneath" you...you'll be waiting a while and you'll be out of practice, if anyone remembers that you're even there by then.

Spot on, Captain Harris.  If you need a Scanner or Radio Operator on a Fluffy/Fido mission, give me a call. 

[RiverAux]

Do you ever wonder how much out of pocket expenses the original CAP pilots paid in order to fly missions before we became Federally funded and called CAP?

Probably not much.  CAP was a federal organization from the start.  They shut down pretty much all private flying other than CAP soon after the Japanese attack so there really wasn't any room for any non-CAP volunteer pilots to do much.  It didn't loosen up again for quite a while.  I know a few states had started to form their own versions of CAP in late 1941  prior to Pearl Harbor but those fairly quickly shut down and/or were absorbed when CAP was created.   

However, I get your larger point but couldn't help but take you literally. 

[lordmonar]

Capt Harris......You win....I surrender....I was wrong......

I will fly missions for anyone, absolutely anyone who will pay the bill.  Fly to find fluffy,   got it. Fly to check on the sheep,  got it.  Fly to check for a good Wal Mart location, got it.   I'm on it....you have shown me the error of my ways.  Oh....that WADS mission to help train Viper pilots to intercept a possible terrorist....I'll have to pass on that...not enough community interest in stopping a terrorist act....and that would benefit the AF, besides I'm too busy looking for fluffy.

I guess flying 200 hours a year on someone else's dime is the way to go. Just call me Trixie, your local whore.

Now...I've got to go.....Santa needs me to scope out a route to all the good CAP member's houses. He said he'd pay well.

Now again you are deliberately mis representing what I have said.  I have never said that we should be doing other missions at the expense of our USAF missions.  No way...no how!

And again...I have never said we should be doing any sort of commercial work (this is in relation to the Wal Mart comment).  I have only said that there are other legitimate customers out there that have money to spend of a flying mission and we would be stupid not to go for it.  And that by advocating that I am not in it just so I can fly for free.  I am in it because I think we should be helping our community at all levels...even if we have to pay for it out of our own pocket.

The WADS mission is an important one...but you can't say that it was a very difficult one...nor can you say that it helped you prepare for the next time a plane crashes or someone is missing.

This entire portion of this thread got off track because you think that anyone looking for more customers is somehow not nearly as committed to our core values as you.  I am only trying to show you that you are wrong.

[lordmonar]

Do you ever wonder how much out of pocket expenses the original CAP pilots paid in order to fly missions before we became Federally funded and called CAP?

Probably not much.  CAP was a federal organization from the start.  They shut down pretty much all private flying other than CAP soon after the Japanese attack so there really wasn't any room for any non-CAP volunteer pilots to do much.  It didn't loosen up again for quite a while.  I know a few states had started to form their own versions of CAP in late 1941  prior to Pearl Harbor but those fairly quickly shut down and/or were absorbed when CAP was created.   

However, I get your larger point but couldn't help but take you literally. 

What about the proto CAP organizations that existed before CAP was formed?  All our history pamphlets seem to say....and on 2 December 1941 CAP was born through the efforts of....there had to be a lot of "flying clubs" around either doing some of this type of work at a local level or practicing for it before they formed CAP. 

[BillB]

CAP was paid during WW II. Members recieved a per diem allowance, but checks were usually late according to "From Maine to Mexico". Members paid for the uniforms and expenses above the per diem allowance, and fuel was furnished. Most all of the operating expenses came from members pockets when USAAC materials, supplies and facilities were not available. If memory serves members got a per diem allowance of $8.50 a day. But it wasn't clear if that was for flight crews or all members taking part in CAP missions.

[Smokey]

Cap Harris,

You win....what else do you want....my first born?

Please go find all the "customers" you want, whoever they are.

you never understood any of my points as they just seemed to go over your head, but I guess that proves your position is better than my .  I surrender.

I will continue to pay for my fun flights and flight proficiency by flying at the aero club. I'm not rich, but my conscience will be intact.

[DNall]

Gees, can I suggest toning it down a bit?

As you know, I don't endorse a lot of non-AF cleared flying, but it has little to do with what those missions are. Some are very noble jobs that need to be done & CAP may well be the best asset to do them, and then some do make the word whore flash thru my mind before I come up with a more tactful way to say it.

My bigger issue is we're doing less of the AF mission, and therefore deserve less of their funding. Meanwhile the AF has done everything in their power to reel CAP in from this slip inot commercial flying. They've dramatically increased the flight training budget over the last few years to make up for the loss of SaR flying. Meanwhile they've put out calls for papers at levels that seem like they are desperately looking for more ways to utilize CAP within the AF familiy, regardless if that includes flying or not.

My problem is one of identity. If people want to go fly any old mission just cause it's a "MISSION" that may help someone somewhere, well that IS a problem. We don't exist to just do any old mission. We exist to help the AF accomplish their congressionally assigned missions, and through that process we help community, state, & nation.

If you'll look around a little harder, there are tens of thousands of flying hours that can be flown under the AF if the requesting agency will follow the right proceedure (AF pays CAP, customer pays AF). Most of the missions I'm tolerant of us flying fall into that category. The ones that make me think about words like hypocracy don't work that way & are very harmful to CAP strategically (even if it gets you a few proficeincy hours locally). There's a very small area of things in the middle that might be okay, but right now we've slipped a long way down this slope & seem to be aiming ever lower, so if it were my call, I'd put on the freeze till things can be re-centered.

I understand we don't all agree on these points, and I have no problem discussing that, but please be respectful.

[RiverAux]

What about the proto CAP organizations that existed before CAP was formed? 

The ones I know about were sponsored by their states, sometimes in conjunction with their State Defense Force organization.  I imagine that it was these organizations that generated the idea to form a national one that became CAP.  There were plenty of flying clubs around, but they weren't doing any public service work that I'm aware of. 

[DNall]

We having that what would happen if CAP went away conversation again? SDFs & state Hwy Patrol Aviation units would fill teh void at State expense w/ federal assistance (grant money & the planes they take away from us). That narrow aspect of it would make it much cheaper on the AF. CP & AE can be delegated & reapportioned among other existing orgs too. What keeps CAP alive (besides tradition) is the synergy (you know as a team it is greater than the sum of its parts)that comes from having each of those things together under one roof. It's a narrow margin though, we have to work hard to stay relevant in the AF household, and the direction we're going isn't doing that, it's just placating & distracting our members in the short-term.

[RiverAux]

We having that what would happen if CAP went away conversation again?

No   we were talking about whether pre-CAP state versions of CAP required members to pay out of their own pocket.  Discussing history, not possible futures.

[ZigZag911]

What keeps CAP alive (besides tradition) is the synergy (you know as a team it is greater than the sum of its parts)that comes from having each of those things together under one roof. It's a narrow margin though, we have to work hard to stay relevant in the AF household, and the direction we're going isn't doing that, it's just placating & distracting our members in the short-term.

I agree completely....what do you see as steps toward getting back on track?