Corporate or Auxiliary

[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.