PA Rep to introduce legislation on CAP border & homeland security missions

[JohnKachenmeister]

I wouldn't sell CAP short. Yes you're talking about part time volunteers, but with enough of them in rotation it can be awfully close to full-time capable, especially if you add job protection and maybe some reasonable per-diem, if you train them to the same professional stadands as paid full-time folks (NIMS, OTS, etc), and you spend an extra 5 mil a year on hi-tech gear (FLIR, CBRNE detection, etc) for the next 10 years.... well then you're talking abotu some pretty front line roles you can roll out on these folks. you're not talking about full-time missions, but rather a low level buzz that can surge big in an emergency. It is indeed standing the line so as to free up paid folks for other things, but that isn't to say the lines we can stand aren't vitally important.

How can I put this?

"They" are armed, we are not....many of us probably should not be under any circumstances!  And a lot of those that are capable of defending themselves with weapons probably have full time jobs in LE or military.

If we go down this road (and perhaps we should, but I need persuading), then we need also to consider splitting into two organizations, clearly separating the cadet program from whoever is going to be doing this work....because I think once the other side figures out what's going on, they will see us for what we are as a whole, a big, soft target that looks like a military one, with virtually none of the attendant risk of attacking the actual military.

Zig:

Cadets already ARE a target.  Whether we arm CAP planes or not.  The look military, they are training for military missions, and it would be a big, terrorizing newsmaker to kill off a cadet squadron.  Little-bitty bodies clad in bloody BDU would be on the TV for weeks.  It might even knock off the coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's rotting corpse.

If we have people in CAP wearing officer rank that are so unstable, stupid or whatever that they should "Not be armed under any circumstances," I suggest that they should not be in our uniform under any circumstances.  We have met the enemy, and he is us. 

Back in the 1960's, there were officers who carried pistols on ground team missions.  If I recall correctly, Florida used to require that at least one GT officer be armed.  The danger presented by the Eastern Diamondback was thought to be greater than the danger presented by Smith and Wesson.

Personally, I think that it is prudent to have trained persons carry arms to protect Ground Teams.  We easily could blunder into marijuana-growing areas or meth labs.  Looking for an ELT could put us in uncomfortable proximity to drug smugglers who use ELT's to locate dope dropped from smuggling aircraft.  Also, here in Florida, there are things out in the swamp that consider our smaller cadets to be a good source of protein and dietary fiber.

[KFreeman]

Noted: There is no Specialty or job description for HS Officers. There are wings and regions without appointed HS Officers. Perhaps we should look inward before someone actually gets some legislation proposed/passed. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Force Protection is the "Elephant in the Room."  Nobody wants to talk about it.  There are few standards, and when there are, the solution is "If you don't feel good about a situation, call the cops."

Forget about shooting down CAP planes for a moment.  How about simply adding an adulterant into the fuel while its tied down on a ramp?  Sure, security is the airport's problem.  But the plane is a part of our force, as is the aircrew.  We should have some security standards for where we park airplanes at night.

To do that, and to write security/force protection standards for any other CAP activity, you will need force protection professionals.  THAT should be our next specialty area, not "Drug Demand Reduction" (Which, simply put, is to keep the cadets too busy to join a drug gang).

[DNall]

Good links there. They got a lot of money after 9/11 to expand air interdiction resources, and now that's drawing back down a bit, so they're in a squeeze & don't want competition, hence would just assume CAP be dissolved, or at very least restricted from all the LE related stuff they do.

My view is simple... some people are willing to step between rival agencies, or flee from under AF to get into LE related missions cause they don't have enough to do now. My view is fix the things about us that keep us from doing those things & we'll have mnore work under AF than we can deal with.

[RiverAux]

Well, I wish Rep. Dent would hurry up and get this stupid bill in the hopper.  Its still not showing up on THOMAS (the Congressional internet site where legislation is posted and tracked).  It would be nice to know what we are talking about -- not that this has stopped many of us in the past. 

[ZigZag911]

Zig:

Cadets already ARE a target.  Whether we arm CAP planes or not.  The look military, they are training for military missions, and it would be a big, terrorizing newsmaker to kill off a cadet squadron.  Little-bitty bodies clad in bloody BDU would be on the TV for weeks.  It might even knock off the coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's rotting corpse.

If we have people in CAP wearing officer rank that are so unstable, stupid or whatever that they should "Not be armed under any circumstances," I suggest that they should not be in our uniform under any circumstances.  We have met the enemy, and he is us. 

Back in the 1960's, there were officers who carried pistols on ground team missions.  If I recall correctly, Florida used to require that at least one GT officer be armed.  The danger presented by the Eastern Diamondback was thought to be greater than the danger presented by Smith and Wesson.

Personally, I think that it is prudent to have trained persons carry arms to protect Ground Teams.  We easily could blunder into marijuana-growing areas or meth labs.  Looking for an ELT could put us in uncomfortable proximity to drug smugglers who use ELT's to locate dope dropped from smuggling aircraft.  Also, here in Florida, there are things out in the swamp that consider our smaller cadets to be a good source of protein and dietary fiber.

How well I understand about cadet vulnerability -- both the human tragedy that would be and the public relations nightmare in the aftermath.

I understand it so well that I ordered my Group not to wear uniforms other than on actual missions for about six weeks after 9/11 (remember, we are in NER, not all that far from WTC)....there was a lot of complaining from the squadrons, but the wing CC agreed with me and backed me up.

As for people who ought not be carrying guns -- some are because of emotional stability; others (and I include myself in this category) have marginal eyesight and lousy aim!

In any event, if we start expecting people to meet some kind of objective criteria, what next?  Regulations that are followed up and down the chain???

Bottom line, I want to play on the team...if that means we start carrying phasers set to stun, so be it.....I just wish I had a little more faith left in the policy makers across the board (government, DOD, CAP, DHS).....but none of the brass have been that impressive the past few years.

[RiverAux]

Okay, here is something I missed in the Congressman's press release on the announcement:

Congressman Dent said CAP has authorized a "Concept of Operations," which provides the mechanism for CAP assets to be used for missions not specifically directed by the Secretary of Defense. Congressman Dent's bill would formalize that arrangement between the Air Force and the Department of Homeland Security.

So, apparently CAP has a plan floating around out there which I presume is to do such homeland security missions as corporate missions.  However, as many of us know, when we're assisting federal agencies, we're supposed to do it as the AF Aux, which brings all the PCA stuff into play.  Based on this paragraph, I now suspect that this bill will modify the law to allow CAP to work for other federal agencies in its corporate status, which would allow us to work in more of a law enforcement enviornment. 

[ZigZag911]

Okay, here is something I missed in the Congressman's press release on the announcement:

Congressman Dent said CAP has authorized a "Concept of Operations," which provides the mechanism for CAP assets to be used for missions not specifically directed by the Secretary of Defense. Congressman Dent's bill would formalize that arrangement between the Air Force and the Department of Homeland Security.

So, apparently CAP has a plan floating around out there which I presume is to do such homeland security missions as corporate missions.  However, as many of us know, when we're assisting federal agencies, we're supposed to do it as the AF Aux, which brings all the PCA stuff into play.  Based on this paragraph, I now suspect that this bill will modify the law to allow CAP to work for other federal agencies in its corporate status, which would allow us to work in more of a law enforcement enviornment. 

Col. Rick Greenhut, former NER CC and presently HLS point person for NHQ, has been briefing Congress, government agencies, CAP conferences and others on a "CONOPS" developed under his direction since 02-03 time frame.

You may very well be correct on the shift of missions for federal agencies to 'corporate' status....but doesn't that seriously affect benefits to members hurt in the line of duty?

[RiverAux]

It sure does....and I'm not sure whether I would participate in a law enforcement oriented corporate mission in which I had to depend on CAP's corporate insurance if something bad happened. 

[DNall]

I would encourage you in this to look very closely at the extreme breadth of responsibility that belongs to 1AF, and the very narrow very LE oriented responsibility that belongs to DHS. Even with PCA removed, there would be very little to nothing there for us. And i think a lot of members would have a problem being involved in LE activities as part of a military based organization. They really aren't working within the lines. You can't just change the rules of the game cause you don't like the result. They rules didn't cause the result & it won't change regardless of what the rules are.

[RiverAux]

Technically, if you change federal law, you are changing the rules and whatever is in the law is okay be definition.  I tend to agree that I don't see this as a big break for us. 

[DNall]

Well yeah, you're theoretically freeing us from PCA, maybe, if it's done just right. However, it is not PCA preventing us from flying. With it out of the way, we still aren't the right tool for the job. If we were the right tool, then there are work-arounds in place already for DHS to use us, and they do. Removing the barrier is dangerous. If you understand the LE nature of HLS activities of DHS, that is not something we really want our people involved in, and it provides significant danger & massive legal problems for both us & the AF.

What we need to do is look inside & fix the things that keep us from being the right tool for the work the country needs & wants done. They do NOT need & will not pay for daylight eyeball air patrol over the border to prevent illegal immigration. If you had FLIR systems, CBRNE detectors, & competent trained trusted & cleared people to do the work, then AF would be paying for tons of missions on the border & otherwise, and would be tasking mission requests from DHS & others. PCA & the AF are NOT the reasons we got no work, we are.

[RiverAux]

Well, they are paying millions for people to fly in light aircraft along the border.  So, we actually have the right tool (our airplanes and people).  What you seem to be saying is that even if all legal issues prohibiting using us for such missions were removed that you wouldn't want to see us flying them because of the danger.

I can understand that point of view, but I disagree with it.  Yes, there would be some modest amount of danger to our people, but if they're willing to accept it so should we.  This isn't much different than the coastal patrol we did during WWII and in fact is probably much less dangerous.  If the aircrews volunteer to take that risk, I'm fine with it. 

[lordmonar]

What you seem to be saying is that even if all legal issues prohibiting using us for such missions were removed that you wouldn't want to see us flying them because of the danger.

Or just because it is not a USAF mission.  Dnall is against anything that takes us "away" from the USAF.

[DNall]

Danger? No that's not my concern. Our gear isn't up to the task, and we can't get funding for the gear that would be required because we aren't a trusted asset of the federal govt.

DHS operates a significant fleet of 250 airframes, ranging from UAV to helo to fixed wing, and the mission they do is air interdiction - that's pursuit, arrest, & seizure. They fly Predators, Falcon Jets, P3 Orions, Blackhawks, couple models from Agusta, some other eurocopter crap, and Cessna 206 with FLIR, advanced comm & two-man crew.

River, Why is CGAux restricted from arrest & search activities even while operating jointly & at the direction of CG persnnel? You really think that's just out of concern for your safety? You can't see the cringe when they think of a poorly trained volunteer with low to no entry standards & maybe not the greatest citizen representing the govt in a court of law under cross examination?

What DHS agencies do down there is respond to identify activity detected by sensors, coordinate ground assets in on confirmed targets, maintain command & control over-watch (which is necessary as they are the comm control platform). They also have the blackhawks & such with onboard arrest team.

Now, if you just want to spot targets & call them in, you need a better background check on members, at least day/night FLIR and preferablly also an airborne repeater, trained & profecient operators for both that can & will be called to court regularly, federal work protection, & you have to remain an instermentaility of the US while conducting these missions. There is no work for daylight light-aircraft spotting w/ no advanced sensor & no ability to stay on scene directing LE activities.

I absolutely want every bit of that capability, but if you showed up with it tomorrow then 1AF would have a hundred thousand flying hours a year for CAP. If you do all that & pitch to DHS, they may have one thousand for you to do & won't like the attention that gets cause it hurts their budget bad. The MISSION they do is inappropriate for us, the POLITICS fo getting put on that mission are BS, the internal POLITICS of getting DHS to go along could seriously endanger CAP..... it's just all around a bad idea. If you'll better explore what 1AF is in charge of in way of homeland defense, you'll find everything you want to do is right there, and we work for them already.

[RiverAux]

I don't think anyone has said that CAP would or could take over all DHS flying.  However, removing restrictions that keep CAP "out of the toolbox" would make it possible to use CAP when appropriate.

River, Why is CGAux restricted from arrest & search activities even while operating jointly & at the direction of CG persnnel?

How does this apply?  I would bet good money that this bill talks about CAP aircraft only.  I seriously doubt anyone would propose using CAP for arrest and seizure. 

There is no work for daylight light-aircraft spotting w/ no advanced sensor & no ability to stay on scene directing LE activities.

Seems to me that CAP has been doing an awful lot of daylight border patrols down there already.  If this bill made it possible to stick a cop with his handheld radio in the plane to direct people on the ground, which might be all it takes in certain situations, so much the better. 

Hey, if some of the restrictions on our use are removed, maybe then DHS will want to spend some money putting some of the equipment you mention on our planes....personally, as I've said before, DHS has their own aircraft empire to build and protect and I don't see them taking a lot of advantage of any such opportunity.  However, making it possible for them to use us is a very good thing even if they don't take full advantage of it. 

[lordmonar]

I know that the last six SAREXs I have been on have all been DHS profiles with ELT search thrown it for pilot proficency.

I agree that if we (CAP) were to invest in some FLIRS or other sensors it would make us a much more valuable tool to any agency.

The USAF does not want to spring for them....maybe DHS will.  DHS seems to have a lot of large/expensive survalance platforms.  I think there is a place for us to augment them.  One of the major hold ups to us doing border patrols has always been resources.  TX, NM, AZ and CA are the only sounther teir border states.  That means they have all the taskings for this type of mission.  Other wings can't participate because of cost.  Again...maybe DHS will spring for some money to pay perdiem and lodging.

Even we are only daylight Mark-I eyeball...we can free up DHS assets to fly the night missions.  We also free up the heavy platforms to perform the more intesive missions.

I can see no bad from this at all.  In fact I can see an even more expanded roll for CAP because we would be working for the same boss that owns FEMA....and that means we get more visibilty in their DS operations.

[SAR-EMT1]

Can our aircraft support the weight of a FLIR system or similar
"Pod / Turret"
Or would it be limited to the Airvans at Region?

Or since Im thinking big right now.... why not put a small radar system in them and turn our Airvans into a mini-AWACS? Or if the Airvan isnt big enough we could buy some surplus twin engine jobs and outfit them.
WOW...SOMETHING WITH TWO ENGINES?!  Thats a platform worthy of a CAP "COMMAND" PILOT

[DNall]

1) Flying around spotting for terrorists, that is NOT a DHS profile, that is a 1AF profile. Anything that involves air recon over the US (including border & coastal zones) for a threat to the US is 1AF. DHS is strictly LE & nothing but LE. Their air/marine branch is dedicated to interdiction. That is: a) direct action LE; b) command & control of LE ground units; and c) pursuit in direct support of arrest & seizure. If I ask you to describe the mission you want to fly, it will come out one of two ways, either as a 1AF mission or as a mission that's exceed already by DHS air assests & they don't need or want our help on as it will result in a loss of some of those assets for them in the budget.

1b) That said there is clearly some overlap, and because of that there is some rivalry for budget dollars. If you'll check into DHS air some more, particularly their predator UAS program, you'll find they are actually concerned with not having enough mission to justify their resources & looking to tap into 1AF tasked HLS missions.

2) daylight mark-I eyeball is not an acceptable profile for them, or hardly anyone else anymore for that matter. What we've done traditionally for CBP (customs) is traffic survey. They don't see the results till days later. It is meant for them to figure out where they might want to position ground assets. That mission has dropped off significantly since their air units have massivly increased from a 6.8 mil fleet to a 180mil fleet. We've been flying under $100k worth of missions for them annually.

2b) You need day/night FLIR to start, if you can get funding for satcom to beam out live feeds then you're really in business. You need some liaison comms too, but customer will provide that. NIMS fixed wing equipment standards mention some of this - not mandatory now, but as dif types of resources that are a very interesting read. The more of that you can cover, the more work you will get. FLIR systems as described are routinely mounted at the Cessna factory by their special operations divsion(LINK) for use by LE & military. It quite lightweight & easily carried on a 182, remember they put these things on small UAVs as well.

3) You want a productive suggestion... we got ARCHER now, try getting the wings flown off those thins first. You want DHS work, talk to CAP-USAF about building a pitch for MOU to streamline the request process thru 1AF. The problem with that is you're talking about 16 planes & a limited number of crews that have difficulty maintaining currency, plus they have to be CN cleared & they need a DoD pre-screen so they can be issued temp clearances for the missions, pilots have to be commercial.

4) regardless of what happens, DHS will not provide per diem or job protection. It would be exactly the same as AF, only less insurance coverage & more legal hassle.

5) if DHS wanted or needed what we have to offer, they'd be using CGAuxAir in that role (CG being part of DHS when not working for the Navy) & lobbying congress to dramatically increase thier funding so as to provide some specially equipped platforms for them to fly in addition to member owned. Instead, the work avail to CGAuxAir has dropped off significantly as I understand it. They suffer from some of the same problems we do on that front.

[RiverAux]

if DHS wanted or needed what we have to offer, they'd be using CGAuxAir in that role (CG being part of DHS when not working for the Navy) & lobbying congress to dramatically increase thier funding so as to provide some specially equipped platforms for them to fly in addition to member owned. Instead, the work avail to CGAuxAir has dropped off significantly as I understand it. They suffer from some of the same problems we do on that front.

Not at all.  ALL CG Aux airplanes are private airplanes with not even a fraction of the equipment CAP has on its aircraft now.  Almost all their air assets are concentrated along the coasts (makes sense, yes?) and has very little presence along southern or northern border in comparison to CAP. 

CAP is far superior for most potential border missions.  It would take a wholesale change in CG and CG Aux culture, funding mechanisms, and force structure to make it even remotely feasible to use CG Aux in any such role.  The exception to that general rule being transportation-related missions where a larger plane would come in handy, which the CG Aux has more of.