Assisting Customs Border Patrol

[blackrain]

Here's the situation. I was wondering if CAP ever assists the Customs Border Patrol in a flying capacity. I had wanted to apply as an Air Interdiction Agent but I'm over the max age. Funny I'm in Iraq now with the National Guard running around in body armor in 110 plus degree heat but I'm too old to fly CBP aircraft. Go figure.

At any rate do we as the CAP assist CBP? That to me would great even on a volunteer basis. Even better would be an ability to fly CAP aircraft on Title 32 orders in a support role for CBP. Either as a full time job or in a 2 week annual training capacity.

Any fellow Guardsmen or anyone else out there with an opinion on this?
Thanks

[RiverAux]

Although it hasn't received a bunch of publicity CAP has flown missions along the southern border looking for people in distress.  Haven't heard much about it lately. 

No procedures in place for any other agency to fly CAP aircraft though there is something in the works that would allow Air Force members to use them as part of some UAV training missions. 

[Tubacap]

As far as Title assignment, if you were doing it through CAP not as an AFAM (which has some interesting legal ramifications because of how assistance to federal agencies is worded) it would be a Title 36 mission, wich would fall under the same things as the Boy Scouts, ARC, and the Girl Scouts.  In other words, more than likely no money.

I don't know the ins-and outs of payment and the FAA exemptions, but I am sure that this would come into play as well.

[N Harmon]

This article ties into the questions regarding CAP doing border patrol business:

http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2006/11/posse_comitatus.html

[blackrain]

This article ties into the questions regarding CAP doing border patrol business:

So I noticed this article was written in 2006. Has anything changed in our ability to participate in these missions?

While I am on Title 32 as a Guardsman I fall under state control and the Governor is my senior commander. In Title 32 status I have considerable latitude as directed by my chain of command to participate in the border mission as a Guardsmen. As a CAP volunteer that's obviously a different animal.

In the end I agree it would be Congress would have to write the law to change/specify how CAP assets are operated, under what conditions and by whom.

Seems waaay too logical a use for CAP assets, personnel and skill sets. 

In spite of that I hope the CAP is given enough freedom to be utilized the most effective way possible.

[RiverAux]

Basically we're there to do search and rescue.   Nothing the near future indicates that this will change to allow more involvement in the law enforcement side of things.  A bill requesting a study of such things has passed the US House but even if it passes, I don't foresee any major changes for quite a while. 

[Smithsonia]

Speaking from the historical perspective -- We are Planes and Pilots in search of missions. We got SAR by begging for it -- then proving we could do it. I'm for a trained cadre of enterprising pilots and mission specialists building a curriculum that keep us flying forward. Reasons:
1. Air - SAR mission specific organization is not as necessary as it used to be a) Satellites, ELTs, and county by county Sheriff deployed ground teams make our mission less vital. b) We used to hunt Submarines, fly secret orders to air bases, guard airports, and tow targets in WW2 -- Those missions went away after WW2. To remain relevant we need to be enterprising and intrepid. Otherwise, we'll go the way of the Civilian Pilot training program and the 15 other Civil Defense Dept. projects that were founded along with us and now no longer exist. b) without a vital mission we'll be culled to an association of vets looking for a resteraunt for coffee once a month and talking about the old days. We'll become an association of "what was and remember whens."

To justify our fleet and the expense of the Patrol -- we need to be in every mission we can get. Border patrol, Drug Reduction, FEMA support, Homeland Security support, disaster relief, and anything else that keeps us relevant is good for me and good for the Patrol.

I hope that NHQ is pushing for an agenda that includes every possible necessary and required mission for America. In this way our fathers built the CAP... we should keep up the good work. The alternative is oblivion.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[Flying Pig]

In CAWG we patrol the US-Mexican border on a regular basis for the "humanitarian" mission.

[lordmonar]

AZWG has flown some boarder missions in the past.

[blackrain]

I agree with Mr Obrien. We need to do whatever it takes to adapt and stay relevant. Budgets are tight and anything that assists law enforcement/Homeland Defense provides us with a strong justification for our existence. Does anyone know of strong CAP supporters in Congress who would back us in expanding our role? I fully intend to push as hard as I can when I get home this fall. On a side note Iraq is showing signs of progress and oil production is increasing so maybe we can get that oil on the market and let everyone still afford fuel for our cars AND planes :clap:

[DNall]

Shouldn't be blowing any OPSEC here...

We've been flying customs missions for decades. It's coastal/border surveillance here - observe & report, do not loiter or aid in law enforcement. Some of it is traffic pattern analysis, some is referral for LE response. Since 9/11 & DHS the feds have dumped tons of money into fed LE aviation (incl CBP), and the guard has become more active in field as well. As such, CAP has been much much less active in the field.

If you're interested in this type of work, I would advise you to apply for a CN clearance & enter the program, whatever it may be in your wing. If you want a real job doing that kind of thing, with the guard anyway, apply for AGR with your counter drug office. A lot of states are rapidly expanding those programs, and not just border states - I just left South Dakota, from what I understand, they have 300 positions in counter drug & only about 3100 people the in SDARNG.

I agree with Mr Obrien. We need to do whatever it takes to adapt and stay relevant. Budgets are tight and anything that assists law enforcement/Homeland Defense provides us with a strong justification for our existence. Does anyone know of strong CAP supporters in Congress who would back us in expanding our role?

Regarding this... I would say we need to expand & stay relevant, but we also need to stay in our lane.

As I said, a whole ton of money is going to those LE agencies (and states & NGB) to fund activities that are within their task & purpose for being. That's a good thing. They are far more effective at doing the job they exist and are trained for on a daily basis with the best qual'd & experienced people in the best platforms with the right equipment. The more CAP mission creeps into their territory, the more threat it is to their funding & the MUCH less they want anything to do with us - and they are the mission requestor.

On the other hand, I think there is a whole ton of OTHER missions that belong more exclusively to the military, and particularly the AF (1AF especially) that we can most assuredly adapt to. Where funding is all over the place for DHS/fed LE, funding in the military is more focused on the warfighting effort, AND the national guard is being tapped hard. That leaves a gap in homeland defense & disaster response that CAP is well suited to help fill aspects of. That's territory we can stake out now in this time of emergency & then hold onto for the longer term. And as a national guard officer (aviation officer at that) I'll tell you I support that because it means cost savings to my state military forces that can be turned around to my operations/unit.

[RiverAux]

Remember, you have to be in CAP for 2 years before applying for that program unless you've got some sort of law enforcement background that could be used as a justification of the membership longevity requirement. 

[DNall]

It takes half that long to get the clearance approved.

[Frenchie]

Remember, you have to be in CAP for 2 years before applying for that program unless you've got some sort of law enforcement background that could be used as a justification of the membership longevity requirement. 

The two year requirement is for appointment to the CD program.  You can apply with less than 2 years in CAP in anticipation the application will be approved by the time the member has 2 years in CAP.

[Flying Pig]

Remember, you have to be in CAP for 2 years before applying for that program unless you've got some sort of law enforcement background that could be used as a justification of the membership longevity requirement. 

They don't give you any credit for being a cop.  Which is funny, my cadet time could count towards my 2 years, but my 10 years as a police officer do not.  Hmmmmmm.

[blackrain]

Shouldn't be blowing any OPSEC here...

We've been flying customs missions for decades. It's coastal/border surveillance here - observe & report, do not loiter or aid in law enforcement. Some of it is traffic pattern analysis, some is referral for LE response. Since 9/11 & DHS the feds have dumped tons of money into fed LE aviation (incl CBP), and the guard has become more active in field as well. As such, CAP has been much much less active in the field.

If you're interested in this type of work, I would advise you to apply for a CN clearance & enter the program, whatever it may be in your wing. If you want a real job doing that kind of thing, with the guard anyway, apply for AGR with your counter drug office. A lot of states are rapidly expanding those programs, and not just border states - I just left South Dakota, from what I understand, they have 300 positions in counter drug & only about 3100 people the in SDARNG.

I agree with Mr Obrien. We need to do whatever it takes to adapt and stay relevant. Budgets are tight and anything that assists law enforcement/Homeland Defense provides us with a strong justification for our existence. Does anyone know of strong CAP supporters in Congress who would back us in expanding our role?

Regarding this... I would say we need to expand & stay relevant, but we also need to stay in our lane.

As I said, a whole ton of money is going to those LE agencies (and states & NGB) to fund activities that are within their task & purpose for being. That's a good thing. They are far more effective at doing the job they exist and are trained for on a daily basis with the best qual'd & experienced people in the best platforms with the right equipment. The more CAP mission creeps into their territory, the more threat it is to their funding & the MUCH less they want anything to do with us - and they are the mission requestor.

On the other hand, I think there is a whole ton of OTHER missions that belong more exclusively to the military, and particularly the AF (1AF especially) that we can most assuredly adapt to. Where funding is all over the place for DHS/fed LE, funding in the military is more focused on the warfighting effort, AND the national guard is being tapped hard. That leaves a gap in homeland defense & disaster response that CAP is well suited to help fill aspects of. That's territory we can stake out now in this time of emergency & then hold onto for the longer term. And as a national guard officer (aviation officer at that) I'll tell you I support that because it means cost savings to my state military forces that can be turned around to my operations/unit.

Actually I knew some people that did CD (on the ground) in my state. Unfortunately even if I went AGR I don't see how I could fly as I'm not an aviator so my options there are limited. Last I heard we had dedicated Guard helo pilots (no Guard fixed wing in the CD/LE mission I'm aware of) who don't deploy who do that mission. The CAP also participates in CD in my state as well. At least in my state the Guard and CAP seem to coexist in the CD mission. C-182s can't do everything an OH-58 can do but they are cheaper to operate.

Now if you have an opening flying C-27s I'm there
Just from what I've seen full time Guard aviation jobs are HIGHLY coveted in every state. Especially fixed-wing.

I agree that people/agencies can be very territorial when it comes to missions and funding. I still think we can provide assistance in the CD/LE mission but we have to esssentially AUGMENT existing agencies capabilities and not try to replace them.

Like most of us here flying is the big thing  Spacing - MIKE

[DNall]

Flying isn't the big thing to me. I fly, and I like it, but it's a tool. Mission first is the big thing to me, and I would certainly hope that's the case for everyone in the org. If it's not then you need to adjust fire. We have task and purpose. We certainly need to adapt & grow our mission set, but that's execution within that task & purpose, not tossing it aside & crossing lanes cause we're bored. (lots of Army key words there - sorry everybody else).

My point about lanes/territory is two fold...

1) You mentioned the C182 is cheaper but less capable than an OH58. That's right on. In SaR we do probability of detection over target grids based on a range of factors. Now, you put one OH58 sortie over an area it costs you X. You put one C182 sortie over the same area and it costs you 10% of X. BUT, how many C182 sorties do you have to put over that area to equal the probability of detection that OH58 got the first time around? I think you'll find the 58 actually ends up cheaper in terms of probability per dollar.

2) I mentioned territory/lane... They don't want us flying for them. It's not that they wouldn't like to put us up there and have the extra help on top of what they're doing, but they know Congress isn't going to look at it like that. They're concerned that Congress will see this low cost way to put sorties over the area, then pull back funds from their more expensive air programs, and be left with a less effective coverage. Not to mention that the way they pay for our flying is with funds that would otherwise go to their flying.

There is certainly some mission in there, and we are doing it, but it's not the big time thing & it's not something we're going to be moving toward organizationally. As I said, there are other missions, flying and not, mostly for the military (AF/1AF/etc) that are easier to get, more up our alley, and less threat to other players while actually getting some useful stuff done. I personally think that's the better play cause it serves the people that actually sponsor our funding versus third parties. It may not be as sexy, but it's real and meaningful mission.

Far as the guard... we certainly do fly a lot of fixed wing in CD, but yes those jobs are very tightly guarded. AGR may or may not be depending on your state. It's not real bad here. Personally, I'm sticking to guns till I finish my company time, then I'll start trying for fixed wing and/or 72s to move more toward the state mission (sar/dr/cd) and bde/jf level ops. There's a career plan in a sentence for ya. I don't know what to tell you about flight time being you're not in aviation. You can try to switch I guess. I know we got a truck load of WO slots in my BN.

[Flying Pig]

By DNall..
I know we got a truck load of WO slots in my BN.

Makes me sick everytime I see you write that.....in CA there are almost NO WO pilot slots.  But I do appreciate the invite you gave me to move to TX a few months ago

[DNall]

Yeah, it'd be a bit of a commute for ya.

I checked in at the unit yesterday to do my travel voucher & say hi. They told me they got more than 30 open WO slots right now. It's absolutely nuts. We got over 500 enlisted folks in the BN supporting more than 20 birds, and I don't crews to put hours on the things. And, we're at that point where people need to go to school now to make it back in time to deploy in two years. This is the literal sweet spot right here for catching a slot & I can't get them filled. I would have never thought that possible.

[blackrain]

Flying isn't the big thing to me. I fly, and I like it, but it's a tool. Mission first is the big thing to me, and I would certainly hope that's the case for everyone in the org. If it's not then you need to adjust fire. We have task and purpose. We certainly need to adapt & grow our mission set, but that's execution within that task & purpose, not tossing it aside & crossing lanes cause we're bored. (lots of Army key words there - sorry everybody else).

My point about lanes/territory is two fold...

1) You mentioned the C182 is cheaper but less capable than an OH58. That's right on. In SaR we do probability of detection over target grids based on a range of factors. Now, you put one OH58 sortie over an area it costs you X. You put one C182 sortie over the same area and it costs you 10% of X. BUT, how many C182 sorties do you have to put over that area to equal the probability of detection that OH58 got the first time around? I think you'll find the 58 actually ends up cheaper in terms of probability per dollar.

2) I mentioned territory/lane... They don't want us flying for them. It's not that they wouldn't like to put us up there and have the extra help on top of what they're doing, but they know Congress isn't going to look at it like that. They're concerned that Congress will see this low cost way to put sorties over the area, then pull back funds from their more expensive air programs, and be left with a less effective coverage. Not to mention that the way they pay for our flying is with funds that would otherwise go to their flying.

There is certainly some mission in there, and we are doing it, but it's not the big time thing & it's not something we're going to be moving toward organizationally. As I said, there are other missions, flying and not, mostly for the military (AF/1AF/etc) that are easier to get, more up our alley, and less threat to other players while actually getting some useful stuff done. I personally think that's the better play cause it serves the people that actually sponsor our funding versus third parties. It may not be as sexy, but it's real and meaningful mission.

Far as the guard... we certainly do fly a lot of fixed wing in CD, but yes those jobs are very tightly guarded. AGR may or may not be depending on your state. It's not real bad here. Personally, I'm sticking to guns till I finish my company time, then I'll start trying for fixed wing and/or 72s to move more toward the state mission (sar/dr/cd) and bde/jf level ops. There's a career plan in a sentence for ya. I don't know what to tell you about flight time being you're not in aviation. You can try to switch I guess. I know we got a truck load of WO slots in my BN.

I assure you I know all about putting the mission first. When I leave Iraq in the fall I'll have been on Title 10 3 of the last 5 years. On my deployments the only vehicle I operated had 4 wheels and was uparmored.

In 2005 while on my two weeks leave I approached our state aviation officer about branching aviation but due to my age they wouldn't go for it. Of course they didn't have any problem sending me back to Iraq at the end of my leave or a second tour for that matter.

Also I think that most pilots who join CAP do it to fly but are no less committed to acccomplishing the mission. Personally my best chance to fly regularly is in he CAP.

Finally I'm a little bothered that some feel they have to protect our elected government (Congress) from itself. I think if someone can do the mission they should let there actions speak for themselves. Maybe someone needs to bring it to Congress's attention how much contempt some in the military hold them.

[mikeylikey]

Maybe someone needs to bring it to Congress's attention how much contempt some in the military hold them.

Unfortunately it is not our right, nor is it our privilege to speak out against the elected government.  You took an oath, and you lost some rights by joining the military.  For better or worse, your job is to support the government by carrying out your duties to the best of your ability no matter your personal feelings on the matter are.  The military "speaks with its feet", as in if you don't like how the civilian leadership is doing, don't reenlist. 

We represent ALL American people, not one political party over another.  Too many people tend to forget that. 

Sorry you couldn't branch aviation......perhaps a WO position will open up, did you try for an age waiver??  Just because one person says no......there are other options.  Seek out different help by first talking to your Commander.  Express your desire to be an Officer.  I imagine you have the educational requirements met?  If you can serve your full 20 years before hitting the mandatory retirement age, and you are under 40......Age waivers are a very good possibility.  What National Guard do you serve??   

[DNall]

Echoing some of that... Some of the paperwork is out of date & gives numbers as low as 26 being the cutoff. I'm 32 & headed to Rucker on a commissioned slot. The age cutoff is 33 to board for a slot, which may in theory not ship to training for up to 24mos. That's all w/o waivers.

We do grant waivers, but you really have to be the right guy for the job versus sending a younger candidate. You're a private pilot with TIS & a couple deployments. That's a solid resume for a waiver. I've heard of guys going though at 37. It's absolutely possible.

If you're approaching the state aviation office, you're doing it wrong. I just helped out a guy that's under 30, was SF CPT, finishing masters degree now, wanted to come in for a WO flight slot. The SAO told him no. We took care of that at the BN level and he's getting a slot. You need to go see an AV BN S3 and sell yourself as someone they want to work with, and that they need in that slot.

Far as congress... it is what it is. Those other agencies are defending their ability to accomplish their mission in the zero-sum environment they have to deal with. There just isn't an endless pot of money in anyone's pocket to pay for CAP on top of what they already do. CAP can do some useful things, but you have to look at our real world capabilities to be mission effective to the standard they need.

[blackrain]

Maybe someone needs to bring it to Congress's attention how much contempt some in the military hold them.

Unfortunately it is not our right, nor is it our privilege to speak out against the elected government.  You took an oath, and you lost some rights by joining the military.  For better or worse, your job is to support the government by carrying out your duties to the best of your ability.

We represent ALL American people, not one political party over another.  Too many people tend to forget that. 

I agree completely. I was referring to those who feel the can't allow encroachment on their mission for fear Congress will cut their funding. I for one think Congress is able to make their own decision and don't need to be protected from themselves. I don't always agree myself with their decisions but that is their purview. Just a brief reply as I'm out the door for some very needed PT before work.