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.