Arizona senator has lofty plans for Civil Air Patrol

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Is any one up to date on the case study that is being performed in order to take all branches of nonactive duty military and CAP out of the loop of the PC? This case study is being performed by a woman who is an assistant to a congressman, I don't know what congressman it is. They are trying to get rid of the posse comitatus as it applies to all branches that are not considered active duty (and the Coast Guard) to include CAP. CAP is mentioned in the study as a service (branch as it is put in the study) that could be integral to helping police in criminal investigations as searchers for clothing articles or buried bodies and tracking victims through urban and non-urban environments. This was going on since 2008 and I'm not sure if it is still being pursued or not, I am looking for it online.

[JohnKachenmeister]

For Cyborg:

CAP does not have a defined state role, except that each state can define the role for CAP through an MOU. 

The Posse Comitatus act resrains federal military forces from enforcing civilian law.  Drug interdiction is a specific exemption established by Congress.  Posse Comitatus pertains to CAP when we are an auxiliary of the USAF, which is to say anytime we are supporting any federal agency.

CAP is not restricted by the PC Act when we are in a state role, since in order to support a state, we would have to be doing so in "Corporate" status under an MOU. 

So, while we ARE restricted by the PC Act when supporting the federal DEA, we would not be restricted by the PC Act if we flew a corporate mission for the state police under an MOU.

And I am certain that the politician proposing this is clueless about all of this.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/report10&div=14&id=&page=

[RADIOMAN015]

CAP does not have a defined state role, except that each state can define the role for CAP through an MOU. 

The Posse Comitatus act resrains federal military forces from enforcing civilian law.  Drug interdiction is a specific exemption established by Congress.  Posse Comitatus pertains to CAP when we are an auxiliary of the USAF, which is to say anytime we are supporting any federal agency.

CAP is not restricted by the PC Act when we are in a state role, since in order to support a state, we would have to be doing so in "Corporate" status under an MOU. 

So, while we ARE restricted by the PC Act when supporting the federal DEA, we would not be restricted by the PC Act if we flew a corporate mission for the state police under an MOU.

And I am certain that the politician proposing this is clueless about all of this.

I think the issue for any crew members performing any corporate operational support missions are to be aware of what benefits are going to be paid to their surviving family members if they killed.   AF Mission status provides significant benefits.  Most states are pretty cheap or no benefits at all for "volunteers".

I don't think most senior members joined the organization to put their families in a financial bind if they become injured, disabled or killed while performing CAP's "Missions for America"
RM

[Spaceman3750]

... or killed ...

Our families get $800 if one of us gets killed in the "line of duty" (is that phrase appropriate for CAP?). I don't think that increases while on an AFAM, though I may be wrong.

[RiverAux]

Is any one up to date on the case study that is being performed in order to take all branches of nonactive duty military and CAP out of the loop of the PC?

There has been some talk about changing PCA since 9/11 but as nothing has come of it yet I sort of doubt any change is going to happen anytime soon. 

[Eclipse]

... or killed ...

Our families get $800 if one of us gets killed in the "line of duty" (is that phrase appropriate for CAP?). I don't think that increases while on an AFAM, though I may be wrong.

Is that the state benefit?

The key delimiter is FECA - get hurt on an AFAM mission and you have the eligibility to become a pseudo E-9 during the time you are off of work.

[Eclipse]

I don't think most senior members joined the organization to put their families in a financial bind if they become injured, disabled or killed while performing CAP's "Missions for America"

No, our members join to provide service to their community, and the possibility of being killed, or even seriously injured while participating in even our most aggressive mission profiles is statistically zero, so it is not likely a factor when joining.

The benefit we are potentially eligible for are "nice-to-haves" but no usually a factor in most memberships.  The are plenty of other volunteer organizations that afford far less benefits (at least for free), and put their members in harm's way more often.

Considering how hyper-focused you are on losing your job, hiding your service from your employer, and the benefits you would get if killed, not to mention your generally negative comments, I continue to wonder why you keep writing your annual check.  No one is forcing you to do anything, including maintain a membership.

If the ORM numbers of a CAP ID Card in your wallet are too high for you personally, so be it, but stop insinuation some nefarious internet, or hyper-risk for those of us less scared of getting out of bed.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Actually, I have NEVER considered the death benefit of CAP one way or another.  I have done a LOT of things way more dangerous than CAP stuff. 

[RiverAux]

The key delimiter is FECA - get hurt on an AFAM mission and you have the eligibility to become a pseudo E-9 during the time you are off of work.

Actually GS-9 not E-9. 

[RADIOMAN015]

I don't think most senior members joined the organization to put their families in a financial bind if they become injured, disabled or killed while performing CAP's "Missions for America"

No, our members join to provide service to their community, and the possibility of being killed, or even seriously injured while participating in even our most aggressive mission profiles is statistically zero, so it is not likely a factor when joining.

The benefit we are potentially eligible for are "nice-to-haves" but no usually a factor in most memberships.  The are plenty of other volunteer organizations that afford far less benefits (at least for free), and put their members in harm's way more often.

Considering how hyper-focused you are on losing your job, hiding your service from your employer, and the benefits you would get if killed, not to mention your generally negative comments, I continue to wonder why you keep writing your annual check.  No one is forcing you to do anything, including maintain a membership.

If the ORM numbers of a CAP ID Card in your wallet are too high for you personally, so be it, but stop insinuation some nefarious internet, or hyper-risk for those of us less scared of getting out of bed.

Eclipse, you are correct about ALL members making choices about what they want to do or not do in CAP.  I agree with you that most members aren't really thinking about any benefits IF something bad happens to them while performing corporate type "Missions for America".  HOWEVER, I'd hate to be the "corporate" official who signed an MOA/MOU that didn't give any state/count/local government benefits for a corporate mission to a member killed, seriously injuried, or disabled, and explain that to his/her family    (and I do think there's a risk to the membership that in CAP quest to do more missions at the state/local level, the financial protection of members(members families) may not be considered).   

BTW my employer knows I am a CAP member & provides some "in kind" support to my unit every year.   As far as supporting CAP's "Missions for America", as a "volunteer" I will make a decision for each mission based upon my availability (work & family may have to take priority) and personal risk criteria.  I highly doubt that I'm the only person in CAP who does that
RM

[Spaceman3750]

... or killed ...

Our families get $800 if one of us gets killed in the "line of duty" (is that phrase appropriate for CAP?). I don't think that increases while on an AFAM, though I may be wrong.

Is that the state benefit?

The key delimiter is FECA - get hurt on an AFAM mission and you have the eligibility to become a pseudo E-9 during the time you are off of work.

I was wrong, thanks for pointing it out. In my 900-5 skimming I confused death benefit with burial benefit.

CAPR900-5 Para 14 has information about FECA medical/death coverage, but basically we are eligible for full medical coverage while on an AFAM, 66% of GS-9 Step 1 for disability, and the death benefits are determined depending on who the money is going to. Obviously, we are only eligible for this while on an AFAM.

Para. 19 of the same reg dictates our insurance coverage when we are not on an AFAM (CAP, Inc. self insurance). 19.b says that we get $8,000 of medical coverage in excess of our personal insurance coverage. 19.a says that we get $10,000 in death benefits independent of any other insurance (presumably including FECA death benefits). This is the insurance coverage that would apply if we were to accept any Arizona border mission as a corporate mission (which honestly I thought we were doing already).

[Flying Pig]

^AZ doesnt do it.  CAWG does.

[Lancer]

^AZ doesnt do it.  CAWG does.

Soooooooooooooo...maybe instead of, you maybe share some details on what CAWG is doing?

[CAP Producer]

Remember OPSEC please.

[bosshawk]

I can guarantee you that you will not get the details unless you are a CAWG member and CD-screened.  The "customer" has made it clear that they don't want the mission discussed with unauthorized persons.

[Flying Pig]

^AZ doesnt do it.  CAWG does.

Soooooooooooooo...maybe instead of, you maybe share some details on what CAWG is doing?

No.

[SABRE17]

we also have to remember that arizona is under some tough times with a literal war to its south, and washington DC willing to do little to help, with violence rising every day, i can see why the government of Arizona needs all the help it can get whe it comes to protecting its citizens.

[PHall]

we also have to remember that arizona is under some tough times with a literal war to its south, and washington DC willing to do little to help, with violence rising every day, i can see why the government of Arizona needs all the help it can get whe it comes to protecting its citizens.

Funny,  the states of Texas, New Mexico and California are all on the border too and they don't seem to feel the need to do this.

[SABRE17]

Arizona has by far the worst of the problem however.

and why are so many people opposed to using CAP resources, illegal immigration is a national security threat,a llong with smuggling.