"USAF Aux" Off of CAP Aircraft

[Pylon]

Anybody notice that NHQ already Photoshopped the "USAF Aux" off of the tail of the aircraft on the cap.gov home page?

[mawr]

Yeah, this came up back at the same time as NB and Conference.  I think it was discussed on Civilairportal.com though.

[MIKE]

Doesn't mean that it can't be discussed here also. 

[Pylon]

I just think its amusing.  Just because the National leadership decided that "USAF Aux" has to come off of our aircraft sometime in the near future (even though we just started putting it on), that doesn't mean NHQ needs to go back and alter past photos to meet the new standard.   

That's like going back and editing photos of old CAP aircraft to conform to the new paint scheme or something.  It's silly. 

[Chris Jacobs]

Why are we taking it off in the first place?

[MIKE]

Probably because of this:

2.8. Restrictions on CAP Corporate Activities. Notwithstanding any DoD or Air Force regulation,
policy or agreement, the following specific restrictions apply to CAP's corporate activities.
2.8.1. Air Force Markings. CAP Corporation may not use aircraft and resources that are marked
with "USAF," "USAF Auxiliary," "US Air Force," or similar identifiers to engage in the law enforcement
activities listed in paragraph 2.2.3. of this instruction and its subparagraphs, without prior
approval by USAF/XO.

[captrncap]

That's like going back and editing photos of old CAP aircraft to conform to the new paint scheme or something.  It's silly. 

Someone at NHQ has too much time on their hands 

[smj58501]

So is there no guideline against airbrushing or otherwise modifying photos (with the exception of changing contrast, etc. so they are clearer)? I find that interesting in light of our photo mission. You think there would be some guidance on this.

[fyrfitrmedic]

That's like going back and editing photos of old CAP aircraft to conform to the new paint scheme or something.  It's silly. 

Someone at NHQ has too much time on their hands 

Yeah, just like they did with some of the Katrina pix 

[Whinging and gripes about the orange t-shirts to /dev/null ]

[pixelwonk]

I just think its amusing.  Just because the National leadership decided that "USAF Aux" has to come off of our aircraft sometime in the near future (even though we just started putting it on), that doesn't mean NHQ needs to go back and alter past photos to meet the new standard.   

That's like going back and editing photos of old CAP aircraft to conform to the new paint scheme or something.  It's silly. 

YEAH it is...

Just wait till they put props inside the triangles and paint the old Stinsons, Cubs and the like Red White, Blue and Grey.  Then they'll have to change the "consarn little red and yellow planes" quote. 

[Pylon]

I just think its amusing.  Just because the National leadership decided that "USAF Aux" has to come off of our aircraft sometime in the near future (even though we just started putting it on), that doesn't mean NHQ needs to go back and alter past photos to meet the new standard.   

That's like going back and editing photos of old CAP aircraft to conform to the new paint scheme or something.  It's silly. 

YEAH it is...

Just wait till they put props inside the triangles and paint the old Stinsons, Cubs and the like Red White, Blue and Grey.  Then they'll have to change the "consarn little red and yellow planes" quote. 

Are you bringing this up because you already received a Request for Quotation from NHQ to do this with your "madd Photoshopp skillz"? 

[pixelwonk]

I just think its amusing.  Just because the National leadership decided that "USAF Aux" has to come off of our aircraft sometime in the near future (even though we just started putting it on), that doesn't mean NHQ needs to go back and alter past photos to meet the new standard.   

That's like going back and editing photos of old CAP aircraft to conform to the new paint scheme or something.  It's silly. 

YEAH it is...

Just wait till they put props inside the triangles and paint the old Stinsons, Cubs and the like Red White, Blue and Grey.  Then they'll have to change the "consarn little red and yellow planes" quote. 

Are you bringing this up because you already received a Request for Quotation from NHQ to do this with your "madd Photoshopp skillz"? 

Oh definitely, and I get 4 extra zeroes in my paycheck too for it too. 

[Chris Jacobs]

Probably because of this:

2.8. Restrictions on CAP Corporate Activities. Notwithstanding any DoD or Air Force regulation,
policy or agreement, the following specific restrictions apply to CAP's corporate activities.
2.8.1. Air Force Markings. CAP Corporation may not use aircraft and resources that are marked
with "USAF," "USAF Auxiliary," "US Air Force," or similar identifiers to engage in the law enforcement
activities listed in paragraph 2.2.3. of this instruction and its subparagraphs, without prior
approval by USAF/XO.

So our aircraft can participate in Law Enforcement Activities but not ground teams?

[capchiro]

IIRC some of our aircraft and aircrews are "hired" by third party Agencies to do search missions for marijuana fields in the region.  There may also be some surveillance work in other counter-narcotics areas.  It's kind of a gray line, we aren't "engaging" in law enforcement persay, but we are transporting certain others and making it possible for them to get eyes in the sky.  Rumor has it that this role may be expanded as the third party Agencies fund the "work".  Perhaps this has something to do with the new OPSEC requirement, etc.  Hopefully, I haven't violated any policy with the dissemination of this information.

[c172drv]

We, as an organization have never been able to make up our minds when it comes to aircraft markings and paint jobs.  When I joined in 93 there were no marking and no paintjobs so we could blend in.  Then we were instructed to put the formal seal on the aircraft, same as on the vehicles.  Then came the first of many official paintjobs.  I believe that I've counted 3 or 4 versions of that.  Now, it appears that we are moving the other way round.

My question, I might have missed the answer, is why and more importantly who initiated this change.  Seems like a lot of waisted time, money and energy.

John Jester

[ZigZag911]

We, as an organization have never been able to make up our minds when it comes to aircraft markings and paint jobs.  When I joined in 93 there were no marking and no paintjobs so we could blend in.  Then we were instructed to put the formal seal on the aircraft, same as on the vehicles.  Then came the first of many official paintjobs.  I believe that I've counted 3 or 4 versions of that.  Now, it appears that we are moving the other way round.

My question, I might have missed the answer, is why and more importantly who initiated this change.  Seems like a lot of waisted time, money and energy.

John Jester

Probably a friend of the vendor who got the contract for re-painting all the aircraft!

[afgeo4]

I think this may be the next step in the Posse Comitatus law discussions.  It seems like USAF is trying to firmly establish us as a civillian agency, not a DoD agency, so we can be hired by law enforcement to do just that, enforcing law.  The trick is that these agencies have to pay for the missions and the training 100%.  The law states that DoD personnel cannot do law enforcement in the United States.  That's why the National Guard can only do law enforcement when activated by the Governors, and not the President.  The states have to pay for all of that.  Also why the Coast Guard, a maritime law enforcement agency is not under the DoD, but under the DHS.  The US Navy can only enforce international laws outside of US territorial waters.

I think maybe there's work coming our way.  What do you think?

[PKS]

I would have to agree with you, Captain.  There has been too much talk recently about those other missions we do, and with all of the border security issues, I see us doing more "other than USAF" missions in the future.  Wasn't there something a while back about us being the unofficial AF auxiliary as opposed to the official auxiliary?  The change wasn't recent, but something caused it to be brought out and dusted off.

[flyguy06]

I for one did not join CAP to get involved with ES. I wanted to work with youths and encourage them to pursue carers in aviation. Dont get me wrong, ES is ok. I am a mission observer but its not the main eason I serve in CAP. So, if we begin to emphasize ES< and homeland security what happens to the other missions and the people who joined for them?

[Psicorp]

I've always seen our three Missions as being three circles each including a little bit of the others.   Some people only want to work with cadets and do nothing but cadet stuff.  Others want to do Aerospace Education in the community.  And yet others want to do nothing but E.S..   

I don't see anything wrong with that.  They are three seperate Missions...mostly.  Cadets learn Aerospace Education and can learn and participate in E.S.   You can't do E.S. and not learn something about aerospace and you can't do E.S. without seeing a few cadets. 

Even with mission related skills, some people will only step into an airplane kicking and screaming, others want only to do Ground Team, others just want to stay at Mission Base, and then there are those who want to learn to do everything.

The bottom line is that we need people in each of the three Missions and some in two of them and some in all three.   As our Homeland Security and FEMA taskings get broadened (and I think they will), we will definately need people who are willing to be "deployed" for periods of time just to do those missions.     I think each squadron (and Wing and Region) need strong advocates for each Mission, and we all need to remember that we are chartered by Congress to do all three of them.