Read Ahead Documents for Webinar

[JohnKachenmeister]

Proposal From:  Maj. John Kachenmeister, Florida.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  This proposal would place CAP under the National Guard Bureau as its higher HQ.  The proposal places CAP wings under the operational control of state Adjutant Generals, but retains the Cadet Progam and Aerospace Education missions in CAP chains of command to CAP units from National Headquarters, CAP.  This proposal allows for maximum mission flexibility, and closer Air Force supervision.  Changes are also proposed in the role of the Board of Governors, and the National Board.

SCOPE OF PROPOSAL:  The proposal, if implemented, will require both regulatory and legislative changes.  This proposal will make CAP a functional element of the Air National Guard, and able to respond both to state and federal taskings.

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: 

--  NHQ will be detached from the Air University and assigned under the National Guard Bureau.

--  CAP-USAF will remain a functional headquarters which will coordinate actions between the Air National Guard element of NGB and CAP.

--  CAP-USAF will also be the unit of assignment for all RAP advisors to CAP.

--  NHQ will continue the Cadet Program and Aerospace Education programs as before.

--  NHQ will propose new CAP regulations to the National Board, and promulgate approved regulations to CAP units.

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS:

--  The Board of Governors will serve as the representative of the Secretary of the Air Force for management of CAP.

--  The BOG will appoint the National Commander and National Vice Commander of CAP.

--  The BOG will develop selection procedures and criteria for general officers in the CAP.

--  The BOG will, from time to time, provide policy direction to the National Commander, as the representative of SECAF.

--  The BOG will have the authority to remove the National Commander or National Vice Commander for cause.

THE NATIONAL BOARD:

--  The National Board will be comprised of all Wing and Region commanders.

--  The National Commander will chair the NB.

--  The NB will approve regulations for the operation of CAP.

--  Will develop and approve protocols for Region control of multi-state missions, to include temporary transfer of assets and personnel.

THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU:

--  Will exercise operational supervision of NHQ CAP, through the Air National Guard element of NGB.

--  Will approve or disapprove any regulations having impact upon the Air Force prior to promulgation, i.e., uniform policies.

--  Will develop appropriate NGB Regulations to enable and enhance coordination of CAP wings into state chains of command.

CAP REGION COMMANDERS

--  Will establish operational headquarters for their regions.

--  Will be prepared, on order, to assume command of the CAP response to incidents involving more than one state, i.e., multi-state SAR missions.

--  Will have the authority to transfer assets including personnel, vehicles, and aircraft within the region in response to specific missions.

--  Will serve as intermediary headquarters to aid NHQ in supervising the AE and CP programs.

CAP WINGS

--  CAP wing commanders will make immediate liasion with their respective state AG/Asst AG-Air.

--  CAP wing commanders will provide accurate and timely information on aircraft, vehicle, and personnel status.

--  CAP wing commanders will structure their wings to provide efficient ES support to the state, as well as geographical coverage for CP and AE missions.

--  Wing commanders will make certain that their wings are ready to respond to any tasking, and to advise the CAP Region and the AG of any shortfall.

--  Will respond immediately to state or federal taskings by appointing an Incident Commander, who will have full authority to structure a mission task force from available CAP assets.

--  Will advise the AG of any direct federal taskings that impact on  asset availability.

ADJUTANT GENERALS

--  Will attach the CAP wing under the command and control of the Asst AG for Air.

--  Will keep informed of the CAP wing's readiness status, including status of any direct federal taskings.

--  Will provide support, within constraints of other mission readiness, to the CAP in terms of office and meeting space, access to training opportunities, and use of ANG facilities for security of CAP aircraft when requested by the CAP wing commander.

--  Will approve any proposed MOU with Non-Governmental Agencies for CAP support.  (i.e., Red Cross blood and organ transport).

CAP UNITS:

--  Unit commanders will develop their members through individual training to a high state of personal readiness.

--  Commanders will administer the CP and AE program within regulations provided by NHQ.

--  Will provide such personnel and assets as are requested by a Wing Incident Commander in response to federal or state taskings.

--  Will make certain that any assigned equipment is also maintained in a high state of readiness, and will report any item not mission ready to the Wing Commander immediately.

MISSION TASKINGS:

--  AFRCC will have DIRECT tasking authority over CAP wings.  This is a federal tasking, and takes priority over all other taskings.

--  1st Air Force will have authority to task CAP wings on behalf of the USAF or any federal agency.  The taking will be through AG channels to the wing.  This is also a federal tasking, and ranks in priority directly below AFRCC emergency taskings.

--  Adjutant General taskings:  The AG may call up for a state-level emergency such assets of the CAP wing as he considers appropriate to mitigate the emergency.  This is a state tasking, and payment will come from state funds.

--  Adjutant General taskings, continued:  The AG can, at his option, request 1st AF to activate his CAP wing, and assign it under his control.  This would result in an AG tasking, but one which would be funded federally. 

UNRESOLVED ISSUES:

--  State commissions.  Officers of the CAP are entitled to wear officer rank by CAP regulations.  As assets of the state, they could be commissioned by the governor, but in some cases CAP regulations and state laws may conflict with regard to officer qualifications.  It is questionable whether such commissions are necessary, but this matter may be addressed.

--  State Codes of Military Justice.  If called to state duty, even if unpaid, CAP members would fall under state codes of military justice.  The effect of this on CAP and its volunteer status has not been adequately addressed, and will have to be considered prior to implementation.

--  Employment Protection:  Most states have laws protecting NG soldiers and airmen on state duty.  It is presumed that CAP, in a state role, would fall under the protection of these laws, but to accurately determine that an analysis of each state's laws must be made.

--  CAP Non-Combatant Status:  Since some state and federal taskings may involve combat support, a change to Title 10 is indicated to permit CAP to perform "Any mission or program of the US Air Force, provided that mission is carried out within the United States, its territories, and possessions."

--  The Posse Commitatus Act:  Since CAP would, under this proposal, be functioning as an asset of the Air National Guard, it is presumed that the PCA would not apply except in cases where CAP was activated federally.  A legal review, however, is indicated.

SUMMARY:  While at first glace this proposal seems to split CAP into a situation where it serves two masters, this is exactly the position of all ANG units in the US.  All can be federalized, all can be called to state active duty, and fighter units can be directly scrambled by NORAD in the same way that CAP assets can be called up by AFRCC.

This proposal provides for closer military supervision of CAP operations, more direct accountability of the National Commander to the SECAF, and exactly the kind of flexibility and agility that CAP needs to be on a wartime footing in the First War of the 21st Century.   

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  Do you have any questions?

[Major_Chuck]

What becomes of the National Executive Committee?  Right now I see it as an redundant level of command that we are saddled with.

What role would the Executive Director, Civil Air Patrol play and who would he/she be held accountable to.

Funding.  Currently appropriated funding is part of the AF budget.  Would AF continue it's appropriation to us or would NGB have to increase its funding requests to cover us.

State Commissions or Appointments of Officers and Non Commissioned Officers.  I feel it is very important to have a strong NCO Corps comprised of current and prior service NCO's.

...my first thoughts...

Major Chuck Cranford, CAP
Virginia Wing

[RiverAux]

--  State Codes of Military Justice.  If called to state duty, even if unpaid, CAP members would fall under state codes of military justice.  The effect of this on CAP and its volunteer status has not been adequately addressed, and will have to be considered prior to implementation.

For this to apply CAP would have to be made part of that state's organized militia which currently includes the NG and SDF (if there is one).  The lfederal aw authorizing SDFs prohibits keeping any other troops so I don't see how CAP could be included here.  This doesn't necessarily prohibit the AG from being given operational control over CAP at the state level, just that the state military justice code could not be applied. 

-- If the AG has operational control over CAP in his state, how is it that the CAP Regional Commander will be able to assume control over multi-state CAP incidents?  If the AG's are in charge of CAP then any multi-state CAP mission is going to be made much more difficult since no one above state level would have the authority to command CAP "in the field". 

--

--  Employment Protection:  Most states have laws protecting NG soldiers and airmen on state duty.  It is presumed that CAP, in a state role, would fall under the protection of these laws, but to accurately determine that an analysis of each state's laws must be made.

It would not.  In some states the SDF isn't even given specific job protections under their state codes since the language is specific to the National Guard. 

--- Are you saying that the Adj. Gen will be paying for all state-related missions from his budget?  Many CAP Wings get significant "business" from other state agencies now.  The AG isn't going to want to take over funding those missions into his budget. 

[flyguy06]

Your entire proposal is centered around ES. It seems like you are suggesting two different CAP's one for ES that would fall under the NGB and one of rCP and AE which would continue under NHQ.
Also remember that NGB is a seperate organization from the USAF.

[DNall]

These are just "read ahead" talking papers of our presentations. Save discussion for the conf call on Thursday. Please! 

[Pylon]

These are just "read ahead" talking papers of our presentations. Save discussion for the conf call on Thursday. Please! 

Uh, what conference call?  Where?

And why should the mere presence of an upcoming conference call preclude members from discussing their ideas here, refining their opinions, and otherwise preparing their stance on your proposal?

[Nick Critelli]

FYI

AG = Attorney General
TAG = The Adjutant General
DAG = Deputy Adjutant General
TJAG = The Judge Advocate General  (top legal dog)

Nick

[JohnKachenmeister]

FYI

AG = Attorney General
TAG = The Adjutant General
DAG = Deputy Adjutant General
TJAG = The Judge Advocate General  (top legal dog)

Nick

Oops... sorry Nick.  I forgot you were a lawyer!

"The AG" in my proposal is the same as "TAG."

[JohnKachenmeister]

What becomes of the National Executive Committee?  Right now I see it as an redundant level of command that we are saddled with.

What role would the Executive Director, Civil Air Patrol play and who would he/she be held accountable to.

Funding.  Currently appropriated funding is part of the AF budget.  Would AF continue it's appropriation to us or would NGB have to increase its funding requests to cover us.

State Commissions or Appointments of Officers and Non Commissioned Officers.  I feel it is very important to have a strong NCO Corps comprised of current and prior service NCO's.

...my first thoughts...

Major Chuck Cranford, CAP
Virginia Wing

The National Commander, at his option, could retain the NEC as a management tool.  Headquarters operations would largely be unchanged, except reporting to a new higher HQ.

The Executive Director is the full-time representative of the National Commander.  His role would also be pretty much unchanged.

Funding would continue to come from the AF directly to manage CAP programs.  NGB may opt to request additional funds to support the additional workload of supervising another subordinate headquarters, though.

I do not see state commissions as vital to the program, but they are a "Nice to have" and would make some operations easier, such as administering oaths.  I also think that a vital NCO corps would be something which would improve CAP overall, but that consideration is outside the scope of my proposal, and could be instituted whether or not my proposal were adopted.

[JohnKachenmeister]

--  State Codes of Military Justice.  If called to state duty, even if unpaid, CAP members would fall under state codes of military justice.  The effect of this on CAP and its volunteer status has not been adequately addressed, and will have to be considered prior to implementation.

For this to apply CAP would have to be made part of that state's organized militia which currently includes the NG and SDF (if there is one).  The lfederal aw authorizing SDFs prohibits keeping any other troops so I don't see how CAP could be included here.  This doesn't necessarily prohibit the AG from being given operational control over CAP at the state level, just that the state military justice code could not be applied. 

-- If the AG has operational control over CAP in his state, how is it that the CAP Regional Commander will be able to assume control over multi-state CAP incidents?  If the AG's are in charge of CAP then any multi-state CAP mission is going to be made much more difficult since no one above state level would have the authority to command CAP "in the field". 

--

--  Employment Protection:  Most states have laws protecting NG soldiers and airmen on state duty.  It is presumed that CAP, in a state role, would fall under the protection of these laws, but to accurately determine that an analysis of each state's laws must be made.

It would not.  In some states the SDF isn't even given specific job protections under their state codes since the language is specific to the National Guard. 

--- Are you saying that the Adj. Gen will be paying for all state-related missions from his budget?  Many CAP Wings get significant "business" from other state agencies now.  The AG isn't going to want to take over funding those missions into his budget. 

As I pointed out, this is an unresolved issue.  I have not read the Ohio Code of Military Justice in a while, but it might be argued that if a military force were paid by the state to accomplish a state mission, then that force would be a de facto part of the Organized Militia.  This would have to be the subject of a legal review, and maybe 52 legal reviews.

TAG would have control of the CAP wing except those elements of the CAP wing called into federal service.  If activated by 1AF or AFRCC, the activated elements would be in federal service, and under the command and control of the USAF.  The Region commander could act as an agent for AFRCC or 1AF in calling up such personnel and assets as might be needed to accomplish the mission.  There must be a conscious effort to guard against a "Provincial" mentality (I'm Florida CAP, and I can't fly missions over Georgia).  We are One CAP, and when a mission involves multiple states, so does our effort.

Employment protection is another unresolved issue, specifically for the reasons you suggest.  The laws of the 50 states are varied, and a blanket statement that would cover CAP nationally cannot be made.

I did not address in the proposal the duty to provide CAP air support to other state agencies.  I proposed that TAG approve all MOU's with NGO's, specifically because of the potential for abuse of the CAP asset and the requirement that we not use volunteer labor and government-purchased aircraft to compete with charter operators.  There would have to be a liasion with the CAP wing commander and his TAG to determine how other governmental agencies would be supported.  There could be a direct MOU between the wing and the agency, or the agency could re-imburse the Adjutant General's Department in accordance with local fund transfer procedures.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Your entire proposal is centered around ES. It seems like you are suggesting two different CAP's one for ES that would fall under the NGB and one of rCP and AE which would continue under NHQ.
Also remember that NGB is a seperate organization from the USAF.

Yes, this proposal clearly addresses the operational aspects of CAP more than our other two missions, CP and AE.  This does not create "Two CAP's" since the missions are combined at the unit level.  It does however, create two chains of command which, while complicating the lives of unit commanders somewhat, is not at all different for the complexities of life as a National Guard commander. 

This had to be done for a reason.  A similar proposal was discussed some years ago as high as the Air Staff level, and was rejected, principally due to non-concurrences from the state Adjutants General.  Part of their objection involved reluctance to get involved in management of the cadet program.

I therefore structured this proposal specifically to relieve TAG's of the duty to supervise CP and AE programs, keeping them in a CAP-only chain.

We are asking, therefore, for reconsideration of a basic plan, modified to satisfy the objections raised about an earlier, similar plan.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Your entire proposal is centered around ES. It seems like you are suggesting two different CAP's one for ES that would fall under the NGB and one of rCP and AE which would continue under NHQ.
Also remember that NGB is a seperate organization from the USAF.

NGB is a joint Army-Air Force headquarters.  In my proposal we would fall under the Air Force element of NGB.  Funding would remain directly earmarked for CAP programs, and stewardship of those funds would be overseen by the BOG, acting on behalf of the SECAF.  NGB is the appropriate agency, since our ES missions largely mirror the missions of the National Guard.  The principle of Unity of Command dictates that all military forces on a mission be under the control of a single commander.  That commander should be the TAG of the effected state, and this proposal puts CAP within that command.

[JohnKachenmeister]

These are just "read ahead" talking papers of our presentations. Save discussion for the conf call on Thursday. Please! 

I don't mind a few "Warm-up" questions in advance.  After all, when you make a proposal like this, you have to remember that you are at a track meet, downfield at the Javelin-Throwing Event, calling for a fair catch!

[flyguy06]

So, how would this effect my Squadro? We dont do ES at all. No interest. But we stil want to be able to use the aircraft for O-rides and "honest" proficiency flying.

Also, I am in the Guard (ARmy side) and from what I know, the budgets of the NGB (Air side) and the USAF come from two different pots.

[A.Member]

So, how would this effect my Squadro? We dont do ES at all. No interest. But we stil want to be able to use the aircraft for O-rides and "honest" proficiency flying.

If you have no interest in ES, then what "honest" proficiency flying are you referring to?  We're not a flying club. 

[Pylon]

So, how would this effect my Squadro? We dont do ES at all. No interest. But we stil want to be able to use the aircraft for O-rides and "honest" proficiency flying.

If you have no interest in ES, then what "honest" proficiency flying are you referring to?  We're not a flying club. 

You have to have proficient pilots in order to fly O-Rides, too.  Mission Pilots aren't the only use for pilots in CAP. 

[A.Member]

You have to have proficient pilots in order to fly O-Rides, too.  Mission Pilots aren't the only use for pilots in CAP. 

I hear ya but that's pretty weak.  Unless you're doing all the o-flights for the wing, I can't believe there is enough business to warrant that - seems like that's stretching the spirit of regulations to subsidize someone's past-time.  Cadets are only allowed 5 powered o-flights for reimbursement.  They must have a lot of cadets...   

Seems that duty (o-flights) could be better placed with a flying squadron that is more interested in fulfilling the broader spectrum of flying missions.

My $.02139875 (w/interest)

[JohnKachenmeister]

So, how would this effect my Squadro? We dont do ES at all. No interest. But we stil want to be able to use the aircraft for O-rides and "honest" proficiency flying.

Also, I am in the Guard (ARmy side) and from what I know, the budgets of the NGB (Air side) and the USAF come from two different pots.

If the only flying you do is O-Rides, my recommendation to you would be to organize as a cadet squadron.  But even in a cadet squadron, there should be some attention to ES for the benefit of the cadets.  Perhaps your cadets, though, could tag along and train with with another unit.

You are right.  There IS dedicated, earmarked funding for the Air Guard.  There is also earmarked funding for CAP.  Both come from the USAF appropriated budget, though.  They have theirs, we have ours.  The will probably ask for more, due to the extra mission of supervising CAP.

[RiverAux]

Employment protection is another unresolved issue, specifically for the reasons you suggest.  The laws of the 50 states are varied, and a blanket statement that would cover CAP nationally cannot be made.

Actually, the easiest way to address this would be to get CAP included in the federal law protecting NG sodleirs while on federal duty.  If CAP is covered by the law on AFAMs (real and training) that would help a lot.  Once such a law was passed at the federal level it would probably be much easier to get changes made in state laws covering CAP on non-federal missions. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Employment protection is another unresolved issue, specifically for the reasons you suggest.  The laws of the 50 states are varied, and a blanket statement that would cover CAP nationally cannot be made.

Actually, the easiest way to address this would be to get CAP included in the federal law protecting NG sodleirs while on federal duty.  If CAP is covered by the law on AFAMs (real and training) that would help a lot.  Once such a law was passed at the federal level it would probably be much easier to get changes made in state laws covering CAP on non-federal missions. 

I agree.  And if we step up and become as good as we were in WWII, I am certain that such laws will follow.

[lordmonar]

John,

I have got to say...the main objection I have to your plan is that it complicates our command and control structure not simplifies it.

We need to have a single chain of command and only at the top should we be answering to more than one master.

By placing us under the NGB and the individual TAGs we have our immediate boss at the state level...that is good as far as that goes.  But we also have a USAF mission under AFRCC and 1AF we will be putting out wing commanders in a position where they may have to piss off one boss to please the other.  Also it opens to door to back dooring or going around regulations by going to the agency that will work the best for you.

I have seen these sorts of things working AD Joint Operations.  And they have resulted in DEATHS not to mention the PITA it is to coordinate all the different regulations and operations.

If we go under the NGB....then taskings come to us through the NGB.  If our primary master is the USAF though AFRCC and 1AF (I am all for us getting away from AU) then we should stay with that chain of command and state taskings go up and then back down.

[A.Member]

I have got to say...the main objection I have to your plan is that it complicates our command and control structure not simplifies it.

Looking this over briefly, I have to agree. 

I applaud the effort to think about change but I've got to believe there is a way to do so without going the route of the NGB.  There is a great deal of complexity in doing so.  The association with USAF, our established relationship, should be built upon and we should look for creative ways to work with and build upon that foundation. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

John,

I have got to say...the main objection I have to your plan is that it complicates our command and control structure not simplifies it.

We need to have a single chain of command and only at the top should we be answering to more than one master.

By placing us under the NGB and the individual TAGs we have our immediate boss at the state level...that is good as far as that goes.  But we also have a USAF mission under AFRCC and 1AF we will be putting out wing commanders in a position where they may have to piss off one boss to please the other.  Also it opens to door to back dooring or going around regulations by going to the agency that will work the best for you.

I have seen these sorts of things working AD Joint Operations.  And they have resulted in DEATHS not to mention the PITA it is to coordinate all the different regulations and operations.

If we go under the NGB....then taskings come to us through the NGB.  If our primary master is the USAF though AFRCC and 1AF (I am all for us getting away from AU) then we should stay with that chain of command and state taskings go up and then back down.

Pat:

I agree with you, but again, such is the real world of the National Guard.  Good, bad, or indifferent, ever ANG commander deals with the headaches of the dual chains of command.  If they can do it, we can do it.

AFRCC taskings are time critical, and have to go directly to the wing.  There's no way around that.  1AF taskings should go through TAG to preserve the ANG command and control relationship, which gets us out from under the Posse Comm. Act.  State taskings would be rare, and be when a disaster struck, but then being an integral part of the ANG puts us higher on the food chain and reserves the Unity of Command principle for the TAG.

Consider yourself for a moment the commander of the 69th Fighter Wing of the -- Oh, say South Carolina National Guard.  There you are, sitting in your office, looking at all those shiny Vipers lined up under the bright blue Carolina sky... Life is good.  Then your phone rings.  The caller could be:

1.  NORAD.  Scramble your fighters, there is an unidentified group of aircraft that are approaching the ADIZ and they are not squawking.

2.  Asst AG Air, SC.  By order of the President, your unit is alerted for callup into federal service.  Pack your gear, you are heading to someplace ending in "__stan."

3.  Asst A.G. Air, SC.  By order of the Governor, you will deploy the 69th Security Police Squadron and the 69th Civil Engineer Squadron immediately to Myrtle Beach to provide disaster relief in the wake of a killer tornado that has just struck.

Or... any two of the above in combination.

This proposal does not ask more of our commanders than is asked of Guard commanders.

[flyguy06]

So, how would this effect my Squadro? We dont do ES at all. No interest. But we stil want to be able to use the aircraft for O-rides and "honest" proficiency flying.

If you have no interest in ES, then what "honest" proficiency flying are you referring to?  We're not a flying club. 

As a CAP pilot and as an Orientation pilot, I need to keep my proficiency up. I am carrying some of the most precious cargo known to man. Your Kids.

Its arrogant to think that only ES pilots need proficiency. As CAP pilots, we are supposed to be the example of good General Aviation pilots. I am deeply opposed to using CAP as a flying club. You can read my posts on here to see that. Your comment just proves my point that too many folks here believe that ES is the "primary" mission of CAP and they put CP and AE off to the side and not so important but just there.

CP is a primary mission and all orientation pilots need to be proficient. As well as Form 5 check pilots.  We are more vital than a SA/DR pilot in my opinion. We are carrying cadets onboard.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Flyguy, I don't have a problem with proficiency flying, and I don't have a problem with you flying only O-flights.  I just wonder why your unit is organized as a composite squadron when it seems you are exclusively committed to the cadet program to the exclusion of ES.

[A.Member]

Flyguy, I don't have a problem with proficiency flying, and I don't have a problem with you flying only O-flights.  I just wonder why your unit is organized as a composite squadron when it seems you are exclusively committed to the cadet program to the exclusion of ES.

Exactly.  CAP has 3 primary missions, not 1 or 2.  If you're squadron is not utilizing the aircraft in support of all 3 missions, one has to question if having an aircraft there is the best use for that resource.  I'd suggest that it may not be.

[wingnut]

John Check this out
The California State Military reserve is part of the Army Guard and Air National Guard. All Volunteer unless called to duty by the Governor

If you're a veteran with experience, a professional with skills, or someone with a passion to serve, the California State Military Reserve (CSMR) might be your opportunity. We're an all-volunteer State Defense Force whose primary mission is to support the California National Guard in its Homeland Defense and Homeland Security missions.
Members of the CSMR volunteer a minimum of 200 hours annually. Part of that time is spent at Unit Training Assemblies (drills or meetings), which are usually eight hours on one Saturday each month. These are used for training sessions, mission coordination, and to work with your National Guard counterparts.

In addition, there are continuing education requirements including attendance at CSMR School Houses and online distant learning courses. Finally, in the event of an emergency, you could be called to State Active Duty for weeks at a time.


Contact one of our units at http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/unitcontacts.htm
and consider becoming a Soldier or Airman in the California State Military Reserve.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Wingnut:

The California unit you are talking about is a class of unit that is called "State Defense Forces" which can best be described as the non-federal component of the National Guard.

The law recognized that governors would still need a military force for riots or disasters, even if the NG were called up into federal service.  The SDF's are the extension of the "Home Guard Militia" that existed in the Civil War; units, sometimes made up of less-than-fully-fit members, that were exempt from federal levies on the militia.  I used to serve in the Ohio SDF (Called the Ohio Military Reserve) and that is one with a battle history from the Civil War.

RiverAux has discussed the SDF's at length, and is much more knowledgeable on them than I.  California, however, is one of a minority of states with an air element to their SDF.  I understand that Virginia is another.

Only about half the states avail themselves of the provision in the militia act that authorizes an SDF.  Florida had one, but disbanded it a few years ago.  The members tried to keep it alive as a corporation, but that effort failed.

I quit CAP after 9-11 because I was frustrated with the "Corporate types" who seemed to be able to find any number of legalistic-sounding excuses to NOT perform any mission but SAR on behalf of the USAF.  I was angry about the attack on our country, and I knew that certain medical conditions rendered me unqualified to return to active military service.  I joined an SDF, and ended up commanding an MP battalion.

I returned to CAP after I moved to Florida, since there was no SDF here.  If I can't do battle with the terrorists, I can at least do battle with the timid souls that suck the life out of a time-honored organization and try to turn it into a bastardized civilian corporation with uniforms.  A cross between a flying club and a social service organization.

I want to bring CAP back into the Air Force.  The fact is we've been AWOL for the first 5 years of this war.

 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Wingnut:

I checked that website, but I can't find an Air National Guard element to the California SDF.  All I can find is an Army aviation brigade attached to their infantry division.

And, as we all know, rotary-wing aircraft are the work of the Devil.

[capchiro]

Let me just say that I am a composite squadron commander.  I am not looking forward to trying to plan and serve two different masters at the same time.  You can't compare us to a NG unit as out missions are different.  I am looking at serving the NG for disaster preparedness and ES and the Air Force for Cadet programs and aerospaced education?  Now, which one of them is going to take hindseat to the other?  Excuse me Mr. NG, but we have a cadet encampment that weekend? Or Excuse me Air Force, but we are too busy training for ES to work on aerospace?  I am an unpaid part-time (4-12 hours a week) volunteer, running a two dimensional (cadets and seniors) three prong program (cadet, emergency services and aerospace education) at the present time.  I don't think I need the additional headaches of trying to keep another master happy.  The one piece of sanity in the past has been the consistency of the CAP program.  Now, we have seen nothing but change, beginning with uniforms and ending with whatever tomorrow brings.  It is hard to recruit for a program that we are getting ready to make sweeping changes in, but we aren't sure what they will be and the squadron commanders always seem to be the last informed.  CAP is and has been a great program.  Let's not jeopardize it by constantly and loudly screaming for severe changes that in essence will create a new program and do away with the old.  JMHO, but a very experienced HO.. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Harry:

I understand your frustration.  I commanded a cadet squadron, and I frankly don't know how one manages the multiple missions of a composite squadron.  I've noted that before, when I noted that AE is usually the first to be tossed out of the lifeboat.

What are the alternatives?  The "Serving two masters" is already the case, since we have both an Air Force identity and a Corporate identity with respect to ES missions.  In fact, the discussions I have seen INCREASE the number of "Masters" because we talk about "Being responsive to our customers," like we're the Home Shopping Network, or something.  The alternatives are to establish MOU contracts with FEMA, with NGO's, with EMA's, with various state departments, and with the Swiss Navy.   

If anything, the proposal I have endorsed here consolidates missions under a single umbrella, regardless of funding.  The AG can channel Title 10 funds to us from 1AF, and can also provide Title 36 funding, either from his own budget or through the budgets of other state agencies. The only time that ES would respond outside the AG chain is for direct taskings from AFRCC, which happen now, anyway.

The Cadet and Aerospace Education programs will be unchanged by this new command alignment.  I specifically structured the proposal to relieve TAG's from the responsibility to supervise programs with which they have no experience, and less interest.

Your regulations will continue to be approved by the NB, the National Commander of CAP will still be your leader.  When a mission happens, you will still move at the order of a CAP Incident Commander.

So, exactly what, at the unit level, will be different for you?

[A.Member]

California, however, is one of a minority of states with an air element to their SDF.  I understand that Virginia is another.

The New York Guard is another. 

Such a structure gets very complex rather quickly.

[flyguy06]

Flyguy, I don't have a problem with proficiency flying, and I don't have a problem with you flying only O-flights.  I just wonder why your unit is organized as a composite squadron when it seems you are exclusively committed to the cadet program to the exclusion of ES.

We are a Composite Squadron because thats how it ws chartered 20+ years ago. Demographics changed over the years and priorities changed. I am a current Mission observer and a former GT Leader. When I ws a cadet in the same unit, I was very active in ES. But like I said over the years people change. Being a composite squadron has nothing to do with wheather you are active in ES or not. I know Cadet Squadrons that are active in ES. So I dont understand your comment about being a Composite squadron and how thats related to ES.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Flyguy, I don't have a problem with proficiency flying, and I don't have a problem with you flying only O-flights.  I just wonder why your unit is organized as a composite squadron when it seems you are exclusively committed to the cadet program to the exclusion of ES.

We are a Composite Squadron because thats how it ws chartered 20+ years ago. Demographics changed over the years and priorities changed. I am a current Mission observer and a former GT Leader. When I ws a cadet in the same unit, I was very active in ES. But like I said over the years people change. Being a composite squadron has nothing to do with wheather you are active in ES or not. I know Cadet Squadrons that are active in ES. So I dont understand your comment about being a Composite squadron and how thats related to ES.

Well, in theory, Composite Squadrons are supposed to be where all three missions are blended, and a mix of officers and cadets, organized under two deputy commanders, accomplishes them.  I realize that there is a huge gulf between theory and practice, however.  I have, in the past, inspected units organized as composite squadrons that, like yours, are almost exclusively oriented around the cadet program.  I usually suggest submitting a reorganization request so that your charter reflects the reality of your unit's focus.

[ZigZag911]

Please see attachment for my introductory thoughts for Thursday's discussion

[Al Sayre]

This was the only thing I saw that gave me a bit of heartburn:

   Squadron CC – minimum 1 year as 2 Lt, Level 2 completed, 2 years staff experience, 2 years current & continuous CAP service

While this would be really nice to have, it would exclude a lot of relatively new people that are willing to step up when no one of higher rank will.  (BTDT got the commanders pin)

[ZigZag911]

This was the only thing I saw that gave me a bit of heartburn:

   Squadron CC – minimum 1 year as 2 Lt, Level 2 completed, 2 years staff experience, 2 years current & continuous CAP service

While this would be really nice to have, it would exclude a lot of relatively new people that are willing to step up when no one of higher rank will.  (BTDT got the commanders pin)

I understand your position....I was a group CC for six years, I know what a headache it can be finding unit commanders.....however, that same experience as group CC convinces me that we are doing no one, member or squadron, favors forcing inexperienced people into command.

If we firmly establish some intractable rules, hopefully it will leverage the BTDT got the T-shirt crowd into doing what they should, which is minimally step up to the plate and accept command for the 6 to 12 months (arbirtary number) needed for 2 Lt Newbie to become fully qualified, make that individual a deputy, and mentor her or him thru this period.

[lordmonar]

I whole heartedly agree that we should be selecting the best people for the jobs and it is a gread idea to have people expeinced with the CAP way of doing buisness to stand up and take the job.  But let's get down to brass tacks here.  What do you do if you have not "qualified" people who are willing to take the job?  What do you do in the case of new units where there are no experinced officers at all?

Making new rules is not going to fix this particual problem.  In fact it may make it worse.  Let's say you have a new member who has the abilities to run and manage a squadron but has only been in CAP for six months or so.  This rule will force you to either have a gap in command or it will force you to ignore your own rule.

Closing squadrons for lack of leadership is not the way to go.

[Major Carrales]

This will be a long RANT... Lots of BAGGAGE that explains why I think and am the way I am as a CAP Officer.

This is my second round as Squadron Commander, my first was along the lines of being railroaded. 

Backstory...

Its 1998, I joined CAP in a situation where the nearest unit was 80 miles and the next was 100 or so.  I of course joined the one that was 150miles because the then web indicated this was the only unit with a website.  I made that Tuesday communte for a few months until it was pointed out to me that there was a nearer unit.

When I got there I was basically treated as an outsider.  I was told that they were not there to "babysit" anyone and that, since I wasn't a pilot, I was on my own.  I chose PAO as a Spec track and drifted into helping with the Deputy Commander of Cadets...(PAUSE)

What many people fail to realize is that there are some of us that just want to serve.  Some of us that, no matter how corney this sounds, think CAP is the most wonderful and unique form of Communtiy service...I mean, you don;t see very many air raid wardens or aircraft spotters around these days, but CAP thrives.  No one could understand nor would help me find my place.  Because of this I will be [darn]ed if any squadron member comes to the unit and is allowed to languish in inactivity.  Everyone will be "babysat" if need be so that they might find their most effective place as a CAP officer.(PLAY)

The cadets met on Saturdays and there was little interaction between the Aviation Side (flying club) and any other element of CAP including COMM, AE you name it.

Then some changes, some rumors and some real, in the 60 Series regs.  The Aivation section collapsed as members fled active status.  There were like 15 to 20 cadets  , no one to service them, and several COMM guys.  ELTs we burdensome in that only one or two Officers did them.

In 2002 our long time commander, who himself was thrust into the center seat, had to step down for personal reasons.  I got a call from the GROUP commander.  He said either I took command of the squadron or it would be disbanned and its members divided among neighboring (scoff...nearest unit was 150 miles away) units.  I had no choice, in my then mind, so I took it totally inexperienced.

I will say that it was too much for me.  A cadet collpased at a meeting from a heart related issue where I was the only one in attendance (it was while we were waiting for parents to pick up cadets after a cancellation), only two Seniors would attend, ELT call outs came down from Group and the GROUP CC railed at me when I could not leave my teaching job to address these missions.

Finally, I had to resign.  The though of even looking at the uniform was such a burden...CAP was no longer fun.  I ran from it for two years!!!  And the unit DIED!

When I returned to the unit in 2005 I was crushed to see that it was reverted to two or three people taking about the glory days.  There was a unit inspection where the only thing they could offer was excuse after excuse....  We don't have a plane so we have no pilots....We don't have pilots because we don't have a plane...

I felt responsible because I had done nothing for two years to remedy that and I resolved to have a renewed passion for CAP.  That we would make it happen.  We would build a momentum and keep the momentum going!!!

We will take it as far as we can.  If we fail it will be the failure of having exausted every possible alternative.  It will be a personally destructive one for me, but a failure where I know that the unit's officers gave it all and tried with all possible might to build it back and take it to new hights.  It will be the failure's whose crater will be that of my heart.  but if we succeed!!!

If we succeed it will be GLORIOUS.  And it will be our SUCCESS!!!  Yours and mine because when a CAP unit succeeds it betters us all.

There are some that ridicule my attitudes on CAP.  There are some that think I'm some sort of primadonna or idealistic hack, but I need your help and guidance!!!!  [darnit], I believe in the Civil Air Patrol.

I would like to thank Bosshawk, Al Sayre, John Kach, COL H and the others who give me advice.  Advice I do cherish and apply.  That is the only purpose I see in forums like this.  Knowledge exchange and friendship for the betterment of CAP.

So when ENEMIES of CAP post here, they should expect little support from me.  When people come here with agendas negative to the betterment of CAP, they are to expect no support form me.  Those with workable ideas that simply need Devil's Advocacy or tweaking (be they uniform topics or not) to  make them proposable, expect input from me.

[ELTHunter]

This was the only thing I saw that gave me a bit of heartburn:

   Squadron CC – minimum 1 year as 2 Lt, Level 2 completed, 2 years staff experience, 2 years current & continuous CAP service

While this would be really nice to have, it would exclude a lot of relatively new people that are willing to step up when no one of higher rank will.  (BTDT got the commanders pin)

That is part of the problem.  Many times those willing to step up are not the ones with the CAP background to be in a command position.  I'm not saying you are/were one of them, but it does happen.  We need to get out of the mentality that we should put someone in a command or staff job just because they are willing.

[ELTHunter]

I whole heartedly agree that we should be selecting the best people for the jobs and it is a gread idea to have people expeinced with the CAP way of doing buisness to stand up and take the job.  But let's get down to brass tacks here.  What do you do if you have not "qualified" people who are willing to take the job?  What do you do in the case of new units where there are no experinced officers at all?

Making new rules is not going to fix this particual problem.  In fact it may make it worse.  Let's say you have a new member who has the abilities to run and manage a squadron but has only been in CAP for six months or so.  This rule will force you to either have a gap in command or it will force you to ignore your own rule.

Closing squadrons for lack of leadership is not the way to go.

Look at Iowa's plan of "CAP stations" and the like.  Besides finding a commander for new or reorganizing squadrons, there are many other pitfalls that usually lead to thier demise.  Putting a new CAP person in charge might do more harm than good.

[RiverAux]

Just for clarification there are several SDFs with air components, but they fall into two different categories.  VA and the AK SDFs actually have flying units (AK has SDF-owned low-wing aircraft while VA uses civilian aircraft and their owners' fly them).  The second type of air unit is devoted to augmentation of the Air National Guard in that state.  TX is probably the most advanced in their area.  Their SDF members provide day-to-day augmentation of specific Air NG units.

I do not know of any SDF air unit whose members actually fly NG helicopters or aircraft. 

[lordmonar]

That is part of the problem.  Many times those willing to step up are not the ones with the CAP background to be in a command position.  I'm not saying you are/were one of them, but it does happen.  We need to get out of the mentality that we should put someone in a command or staff job just because they are willing.

I got to drop the BS flag on this one...because the first criteria for any position is to be willing to take it on.  We can't force anyone to take any position.  We can put pressure on the unit by threatening disolution....but is that what we really want?  It becomes a command decision at that time.  Is it better to have a squadron run by a willing amature ot to not have a squadron at all?  I don't think we are in the mentality of "hey you want this job...it's yours!"  It is more "God if someone does not step up soon DIPSY DOODLE Composite Squadron is going to fold".

[Major Carrales]

That is part of the problem.  Many times those willing to step up are not the ones with the CAP background to be in a command position.  I'm not saying you are/were one of them, but it does happen.  We need to get out of the mentality that we should put someone in a command or staff job just because they are willing.

I got to drop the BS flag on this one...because the first criteria for any position is to be willing to take it on.  We can't force anyone to take any position.  We can put pressure on the unit by threatening disolution....but is that what we really want?  It becomes a command decision at that time.  Is it better to have a squadron run by a willing amature ot to not have a squadron at all?  I don't think we are in the mentality of "hey you want this job...it's yours!"  It is more "God if someone does not step up soon DIPSY DOODLE Composite Squadron is going to fold".

If I may be so bold, if one is going to put a rank amature in command of a unit, one had better give that person support from above and from below.

The Group, or WING, had better be willing and able to offer assistance more than just "its all in the regs."  In these days of instant communication via e-mail and telephone it should be easy.  Also, if no one in the unit wants the collar, they had best be supporters and not curmudgeonous obstacles.  Aviation and Cadet experts in the unit that is a Composite Squadron had better be the foundations of this person's command.

Lest, it will be a disaster.

My true impression is a unit needs a good staff.  That was the first thing I tried to get done when I took over my unit.  Without that "foundation" burnout is the only logical result.  No man alone is a UNIT.

[ZigZag911]

I whole heartedly agree that we should be selecting the best people for the jobs and it is a gread idea to have people expeinced with the CAP way of doing buisness to stand up and take the job.  But let's get down to brass tacks here.  What do you do if you have not "qualified" people who are willing to take the job?  What do you do in the case of new units where there are no experinced officers at all?

Making new rules is not going to fix this particual problem.  In fact it may make it worse.  Let's say you have a new member who has the abilities to run and manage a squadron but has only been in CAP for six months or so.  This rule will force you to either have a gap in command or it will force you to ignore your own rule.

Closing squadrons for lack of leadership is not the way to go.

Who said anything about shutting down squadrons?

Regardng the new unit -- why can't it be a flight reporting to wing/group/another squadron until there is a qualified & sufficiently experienced officer avaialble to command?

Also, I thought we were discussing 're-stricturing' here.....by it's nature that is going to mean writing new rules (that will hopefully work) to replace the old ones that are broken.

What CAP really needs is a culture change to reduce politics and increase mission orientation (all three missions)....as I see it, one way to do that is to take away the tools that have enabled the 'good ol' boy' network.

The ironic thing is that in the eadtern part of the country, the GOB network presently consists mainly of people who are CAP members less than five years....many "legends in their own minds"!

In any event, I proposed possible one solution to this mess, I'd be most interested in hearing yours.

[ZigZag911]

I got to drop the BS flag on this one...because the first criteria for any position is to be willing to take it on.  We can't force anyone to take any position. 

Willingness as "first" criterion is fine.....however I have seen firsthand the problems that occur when it is the SOLE criterion!

[lordmonar]

Who said anything about shutting down squadrons?

Well what is the alternative?  If no one with the minimum qualifications is willing to take the job...the only recourse is to shut down the squadron.

Regarding the new unit -- why can't it be a flight reporting to wing/group/another squadron until there is a qualified & sufficiently experienced officer available to command?

So are you going to ask some officer to commute 2-3 times a week over 150 miles to some remote Flight to run the meetings and train the new squadron commander for a year and a half?

Also, I thought we were discussing 're-structuring' here.....by it's nature that is going to mean writing new rules (that will hopefully work) to replace the old ones that are broken.

The problem with that idea is that the new rules do not fix the problem.  The problem is that inexperienced officers are often thrust into command positions before they are ready.  The fix is move oversight by higher headquarters...timely and appropriate training BEFORE it is needed.

What CAP really needs is a culture change to reduce politics and increase mission orientation (all three missions)....as I see it, one way to do that is to take away the tools that have enabled the 'good ol' boy' network.

The way to fix that is oversight.  Real oversight.  And that can only come from above.  National needs to know what the regional commanders are doing and fire them if the need to.  Regional needs to hold their wing commander accountable and fire them if they need to....and all the way down the line.

PAWG is a prime example (not to pick on them).  Their wing uniform policy is in clear violation of the written regulation....and yet Region and National have done nothing to stop it.  Making it necessary to have at least 18 months TIS before you can be a commander is not going to fix the fact that National, Regional and Wing commanders do not do their jobs.

The ironic thing is that in the Eastern part of the country, the GOB network presently consists mainly of people who are CAP members less than five years....many "legends in their own minds"!

The GOB network is based on freindship...you don't have to be friends long to set up a network.

In any event, I proposed possible one solution to this mess, I'd be most interested in hearing yours.

I have already posted it.  More oversight, more training, more group and wing supervision.  A group commander should be interacting with his squadron commanders in such a way that he know when they are ready for a break.  He should have his training team in the squadrons at a regular basis making sure that there is adequate leadership.  He needs to have already identified the next commander at least six month prior to a change of command.

We need to get more involvement at the wing and group level with roving training teams.  Guys who are out at least once a week somewhere providing training to the squadron levels.

I have been here in NV wing for six months...and I am still waiting for an SLS (which is bad). We have had one commander's course (which is good) and six SAREXs which is very good.

If a new squadron is formed...then the group should be there at each meeting for at least six months helping the new commander along.

I propose a "commissioner staff" similar to the BSA's program.  These are guys who work for the District Commission and District Executive (Equivalent to Group) who provide two things.  Oversight.  A unit commissioner may be responsible for 2-3 units.  He visits them every month or so to see how they are doing.  If they are following policy, if they need any extra training, if they are having a retention problem.  If they need help...the Unit Commissioner contacts the District Commissioner and they (with the rest of the commissioner staff) prepare and implement a plan to correct the problem.

CAP lacks leadership.  One of the first basics of leadership is observing your people.  Now a wing or group commander can't be everywhere, so he must have eyes and ears out there working for him.

BTW...the unit commissioner visits are NOT inspections.  The point is not to send a roving IG team every other month but to have a conduit to ask for help and catch problems before they get too big.

[lordmonar]

I got to drop the BS flag on this one...because the first criteria for any position is to be willing to take it on.  We can't force anyone to take any position. 

Willingness as "first" criterion is fine.....however I have seen firsthand the problems that occur when it is the SOLE criterion!

Yes you are right....there are lots of leaders out there who are too lazy to look a little deeper, do some real recruiting and getting the best guy for the job.

But again....that is not the problem of the member with only six months TIG, or the leaders of a new unit.  As I said....by making a hard and fast, you must be this tall to ride this ride, rule you are only cutting yourself off, because the reality is that some units are so small that there may not be anyone qualified and willing to take the job.

I've spend my time in the hot seat.   A newly minted 1st Lt.  There was a Maj in my unit and a FO.  The Major being a full time USAF Cop did NOT have the time to commit to being there for the cadets every week.  So I had the ball.

If I had to have 1 year TIG before I could take the job...there would have been no CAP....and how would I have gotten my 1 year experience?  The next nearest unit was over 700Km away (a 10 hour drive if you speed!).

So I know first hand that this rule would have made CAP worse off than with it.

Now if you have the good luck to be in area where you have lots of units close together...sure....go to outside the squadron to look for a suitable candidate.  That is what a group or wing commander (of their staff) should be doing.

[Al Sayre]

Fortunately for me I grew up in CAP, including a couple of Squadrons where we got somebody's mom to join and be the CC to keep things alive and as C/CC I learned the hard way how to get the paperwork done.  Also during my time in the Navy, I was usually the detachment Training PO, so I got a lot of practice making the Detachment float on a sea of paper.  All of this was pretty good training for the Commanders job.

One of the first things I started doing as Commander was to start looking for someone to train as my replacement.  I fall back to the old principle that a really good leader trains his subordinates so well that he won't be missed when he leaves.  Not training replacements is how the Squadron ended up with noobie me as CC.

[ZigZag911]

I got to drop the BS flag on this one...because the first criteria for any position is to be willing to take it on.  We can't force anyone to take any position. 

Willingness as "first" criterion is fine.....however I have seen firsthand the problems that occur when it is the SOLE criterion!

Yes you are right....there are lots of leaders out there who are too lazy to look a little deeper, do some real recruiting and getting the best guy for the job.

But again....that is not the problem of the member with only six months TIG, or the leaders of a new unit.  As I said....by making a hard and fast, you must be this tall to ride this ride, rule you are only cutting yourself off, because the reality is that some units are so small that there may not be anyone qualified and willing to take the job.

I've spend my time in the hot seat.   A newly minted 1st Lt.  There was a Maj in my unit and a FO.  The Major being a full time USAF Cop did NOT have the time to commit to being there for the cadets every week.  So I had the ball.

If I had to have 1 year TIG before I could take the job...there would have been no CAP....and how would I have gotten my 1 year experience?  The next nearest unit was over 700Km away (a 10 hour drive if you speed!).

So I know first hand that this rule would have made CAP worse off than with it.

Now if you have the good luck to be in area where you have lots of units close together...sure....go to outside the squadron to look for a suitable candidate.  That is what a group or wing commander (of their staff) should be doing.

I agree completely that group/wing oversight, training & mentoring is the answer.

I still disagree about putting the inexperienced in command simply to have a squadron.

I think there are possibilities in the Iowa solution for some wings facing lack of personnel....it sort of addresses a problem I identified years ago -- that is, most CAP squadrons have a handful of officers to fill too many staff positions.

Part of the solution, I believe, is to move a lot of the administration to group 7 wing....kind of an expanded version of the 'wing banker' approach.

Squadrons & flights would be 'tactical' units, actually doing things, not shuffling papers.

Process could be as simple as squadron CC sending an email (or postcard, for the technologically challenged) to group/wing personnel recommending 2nd Lt Jones for promotion to 1 Lt.....personnel section then gets the ball rolling.

On another point, I am not suggesting that a flight be visited weekly by it s squadron CC from 150 miles away....but the same problem could apply also to wing/group staff, in terms of distance from the new unit.

I'm all for lots of interaction & support from higher echelons to the units in the field.

However, when higher echelons are being run by sparsely experienced cronies of equally inexperienced brass, then the problem is self-perpetuating....hence my proposal to make it darn difficult to get a command without thorough training and experience.

If someone knows what they are doing, I can live with them being the wing commander's 3rd cousin twice removed

[DNall]

And, as we all know, rotary-wing aircraft are the work of the Devil.

Well I'm trying to slam a document together now... as I'm sure you know, my position is focused on a federal CAP lined up better under AF. It's focused on putting OPCON on 1AF because that's where all our ES missions line up. And, staying ADCON under AETC, cause thats where our CP/AE missions line up.

While trying not to get too deeply into this... what happens on a disaster is a little complex. Once it is federally declared, the NG isn't in charge anymore. Governor can keep some NG on security jobs, but 1st/5th Army takes over military response (including dibs on NG assets). The 1st/5th Army Brigade CCs become the field level owners of all the resources.

Meanwhile in the AF. AFNSEP runs liaisons at FEMA & other agencies, takes requests for AF asistance, clears that thru 1st/5th Army in overall command of DoD assets (by following SOP more than actually getting clearance), then taks those resources thru 1AF.... On top of that, 1AF/CC is the automatically designated Air Component Commander for all civilian & military aviation in the disaster TFR/AO - owns the airspace & everything in it.

Key Point: 1) When a disaster goes federal then federal officers take over at the points that decide who gets what mission on the ground or in the air. !AF runs that show for AF & has a extra key role overall airspace owner.
2) There's no point. There's little space between someing getting out of hand locally & where 1AF/AFNSEP are authorized to step in. They have broad latitude (under known rules) to help BEFORE a federal declearation, and after they get one the gloves come off.

Plus he who makes the rules owes the money - goes both ways you know. If the states take CAP as an asset then they pay those bills in these emergency response situations, not the feds. Maybe tehy can work something out, I don't know, but woudn't it be easier the other way around?


That'd bring me to why are we just talking about disaster response? It's a nice side job here & there, but it's 1) and Army mission, 2) not that consistent a work, & 3) requires long far deployments for unpaid CAP members. Absolutely we should do the work, but you don't build your structure around a side-job.

You want to talk about getting in this fight? How about homeland defense... the guard does some of that right? Well not so fast. Yeah the personnel are operators on some of those missions, but they don't run the show. When you're talking about surveiling, controlling, & defending the US airspace, that's 1AF. They call up ANG units to fly those missions, along with ARNG aviation, & federal air resources. You hit the ground that belongs to the AD Army, the water belongs to CG. You want to fly chem/bio/nuke/rad detection & deterrance, that's a federal job run by federal forces. They may reach down to tap state resources, even have OPCON of some of those resources assigned directly to them for that purpose, but the show gets run by 1AF.

FYI- The AAGs are just administrators to make sure state resources flow to units so they can meet requirements set by 1st/5th Army. The TAG gets a little more juice standing next to the Governor, but when it comes down to it the feds are going to run the show, and most governors are smart enough not to argue since they know who's paying the bills at the end of the day.

What else you want to do... SAR, DR, HLD... oh CN, yeah 1AF is in charge of all airbone CN activity by all state & federal military assets. Again, you might see NG forces doing the work, but 1AF is calling the shots. What else am I missing? We could talk about how to run augmentation back up ther other way... there's not really a structure for that. It's been teh recieving agency (chaplain service) dealing with the details so far, but you want to take that big time then it'll get a little harder. While 1AF deals with this complex back & forth guard/reserve/active/multi-agency/joint-service BS constantly, I think they're best left using their time defesnding the country than figureing out what base needs some extra legal aid to dependants or some crap like that. AETC is in a good position for that one. I know it seems like we can help out ANG in a few roles, and there's no reason we can't have them tap into the same system. Oh yeah, and stepping up to back up the light aircraft transportation fleet that's mostly in Army fixed wing, little in AF. This is something we talked about if we had a few twins laying around & required CPL. That's going to be managed by active forces also.

Look the guard is good people they really are, and they've come a very long way from the old days belief that they were weekend soldiers. However, when the chips are down, the feds take charge. If I'm looking for important work, I want to find the place where the most things we need to be doing are flying around one point, and I want to stand inside the eye of that storm - That's 1AF! For an endless list of reasons that always ends back there despite my not planning it that way at all.. it just is 1AF.


Now, structural change? We can do anything we want internally. BoG controls the rules. If they want to create a rule that candidates for Wg/Reg/Nat CC be reviewed or even appointed by them, or confirmed after election, or if they want to pass that power to AETC/CC or SECAF's designee (probably some Amn waiting for tech school)... they can make our rules whatever they want w/o legislative change. I'd recommend they do so to the extent needed & if it needs to be backed up/enshrined in law after he system is proven, then that's a small matter.

Obviously the key issues are: accountability & personnel quality control (especially in leadership slots, but overall as well).

I can tell you the AF doesn't trust us with serious gear or missions critical to homeland defense, because we're "volunteers" - interchangable with idiots off the street incapable of long division, much less running a FLIR over the border like a pro. If we want to play their game we have to do it on their level.

PD: We have to up our memebrship standards & requirements for officership, and set training close to theirs. I won't get into my whole officer/enlisted PD concept, but you all know it by now (or can go find that thread). Up the quality from underneath.

Pair that with legit metrics & TQM of units on realistic partiicpation numbers, and roving Wg/Gp based recruiting/retention/Sq Mgmt Tiger teams to fix broke units & stoke the fires. That probably will require a lot of hard work & reorg on the Sq level when we see what people are really doing well or poorly & how small units really are - hence why they can't get the job done. Mere survival isn't good enough by the way - that's a failing grade. I have some ideas about pairing up some units to share staff so they're correctly manned, but you have to see that data first.

Standardization at Gp level thru quarterly training conferences. All tracks breakout. CP training at these things standardizes off the varrious problems that exist at Sq - notice I'm being nice.

Specialty track managers at Wg (coordinators at Gp) in addition to the guy doing that job for that echelon - in other words, the Wg Safety officer is running the Wg Safety program & advising the CC on the issue. Very little is left to directly manage the training of every safety officer in the Wg, and to build up comm channels between those personnel inside the track.

...follow thru on most of this & similar ideas, you get a MUCH better organized org & better quality people rising in grade & to leadership opportunities. In the long run that fixes your command problems, or it should anyway.


Governance... accountability is the issue. leadership isn't accountable to members, or to AF, not even to BoG or Congress.

BoG should restucture the consitution. With BoG in power there is no need of a NB or NEC. BoG hold those powers, below them is a military chain of command that can follow orders or be replaced. I suggest that all Col or above slots be appointed by BoG (they may take applications or recommendations from the field or varrious CCs as they see fit); I'd recommend BoG seek AF input in the selection process for at least the upper end of these slots.

At some point out in the long term, when the world is spinning the right way again, I'd like title 36 corporate status to be abolished in favor of a fixed title 10 along the same lines as CGAux - basically making us a federal level SDF of the AF. If it can't get in before this, I'd like to see empoyment protections like Iowa & a couple other places have, as well as funded legit per diem as is already authorized. With that, BoG would transfer all power to AF & you can look to CGAux for how seamlessly they function.

[BillB]

DNall
It sure would be nice if the average CAP member reading your post knew what in the (censored) you were talking about. As mentioned in a Civil Air Portal thread, members who'se experience in in other areas of the program have no idea of the abbreviations used.  OPCON, ADCON, AETC, AFNSEP, what do those mean to the average member that may be in cadet programs or aerospace ed, or even a new member trying to understand thyge missions of CAP. YOU may be familiar with all those terms, but how many readers know what you refer to? Does it take that much time to spell it out the first time a name is abbreviated to allow the reader to see what you're talking about?

[DNall]

I'll spell them out just cause you asked, but yes it's a huge pain in the butt. This is not a conversation about how to teach leadership or AE or GTM tasks. This is highly advanced strategic study of CAP's make up & place in a future military structure. It's meant to be advanced for War College material, and will be published there when we get done. If a member can't follow from context, they can use their search engine - where besides the terms they'll also find a DoD guide to common abbreviations. If that doesn't work they CAN ask & we'll answer. All of which is more efficient then me writing out a glossary.

OPCON/ADCON = Operational/Administrative Control. ADCON is to command you report to for day-to-day mgmt, oversight, training, professional development, contracting, etc. OPCON is the command that activates you to come work for them on missions - ex 1AF owns AFRCC, who takes OPCON of CAP personnel during missions.

AETC is Air Education & Training Command. They are the major command that oversees all technical/specialty training & professional development in the Air Force. They are basically the top level in the chain of commmand befoer it goes to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force - Secretary of the AF - Sec Defense - President. AETC controls all the money Congress gives to CAP. They do the contracting & oversee CAP-USAF who watches over our shoulder.

AFNSEP - Air Force National Security Emergency Prepardness. This is a stand alone agency that direct reports to the Air Staff (they run the Air Force). AFNSEP provides liaison officers to all states, FEMA, & other lead emergency response agencies. These liaisons take requests for AF assistance of civial authorities, AFNSEP is there to simplify the process & get it thru the right channels so the right units can be activated. They are teh ones that give mission numbers for most of the disaster stuff that CAP (or any part of the AF) does.

SDF, that's State Defense Force. That's organizations in 35 states that are very much like CAP (not paid, in uniform, etc) that are meant to fill in for the national guard on their state jobs when the guard gets called to war, and to help out during disasters & civil unrest. The generally have to meet the same standards, or reasonably close, as the guard & regularlly fill in for them in just about every role.

1st & 5th US ARMIES. These are Active duty Army commands (like AETC) that each one covers half the country. They set teh standards & monitor teh training of all national guards for their federal (wartime) mission, and as we discussed, they take over in case of disasters so a bunch of differnt people aren't giving troops conflicting orders in the same area at the same time.

USNOTHCOM, AFNORTH, 1AF... go to the website already.

CN - Counter Narcotics;

HLD - homeland Defense = doesn't include law enforcement, is defesne of the US
HLS - Homeland Security = includes law enforcement

TFR - Temporary flight restriction. FAA imposed flight restriction around a special event or emergency situation. Control of Airspace is restricted & controlled in a different way by different people. In the case of a disaster, in order to keep people from running into each other, airspace is controlled by 1AF. If you try to go in it w/o permission they'll remove you one way or another.

AO - Aera of Operations. An official term (also used in slag at times) just meaning the defined area in which an operation is happening, usually determined by radius around an incident or map defined boundries, like county/state lines or streets.

TAG - The Adjutant General of a state. Usually a two star general appointed by a governor in change of a state's air & army national guard.
AAG - there is an Assistant Adjutant General under the TAG for Army & one for Air.

Ask if I missed something you don't know.

[A.Member]

Is it better to have a squadron run by a willing amature ot to not have a squadron at all? 

Those aren't the only the two choices.  However, if they were, without question it would be better to have no squadron at all.  A squadron in the wrong hands can do significantly more damage to the organization than no squadron at all.

Group commanders provide temporary oversight to the squadron.  It could be a flight under the command of another squadron until a suitable commander is found.  There are other options. 

The worst thing we can do is continue to put unqualified people in these positions - regardless of their desire to do so.  This is precisely one of the things that leads to so many of our issues.  It reflects poorly on the organization as a whole.  You can't tell me that you haven't come across some squadron commander - or worse yet, a group or wing CC (and probably on more than one occasion) - and said to yourself, "You've got to be kidding me.  This guy is the commander?" 

No one said it would be easy but this approach of having Joe Blow the New Guy do it because no one else is willing must stop.  We need to do a better job of grooming all officers to be just that - officers!  This is just one reason why AFAIDL (ECI)13 should be moved up as a requirement to obtain 2d LT rather than Capt. - with classroom instruction to supplement it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

DNall
It sure would be nice if the average CAP member reading your post knew what in the (censored) you were talking about. As mentioned in a Civil Air Portal thread, members who'se experience in in other areas of the program have no idea of the abbreviations used.  OPCON, ADCON, AETC, AFNSEP, what do those mean to the average member that may be in cadet programs or aerospace ed, or even a new member trying to understand thyge missions of CAP. YOU may be familiar with all those terms, but how many readers know what you refer to? Does it take that much time to spell it out the first time a name is abbreviated to allow the reader to see what you're talking about?

Two comments, Bill:

1.  To the extent that a CAP member does NOT know what the (Freak) he's talking about, that alone serves as an illustration of the failure of our officer professional development.

2.  If you are among those who don't know what the (Freak) he's talking about, get with the (Freakin') program!  There's a WAR ON!

[fyrfitrmedic]

DNall
It sure would be nice if the average CAP member reading your post knew what in the (censored) you were talking about. As mentioned in a Civil Air Portal thread, members who'se experience in in other areas of the program have no idea of the abbreviations used.  OPCON, ADCON, AETC, AFNSEP, what do those mean to the average member that may be in cadet programs or aerospace ed, or even a new member trying to understand thyge missions of CAP. YOU may be familiar with all those terms, but how many readers know what you refer to? Does it take that much time to spell it out the first time a name is abbreviated to allow the reader to see what you're talking about?

Two comments, Bill:

1.  To the extent that a CAP member does NOT know what the (Freak) he's talking about, that alone serves as an illustration of the failure of our officer professional development.

2.  If you are among those who don't know what the (Freak) he's talking about, get with the (Freakin') program!  There's a WAR ON!

I had much the same pair of thoughts initially. these were joined by a mixture of dismay, embarassment and frustration when I considered just how many folks within the organization I know personally who probably don't recognize those terms or acronyms.

[JohnKachenmeister]

DNall:

As always, Dennis, you make good points, and present a valid argument.  I'm looking forward to discussing this with you tonight.

And as I said before, we have a 50-meter bracket on the problem.  Any shells landing at your position, or mine, or in between will have the desired effect on the target.

The plan I proposed, however, provides certain advantages that your plan does not offer.  For example:

1.  Yes, in a federal emergency or disaster, 1AF controls the show.  In disasters or emergencies less than those requiring a federal declaration of disaster, the NG is still the star of the show.  If we are under the OPCON of the ANG, we will be more flexible in responding to local-level emergencies requiring the assistance of light aircraft.  (Seasonal flooding, dam surveillance, missing persons searches, etc.)

2.  In the event of a major disaster, we still fall under 1AF, as do all NG units.

3.  You are correct in pointing out that some of the missions in a disaster are Army missions, but being under the TAG would put us in a position to also respond to Army requests for aviation support, (Route recon for convoys, rapid light cargo transport, movement of key personnel, etc.)

4.  Alignment under the Guard would open up assets to us in the form of use of armories, and access to the state military academies, which would assist us in the very vital mission of improving our officer corps.

I support you on the proposal for the BoG to hire and fire all colonels and higher, but I think the BoG only meets twice a year.  Will they be flexible and responsive enough to do that?    

[Dragoon]

I'm all for making us the Aux of the Guard, for the following functional, (not legal) reasons

1.  We do local work- most emergencies are confined to a one or two state area.  The Guard is the local presence.  CAP has not been called for many state or county-level  emergencies because unless there's a good MOU in place, we only do federal work (lost planes and presidential disasters).  If we were wired to directly to each state, we'd spend more time helping folks and less time waiting for the call.  While some would call DR work "a nice sideline" it's a growing line of business and definitely an "Emergency Service."  Defining Emergency Services as just SAR is a circular argument - it's mainly what we do not because it's the right thing to do in service to our nation, but rather because that's all USAF cares about most of the time.

2.  "Serving 2 masters" (1 for ES and one for CP/AE) is kind of an exaggeration, especially at the squadron level. 

            a.  As John K pointed out, we do this already whenever we take on a corporate mission.  And really, how often has USAF butted their nose into how a squadron runs the cadet program?

            b.  Also as John K pointed out.  It's also how the NG functions every day, and they do fine.

            c.  Most "serving 2 masters" issues would be at Wing level. Squadrons don't answer to USAF or Adjutant Generals anyway - they answer to a CAP chain of command.  It's at the Wing level where multiple commitments from multiple sources get hashed out.

            d.  The cadet program might change, but it also might not.  In our Wing, the NG is the biggest supporter of our cadet program, as it provides recruits into the ANG!  We get a heck of a lot more NG support than USAF support at the local unit level. 

           e.  (and yes, I'm being smarmy here) - the AE mission is basically complete.  Ask 10 Americans whether planes and satellites are good things, and you'll get a rather resounding yes.  Really, our AE mission is 90% internal.  This would not change no matter where we go, as long as we are aviation based.

3.  Being tied to the federal USAF means being tied to an organization whose major function is performed overseas where we don't play.  Being tied to the Guard means being tied to an organization whose major function is right where our members live and work.  (this, I think, is why CGAUX has closer ties to their service - most Coast Guard work is here at home.)

4.  Yup, there are already SDFs in some states, and laws might have to change.  The way I'd envision it is that CAP would be kind of an "unpaid National Guard" - with the same kind of joint Federal and State status and funding.

Without a law change, this ain't gonna happen.  With a law change, the rest is just details.

Now let me share the major reason it will never happen - years ago we had the Air Force Asssitant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs at the CAP National Board.  I asked him about the possibility of moving us to the Guard Bureau.  His answer was effectively "Yeah, we've thought about that and it makes sense, but there's no way the Air Force is going to give the Guard another $30 million."

Perhaps today's climate has changed that sentiment, but it's been around a very long time.

[flyguy06]

The Gurd and the USAF operate ff of two different budgets. The Guard gets money from indivisual tates. The USAF gets money from the Federal Government.

Be careful what you ask for wanting CAP to fall under the Guard. The good ol Boy system is rampant in the guard and you really dont want that feeding over into CAP

[JohnKachenmeister]

Flyguy:

Yes, and No.

The Guard is funded by the states, and unless called upon by the President, the Guard remains under the command of the Governor, providing the state with a military response force of its own.

But, since the Guard also has a "Federal mission," the training for and equipment used in that mission are provided by the United States government.  Tanks, guns, airplanes, uniforms, weekend training salaries, salaries and expenses for annual training, training ammunition, all are provided by Uncle Sam.

The state owns the armories, and pays salaries for troops called to active duty on state missions.

SDF's have NO federal mission, and as such are not funded by Uncle Sam.  They cannot even access DRMO's.

[DNall]

DNall:

As always, Dennis, you make good points, and present a valid argument.  I'm looking forward to discussing this with you tonight.

And as I said before, we have a 50-meter bracket on the problem.  Any shells landing at your position, or mine, or in between will have the desired effect on the target.

The plan I proposed, however, provides certain advantages that your plan does not offer.  For example:

1.  Yes, in a federal emergency or disaster, 1AF controls the show.  In disasters or emergencies less than those requiring a federal declaration of disaster, the NG is still the star of the show.  If we are under the OPCON of the ANG, we will be more flexible in responding to local-level emergencies requiring the assistance of light aircraft.  (Seasonal flooding, dam surveillance, missing persons searches, etc.)

2.  In the event of a major disaster, we still fall under 1AF, as do all NG units.

3.  You are correct in pointing out that some of the missions in a disaster are Army missions, but being under the TAG would put us in a position to also respond to Army requests for aviation support, (Route recon for convoys, rapid light cargo transport, movement of key personnel, etc.)

4.  Alignment under the Guard would open up assets to us in the form of use of armories, and access to the state military academies, which would assist us in the very vital mission of improving our officer corps.

I support you on the proposal for the BoG to hire and fire all colonels and higher, but I think the BoG only meets twice a year.  Will they be flexible and responsive enough to do that?    

I'm looking forward to it as well. I should be aboard a few early w/ no problems.

There's pros/cons to both concepts. Strategically I think they run pretty even. I agree we can get the bulk of our aims done from either position. But the change to guard is much more massive & requires a lot more legislative, etc, bigger risks for same basic reward.... just doesn't seem to be a lot of payoff there.

Far as BoG, they meet face to face a couple times a year. They're fully capable of running a conf call if need be. The military structure selected by them should operate like a military structure, and BoG should excercise hire/fire authority over Exec Director & senior staff to ensure NHQ follow sthe perscribed vision. The national level board I was on for a non-profit met four times a year. Corporate boards of directors don't meet daily or anything.

Far as disaster size. I think it's a VERY narrow window you're talking about... one where it's beyond the local/mutual-aid capabilities, but still too small to be federally declared. Then you reach down into that very small range & AFNSEP can still send resources under basically the same rules that'd govern the guard being used in-state. Plus, even if that small range were decisive on disaster resposne, that's an Army mission we help with as a sideline. Our main focus has to be w/ 1AF protecting the country & saving lives, maybe w/ 8AF on their anti-cyberterrorism mission, with ICE/DEA/DHS tasked out of 1AF defending border sovereignty & stopping the flow of natcotics.... our main jobs are federal, and they're the best route to keep our cadet program strong & work toward consistent national standards & funding.

[DNall]

For your ref...

Who Are the Players?
USNORTHCOM:       
·   Conduct operations (sea, air, land, space, etc) to deter, prevent and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories and interests within the assigned area of responsibility (North America)
·   As directed by the president or secretary of defense, provide military assistance to civil authorities including consequence management operations; particularly for disaster (natural or manmade) & special events (terrorism or national security targets).

AFNORTH:
·   Air component of USNORTHCOM
·   Joint US/Canada, covers all North America

First Air Force:
·   AF component of USNORTHCOM/AFNORTH responsible for CONUS
·   CONUS Airspace: Surveillance, Control, & Defense
o   Surveillance: Air Component of homeland defense
§   DoD Counter Narcotics Aviation & airspace monitoring
§   Air component Border/Coastal Sovereignty operations
o   Defense: ANG Alert Fighter Wings
·   Controls AFRCC, & several special operations
·   Air Component Commander for all designated disaster airspace

Army Disaster Relief:
·   The Army (active component) is responsible for all military disaster operations  (state & federal).
o   1st & 5th US ARMY (Active Component) direct the Title 10 (federal) training of all CONUS National Guard units.
o   During disaster relief, one of these two (active component) Army MGs will assume command of all military operations in the area of operations, Their subordinate brigade commanders (six each) command local response.
·   You see while in the field it looks like National Guard is running a disaster because it is primarily their people being used, they are not actually the ones in charge of military operations.
·   Governors deploy National Guard for law enforcement & emergency response assistance. SaR or DR would be controlled by 1st/5th Army


Air Force National Security Emergency Preparedness (AFNSEP):
·   AF agency responsible for coordinating AF assistance to 1st or 5th Army directed military response to natural or manmade disasters.
·   Provide active & reserve (IMA) liaison officers to FEMA & state response efforts. These officers format & forward requests for AF resources.
·   Resources are approved by this agency in coordination with Army, but operationally commanded by 1AF.

[DNall]

DNall
It sure would be nice if the average CAP member reading your post knew what in the (censored) you were talking about. As mentioned in a Civil Air Portal thread, members who'se experience in in other areas of the program have no idea of the abbreviations used.  OPCON, ADCON, AETC, AFNSEP, what do those mean to the average member that may be in cadet programs or aerospace ed, or even a new member trying to understand thyge missions of CAP. YOU may be familiar with all those terms, but how many readers know what you refer to? Does it take that much time to spell it out the first time a name is abbreviated to allow the reader to see what you're talking about?

Two comments, Bill:

1.  To the extent that a CAP member does NOT know what the (Freak) he's talking about, that alone serves as an illustration of the failure of our officer professional development.

2.  If you are among those who don't know what the (Freak) he's talking about, get with the (Freakin') program!  There's a WAR ON!

Hell, Bill nothing personal by the way. You know I got endless respect for you & your many years of dedicated outstanding service. It's just this thing is out a little beyond Johnny "I just joined 2wks ago" SrMbr asking what CAP-USAF is. I appreciate knowledgable well reasoned oppinions regardless of grade or TIS, but at a certina level a respondent needs to recognize the need to take some initiative to catch up if they want to chime in on the big stuff. There's not sacred hidden knowledge. They just have to demonstrate some self-starter skills. When you're talking higher level thought that's the entry fee. I appreciate you effort to defend them though. We need more of that effort in the org & I'll see about a glossary of abreviations for posted on the site...

okay everyone call now!!! info above if you missed it.....

[DNall]

post comments for collaberative paper here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1312.0 (read into first)