CAP Talk

See http://wfmz.com/view/?id=65615 (http://wfmz.com/view/?id=65615).  Has some good video of CAP members loading supplies. 

I'd like to read the bill.  But based on this I'm saying "Finally!"

I'll reserve judgement, but most of the talk on this from all sides has been politics. If they really wanted us flying the border they'd put us down there on customs (remember they're ICE now) missions & change the briefing instructions to radio/satphone in suspicious activity as we observe it. The problem is you're still talking about daylight eyeball, versus using any kind of technology. FLIR would be real handy down there, not to mention on SaR.

Kelly's Heroes (1970)

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Moriarty: Crap!

Good intentions, but we will have to wait and see what will come about.  Sometimes politicians talk just to hear their own voice.

Okay, here is the Congressman's news release http://wfmzimg.dayport.com/img/2-26-DentRelease.doc (http://wfmzimg.dayport.com/img/2-26-DentRelease.doc)

This is the meat of the release:

QuoteCongressman Dent's legislation authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize CAP assets in two important kinds of homeland security missions.  First, they can be deployed to protect against illegal entry, as well as against "trafficking in goods, currency, people, and other substances."  Second, they can also be utilized in response to an act of terrorism or natural disaster by assisting in damage assessment, search and rescue, evacuations, and the transportation of essential materials. 

The bill will supposedly be introduced tomorrow. 

It will be interesting to see how they've set things up to allow the law enforcement stuff so as to avoid posse comitatus. 

The second part seems sort of redundant as we can already do that stuff. 

Yeah I'm a bit uncomfortable with that as stated.

The first point is dangerously close to law enforcement. I mean surveil & report, then break off to a safe distance for comm support, that's doable, but staying on target & guiding LE in on top of them is not okay in any way shape or form. Border Patrol has thier own air force for that, and better equipped than us.

The second point river is Conngress authorizing the secretary of DHS to task CAP on missions. That is a little wierd. DHS can already task CAP thru AF now, so is this allowing DHS to task CAP directly & using DHS funds w/o talking to AF? Cause that would be real bad for us in the long run.

In other words, good intentions chasing after an idea but not addressing the critical issues that have prevented this from being solved decisively to date. I'll have to see exactly how the bill is written & try to figure out how that stands in relation to PCA. Interesting development though, I think I'd spend some time talking with him about the details & see if it can be fixed up.

There is a photo on the tv station web page http://wfmz.com/view/?id=65867 (http://wfmz.com/view/?id=65867)of what appears to be a CAP member standing besides the Rep while announcing the proposal.  This isn't shown in the news report of the press conference so I don't know if that is file or whether CAP people were with him for the announcement.  If they were, I wonder if that had to be coordinated through national as it would certainly seem to show CAP support for specific legislation.  Not sure what the rules are there.

Can't wait to see the actual language.

Any one from PAWG working with the Congressman on  this?

 I haven't seen anything come down the pipeline from PAWG re: this yet.

I know that the PAWG staff has been working with the congressman on this.  I don't know any of the details however.

Hopefully they'll remember to include job protection for call ups...

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 27, 2007, 07:30:31 PM
Hopefully they'll remember to include job protection for call ups...

[nodding emphatically in agreement]

My current employer *may* grant unpaid leave, but even that's not a sure thing by a long shot.

Another article on this subject:

http://www.pennlive.com/expresstimes/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1172552862203590.xml&coll=2

Quote from: DrDave on February 26, 2007, 10:48:38 PM
Any one from PAWG working with the Congressman on this?

The wing Vice Commander is the one speaking in the TPU.  So, I assume most of the coordination was done by the command staff and the legislative liaison person.  I got the impression this was done pretty quickly from the e-mails I saw before it. 

I don't see the bill listed on thomas.loc.gov yet...   :-\

I kind of share DNall's concerns for the long-term effects of this.

The existing law places CAP as an Auxiliary of the USAF when supporting ANY federal agency, but this proposed law does seem to by-pass USAF command channels.  I hate to use cliche terms like "Slippery slope" but I see this as a step down that hill.

Follow my thinking here for just a minute:

There are two ways to get CAP to participate in Law Enforcement missions as a federal asset:

1.  Repeal or significantly modify the Posse Commitatus Act  to permit the USAF to use CAP in a direct LE role, or...

2.  Transfer CAP out of the USAF, assign CAP to the DHS (along with, but not under the Coast Guard) and then the PCA is no longer a concern, since we  will no longer be part of the USAF.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but we're partway there already.  We have a military uniform of our own now, "USAF Auxiliary" is being removed from vehicles and aircraft, and now this legislation that makes us directly accountable to DHS agencies rather than as a USAF asset detailed to DHS.

I could easily forsee a situation where CAP becomes sort of a "Flying Coast Guard."  Part of the USAF when the USAF needs light aircraft support, but otherwise a law enforcement agency under DHS.  Just like the USCG is a maritime LE agency, unless called into service for the Navy.

Now, the big question in my pea-sized and alcohol-fogged brain... is such a plan a "Bad" thing?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 28, 2007, 02:51:39 PM

I could easily forsee a situation where CAP becomes sort of a "Flying Coast Guard."  Part of the USAF when the USAF needs light aircraft support, but otherwise a law enforcement agency under DHS.  Just like the USCG is a maritime LE agency, unless called into service for the Navy.

This might be the answer to a lot of our problems if implemented correctly, but I can also see an opportunity to worsen our current bout of organizational schizophrenia.

It all depends on what you think CAP should be doing.  Should CAP be serving our country in anywhat that it can or should it only limit itself to serving the USAF?

My feelings is that I want to serve my country.  If that means loosing the USAF-AUX status....so be it.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 28, 2007, 03:49:59 PM
It all depends on what you think CAP should be doing.  Should CAP be serving our country in anywhat that it can or should it only limit itself to serving the USAF?

My feelings is that I want to serve my country.  If that means loosing the USAF-AUX status....so be it.

I would agree with that.  I see enormous potential for CAP outside of the AF, particularly in the items this bill addresses.  Remember, CAP was originally placed under the Office of Civil Defense during the Second World War.  We weren't under the Army Air Forces until April 29, 1943, and of course, didn't become 'officially' the USAF Auxiliary until 1950 i believe.  In the beginning, we were our own agency, and that's how we operated during Coastal Patrol Operations.  If we can do that ourselves, then maybe an Indepentdent Civil Air Patrol is the destiny of this organization. 

Is it an honor to be an Auxiliary of the Air Force? Yes, however, is honor lost if we were to be our own agency?

Well of course I'm of the opinion that CAP exists to serve the coutry BY helping the AF, and by extension helping the AF support state/local emergency needs, and otherwise bettering the community through our impact on youth & aviation. That has always been the way. And if we have spare time, people, resopurces, etc or if old missions are sliding away from us, then we need to adapt to find new ways of aiding the AF rather than trying to find someone else who wants to buy what we're selling.

It's selfish to chase off on our own trying to do our own thing just cause we like what we're doing or whatever. Fact is we die fast w/o AF. And even assume you follow the above plan & keep federal funding. Who is going to fight for you now to keep that figure high? AF has a sentimental bond, DHS doesn't. DHS has a competing AF of their own & makes noise about CAP getting such strong appropriations. We live cause AF gives us space in their budget & fights to keep us alive. You just can't make it w/o the 800lbs blue gorilla on your side.

And finally, what in God's name would posess anyone to think CAP involvement in direct CG-style LE would be good. CAP members with sidearms in pursuit of drug smugglers w/ a combined air/grd team, yeah that's not remotely going to happen, and thank God. There's a reason PCA applies to us & it's a very good thing. That's the line we don't want our people to cross for a long list of reasons, none of which are leaglistic.

It's all about the mission.

We will get the funding from whoever has the mission for us.

No one is saying anything about arming CAP members...but right now if our country has a need for us to DHS mission but our affiliation with the USAF is stopping us...it is not selfish...it is about getting the mission done.

I understand your desire to be part of the USAF....but our country is calling.

They don't though. Turning against the AF tradition & sentiment that is the one & only way CAP can stay alive in govt appropriations, to step in the middle of an inter-agency rivalry thinking that'll get us more flight time is just a bad idea no matter how you cut it. DHS doesn't have missions for us. If they did they could task us thru AF right now. They have their own air components, and much more capable than ours, but the mission they have is very narrow - air monitoring of US territory is 1AF, who we already work for.

Look I'm sorry the country doesn't need us flying cessnas looking out the window or tracking down ELTs very often anymore, but no one else needs us doing that either. Till you spend a few million on detection gear it might as well be a paper airplane. Get some rad detection gear on there, get some FLIR, then you're talking about something the govt needs. Moving out from under the AF isn't going to change our current state of obsolescence, it's just going to compound the problem. Adapt within the current framework & relatioships, and find other things we can extend to beyond ES. You have to do that, the world outside those walls is cruel & unmerciful, especially when you don't have an enthusiastic sponsor.

Dennis:

The question is, certainly, what is the best for the defense of the United States.

We were moved from the Office of Civil Defense to the Army Air Corps because it was in the interests of the US to arm our little planes and attack the enemy directly. 

We could just as easily be moved from the USAF to DHS for the same reason.

I wouldn't like it, but the question has to be asked:  Are we here for our own satisfaction, or to serve the nation as best we can?

I could see a situation where we would be a DHS agency, but one which could be called into service by the USAF to perform USAF missions.  The Coast Guard has the same lifestyle.  They are a DHS agency (Ustabe Transportation Dept., and before that, they were under the Treasury Dept.) but when the Navy wants them, the Navy gets them, and then those USCG forces that are assigned to the Navy fall under DOD.

Now before we get too wrapped up in "Direct Law Enforcement is Bad," lets consider the threat.  We have armed drug dealers on the border engaging American troops.  The Mexican Army has been corrupted, and has also fired on Americans.  There are private militias employed by the drug smugglers there with forces that are actually stronger than the Mexican Army.  As long as the nation wants to consider this a "Crime" problem, which is more politically correct than calling it an "Invasion," we will continue to let our own laws get in the way  of defending our country.

If the decision is made to meet this threat with Law Enforcement assets rather than with military force, placing CAP under DHS makes sense.

And, assuming that there will be some training involved, what's wrong with meeting the threat armed?  I carried a sidearm every day of my life for 25 years as a law enforcement officer.  You get used to it.  Sometimes its kinda cool.  Chicks dig it. 

Just adding a piece of information to this argument:

https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/HLS_National_Strategy.pdf

Quoting the above document, Civil Air Patrol Support For the Presidents National Strategy For Homeland Security, "CAP has asked the Air Force General Counsel to review its interpretation of the (PCA)Act to enable the CAP to detect and conduct surveillance of any potential HLS threat until relieved by competent authority".

Quote from: DNall on February 28, 2007, 08:10:54 PM
They don't though. Turning against the AF tradition & sentiment that is the one & only way CAP can stay alive in govt appropriations, to step in the middle of an inter-agency rivalry thinking that'll get us more flight time is just a bad idea no matter how you cut it. DHS doesn't have missions for us. If they did they could task us thru AF right now. They have their own air components, and much more capable than ours, but the mission they have is very narrow - air monitoring of US territory is 1AF, who we already work for.

Look I'm sorry the country doesn't need us flying cessnas looking out the window or tracking down ELTs very often anymore, but no one else needs us doing that either. Till you spend a few million on detection gear it might as well be a paper airplane. Get some rad detection gear on there, get some FLIR, then you're talking about something the govt needs. Moving out from under the AF isn't going to change our current state of obsolescence, it's just going to compound the problem. Adapt within the current framework & relatioships, and find other things we can extend to beyond ES. You have to do that, the world outside those walls is cruel & unmerciful, especially when you don't have an enthusiastic sponsor.

There you go with the doom and gloom again.  USAF is not the only source of funds out there.  Maybe a HLS mission will get the DHS to fund the cool toys that will make us more effective in our SAR role.   The USAF is not going to pay for it.  With a change of mission and change in a source of funds we may be on a better footing to get better equipment.  Working desk jobs at Air Force bases and filling in personnel shortages is not going to get us better equipment either.

Right now our hands are tied by the USAF on what we can and cannot do.  Switching over to DHS does not mean we can't still fly SAR missions.  It does mean we are closer to all our other missions and are separated from the road block to even more missions.  FEMA works for DHS (IIRC) ergo we will have a better in with NIIMS, a better relationship with local law enforcement/fire/ENS.  If we are not under the DOD umbrella we would not have PCA to stop us from working with law enforcement on a multitude of LE/CD operations.  ICE being under DHS would give use access to the border missions and other ICE missions.

It is nice being the USAF-AUX...but that is not the end all, beat all of why most people join CAP.  Serving their country in a meaningful way is more important than just being the USAF-AUX.

You guys are jumping over into an entirely different topic.  Nothing at all has indicated they're talking about moving CAP. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 28, 2007, 11:45:58 PM
You guys are jumping over into an entirely different topic.  Nothing at all has indicated they're talking about moving CAP.

They are talking about shared controled.  Which I don't have any problems with.

Also something not apparently being proposed in the legislation. 

Just to keep the discussion on track, nobody is saying this is right around the corner.  I used the term "Slippery slope" to describe what may become (although I hope it does not) a trend.  We're not in the valley just yet.

DNall expressed some concerns for the future implications of this legislation, and I concurred that there are potential long-term outcomes that may affect CAP in ways that we think are damaging.

But, and as a way of assessing the possible damage, I speculated that certain possible outcomes may not be as bad as they seem.  DNall insisted that they were as bad as they seem.

"Again with the negative waves, Moriarty!" 

Quote from: lordmonar on February 28, 2007, 11:03:38 PM
There you go with the doom and gloom again.  USAF is not the only source of funds out there.  Maybe a HLS mission will get the DHS to fund the cool toys that will make us more effective in our SAR role.   The USAF is not going to pay for it.  With a change of mission and change in a source of funds we may be on a better footing to get better equipment.  Working desk jobs at Air Force bases and filling in personnel shortages is not going to get us better equipment either.

Right now our hands are tied by the USAF on what we can and cannot do.  Switching over to DHS does not mean we can't still fly SAR missions.  It does mean we are closer to all our other missions and are separated from the road block to even more missions.  FEMA works for DHS (IIRC) ergo we will have a better in with NIIMS, a better relationship with local law enforcement/fire/ENS.  If we are not under the DOD umbrella we would not have PCA to stop us from working with law enforcement on a multitude of LE/CD operations.  ICE being under DHS would give use access to the border missions and other ICE missions.

It is nice being the USAF-AUX...but that is not the end all, beat all of why most people join CAP.  Serving their country in a meaningful way is more important than just being the USAF-AUX.

Let me just add this up for ya (near as I can tell on these numbers from 05 & what I know off hand about this year)...

Other than AF funds:
Donations: 150k
appropriations from states: 3.5mil
(including state funded corporate missions)
from member dues ~4mil
Subtotal: 7.65mil

Appropriations from AF budget:
O&M: 25mil
(AF funded missions = 9mil; Oter fed agency missions = 290k)
Procurment from AF
Planes: 10mil
Comm: 4mil
Vehicles: 600k-1.5mil
Subtotal: ~40mil
Total: 47.65mil ~ in 2006.
This excludes a lot of items, from the cadet uniform program to facilities usage.

Fact of the matter is no one in any budget year has that kind of money to spare. The CAP program as a whole is not that important to Congress or the country. It's nice to have, but it's not strictly necessary. If we disappeared & they gave our missions to someone else (like states) very few people would notice.

Now I love CAP. I think what we do is very important in it's own small way, and I'd like to be able to do a lot more, but the problems that keep us from doing that are absolutely not the AF.

You wanna fly the border to prevent drugs or terrorists from comming across, that's 1AF. We can fly that mission all day long directly reporting all suspicious activity to LE for investigation, and we can remain overhead to provide comm support. That's perfectly legal right now. There's not a ton of money out there for it though. Fact is politically no one really wants the border closed. And even if they did, they aren't willing to spend millions for us to fly around looking for crap. If they did want that mission done & had the money to pay for it, they'd be spending it on ground sensors, 1AF directed predators, and more agents. DHS does not have a border mission for us to fly, at least beyond the one we fly for ICE right now, & that's a traffic pattern survey that's been dropping off over the last few years & will continue to do so. What DHS does is interdiction. Regardless of PCA, we can't physically do that in a cessna, especially not daylight eyeball.

The other thing is, yeah you may be able to theoretically slide our ES aspects under DHS. Okay, that's about 10mil now, say you enhance that to 15m. 7.3m to administer CAP w/o cadet programs or AE; plus procurment that varies between 5m in a low year & 15 in a high one. CAP ES is not worth what it costs to run!! I can only exist in partnership with AE & CP, and even then ONLY because of the sentimental traditional attatchment AF has for us. Meanwhile AF will reabsoard their 40mil & DHS will have to take 32m away from their own programs, and chiefly those air interdiction units they love so much.

You want to fly more? I thas zero to do with AF & everything to do with us being the right tool for a job that has priority & funding, not just lip service. Right now we aren't equiped to be that right tool. Toss some FLIR on & that changes fast, be able to do high sensitivity rad mapping & detection & yeah you're in business. You get those things & trustworthy cleared competent people to participate in the missions & it doesn't matter if we under AF, DHS, or the moon, we'll have more missions than we can fly. And with 1500 or so mission pilots nationwide flying 56k hours, how much can you realistically expect the govt to pay for? DHS won't pay for that gear & the missions, the money isn't there. We can & do get money from DHS every year, through state administered grant programs. We can fund some of this more advanced gear that way too & DHS is willing to help, but they won't pay for the missions you want to fly cause they don't have the cash & mostly those aren't their missions in the first place.

Fact is the problems that keep us from doing more have nothing at all to do with AF & everything to do with CAP. I'm not trying to be negative, I'm not being negative, I'm saying you can't blame the AF, or Congress, or anyone else, and you can't believe moving out from under them or sharing resources or anything like that is going to be a some kind of magic bullet to solve everything. The problems that keep us from doing more are right here at home. If we take responsibility for our own house, & fix the things that keep us from being trusted & respected, then we become the right hand to weild the right tools for the jobs that need to get done. Right now that isn't the case, and it'll never get fixed while we keep pointing outwards.

Dennis:

You are, as always, correct.

Our biggest problems are internal, and will REQUIRE a radical fix to gear us up for war, regardless of who we report to.  We have discussed this fix, and are working on a paper to present to propose a fix.  (Gentle reminder...?)

I think your earlier point that started this discussion was that the proposed legislation would place CAP under DHS directly, and NOT as an asset of 1AF for purposes of patrol of the Southwest border as well as other border and port security missions.  You stated that working outside of the chain of command under 1AF might not be a good idea.  DHS could always rquest CAP support from 1AF, and does not need a new law to do so.

So... why is a new law proposed, and what would be the impact on our operations and organization?

First, I see this as another attempt to find a "Loophole" in Posse Comitatus.  There is no political will to repeal or amend PCA, but there is pressure to find ways around it.  This is something I do not understand.  As a military officer, I am uncomfortable looking for loopholes in the law to do a mission.  That is what the Mafia dons and Enron executives do.

And, I am not certain that we would NOT be, under the current law, subject to the PCA.  We are the Aux. of the USAF whenever we serve ANY federal agency.  Whether or not we report to 1AF, we are still legally, Air Force.

This is where I see the "Slippery Slope" part.  Once that law is passed, but it is determined that we still can't do what DHS would like to have us do, the next step would be to change our enabling legislative charter, and re-create CAP on the model of the Coast Guard.  Law Enforcement under DHS most of the time, military under the Navy some of the time.

Only we would be Law Enforcement under DHS most of the time, and military under the Air Force some of the time.

Done properly, and adequately resourced, this can work.  Our track record for doing things properly, however, is not good.

You are right, to do this, we will need toys.  FLIR, Rad monitors, etc.  We also need training, and a new approach to communications.

Potentially, we could provide a great asset to DHS. Training up our officers, and having them be considered "Aviation Law Enfocement"  officers in the same sense that Coast Guard officers (and petty officers) are could open up some serious opportunities to serve the United States.

But, and coming back to my original point, we have to get our internal act together first.

The problem is that our personnel are not trained in law enforcement (except for those, of course, who are in the LE profession!).

Furthermore, comparisons with CG/CGAux are troubling....anyone who follows the work of the USCG knows they are seriously over-burdened....they do an incredible job for an organization that lacks the people and resources to half of what they are tasked with....but sooner or later someone needs to realize that part time, vplunteers are not the ultimate answer to well funded, highly resourced and highly resourceful opponents.

Are there valid contributions CAP can make to the overall effort? Certainly....but, for the most part, these are going to be mission support and/or 'backfill' assignments (we take on a non-LE type task to release other resources).....there simply is not much of a front line role for CAP in the age of Stinger missles!

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 01, 2007, 06:55:37 PM
The problem is that our personnel are not trained in law enforcement (except for those, of course, who are in the LE profession!).

Furthermore, comparisons with CG/CGAux are troubling....anyone who follows the work of the USCG knows they are seriously over-burdened....they do an incredible job for an organization that lacks the people and resources to half of what they are tasked with....but sooner or later someone needs to realize that part time, vplunteers are not the ultimate answer to well funded, highly resourced and highly resourceful opponents.

Are there valid contributions CAP can make to the overall effort? Certainly....but, for the most part, these are going to be mission support and/or 'backfill' assignments (we take on a non-LE type task to release other resources).....there simply is not much of a front line role for CAP in the age of Stinger missles!

We are not trained in Law Enforcement... yet.  That condition is an easy fix.  Besides, how much police training do you need to fly a plane?

Your post is more of a red flag than what you may think.

Yes, the USCG is overburdened.  Yes, CAP has very little USAF role in an era of missiles.

But take those two paragraphs together.  Our people moved from USAF to DHS and serving as a second, flying auxiliary arm of the USCG?  Easy move. 

You take the USCG Aux Air assets, and make them CAP.  Repaint the planes (again).

Our non-flyers either get some of the limited flight-line and mission base duties, work the cadet program exclusively, or transfer to the "Fleet" as USCG auxiliarists.  Ground teams can be civilian LE or volunteers with a CAP pilot as liasion.

Hmmmm...

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 01, 2007, 02:04:36 PM
(Gentle reminder...?)

Yeah, man I'm sorry, I've been swamped, I'm on it.

Bottom line, DHS doesn't have missions for us. If they did, we'd be flying them. They don't want us flying those missions or in their agency because it screws them out of their air wings. DoD & DHS do not always play well together, particularly on HLD/S, and the last place you want to be is between them. Going over there instantly means no more cadet program or AE, just ES, which has never been strong enough to support itself or the logistics of operating this org.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 01, 2007, 06:55:37 PM
The problem is that our personnel are not trained in law enforcement (except for those, of course, who are in the LE profession!).

Furthermore, comparisons with CG/CGAux are troubling....anyone who follows the work of the USCG knows they are seriously over-burdened....they do an incredible job for an organization that lacks the people and resources to half of what they are tasked with....but sooner or later someone needs to realize that part time, vplunteers are not the ultimate answer to well funded, highly resourced and highly resourceful opponents.

Are there valid contributions CAP can make to the overall effort? Certainly....but, for the most part, these are going to be mission support and/or 'backfill' assignments (we take on a non-LE type task to release other resources).....there simply is not much of a front line role for CAP in the age of Stinger missles!

I'm also troubled by comparisons to the CG, who are themselves a stepchild agency still driving some WWII museum pieces as front line assets. They sure as hell don't have 40mil in cap space to give (it's a whole lot like the NFL salary cap).

I wouldn't sell CAP short. Yes you're talking about part time volunteers, but with enough of them in rotation it can be awfully close to full-time capable, especially if you add job protection and maybe some reasonable per-diem, if you train them to the same professional stadands as paid full-time folks (NIMS, OTS, etc), and you spend an extra 5 mil a year on hi-tech gear (FLIR, CBRNE detection, etc) for the next 10 years.... well then you're talking abotu some pretty front line roles you can roll out on these folks. you're not talking about full-time missions, but rather a low level buzz that can surge big in an emergency. It is indeed standing the line so as to free up paid folks for other things, but that isn't to say the lines we can stand aren't vitally important.

I too see very little prospects for DHS to use CAP, especially since they've been spending tens of millions of dollars developing full-time air wings made up partially of aircraft just like ours.  If anything, CAP is a threat to that budding empire within DHS.  Right now those air wings seem to be going up along the border, but I suspect that in a few years there will be air wings set up inside the country and before you know it they are going to be the go-to guys to do major missions, not CAP.  I think they will cut us out of any homeland security missions for the feds pretty soon.  Wouldn't be surprised if they start doing the counternarcotics flying we've been doing as well. 

Keep in mind that we're talking about the federal government.  They're not terribly interested in saving money.  And the problem is that there may be some operational benefits as well.  Say FEMA needs 25 light aircraft rushed to a disaster zone.  Why wouldn't they call on their cousins in DHS to order their guys to go down for the duration rather than call CAP up and maybe get the planes, and maybe only for a few days, etc....

In the short term if this bill passes we may get some benefits, but we have to realize we have strong competition on the horizon for most non-AF missions. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 01, 2007, 08:51:22 PM
Yes, the USCG is overburdened.  Yes, CAP has very little USAF role in an era of missiles.

John,

I am referring to the bad guys' missiles...in other words, think of little red-white-and blue planes with a target painted on them....which, of course, I do not want to see.

Frankly I'm surprised CN missions have not attracted hostile action...I'm not sure if it's good security, dumb luck, or lack of significant impact on the business.

My apologies for messing up the bold....did not mean to use it for most of message.

Quote from: DNall on March 01, 2007, 09:04:25 PM

I wouldn't sell CAP short. Yes you're talking about part time volunteers, but with enough of them in rotation it can be awfully close to full-time capable, especially if you add job protection and maybe some reasonable per-diem, if you train them to the same professional stadands as paid full-time folks (NIMS, OTS, etc), and you spend an extra 5 mil a year on hi-tech gear (FLIR, CBRNE detection, etc) for the next 10 years.... well then you're talking abotu some pretty front line roles you can roll out on these folks. you're not talking about full-time missions, but rather a low level buzz that can surge big in an emergency. It is indeed standing the line so as to free up paid folks for other things, but that isn't to say the lines we can stand aren't vitally important.

How can I put this?

"They" are armed, we are not....many of us probably should not be under any circumstances!  And a lot of those that are capable of defending themselves with weapons probably have full time jobs in LE or military.

If we go down this road (and perhaps we should, but I need persuading), then we need also to consider splitting into two organizations, clearly separating the cadet program from whoever is going to be doing this work....because I think once the other side figures out what's going on, they will see us for what we are as a whole, a big, soft target that looks like a military one, with virtually none of the attendant risk of attacking the actual military.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 02, 2007, 05:45:51 AM
Frankly I'm surprised CN missions have not attracted hostile action...I'm not sure if it's good security, dumb luck, or lack of significant impact on the business.

They have, but not in the last several years, and I don't think anyone has actually been hit by ground fire, not to my knowledge anyway, that's the job though.

What we do for customs is record traffic we see over the border & report it in the paperwork. The requestor gets the results 11 days later. It's traffic patter analysis, not interdiction, and pretty useless in my mind, which is why there was less money for it nationwide than my Gp gets annually for AF funded training.

Far as guns, I've been in some ground team situations where it would have been nice to have, we've always pulle dcops out of the line to follow us around, and it is a key factor that keeps us from deploying into the heart of disaster zones early on. That's all problematic on both sides of the coin.

Far as missile though, that doesn't matter. If terrorists have a manpad in the US, they are going to want to use that on an airliner, not a CAP cessna. Running FLIR allows you to do the same mission more effectively with less exposure. It's also one of the basic equipment levels designated by FEMA to do disaster SaR flying. Really it would get you tons & tons of missions. The CBRNE gear I'm talking about, the advanced stuff, that is a narrow field, but it could get you some environmental & hazmat backup type stuff in addition to the deterence mission. Either way, you are not running LE missions & not confronting bad guys. No one is going to shoot a missile at you, & what we do isn't going to be directly offensive to them to motivate them to do so even if they had it to shoot.

To add some facts to already mentioned items, and to make this argument a more informed argument, I went online and found the following articles/links:

1. Lawmakers seek inquiry into Homeland Security aviation program

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1105/111105kp1.htm

2. Border Patrol wins control of Homeland Security aircraft
http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0805/082505kp1.htm

3. DORGAN ANNOUNCES HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIALS TO VISIT NORTH DAKOTA TO DISCUSS NEW AIR WING BRANCH
http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=267531

(Above article talks about the Air Wing Branch being operated by Customs and Border patrol and will also operate UAV's)

4. CBP Launches Third Northern Border Air Branch
Fleet Includes State-Of-The-Art Surveillance Aircraft to Increase Border Security

http://communitydispatch.com/Department_of_Homeland__Security_63/CBP_Launches_Third_Northern_Border_Air_Branch_6744.shtml

5. Increasing Manpower and Assets Along the Borders

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0938.shtm
(This article provides the most statistics)

From what I read above, the Air Wing Branches are operated by the Customs and Border Patrol. And border being the operative word, I didn't see any mention of units being planed for further inland.

My two cents.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 02, 2007, 05:52:32 AM

Quote from: DNall on March 01, 2007, 09:04:25 PM

I wouldn't sell CAP short. Yes you're talking about part time volunteers, but with enough of them in rotation it can be awfully close to full-time capable, especially if you add job protection and maybe some reasonable per-diem, if you train them to the same professional stadands as paid full-time folks (NIMS, OTS, etc), and you spend an extra 5 mil a year on hi-tech gear (FLIR, CBRNE detection, etc) for the next 10 years.... well then you're talking abotu some pretty front line roles you can roll out on these folks. you're not talking about full-time missions, but rather a low level buzz that can surge big in an emergency. It is indeed standing the line so as to free up paid folks for other things, but that isn't to say the lines we can stand aren't vitally important.

How can I put this?

"They" are armed, we are not....many of us probably should not be under any circumstances!  And a lot of those that are capable of defending themselves with weapons probably have full time jobs in LE or military.

If we go down this road (and perhaps we should, but I need persuading), then we need also to consider splitting into two organizations, clearly separating the cadet program from whoever is going to be doing this work....because I think once the other side figures out what's going on, they will see us for what we are as a whole, a big, soft target that looks like a military one, with virtually none of the attendant risk of attacking the actual military.

Zig:

Cadets already ARE a target.  Whether we arm CAP planes or not.  The look military, they are training for military missions, and it would be a big, terrorizing newsmaker to kill off a cadet squadron.  Little-bitty bodies clad in bloody BDU would be on the TV for weeks.  It might even knock off the coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's rotting corpse.

If we have people in CAP wearing officer rank that are so unstable, stupid or whatever that they should "Not be armed under any circumstances," I suggest that they should not be in our uniform under any circumstances.  We have met the enemy, and he is us. 

Back in the 1960's, there were officers who carried pistols on ground team missions.  If I recall correctly, Florida used to require that at least one GT officer be armed.  The danger presented by the Eastern Diamondback was thought to be greater than the danger presented by Smith and Wesson.

Personally, I think that it is prudent to have trained persons carry arms to protect Ground Teams.  We easily could blunder into marijuana-growing areas or meth labs.  Looking for an ELT could put us in uncomfortable proximity to drug smugglers who use ELT's to locate dope dropped from smuggling aircraft.  Also, here in Florida, there are things out in the swamp that consider our smaller cadets to be a good source of protein and dietary fiber.

Noted: There is no Specialty or job description for HS Officers. There are wings and regions without appointed HS Officers. Perhaps we should look inward before someone actually gets some legislation proposed/passed. 

Force Protection is the "Elephant in the Room."  Nobody wants to talk about it.  There are few standards, and when there are, the solution is "If you don't feel good about a situation, call the cops."

Forget about shooting down CAP planes for a moment.  How about simply adding an adulterant into the fuel while its tied down on a ramp?  Sure, security is the airport's problem.  But the plane is a part of our force, as is the aircrew.  We should have some security standards for where we park airplanes at night.

To do that, and to write security/force protection standards for any other CAP activity, you will need force protection professionals.  THAT should be our next specialty area, not "Drug Demand Reduction" (Which, simply put, is to keep the cadets too busy to join a drug gang).

Good links there. They got a lot of money after 9/11 to expand air interdiction resources, and now that's drawing back down a bit, so they're in a squeeze & don't want competition, hence would just assume CAP be dissolved, or at very least restricted from all the LE related stuff they do.

My view is simple... some people are willing to step between rival agencies, or flee from under AF to get into LE related missions cause they don't have enough to do now. My view is fix the things about us that keep us from doing those things & we'll have mnore work under AF than we can deal with.

Well, I wish Rep. Dent would hurry up and get this stupid bill in the hopper.  Its still not showing up on THOMAS (the Congressional internet site where legislation is posted and tracked).  It would be nice to know what we are talking about -- not that this has stopped many of us in the past. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 02, 2007, 02:46:23 PM

Zig:

Cadets already ARE a target.  Whether we arm CAP planes or not.  The look military, they are training for military missions, and it would be a big, terrorizing newsmaker to kill off a cadet squadron.  Little-bitty bodies clad in bloody BDU would be on the TV for weeks.  It might even knock off the coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's rotting corpse.

If we have people in CAP wearing officer rank that are so unstable, stupid or whatever that they should "Not be armed under any circumstances," I suggest that they should not be in our uniform under any circumstances.  We have met the enemy, and he is us. 

Back in the 1960's, there were officers who carried pistols on ground team missions.  If I recall correctly, Florida used to require that at least one GT officer be armed.  The danger presented by the Eastern Diamondback was thought to be greater than the danger presented by Smith and Wesson.

Personally, I think that it is prudent to have trained persons carry arms to protect Ground Teams.  We easily could blunder into marijuana-growing areas or meth labs.  Looking for an ELT could put us in uncomfortable proximity to drug smugglers who use ELT's to locate dope dropped from smuggling aircraft.  Also, here in Florida, there are things out in the swamp that consider our smaller cadets to be a good source of protein and dietary fiber.

How well I understand about cadet vulnerability -- both the human tragedy that would be and the public relations nightmare in the aftermath.

I understand it so well that I ordered my Group not to wear uniforms other than on actual missions for about six weeks after 9/11 (remember, we are in NER, not all that far from WTC)....there was a lot of complaining from the squadrons, but the wing CC agreed with me and backed me up.

As for people who ought not be carrying guns -- some are because of emotional stability; others (and I include myself in this category) have marginal eyesight and lousy aim!

In any event, if we start expecting people to meet some kind of objective criteria, what next?  Regulations that are followed up and down the chain???

Bottom line, I want to play on the team...if that means we start carrying phasers set to stun, so be it.....I just wish I had a little more faith left in the policy makers across the board (government, DOD, CAP, DHS).....but none of the brass have been that impressive the past few years.

Okay, here is something I missed in the Congressman's press release on the announcement:

QuoteCongressman Dent said CAP has authorized a "Concept of Operations," which provides the mechanism for CAP assets to be used for missions not specifically directed by the Secretary of Defense. Congressman Dent's bill would formalize that arrangement between the Air Force and the Department of Homeland Security.

So, apparently CAP has a plan floating around out there which I presume is to do such homeland security missions as corporate missions.  However, as many of us know, when we're assisting federal agencies, we're supposed to do it as the AF Aux, which brings all the PCA stuff into play.  Based on this paragraph, I now suspect that this bill will modify the law to allow CAP to work for other federal agencies in its corporate status, which would allow us to work in more of a law enforcement enviornment. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 03, 2007, 04:34:19 PM
Okay, here is something I missed in the Congressman's press release on the announcement:

QuoteCongressman Dent said CAP has authorized a "Concept of Operations," which provides the mechanism for CAP assets to be used for missions not specifically directed by the Secretary of Defense. Congressman Dent's bill would formalize that arrangement between the Air Force and the Department of Homeland Security.

So, apparently CAP has a plan floating around out there which I presume is to do such homeland security missions as corporate missions.  However, as many of us know, when we're assisting federal agencies, we're supposed to do it as the AF Aux, which brings all the PCA stuff into play.  Based on this paragraph, I now suspect that this bill will modify the law to allow CAP to work for other federal agencies in its corporate status, which would allow us to work in more of a law enforcement enviornment. 

Col. Rick Greenhut, former NER CC and presently HLS point person for NHQ, has been briefing Congress, government agencies, CAP conferences and others on a "CONOPS" developed under his direction since 02-03 time frame.

You may very well be correct on the shift of missions for federal agencies to 'corporate' status....but doesn't that seriously affect benefits to members hurt in the line of duty?

It sure does....and I'm not sure whether I would participate in a law enforcement oriented corporate mission in which I had to depend on CAP's corporate insurance if something bad happened. 

I would encourage you in this to look very closely at the extreme breadth of responsibility that belongs to 1AF, and the very narrow very LE oriented responsibility that belongs to DHS. Even with PCA removed, there would be very little to nothing there for us. And i think a lot of members would have a problem being involved in LE activities as part of a military based organization. They really aren't working within the lines. You can't just change the rules of the game cause you don't like the result. They rules didn't cause the result & it won't change regardless of what the rules are.

Technically, if you change federal law, you are changing the rules and whatever is in the law is okay be definition.  I tend to agree that I don't see this as a big break for us. 

Well yeah, you're theoretically freeing us from PCA, maybe, if it's done just right. However, it is not PCA preventing us from flying. With it out of the way, we still aren't the right tool for the job. If we were the right tool, then there are work-arounds in place already for DHS to use us, and they do. Removing the barrier is dangerous. If you understand the LE nature of HLS activities of DHS, that is not something we really want our people involved in, and it provides significant danger & massive legal problems for both us & the AF.

What we need to do is look inside & fix the things that keep us from being the right tool for the work the country needs & wants done. They do NOT need & will not pay for daylight eyeball air patrol over the border to prevent illegal immigration. If you had FLIR systems, CBRNE detectors, & competent trained trusted & cleared people to do the work, then AF would be paying for tons of missions on the border & otherwise, and would be tasking mission requests from DHS & others. PCA & the AF are NOT the reasons we got no work, we are.

Well, they are paying millions for people to fly in light aircraft along the border.  So, we actually have the right tool (our airplanes and people).  What you seem to be saying is that even if all legal issues prohibiting using us for such missions were removed that you wouldn't want to see us flying them because of the danger.

I can understand that point of view, but I disagree with it.  Yes, there would be some modest amount of danger to our people, but if they're willing to accept it so should we.  This isn't much different than the coastal patrol we did during WWII and in fact is probably much less dangerous.  If the aircrews volunteer to take that risk, I'm fine with it. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 04, 2007, 02:20:41 PMWhat you seem to be saying is that even if all legal issues prohibiting using us for such missions were removed that you wouldn't want to see us flying them because of the danger.

Or just because it is not a USAF mission.  Dnall is against anything that takes us "away" from the USAF.

Danger? No that's not my concern. Our gear isn't up to the task, and we can't get funding for the gear that would be required because we aren't a trusted asset of the federal govt.

DHS operates a significant fleet of 250 airframes, ranging from UAV to helo to fixed wing, and the mission they do is air interdiction - that's pursuit, arrest, & seizure. They fly Predators, Falcon Jets, P3 Orions, Blackhawks, couple models from Agusta, some other eurocopter crap, and Cessna 206 with FLIR, advanced comm & two-man crew.

River, Why is CGAux restricted from arrest & search activities even while operating jointly & at the direction of CG persnnel? You really think that's just out of concern for your safety? You can't see the cringe when they think of a poorly trained volunteer with low to no entry standards & maybe not the greatest citizen representing the govt in a court of law under cross examination?

What DHS agencies do down there is respond to identify activity detected by sensors, coordinate ground assets in on confirmed targets, maintain command & control over-watch (which is necessary as they are the comm control platform). They also have the blackhawks & such with onboard arrest team.

Now, if you just want to spot targets & call them in, you need a better background check on members, at least day/night FLIR and preferablly also an airborne repeater, trained & profecient operators for both that can & will be called to court regularly, federal work protection, & you have to remain an instermentaility of the US while conducting these missions. There is no work for daylight light-aircraft spotting w/ no advanced sensor & no ability to stay on scene directing LE activities.

I absolutely want every bit of that capability, but if you showed up with it tomorrow then 1AF would have a hundred thousand flying hours a year for CAP. If you do all that & pitch to DHS, they may have one thousand for you to do & won't like the attention that gets cause it hurts their budget bad. The MISSION they do is inappropriate for us, the POLITICS fo getting put on that mission are BS, the internal POLITICS of getting DHS to go along could seriously endanger CAP..... it's just all around a bad idea. If you'll better explore what 1AF is in charge of in way of homeland defense, you'll find everything you want to do is right there, and we work for them already.

I don't think anyone has said that CAP would or could take over all DHS flying.  However, removing restrictions that keep CAP "out of the toolbox" would make it possible to use CAP when appropriate.

QuoteRiver, Why is CGAux restricted from arrest & search activities even while operating jointly & at the direction of CG persnnel?

How does this apply?  I would bet good money that this bill talks about CAP aircraft only.  I seriously doubt anyone would propose using CAP for arrest and seizure. 

QuoteThere is no work for daylight light-aircraft spotting w/ no advanced sensor & no ability to stay on scene directing LE activities.

Seems to me that CAP has been doing an awful lot of daylight border patrols down there already.  If this bill made it possible to stick a cop with his handheld radio in the plane to direct people on the ground, which might be all it takes in certain situations, so much the better. 

Hey, if some of the restrictions on our use are removed, maybe then DHS will want to spend some money putting some of the equipment you mention on our planes....personally, as I've said before, DHS has their own aircraft empire to build and protect and I don't see them taking a lot of advantage of any such opportunity.  However, making it possible for them to use us is a very good thing even if they don't take full advantage of it. 

I know that the last six SAREXs I have been on have all been DHS profiles with ELT search thrown it for pilot proficency.

I agree that if we (CAP) were to invest in some FLIRS or other sensors it would make us a much more valuable tool to any agency.

The USAF does not want to spring for them....maybe DHS will.  DHS seems to have a lot of large/expensive survalance platforms.  I think there is a place for us to augment them.  One of the major hold ups to us doing border patrols has always been resources.  TX, NM, AZ and CA are the only sounther teir border states.  That means they have all the taskings for this type of mission.  Other wings can't participate because of cost.  Again...maybe DHS will spring for some money to pay perdiem and lodging.

Even we are only daylight Mark-I eyeball...we can free up DHS assets to fly the night missions.  We also free up the heavy platforms to perform the more intesive missions.

I can see no bad from this at all.  In fact I can see an even more expanded roll for CAP because we would be working for the same boss that owns FEMA....and that means we get more visibilty in their DS operations.

Can our aircraft support the weight of a FLIR system or similar
"Pod / Turret"
Or would it be limited to the Airvans at Region?

Or since Im thinking big right now.... why not put a small radar system in them and turn our Airvans into a mini-AWACS? Or if the Airvan isnt big enough we could buy some surplus twin engine jobs and outfit them.
WOW...SOMETHING WITH TWO ENGINES?!  Thats a platform worthy of a CAP "COMMAND" PILOT
;)

1) Flying around spotting for terrorists, that is NOT a DHS profile, that is a 1AF profile. Anything that involves air recon over the US (including border & coastal zones) for a threat to the US is 1AF. DHS is strictly LE & nothing but LE. Their air/marine branch is dedicated to interdiction. That is: a) direct action LE; b) command & control of LE ground units; and c) pursuit in direct support of arrest & seizure. If I ask you to describe the mission you want to fly, it will come out one of two ways, either as a 1AF mission or as a mission that's exceed already by DHS air assests & they don't need or want our help on as it will result in a loss of some of those assets for them in the budget.

1b) That said there is clearly some overlap, and because of that there is some rivalry for budget dollars. If you'll check into DHS air some more, particularly their predator UAS program, you'll find they are actually concerned with not having enough mission to justify their resources & looking to tap into 1AF tasked HLS missions.

2) daylight mark-I eyeball is not an acceptable profile for them, or hardly anyone else anymore for that matter. What we've done traditionally for CBP (customs) is traffic survey. They don't see the results till days later. It is meant for them to figure out where they might want to position ground assets. That mission has dropped off significantly since their air units have massivly increased from a 6.8 mil fleet to a 180mil fleet. We've been flying under $100k worth of missions for them annually.

2b) You need day/night FLIR to start, if you can get funding for satcom to beam out live feeds then you're really in business. You need some liaison comms too, but customer will provide that. NIMS fixed wing equipment standards mention some of this - not mandatory now, but as dif types of resources that are a very interesting read. The more of that you can cover, the more work you will get. FLIR systems as described are routinely mounted at the Cessna factory by their special operations divsion(LINK) (http://specialmissions.cessna.com/single_engine/index.htm) for use by LE & military. It quite lightweight & easily carried on a 182, remember they put these things on small UAVs as well.

3) You want a productive suggestion... we got ARCHER now, try getting the wings flown off those thins first. You want DHS work, talk to CAP-USAF about building a pitch for MOU to streamline the request process thru 1AF. The problem with that is you're talking about 16 planes & a limited number of crews that have difficulty maintaining currency, plus they have to be CN cleared & they need a DoD pre-screen so they can be issued temp clearances for the missions, pilots have to be commercial.

4) regardless of what happens, DHS will not provide per diem or job protection. It would be exactly the same as AF, only less insurance coverage & more legal hassle.

5) if DHS wanted or needed what we have to offer, they'd be using CGAuxAir in that role (CG being part of DHS when not working for the Navy) & lobbying congress to dramatically increase thier funding so as to provide some specially equipped platforms for them to fly in addition to member owned. Instead, the work avail to CGAuxAir has dropped off significantly as I understand it. They suffer from some of the same problems we do on that front.

Quoteif DHS wanted or needed what we have to offer, they'd be using CGAuxAir in that role (CG being part of DHS when not working for the Navy) & lobbying congress to dramatically increase thier funding so as to provide some specially equipped platforms for them to fly in addition to member owned. Instead, the work avail to CGAuxAir has dropped off significantly as I understand it. They suffer from some of the same problems we do on that front.

Not at all.  ALL CG Aux airplanes are private airplanes with not even a fraction of the equipment CAP has on its aircraft now.  Almost all their air assets are concentrated along the coasts (makes sense, yes?) and has very little presence along southern or northern border in comparison to CAP. 

CAP is far superior for most potential border missions.  It would take a wholesale change in CG and CG Aux culture, funding mechanisms, and force structure to make it even remotely feasible to use CG Aux in any such role.  The exception to that general rule being transportation-related missions where a larger plane would come in handy, which the CG Aux has more of.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 05, 2007, 12:59:35 AM
CAP is far superior for most potential border missions.  It would take a wholesale change in CG and CG Aux culture, funding mechanisms, and force structure to make it even remotely feasible to use CG Aux in any such role.  The exception to that general rule being transportation-related missions where a larger plane would come in handy, which the CG Aux has more of.

I think you're underestimating the massive change to CAP, our personnel & programs, funding, structure, our AF relationship, everything that must occur for this to be feasible, and what would be lost for what could be gained.

You want a more workable solution, sit down with CBP & talk about changing the profile & pproceedures of the current CN missions we fly for them. You want to fly the border, we do that right now. You want to stop illegal immigration, well Congress really doesn't but if you want to sneak one by them then get customs to fund additional missions & we'll report suspicious activity in real time for them to investigate. We can do that now, this law is badly concieved & quite risky to CAP.

QuoteWe can do that now, this law is badly concieved & quite risky to CAP.

A pretty sweeping statement on a law whose text we haven't even seen yet. 

Just going by the way it has been posed so far. You want something nice... a non-binding resolution passes w/o a full vote, says... the secrecretary of Homeland Security is encouraged to make full use of Civil Air Patrol available on request through 1AF. CAP resources and personnel are uniqely suited to HLS flight activities of DHS & DoD in the following ways.... Bang bang, done deal.

A law ordering DoD & DHS to share CAP in some wierd more than one master kind of thing is a recipe for disaster down range.

Nothing in the news stories indicates they're ordering anyone to use CAP for anything.  Just seems like they're removing restrictions that keep us from being utilized fully now.  If that is the extent of it, I don't see how it harms us and it potentially could help us. 

A constructive analogy might be the CN program itself.  Because of some changes in federal law various law enforcement agencies were given the opportunity to use CAP as part of their marijuana eradication program.  We developed some extra training and implemented some stricter security requirements for partipants and in some places that opportunity is being used, in other places it isn't.  However, the closer relationship with DEA and other agencies at state and federal levels that were able to be developed by these legal changes haven't seemed to have hurt CAP at all.  End result -- lots of flying for CAP and over a billion dollars of drugs off the street last year. 

QuoteThe bill would require the nation's Homeland Security and Air Force secretaries to share the Civil Air Patrol

QuoteCAP pilots and observers assisted other agencies in taking more than $637 million in illicit drugs and money off U.S. streets.(2005)

That's the total confiscation by those agencies, not what CAP did alone.

over 25 years ago PCA was modified to allow DoD assistance to LE for matters involving drugs, it was alreayd allowed to be involved in matters of insurrection or threat by foreign power (to include terrorism). CAP has been a very minor role player in that process along with a vast amount of other military resources. We are perfectly able to continue doing that & more in a vast array of areas within the bounds of PCA.

We need not flee from under AF oversight of our activities or behave as an independent contractor in order to make a differnce... and ultimately that's what I'd ask you is if we are more interested in making a difference or getting more flight hours regardless of the cost. Because everything in government is most assuradly a zero sum game. If we gain then someone else must lose, or if we gain in one place we have to take a hit in another. That is the nature of the budget process & nothing is ever free.

You want this Congressman to help you, have him propose an emergency funding bill of an additional 50million to fund FLIR, CRBNE detection, satcom for live-vid feed, and vehicles for disaster assessment ready reaction teams; plus work protection & per diem for deploment over 48hrs, and order full compliance with NIMS within 18months with a training & implementation budget overseen by CAP-USAF at thedirection of A3/SHA. Order AF to integrate CAP to the greatest extent possible to conus non-combat operations, and to aide in the reorganization of CAP as neccessary to meet training & quality requirements of the sensitive & high priority work we will be tasked with over the coming decade.

What keeps CAP down is silly infighting & childish behavior, the need to lower the bar so there's a kingdom to govern, and the shameful way we use up our members & throw them out when we're done while making this service cost a small fortune.

PCA isn't a limiting factor. The only reason it's being discussed is cause we got knocked on our butts over the years & since we can't get up we're squirming around looking for other directions to slither off in. What we need to do grab the jock & pull ourselves up by the bootstraps as we confront all the BS about this org, because that is the only thing that keeps us down. That patriotism, valor, & fidelity of our members, and the noble premise of this organization couldn't be any greater, but we have to face our problems & earn our place, then there will be more work than we can handle. Until then, the law is not hurting us.

Okay, I'm tired of arguing about a bill that isn't even proposed yet.  I'll be back when it is...

Sounds good.

Quote from: DNall on February 26, 2007, 08:30:17 PM
Yeah I'm a bit uncomfortable with that as stated.

The first point is dangerously close to law enforcement. I mean surveil & report, then break off to a safe distance for comm support, that's doable, but staying on target & guiding LE in on top of them is not okay in any way shape or form. Border Patrol has thier own air force for that, and better equipped than us.

The second point river is Conngress authorizing the secretary of DHS to task CAP on missions. That is a little wierd. DHS can already task CAP thru AF now, so is this allowing DHS to task CAP directly & using DHS funds w/o talking to AF? Cause that would be real bad for us in the long run.

In other words, good intentions chasing after an idea but not addressing the critical issues that have prevented this from being solved decisively to date. I'll have to see exactly how the bill is written & try to figure out how that stands in relation to PCA. Interesting development though, I think I'd spend some time talking with him about the details & see if it can be fixed up.

US Civil Air Patrol anyone?

I Like It

United States Civil Air Patrol

Got a nice ring to it, sort of Like: :United States Marshal, United States Border Patrol, see they are all Law Enforcement agencies. Hows about United States Civilian Air Defense "USCAD", or United States Civilian Air Reserves "USCAR".

Quote from: wingnut on March 06, 2007, 07:12:43 AM
I Like It

United States Civil Air Patrol

Got a nice ring to it, sort of Like: :United States Marshal, United States Border Patrol, see they are all Law Enforcement agencies. Hows about United States Civilian Air Defense "USCAD", or United States Civilian Air Reserves "USCAR".

Dont give the National Leadership any ideas.  :P

Can I take a moment to put this into perspective?

There IS a bill being proposed (Not law yet, passage not guaranteed) that would place CAP at the call of DHS.  The bill SEEMS to make CAP a direct asset of DHS.  That is not for sure at this point now.

I posed the rhetorical question "Why?"  CAP already CAN be used as an asset of DHS. All any federal agency needs to do is pick up the phone, call 1AF, and ask for us.  They call, we haul.  So why do we need a new law to permit DHS to do that which they already CAN do?

So, like any good poser of rhetorical questions, I speculated on an answer.  I suggested that the mood of the Congress MAY (emphasis) be to re-create CAP in the model of the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard serves as a maritime law enforcement agency working under DHS most of the time.  The Navy Dept. has "Dibs" on the USCG, and can transfer assets of the USCG to the Navy for warfighting.

Following this model, it is POSSIBLE that the CAP could become the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, assigned under "Normal" conditions to DHS, but available on request to the USAF for any Air Force mission requiring light aircraft.  In this role we would no longer be a military force, and therefore we would no longer be subject to the Posse Commitatus Act, just as the PCA does not apply to the USCG, except those USCG assets in Navy service.

This proposed law will not accomplish that.  This proposed law seems to be nothing more than eyewash, and at the MOST will simplify the procedure for DHS agencies to call upon CAP assets.  The law that says that CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF when performing missions for any federal agency is still there.  As a part of the USAF, we are subject to the PCA.

There are two ways to exempt CAP from the PCA:

1.  Make CAP an asset of the National Guard, under state control.

2.  Re-write the Congressional Charter of CAP to make us a "Full-time" asset of DHS and available on-call to USAF, on the USCG model.  If the federal response to inland SAR were to be transfered to DHS, we probably would never be part of the USAF again. 

I also pointed out that there were some things that have transpired that make option #2 above appear to be likely:

1.  We now have a military style uniform independent of the USAF uniform.

2.  "USAF Auxiliary" is being purged from aircraft, vehicles, and uniforms.

After I wrote this original post...

3.  The NB ordered that our BDU's are to read: "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

DNall and I don't like it.  Some folk might, but we don't.

Also:  For the record, I am NOT a conspiracy theory-type guy.  I do know, however, that Jimmy Hoffa is buried under the little airplane at National Headquarters, and Elvis was spotted wearing a TPU in Des Moines.

Instead of sounding like a bunch of old women, sitting around, drinking hot toddy's, lets wait for the legislation.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 06, 2007, 02:46:26 PM
DNall and I don't like it.  Some folk might, but we don't.

John, your reasoning makes a lot of sense...also, feel free to include me in the list of those who don't like it!

Quote from: FARRIER on March 06, 2007, 03:26:30 PM
Instead of sounding like a bunch of old women, sitting around, drinking hot toddy's, lets wait for the legislation.

We don't drink hot toddies in Florida.

Margaritas, Beer, Pina Colada, sure.

But no hot toddies.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 06, 2007, 02:46:26 PM
Can I take a moment to put this into perspective?

There IS a bill being proposed (Not law yet, passage not guaranteed) that would place CAP at the call of DHS.  The bill SEEMS to make CAP a direct asset of DHS.  That is not for sure at this point now.

I posed the rhetorical question "Why?"  CAP already CAN be used as an asset of DHS. All any federal agency needs to do is pick up the phone, call 1AF, and ask for us.  They call, we haul.  So why do we need a new law to permit DHS to do that which they already CAN do?

So, like any good poser of rhetorical questions, I speculated on an answer.  I suggested that the mood of the Congress MAY (emphasis) be to re-create CAP in the model of the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard serves as a maritime law enforcement agency working under DHS most of the time.  The Navy Dept. has "Dibs" on the USCG, and can transfer assets of the USCG to the Navy for warfighting.

Following this model, it is POSSIBLE that the CAP could become the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, assigned under "Normal" conditions to DHS, but available on request to the USAF for any Air Force mission requiring light aircraft.  In this role we would no longer be a military force, and therefore we would no longer be subject to the Posse Commitatus Act, just as the PCA does not apply to the USCG, except those USCG assets in Navy service.

This proposed law will not accomplish that.  This proposed law seems to be nothing more than eyewash, and at the MOST will simplify the procedure for DHS agencies to call upon CAP assets.  The law that says that CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF when performing missions for any federal agency is still there.  As a part of the USAF, we are subject to the PCA.

There are two ways to exempt CAP from the PCA:

1.  Make CAP an asset of the National Guard, under state control.

2.  Re-write the Congressional Charter of CAP to make us a "Full-time" asset of DHS and available on-call to USAF, on the USCG model.  If the federal response to inland SAR were to be transfered to DHS, we probably would never be part of the USAF again. 

I also pointed out that there were some things that have transpired that make option #2 above appear to be likely:

1.  We now have a military style uniform independent of the USAF uniform.

2.  "USAF Auxiliary" is being purged from aircraft, vehicles, and uniforms.

After I wrote this original post...

3.  The NB ordered that our BDU's are to read: "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

DNall and I don't like it.  Some folk might, but we don't.

Also:  For the record, I am NOT a conspiracy theory-type guy.  I do know, however, that Jimmy Hoffa is buried under the little airplane at National Headquarters, and Elvis was spotted wearing a TPU in Des Moines.

I dont like it either. And, knowing that Pineda works for the Florida FBI I ask this: how tight is he with DHS? Everything you said- from new uniforms to removing Aux of the gear makes sense now.

So in fear of losing this organizationto the dog that is politics ~ could the proposal to let pineda stay in office for life, be an attempt to keep him secured there until we are no longer AF but a section of DHS, with Pineda as an assistant DHS Secretary and a big federal pension?

I don't really think he or anyone else wants to trade one master for another. There are elements though that would like to have no master & be freely independent org that can do whatever it wants with millions in tax payer money & no one to take orders from unless we want to. That's just not acceptable no matter how you justify it.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 06, 2007, 10:32:36 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 06, 2007, 02:46:26 PM
Can I take a moment to put this into perspective?

There IS a bill being proposed (Not law yet, passage not guaranteed) that would place CAP at the call of DHS.  The bill SEEMS to make CAP a direct asset of DHS.  That is not for sure at this point now.

I posed the rhetorical question "Why?"  CAP already CAN be used as an asset of DHS. All any federal agency needs to do is pick up the phone, call 1AF, and ask for us.  They call, we haul.  So why do we need a new law to permit DHS to do that which they already CAN do?

So, like any good poser of rhetorical questions, I speculated on an answer.  I suggested that the mood of the Congress MAY (emphasis) be to re-create CAP in the model of the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard serves as a maritime law enforcement agency working under DHS most of the time.  The Navy Dept. has "Dibs" on the USCG, and can transfer assets of the USCG to the Navy for warfighting.

Following this model, it is POSSIBLE that the CAP could become the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, assigned under "Normal" conditions to DHS, but available on request to the USAF for any Air Force mission requiring light aircraft.  In this role we would no longer be a military force, and therefore we would no longer be subject to the Posse Commitatus Act, just as the PCA does not apply to the USCG, except those USCG assets in Navy service.

This proposed law will not accomplish that.  This proposed law seems to be nothing more than eyewash, and at the MOST will simplify the procedure for DHS agencies to call upon CAP assets.  The law that says that CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF when performing missions for any federal agency is still there.  As a part of the USAF, we are subject to the PCA.

There are two ways to exempt CAP from the PCA:

1.  Make CAP an asset of the National Guard, under state control.

2.  Re-write the Congressional Charter of CAP to make us a "Full-time" asset of DHS and available on-call to USAF, on the USCG model.  If the federal response to inland SAR were to be transfered to DHS, we probably would never be part of the USAF again. 

I also pointed out that there were some things that have transpired that make option #2 above appear to be likely:

1.  We now have a military style uniform independent of the USAF uniform.

2.  "USAF Auxiliary" is being purged from aircraft, vehicles, and uniforms.

After I wrote this original post...

3.  The NB ordered that our BDU's are to read: "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

DNall and I don't like it.  Some folk might, but we don't.

Also:  For the record, I am NOT a conspiracy theory-type guy.  I do know, however, that Jimmy Hoffa is buried under the little airplane at National Headquarters, and Elvis was spotted wearing a TPU in Des Moines.

I dont like it either. And, knowing that Pineda works for the Florida FBI I ask this: how tight is he with DHS? Everything you said- from new uniforms to removing Aux of the gear makes sense now.

So in fear of losing this organizationto the dog that is politics ~ could the proposal to let pineda stay in office for life, be an attempt to keep him secured there until we are no longer AF but a section of DHS, with Pineda as an assistant DHS Secretary and a big federal pension?

SAR:

I am NOT a part of the "South Florida Mafia," (In fact, they actually don't like me very much, and that's a bit of an understatement)  but I am not so quick to cast aspersions upon MG TP.  Consider that it IS very possible that our general has the safety of our country uppermost in his mind.

The USAF has not given us any significant Homeland Defense roles in the 5 years since 9/11.  They have used a few of our planes in exercises as targets, which is a traditional role of ours since the Target-Tug missions in World War II.  Our impact on the border has been marginal.  We are stepping around the Posse Commitatus Act all over the place, and in doing so we are jogging through a legal minefield.

The alternative plan, to place CAP under the National Guard, was shot down by the Air Staff.  They MAY reconsider, but the smart money would not bet on the Air Staff reversing that position.

It is very possible that MG TP has decided that the future of CAP in this war is to get out from under the military umbrella, and to return to our original roots.  He may believe that we can do more good there than as a part of the USAF.

Our cadet program could continue, either in USAF uniforms or CAP.  Actually, I think there was a study done some years ago that cadets actually enlist in the Army and the Marine Corps in greater numbers than those who choose Air Force.   

I still do not like it, but I'm not prepared to speculate that the reasons for such an action, if taken, are personal.

Anyway, I'm glad I only re-up'ed for one year.  We'll see what happens.

This just in via/from MIWG CC:

Quote
From:   Huchette, Marc 
Sent:   Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject:        Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Bill
Importance:     High

I wanted to inform all of you that the Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Bill was introduced today.  The Bill number is HR 1333.  It had 34 co-sponsors.  I've attached a final text version of the bill.  I've also attached a list of the co-sponsors.  The next phase for us will be to follow up with the co-sponsors and let them know that we appreciate their support and that we are available to answer any questions about our capabilities.  The next phase will be to hit all the members on the Homeland Security Committee and ask for their support of the bill.  I would approach this from a national level but also ask the wing commanders of those representatives to approach from the state level as well.  The last phase would be to have a very steady stream of emails and phone calls to all house members concerning the bill and that we would appreciate their support. 

John Swain and I will be working the companion bill on the Senate side with Senator Harkin.  This will help out tremendously in keeping this a bi-partisan bill.

Marc Huchette
Director of Program Development
Civil Air Patrol National Headquarters

See Attachments...

Looking at the language of the bill, it looks like all that the only thing being proposed is that HLS will have to pay the USAF (and us) for any HLS missions we fly and to include CAP in national level planning.

Anyone think this is a bad thing?

Looks ok to me.  Still curious about PCA implications though.

The way I'm understanding it, is that the DOD has to share "us" with HLS. The bill was worded pretty slick, especially the word "communications". Is that what they are using as the "magic key" through the PCA? And by that I mean we report what we see but do nothing. But I could be wrong.

My 2 cents

That, gentlemen, is my point.  This is a law empowering the DHS and DOD to do what they have always been able to do.

This is like a new law permitting motorists to drive through green traffic lights.

Under this law, we would remain an asset of the USAF, and remain subject to the Posse Commitatus Act.

Where we stand if this bill passes is exactly where we stand today.

Yes, but up until now...we have been flying DHS missions on the USAF dime.  This I think, formalises that relationship and would force DHS to pay for their missions.

Well, that does make more sense.  It doesn't change our legal status with regard to the PCA, though.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2007, 01:08:22 AM
Well, that does make more sense.  It doesn't change our legal status with regard to the PCA, though.

I thought we already decided that the PCA does not apply to us...even if we are the USAF AUX.  Was it not you who pointed out the National Guard Air Craft don't have to take off the U.S. Army to fly a state mission.  They are flying it on the states dime so PCA does not apply.

So I don't see it applying to us.  The removal of the USAF-AUX was at the USAF's request because they are too narrow minded in their interpretation of the law and the fact that not too many air guard units get called in to support local law enforcement agencies.

Why this has turned into a shoving match between CAP and the USAF I don't know....I don't even know if it is a shoving match.

If USAF there is a PCA issue the lawyers will work it out....in the mean time I'm going to fly missions.  I don't care where the money comes from, it all come from the wing at my level anyway.

yeah, pretty much formalizes what we're doing already, although puts us on DHS's dime as opposed to DoD. 

However, I do interperate it as making us a more formal player in those missions outlined in SEC. 890A (b), as opposed to one that is used kinda-sorta-when-we-feel-like-it. 

I also interperate this as a way around PCA as it authorizes us to perform in a Law Enforcement manner along the border.  IMO, it neutralizes PCA in this area, making any further debate about weather or not it's legal for us to be there null and void. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2007, 06:54:03 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2007, 01:08:22 AM
Well, that does make more sense.  It doesn't change our legal status with regard to the PCA, though.

I thought we already decided that the PCA does not apply to us...even if we are the USAF AUX.  Was it not you who pointed out the National Guard Air Craft don't have to take off the U.S. Army to fly a state mission.  They are flying it on the states dime so PCA does not apply.

So I don't see it applying to us.  The removal of the USAF-AUX was at the USAF's request because they are too narrow minded in their interpretation of the law and the fact that not too many air guard units get called in to support local law enforcement agencies.

Why this has turned into a shoving match between CAP and the USAF I don't know....I don't even know if it is a shoving match.

If USAF there is a PCA issue the lawyers will work it out....in the mean time I'm going to fly missions.  I don't care where the money comes from, it all come from the wing at my level anyway.

Lord M:

I understand your confusion.

The National Guard is specifically exempted from the Posse Commitatus Act.  The only way that NG units are covered by PCA is when they are called into Federal service.  So, yes.  A helicopter from the NG does not have to take "US Army" off the tail boom when it is on a state mission and performing law enforcement.  And, yes, this is at state expense.

But, if we are flying missions for the (Federal) DHS, we come under our Congressional Charter, that says the CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF whenever performing missions for ANY federal agency.  So we are still USAF and still subject to PCA.

IF we fly a mission under our "CAP, Inc" identity, paid for by a state or local govt., then we are not subject to the PCA, but still subject to CAP Regulations, which place similar restrictions on our activity.  At least that is the current interpretation by our legal eagles, (And the US Attorney General), but this has never been challenged nor tested in court.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2007, 06:36:59 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2007, 06:54:03 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2007, 01:08:22 AM
Well, that does make more sense.  It doesn't change our legal status with regard to the PCA, though.

I thought we already decided that the PCA does not apply to us...even if we are the USAF AUX.  Was it not you who pointed out the National Guard Air Craft don't have to take off the U.S. Army to fly a state mission.  They are flying it on the states dime so PCA does not apply.

So I don't see it applying to us.  The removal of the USAF-AUX was at the USAF's request because they are too narrow minded in their interpretation of the law and the fact that not too many air guard units get called in to support local law enforcement agencies.

Why this has turned into a shoving match between CAP and the USAF I don't know....I don't even know if it is a shoving match.

If USAF there is a PCA issue the lawyers will work it out....in the mean time I'm going to fly missions.  I don't care where the money comes from, it all come from the wing at my level anyway.

Lord M:

I understand your confusion.

The National Guard is specifically exempted from the Posse Commitatus Act.  The only way that NG units are covered by PCA is when they are called into Federal service.  So, yes.  A helicopter from the NG does not have to take "US Army" off the tail boom when it is on a state mission and performing law enforcement.  And, yes, this is at state expense.

But, if we are flying missions for the (Federal) DHS, we come under our Congressional Charter, that says the CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF whenever performing missions for ANY federal agency.  So we are still USAF and still subject to PCA.

IF we fly a mission under our "CAP, Inc" identity, paid for by a state or local govt., then we are not subject to the PCA, but still subject to CAP Regulations, which place similar restrictions on our activity.  At least that is the current interpretation by our legal eagles, (And the US Attorney General), but this has never been challenged nor tested in court.

So the fix is to change the language in title 10 to allow us to support other fedeal agencies with out being on AF assigned missions.

That WOULD be a fix, sure.

It would also be a fix to place CAP under the National Guard.

The problem I see is that IF you place CAP directly under DHS, and not as an auxiliary of the USAF, we will probably never see affiliation with the USAF again.  We will be permanently placed under DHS as an agency similar to the Coast Guard, that is under DHS normally, but CAN be called into Navy service.

We would end up losing the USAF uniform, we'd all be in TPU's, but we would, on paper, be able to be called back into USAF service when needed.

But the only time the USAF wants us is for inland SAR, and if Congress transfers inland SAR to DHS, the USAF and us will be effectively divorced.

That is the concern that I started with when this thread was initially posted.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2007, 10:06:31 PM
That WOULD be a fix, sure.

It would also be a fix to place CAP under the National Guard.

The only problem with that is that by definition the NG is a state organisation and national coordination would be hard.  We have a lot of problems with standardisation as it is.  If we had 50 different organisations telling us how to do our jobs, how to wear our uniforms and how and when we can interact may make things even worse.

I am not against working with and maybe for the NG in and of themselves.  I just think it would be easer to work for DHS and the USAF at the national level. 

QuoteThe problem I see is that IF you place CAP directly under DHS, and not as an auxiliary of the USAF, we will probably never see affiliation with the USAF again.  We will be permanently placed under DHS as an agency similar to the Coast Guard, that is under DHS normally, but CAN be called into Navy service.

I understand your position and you may be right.  But would that really be a bad thing?  I mean do we need the USAF to still do all the things we do today?  We can still wear the uniform.....just look at NOAA and the Public Health Services.  We can still fly SAR because the USAF does not even do that now.  We can still do the cadet program, just look at ACA.

[qoute]We would end up losing the USAF uniform, we'd all be in TPU's, but we would, on paper, be able to be called back into USAF service when needed.[/quote]

I have been advocating that for a while.  So long as the USAF holds us to weight standards we will look like a rinky dink operation.

QuoteBut the only time the USAF wants us is for inland SAR, and if Congress transfers inland SAR to DHS, the USAF and us will be effectively divorced.

And again...how would that affect CAP?  I do ES to assist my country.  I don't care what department I work for.

Okay, this doesn't look as threatening as some had feared.  However, I do think this paragraph:

Quotethe Secretary may consider the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources for— ''(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking in goods, currency, people, and other substances;

is very interesting. 
Perhaps there is someone open to the argument that we have heard floating around that PCA does not apply to civilians affiliated with DOD (as we are).  Otherwise, I don't see how we could do this except in regards to illegal entry of drugs. 

Well, according to the statute, we're not "Civilians" associated with DoD.  The USAF is defined by law as the Regular Air Force, The Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the Auxiliary.  We are "Civilians," but since we are not legally defined as such, we're not, except when we are, then that's what we must be, with certain exceptions.  All clear now?

(Now you realize why I never went to the "Dark Side" and attended law school.  I never wanted to corrupt my mind to the point that this crap makes sense.)

But... Pat, you have come, through 7 pages, to exactly the point that I was at somewhere around page 1 or 2.  While affiliation with the USAF is good, we got money from them, and we get ample community and professional recognition as officers in the "Air Force Auxiliary," in the end, however, we are here to serve the United States as volunteers and aviators.  Whatever is best for the country is what you will find me wanting to do.

Now DNall and I non-concur on this issue.  He seems to think that re-creating CAP on the USCG model (Assigned under DHS, but subject to USAF recall) is devastating and the end of our organization, if not Western Civilization.

I think that there will be some grumbling and gnashing of teeth, but in the end we will do what we have to do in defense of the United States, and we MAY actually get some real HD missions... who knows?

QuoteThe USAF is defined by law as the Regular Air Force, The Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the Auxiliary.

Uhhh, I've never seen that law.  Please give me the citation....

I knew you would ask that.

I found it once, and I'm gonna have to look it up.

I probably won't have time tonight, since I'm at work, and I actually have to do something productive shortly.  I'll poke around the US Code tomorrow and try to find the answer for you.

No problem, take your time looking...I'm pretty confident that you will not find any federal law defines CAP as being part of the Air Force alongside the Guard and Reserve. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2007, 12:06:51 AMBut... Pat, you have come, through 7 pages, to exactly the point that I was at somewhere around page 1 or 2.  While affiliation with the USAF is good, we got money from them, and we get ample community and professional recognition as officers in the "Air Force Auxiliary," in the end, however, we are here to serve the United States as volunteers and aviators.  Whatever is best for the country is what you will find me wanting to do.

Now DNall and I non-concur on this issue.  He seems to think that re-creating CAP on the USCG model (Assigned under DHS, but subject to USAF recall) is devastating and the end of our organization, if not Western Civilization.

I think that there will be some grumbling and gnashing of teeth, but in the end we will do what we have to do in defense of the United States, and we MAY actually get some real HD missions... who knows?

I'm sorry....I must have lost the thread of the argument...I thought you were with DNall in the doom and gloom crowd.

I have always been in the "it's nice being in the USAF AUX but I want to fly" crowd.  I don't care who for....so long as they are real missions for our country, state, city.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 09, 2007, 01:07:55 AM

QuoteThe USAF is defined by law as the Regular Air Force, The Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the Auxiliary.

Uhhh, I've never seen that law.  Please give me the citation....

There isn't one. Title 10, Part 1, Chapter 807, Section 8062 defines what the USAF is:

(d) The Air Force consists of—
(1) the Regular Air Force, the Air National Guard of the United States, the Air National Guard while in the service of the United States, and the Air Force Reserve;

Section 8062 does talk about "auxiliary" units in other subsections of Section 8062, but it is not refering to CAP. The mention of CAP is under a separate part and chapter.

Quote from: DeputyDog on March 09, 2007, 07:10:45 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 09, 2007, 01:07:55 AM

QuoteThe USAF is defined by law as the Regular Air Force, The Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the Auxiliary.

Uhhh, I've never seen that law.  Please give me the citation....

There isn't one. Title 10, Part 1, Chapter 807, Section 8062 defines what the USAF is:

(d) The Air Force consists of—
(1) the Regular Air Force, the Air National Guard of the United States, the Air National Guard while in the service of the United States, and the Air Force Reserve;

Section 8062 does talk about "auxiliary" units in other subsections of Section 8062, but it is not referring to CAP. The mention of CAP is under a separate part and chapter.

Here is the link so anyone who is interested can read the whole thing.

http://law2.house.gov/download/pls/10C807.txt

For an aviation outfit we stink at fulling quoting and referring to regulations.
To make my point, do the pilots on this board, launch an aircraft guessing what the regulations are that allow them to do so or "knowing" the regulations that allow them to do so. Anywhere on this board, we should be providing the link for the full section even though we are quoting only part of it, so others can read it and learn.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 06:36:16 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2007, 12:06:51 AMBut... Pat, you have come, through 7 pages, to exactly the point that I was at somewhere around page 1 or 2.  While affiliation with the USAF is good, we got money from them, and we get ample community and professional recognition as officers in the "Air Force Auxiliary," in the end, however, we are here to serve the United States as volunteers and aviators.  Whatever is best for the country is what you will find me wanting to do.

Now DNall and I non-concur on this issue.  He seems to think that re-creating CAP on the USCG model (Assigned under DHS, but subject to USAF recall) is devastating and the end of our organization, if not Western Civilization.

I think that there will be some grumbling and gnashing of teeth, but in the end we will do what we have to do in defense of the United States, and we MAY actually get some real HD missions... who knows?

I'm sorry....I must have lost the thread of the argument...I thought you were with DNall in the doom and gloom crowd.

I have always been in the "it's nice being in the USAF AUX but I want to fly" crowd.  I don't care who for....so long as they are real missions for our country, state, city.

I am with DNall is not liking such a change, if it occurs.  I part with him in assessing the overall consequences.

But such a move WOULD free us to participate in HLS missions without having to consider the implications of the PCA.  The downside, we could be tasked with enforcement missions.  Anybody feel like bringing back the "Drop In" program at GA airports to assess compliance with security regulations?

I'd like to remind you all that although our dollars come from USAF on AF assigned missions by request of DHS, DHS reimburses USAF for those expenses at a later date. The DoD is in no position or mood to pay for other departments' work. All this law does is eliminate the middle man and the bureaucracy taht comes with it. We will see more missions faster if we are paid straight by DHS. The missions will be the same. The way we do them will be the same. We'll just see a different name on the reimbursement checks. Also, DHS might throw us some more funding for training missions (for their purposes) on top of what we currently get from USAF and that would be good.

Doesn't our slogan say "Missions for America", not "Missions for the Air Force"?

The missions may, or may not, be "The same."

If we were to be assigned (by Congress) under DHS, we could end up doing either regulatory enforcement or law enforcement work.

Just like the Coast Guard can give you a ticket for not having enough life jackets, we could write up a FBO for leaving the keys to the rental airplanes open and available to the public.  Or allowing an unlocked gate to the flight line to remain unattended.

You guys have a nice two pages there w/o me?  :D

Reading the bill, it doesn't DO anything. It instructs DHS to pursue an MOU w/ AF, it doesn't require one be reached, or that in being reach that it ever once be utilized. It specifically does not free CAP from PCA under the current rules.

If DHS doesn't want to do this, they can ask AF to sign an MOU that violates PCA (which is what this bill instructs them to do), AF will say no, and they can report to congress that it wasn't possible under federal law & cannot be w/o repealing PCA (which is overstating the case, but that's how things are done).

What's more likely is DHS will sign an MOU that stay within the bounds of PCA. They will report that to Congress, CAP will hail it as a victory, Congress will mark it down as political capital spent for CAP.... yet because the limitations are still in place really nothing will have changed. It's a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, especially enhancing our role in the national response plan (which we've been part of for 50 years), and there may even be a handful of missions for a handful of crews... however, we've flown 1AF missions requested by DHS before, and based on PCA restrictions there is very little more we can do for them in which we are the best tool in the aresenal. If there was some way for us to be of more use to them then they would have signed an MOU a long time ago to streamline the paperwork, which is all it does.

You are right, Dennis.  The present proposed law does nothing, really.  Everything it "Authorizes" was already authorized.  It may streamline procedures a little.  In an earlier post, I described it as "Eyewash."

"Eyewash" is an old Army term to mean making things look good, even if they are not functional.  Like cleaning up vehicles for inspection that have to be pushed into their parking stall because they can't start.

Quotethe Secretary may consider the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources for— ''(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking in goods, currency, people, and other substances;

As has been mentioned this includes the sort of activities that in the past we have been told we cannot do because it would violate PCA. 

I was thinking last night that while DNALL is right that this bill does not explicitly mention PCA or exclude CAP from it in any way, it may in fact be in accordance with PCA. 

Should this bill become law you would have one section of the US Code that explicitly talks about  CAP and what it may be used for and another section that talks about the use of any part of the Army or Air Force.

QuoteSec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
      Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
    authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses
    any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or
    otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or
    imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

One could argue that the proposed CAP bill expressely authorizes CAP to take part in some law enforcement activities so that even if CAP is considered part of the Air Force (which is debatable), then the provisions of PCA are actually met by the proposed bill since Congress would be expressely authorizing CAP to do it. 

The problem is, Congress created the PCA monster back after the Civil War.  Only the President can order military forces to participate in LE activity, and then only when certain conditions are met.  Congress can't make subsequent findings unless the statute is specifically modified.

I qouted you the PCA statute and none of those conditions that you state are part of it. 

John is right on that one as I understand it. You might as well have put the thing is the constitution, which is n't a bad idea honestly. As a southerner w/ history degree, you'll find I appreciate the reasons for PCA & fear the slippery slope.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 11, 2007, 02:31:51 PM

Quotethe Secretary may consider the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources for— ''(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking in goods, currency, people, and other substances;

As has been mentioned this includes the sort of activities that in the past we have been told we cannot do because it would violate PCA. 

I was thinking last night that while DNALL is right that this bill does not explicitly mention PCA or exclude CAP from it in any way, it may in fact be in accordance with PCA. 

Should this bill become law you would have one section of the US Code that explicitly talks about  CAP and what it may be used for and another section that talks about the use of any part of the Army or Air Force.

QuoteSec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
      Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
    authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses
    any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or
    otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or
    imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

One could argue that the proposed CAP bill expressely authorizes CAP to take part in some law enforcement activities so that even if CAP is considered part of the Air Force (which is debatable), then the provisions of PCA are actually met by the proposed bill since Congress would be expressely authorizing CAP to do it. 

Key point... this bill doesn't say CAP is allowed to do those things. It says the sec of DHS may consider, or he may choose not to consider, or he may consider & see that it violates PCA so cannot be done. In other words, it's meaningless PR dribble. They know they can pass this to look good to CAP & strong on immigration/security, but not actually have done anything & no money needs to be spent. That's politics, don't get sucked in by it.

The proposed bill would authorize the use of CAP in several law enforcement missions.  The "may" language is exactly the same as the language under which the AF uses for SAR/DR.  The difference is that the AF isn't told that they "will" use CAP for mission x -- it is their choice on how they do it. 

FYI, still no action on this bill in Congress. 

I had no doubt nothing would come of it. 

 ;D
It sure got us off for awhile ???