Suspending squadrons because Wing failed to do SUIs???

[RiverAux]

While I almost never look at News of the Force, I happened to today and they had an article critisizing Florida Wing for failing to do SUIs on squadrons on the required schedule.  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/message/7765

There is an extensive quote from the Wing Commander saying that they are trying to address the situation, and part of that quote is this:

The consequence of unit non-compliance is unit suspension until an SUI has been completed.

What is up with this?  Last I heard it was the Wing IG's responsibility to conduct SUIs and the squadron's job just to prepare and be ready for them.  If an SUI isn't done, its not the squadron's fault.  They can't do the SUI on their own.  The IG folks have to do it. 

So why punish the squadrons for failures of Wing staff? 

Is this another example a la Pennsylvania Wing of going way overboard in punishing squadrons for someone else's problem? 

Incidentally, that same article alleges some sort of impropriety regarding a grant that Florida Wing apparently got for something called "Operation Southeast Watch".  Anyone known anything about this grant?  If Wings are getting direct grants for operations from DHS, thats great and we need to spread the news. 

[Eclipse]

We had the same issue earlier this year in GLR and the hammer actually came down on a few before an extension was granted.

This is a regulatory issue, the reg says you have to be inspected every "x" (some wings are 2 years, some 3), and if you aren't, you
are subject to stand-down, at which time your unit (and its members) are restricted from any activities except those directly related
to completing the inspection.

These are not "wing" inspections, these are "subordinate" inspections, which means done properly the wings inspect the Groups and the Groups inspect the units.  There were some units that had never been inspected under the current (newish) SUI program, when they should have been coming up on at least their second re-inspection.

The IG's are not necessarily tasked with the hands-on inspections, they are charged with insuring the inspections are completed properly and timely.  You do not need to be an IG to inspect a unit, but most wings have some level of in-face training requirement for at least the team leads.  The inspection process itself is not rocket science - it's a series of straight-forward, mostly yes/no questions, some of which require substantiation.

Where they become laborious "root canals" is when the inspectors ask a yes/no question and receive a "well..." answer.  The SUI team is not there to "fix" the unit, they are there to observe and report to the requesting echelon's commander.  His job is then to assist in remediation and/or make command decisions regarding the effectiveness of that respective unit.

The biggest scheduling problem I see regularly is units treating an SUI like a "final exam", which they aren't.  So as such, they feel they need to "prepare".

An SUI is a snapshot of the program today, not a final exam.  Sure everybody makes "piles", and has things to tidy up before the team gets there, but if you're "cramming for the exam", you're doing it wrong.

The cramming mentality meant that many units pushed things off, or literally refused to acknowledge the request to set inspection dates.
Obviously this is a command failing, but the assumption by many was that the threats of stand-down would never be carried out had them hoping this would just "go away".

Being told by the Region CC that you are done playing CAP, including NCSA's, Encampments, etc., until your inspection is completed, got an immediate reaction.  At some point people have to be held responsible for the directives of higher HQ and the program.

My units were fine, but the stand-downs included several of our larger units, and meant that the encampment I command lost several seniors and 5+ cadets, including one of the big-4 staff.  They were precluded from any planning activities, etc., so darn-tootin' I helped out with the inspections of those units to get them done the next day after the stand-down.  Somehow units which could not get things done in 4+ years completed their inspections in ~30 days.  The inspection teams started getting creative and maximizing resources by sharing SUI sessions with multiple units on the same day, and in the process connected with some Unit CC's no one ever hears from.

Bear in mind as well, this isn't attaining a certain score, or completing remediation, this is simply completing the inspection, which, done properly, is a few hours and you're done.  ORMS, WBP, and the online Safety tracking pretty much guarantees that the things a unit could get stood down for are non-issues, and the rest of the questions may raise findings, but can be fixed "later".

I have no issue with this whatsoever. While there may be blame to spread around, the bottom line is that these units did not either take the initiative to get an inspection done, or could not be bothered to stand for inspection at some point in 2-4 years.

[Cecil DP]

My unit got that message at 3:30 p.m. on a monday stating that we had to have an inspection by COB wednesday! We had to conduct an inspection of another squadron, while they inspected us. I wound up doing the inspection for both units and than handcarried it to a wing staffer the next day.

[Hill CAP]

They did our SUI last night. There is an interesting reason why the push for the SUIs in FL if anyone wants to know they can PM Me.

Our Squadron is very new less then a year old and we received a marginal with a reinspection in 3 months

[dwb]

The Wing Commander has a duty, as a corporate officer, to positively establish that his/her subordinate units are being run IAW CAP regulations.  The inspection program is one way this is accomplished.  That's why the unit gets put on hold if they're overdue on an SUI, because that proof of compliance, that "snapshot in time" as Eclipse so excellently puts it, is not available.

It might look like punishing the squadron for the sins of the Wing, but in reality, having a unit suspended because of SUI non-compliance doesn't exactly make the Wing Commander look like a gem.

Still, when I hear stuff like this, it blows my mind, because it's really not all that difficult to maintain compliance.  When I was on the IG staff, I had 2-3 units per year to inspect.  Not exactly a high workload.  The Wing IG maintained a spreadsheet that went three years out and showed when each squadron/group was last inspected, when they were due again, and which Assistant IG was responsible for that geographic area.

As for FLCAP's problem, I wouldn't do an SUI on a unit that is less than a year old.  When we started new squadrons here, I usually kept in touch with the Commander during their first year,  did a (non-graded) Staff Assistance Visit the second year, then did the SUI in their third year.  That worked pretty well.

Lastly, as for SUI prep, it should be almost a non-issue now that Self-Assessments are due in the in-between years.  A unit should be providing responses to the SUI questions every 12 months, making the SUI every three years much less of an exercise in arduous preparation.

[RiverAux]

Don't get me wrong, if a squadron is somehow intentionally putting off having an SUI done, I've got no problems with punishing them.  But, other than those rare situations, I still don't see how this is their problem. 

[NC Hokie]

After reading the article, I don't get the impression that the squadrons are being suspended because they don't have a SUI on file.  Instead, it sounds like they're being threatened with suspension if they don't comply with the Wing Commanders order to be "inspected" by 0900 today.

Although this sounds like an unrealistic goal, I'd not be surprised to find out that CAP-USAF said something along the lines of "fix this NOW or we will shut the wing down."  In that case, you inconvenience as many people as necessary in the short term, while making plans to address the underlying issues later.

[RiverAux]

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with shutting the Wing down as they are the ones that have failed to implement a mandatory program in the manner it should have been done.  Sure, that would be punishing everybody for the failure of the Wing leadership, but to me that is marginally better than punishing a unit for something they can't do anything about. 

Again, how can a squadron instigate their own SUI?

[wingnut55]

maybe USAF-CAP is getting serious about accountability, I know that many of our SUIs are being pencil-whipped and this is going to get us nailed, what is up with that and it is a wing down look the other way attitude.

[dwb]

Again, how can a squadron instigate their own SUI?

A squadron commander that knows he's due for an SUI can reach out to the Wing IG or the Assistant IG assigned to his geographic area and ask to schedule the inspection.

If the IG staff is unresponsive, the commander can ask his Group Commander (for Wings that have Groups) to appoint a lead inspector and conduct the inspection.

[NC Hokie]

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with shutting the Wing down as they are the ones that have failed to implement a mandatory program in the manner it should have been done.  Sure, that would be punishing everybody for the failure of the Wing leadership, but to me that is marginally better than punishing a unit for something they can't do anything about.

You're saying that it's better to punish EVERYONE for something they can't do anything about?  REALLY?

Again, how can a squadron instigate their own SUI?

They can't, but they should certainly know when one is due, and should start pinging higher HQ if nobody contacts them to schedule it.

[RiverAux]

You're saying that it's better to punish EVERYONE for something they can't do anything about?  REALLY?

Well, the best solution would be the fire the IG and demote them for failure to properly carry out their duties and/or doing the same to the Wing Commander.  But, since they're apparently at an interim phase where they're trying to get their house in order that would probably make it more difficult to get these things done in the short run. 

But right now the ONLY ones being punished will be those who are in no way responsible for the problem and have no method at their disposal to address the situation.  If the entire Wing is suspended, the entire Wing, including those who are actually responsible for the failure,  will be able to focus entirely on this issue until it is taken care of.  Sure, its not terribly fair, but its fairer than the current situation that lets those who are responsible keep doing the fun stuff of CAP until they get around to inspecting the squadrons they should have inspected a long time ago while leaving those squadrons in limbo. 

[lordmonar]

Don't get me wrong, if a squadron is somehow intentionally putting off having an SUI done, I've got no problems with punishing them.  But, other than those rare situations, I still don't see how this is their problem.

Well that is most likely what is going on.

There is no way any commander will hold a unit responsible because the IG staff forgot/failed to do an inspection!

I'm sure that there is a lot of backyard politics going on that is NOT in the published letter.

As others have said.....when it it SUI time...we get a schedule and we are ready for them...end of message.

[FW]

It is the wing/IG's responsibility to administer the SUI program in the wing.  The wing/CC must insure the schedule for  SUI's are followed.  A wing/CC setting a deadline is a last ditch effort to insure compliance. 

That being said, I wonder how things could get behind when most, if not all reporting systems are on line now.  I would think it is now easier than ever to have all reports at hand.  All aircraft maintanence issues are handled at wing.  Safety program is almost done for us.  Inventory control is easier now.  Vehicle maintanence is somewhat funded.  Flying "paperwork" has been streamlined (isn't WIMR's wonderful?).  PD is easy to monitor.  Finance is easier to follow. And, if self assesments are done correctly, you would think all the inspection team would require is hard copy proof of online reports with signitures where required. 

FLWG has a lot more units than most wings.  It may be possible there are other factors at work which prompted the NOTF article.  That article does imply the wing commander was doing something wrong.  I doubt very much this was the problem...

[Eclipse]

That being said, I wonder how things could get behind when most, if not all reporting systems are on line now.  I would think it is now easier than ever to have all reports at hand.  All aircraft maintanence issues are handled at wing.  Safety program is almost done for us.  Inventory control is easier now.  Vehicle maintanence is somewhat funded.  Flying "paperwork" has been streamlined (isn't WIMR's wonderful?).  PD is easy to monitor.  Finance is easier to follow. And, if self assesments are done correctly, you would think all the inspection team would require is hard copy proof of online reports with signitures where required.

One factor in this is the far too many older unit CC's who view email as an activity, and have no idea what eServices even is.  This is especially prevalent in cadet-focused units that don't participate in ES activities, where the need for access to eServices is still limited.

They aren't using the tools available, so everything is ice-skating uphill.

[lordmonar]

Well....reading NOTF article...what seems to have happened....is that during the SAV the wing can't prove one way or the other that the SUI took place.

Either the paper work got lost, was never submitted or.....it was never done.  So the fix is to inspect (reinspect) all those units that they can't find paper work for.

It seems that there may be some push back from some of these units....and subsequently the Wing CC had to put the hammer down......"Do it or we will suspend you!".

Not your normal way of doing buisness....maybe not the best way of doing buisness....but this seems to be a NOT normal sort of situation and may require a little heavier hand then ususal.

Of course this being NOTF you have to take things with a gain of salt....but I must say that NOTF has toned down their anti-CAP message a lot over the last year.

So...I would say that this is one of those "Nothing to see here" situations....someone with an ax to grind is trying to make some drama.

[ZigZag911]

When I was Group CC we still had Group IGs. Each December/January my group IG would send out a schedule for the coming year's inspections (we would usually do them in the April-June time frame, so folks had several months warning).

While we were reasonable about re-scheduling, that was the watchword....we did not postpone indefinitely, but would arrive at a mutually suitable date in the same general time period.

[spaatzmom]

They did our SUI last night. There is an interesting reason why the push for the SUIs in FL if anyone wants to know they can PM Me.

Our Squadron is very new less then a year old and we received a marginal with a reinspection in 3 months

Wow, your squadron has been around since 1998 at least, so how does that make it less than a year old?  Granted, it has flip flopped between senior, cadet, and composite at times, but the charter number has been the same and has been continuous.  Not only that but you have been there since June of 09.

[Slim]

One factor in this is the far too many older unit CC's who view email as an activity, and have no idea what eServices even is.  This is especially prevalent in cadet-focused units that don't participate in ES activities, where the need for access to eServices is still limited.

They aren't using the tools available, so everything is ice-skating uphill.

Kind of a broad brush there.  I'm currently interim CC of a cadet squadron that does very little ES, has no aircraft assigned, and no vehicle currently assigned.  I've received benchmark/best practice status on three SUIs for my use of SIMS and eServices.  I've sung the praises of both within my group, and am currently working to bring both into another.

I'm a complete idiot when it comes to MS Access, but hand me an established program, like SIMS or NYWG's encampment management program, and I can milk them to their full potential.

[Eclipse]

^ If you're using the tools, then my comment doesn't apply to you.

[RiverAux]

someone with an ax to grind is trying to make some drama.

There is no doubt about that in regards to the NOTF article as a whole, but thats normal SOP there.  I was primarily interested in the CC's response....

[Hill CAP]

They did our SUI last night. There is an interesting reason why the push for the SUIs in FL if anyone wants to know they can PM Me.

Our Squadron is very new less then a year old and we received a marginal with a reinspection in 3 months

Wow, your squadron has been around since 1998 at least, so how does that make it less than a year old?  Granted, it has flip flopped between senior, cadet, and composite at times, but the charter number has been the same and has been continuous.  Not only that but you have been there since June of 09.

Yes I understand this. However on the list of squadrons that was sent out to be inspected shows us as a New Charter. Why I don't Know

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Lets please understand that others may be reading this board and get ideas no one wants them to have. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Please also know that with nearly 4,000 members (we're CAP's largest wing), rumors within Florida Wing can spread and permutate quickly -- never mind spreading the virus to the rest of the organization.

Thank you.

-- Your friendly Florida Wing director of public relations and marketing

[Cecil DP]

Excerpted from the Wing CV's message


Group Commanders,

As a result of the SAV a situation has been identified that requires immediate actionto keep from shutting down a large number of units.  All Groups, Squadrons, and Flights are required to have a SUI every 36 months.  FLWG has held a different interpretation of this requirement in the past and we are now possibly out of the 36 month window for some units.


How can anyone misinterpt the meaning of the words 36 months?

[RADIOMAN015]

Excerpted from the Wing CV's message


Group Commanders,

As a result of the SAV a situation has been identified that requires immediate actionto keep from shutting down a large number of units.  All Groups, Squadrons, and Flights are required to have a SUI every 36 months.  FLWG has held a different interpretation of this requirement in the past and we are now possibly out of the 36 month window for some units.

How can anyone misinterpt the meaning of the words 36 months?

yea, it sort of dispells any rumors with just the facts .  HOWEVER, I would think that they would just come up with a new more aggressive inspection schedule (perhaps an 18 month period), to get the units inspected.   When you rush doing things the quality of what you do can be severely impacted.  It's unlikely there was any malice intended.

Our wing does it every two years, and personally I'd like to see it slip to what the minimum requirement says UNLESS there's specific indicators that a unit needs to be inspected.    I personally think the self assessments if done honestly can really assist the IG (they should ask right up front what your issues are and what you are doing to resolve).  I know in the 2 functional areas that I am responsible for at the unit there's some issues, and the wing functional folks know that I am working on those issues because I've told them.

I think the main reason the suspension of squadrons is in the regulation is if the unit commander keeps on putting off the inspection or isn't available, than there's got to be something punitive.  Hopefully Florida wing will be able to come up with a reasonable plan that will satisfy all.       

RM

[Eclipse]

Our wing does it every two years, and personally I'd like to see it slip to what the minimum requirement says

That is what it says. A wing has two options, and must formally declare which they are on:

Once every two years, with no mid-point self assessments.

Once every three years with a self assessment at the midpoint.

Note, those are minimums, a wing could require them annually regardless.  I require self-assessments whenever there is a command change.  It gives the new guy (and me) a objective assessment of where the unit really is, and in some cases opens the eyes of the new guys as to what running a squadron really entails.

I personally think the self assessments if done honestly can really assist the IG (they should ask right up front what your issues are and what you are doing to resolve).  I know in the 2 functional areas that I am responsible for at the unit there's some issues

Assist them with what?  IG's are not involved in remediation - they ask and report.  Remediation is the responsibility of the next echelon.  Knowing you have issues, and are working on them, won't, or shouldn't, change your grade.

The answer to the questions (mostly), is either "yes" or "no".  Why its "no" can be noted, but that doesn't change it being "no".

[Old Timer]

Do you all realize how much time you all waste "doing CAP" rather than doing the mission CAP proports to do?

Why do you have IGs?

CAP is a civil, privately chartered CORPORATION, period! Yes, it has a Congressional charter, just like theCamp Fire Girls and the Americal Florist Association. It has no statutory mandate anymore. It service only "as AN auxiliary when tasked by the SecAF" (and that's only those members signed in on the ICS-211.)

Why do you have personnel and admin officers?

For that matter why are records kept at the subordinate unit level, when the membership pays dues (and the Air Force kicks in a few additional million) to establish and staff a National Headquartes.  All your records should be there, and these are the only "real" records (remember, you won't let that 15-year old in your sqdn pin on their Sgt stripes or Lt pips until "it's posted at National" so why all the fuss at the squadron, other than to make busy-work.

All this does not train a single member, put a plane in the air or save a life. It creates opportunities for gate-keeping and power plays

[JC004]

...
Is this another example a la Pennsylvania Wing of going way overboard in punishing squadrons for someone else's problem? 
...

What is this?  We were told that we did such a good job that we were being giving time off for a vacation. 

...
How can anyone misinterpt the meaning of the words 36 months?

Well a wing staff officer once told me that the wing commander can interpret regulations however he likes.  That has worked well.

Do you all realize how much time you all waste "doing CAP" rather than doing the mission CAP proports to do?

Why do you have IGs?

CAP is a civil, privately chartered CORPORATION, period! Yes, it has a Congressional charter, just like theCamp Fire Girls and the Americal Florist Association. It has no statutory mandate anymore. It service only "as AN auxiliary when tasked by the SecAF" (and that's only those members signed in on the ICS-211.)

Why do you have personnel and admin officers?

For that matter why are records kept at the subordinate unit level, when the membership pays dues (and the Air Force kicks in a few additional million) to establish and staff a National Headquartes.  All your records should be there, and these are the only "real" records (remember, you won't let that 15-year old in your sqdn pin on their Sgt stripes or Lt pips until "it's posted at National" so why all the fuss at the squadron, other than to make busy-work.

All this does not train a single member, put a plane in the air or save a life. It creates opportunities for gate-keeping and power plays

Any organization requires support staff in order to function.  Someone has to get the funding, someone has to make sure legal compliance is in order, someone has to keep the records, etc., etc., etc.

IGs are there to make sure the rules are being followed (very simply).

How is NHQ supposed to know what a member has done if someone locally doesn't prepare those things?

This enables training, puts and keeps planes in the air, and saves lives.  The organization can't exist with just a bunch of self-certified folks who go out on a mission when someone goes missing (that is, if anyone can call them because without the support staff keeping those records...or if they can get an airplane to use because someone had to get the funds to buy it and someone had to maintain it, etc., etc., etc.). 

You will notice the Red Cross doesn't just have a bunch of instructors, blood collectors, and disaster people who wander around aimlessly without any funding, records, or other support...

[a2capt]

I sense a troll with an axe to grind..  at least it's not a single drive-by.

[Cecil DP]

...
 
...

...
How can anyone misinterpt the meaning of the words 36 months?

Well a wing staff officer once told me that the wing commander can interpret regulations however he likes.  That has worked well.

Unless he owns and operates a TARDIS, three years is three years or 1095 days.

[Old Timer]

JC,

You seem to have forgotten CAP already has a "support staff", they reside at your National Headquarters, and both you and the Air Force pays from them.

Why do you "need" an IG system, other than for an out-of-touch leadership team that in the absence of the UCMJ and statutory authority needs a "strong stick" to cower its fellow club members into submission by the treat of removal.

Let us compare and contrast.

While the CAP types like to say they are "the USAF Auxiliary", a REAL legal auxiliary does exist (see 14 USC 821) in the USCG Auxiliary.

Funny, they don't have an IG system. If there is a violation of law (remember, since the Auxiliary is a part of the Coast Guard, the regulations and training requirements are only USCG, not watered down CAP regs.) said violation is investigated by the Coast Guard IG. So... if false or spurious charges are brought up (a'la Pineda), it is most likely the accuser rather than the accused will find themselves under a very legal microscope.

Perhaps this may be why while the CG Auxiliary has only about 35, 000 members (compared to the 30,000 adult members in CAP) they are able to save about 3,500 to 4,500 lives every year (again to CAP's 20 to 40, less than half if you take out the high numbers from Alaska)

Seem if you want to push paper and wear rank, CAP is the place to be.

However, if you are more mission focused and truly want to make a difference in your community, then perhaps the CGA is where real operational work gets done.

Think about this before you answer me, and discover the truth in your heart and in your organization.

[a2capt]

Gee, one of your posts seems to have disappeared.

Seems like what I read last night you implied you were a member somewhere, and these imply you're not.

Whatever it is, you'll get routed out.

..and I'm all out of what little troll food I had.

[dwb]

Think about this before you answer me, and discover the truth in your heart and in your organization.

You sound like the Emperor in the Star Wars movies.  "Search your heart, you know it to be true..."  Give me a break. 

[Old Timer]

That is the sound of age and experience, my young friend.

If you "need a break" it is probably from the painful sounds of conflict

between your heart that wants me to me wrong,

and your head that knows I'm right.

[Old Timer]

...and DWB,  it you're going to quote me, at least get the line right.

        "... and discover the truth in your heart and in your organization."

The question becomes, do you have the courage to do so?  Do you have the courage to discover an answer you don't want to see?

But then with that comes the ulimate question;
                                                                 
                                                                  do you have the courage to act on what you see?


   

[Ned]

But then with that comes the ulimate question; do you have the courage to act on what you see?

And we know you have "age and experience" because  . . .

oh, yeah, you anonymously told us so on the internets.  It must be true.

You could easily be some 18 year old USCGA newbe/wannabe with more enthusiasm than common sense.

So, since you seem to calling others out on "courage," let me ask you the same thing.

Do you have the courage to stand publicly behind your words? 

We'll see.


Ned Lee

[Eclipse]

[dwb]

...and DWB,  it you're going to quote me, at least get the line right.

I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting Star Wars.  I gave you a hint when I wrote "You sound like the Emperor from Star Wars."

The question becomes, do you have the courage to do so?  Do you have the courage to discover an answer you don't want to see?

False Dichotomy: A situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.  For example, positing that one either agrees with your opinion, or lacks courage.

[davidsinn]

...and DWB,  it you're going to quote me, at least get the line right.

I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting Star Wars.  I gave you a hint when I wrote "You sound like the Emperor from Star Wars."

The question becomes, do you have the courage to do so?  Do you have the courage to discover an answer you don't want to see?

False Dichotomy: A situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.  For example, positing that one either agrees with your opinion, or lacks courage.

As an example I think he's full of crap and I have the courage to attach my name.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

This discussion has gone way off track.

For crying out loud, why would we freeze units when they're busy with a federal mission?

There's lots of rumormongering right now. Stay tuned for the word from the authorities.

[JohnKachenmeister]

JC,

You seem to have forgotten CAP already has a "support staff", they reside at your National Headquarters, and both you and the Air Force pays from them.

Why do you "need" an IG system, other than for an out-of-touch leadership team that in the absence of the UCMJ and statutory authority needs a "strong stick" to cower its fellow club members into submission by the treat of removal.

Let us compare and contrast.

While the CAP types like to say they are "the USAF Auxiliary", a REAL legal auxiliary does exist (see 14 USC 821) in the USCG Auxiliary.

Funny, they don't have an IG system. If there is a violation of law (remember, since the Auxiliary is a part of the Coast Guard, the regulations and training requirements are only USCG, not watered down CAP regs.) said violation is investigated by the Coast Guard IG. So... if false or spurious charges are brought up (a'la Pineda), it is most likely the accuser rather than the accused will find themselves under a very legal microscope.

Perhaps this may be why while the CG Auxiliary has only about 35, 000 members (compared to the 30,000 adult members in CAP) they are able to save about 3,500 to 4,500 lives every year (again to CAP's 20 to 40, less than half if you take out the high numbers from Alaska)

Seem if you want to push paper and wear rank, CAP is the place to be.

However, if you are more mission focused and truly want to make a difference in your community, then perhaps the CGA is where real operational work gets done.

Think about this before you answer me, and discover the truth in your heart and in your organization.

OK, Old Timer, I'll take on your angry and misinformed opinions.

1.  The CG Aux is organized completely differently from the AF Aux.  In 1948, Congress, in its infinite "Wisdom," decided that CAP could be an asset of both the USAF and state and local govts, and non-govt organizations.  To facilitate this, the CAP was reorganized as a public corporation, so that it could enter into contracts at the state level.

2.  The USAF is ultimately responsible for inspecting CAP.  The AF uses trained CAP IG's (trained at the USAF IG school, by the way) to accomplish this mission under their supervision.  We have IG's to make sure that USAF money and USAF assets are adequately protected.

3.  Yes, the CG Aux claims more lives saved.  So what?  Consider the nature of their saves to ours.  We look for lost and missing aircraft.  Aircraft crashes are almost always fatal.  When aircraft and the Granite Planet collide, flesh and blood stands very little chance.  The sea is far more forgiving.

Now go back under your bridge.

[DakRadz]

Perhaps this may be why while the CG Auxiliary has only about 35, 000 members (compared to the 30,000 adult members in CAP) they are able to save about 3,500 to 4,500 lives every year (again to CAP's 20 to 40, less than half if you take out the high numbers from Alaska)

3.  Yes, the CG Aux claims more lives saved.  So what?  Consider the nature of their saves to ours.  We look for lost and missing aircraft.  Aircraft crashes are almost always fatal.  When aircraft and the Granite Planet collide, flesh and blood stands very little chance.  The sea is far more forgiving.

Now go back under your bridge.

Agreed with Lt. Col. K- all those saves include drunken rednecks (personal experience, not stereotyping), crazy college kids on spring break, and a plethora of others who- wait for it!- *generally aren't capable of piloting a plane/allowed a PPL*
Some states (Georgia, for one, and has major waterways!) don't even require a boater's license- just crank it up and grab a six-pack, we can credit the CGAUX with a save today!!!

[DBlair]

Perhaps this may be why while the CG Auxiliary has only about 35, 000 members (compared to the 30,000 adult members in CAP) they are able to save about 3,500 to 4,500 lives every year (again to CAP's 20 to 40, less than half if you take out the high numbers from Alaska)

3.  Yes, the CG Aux claims more lives saved.  So what?  Consider the nature of their saves to ours.  We look for lost and missing aircraft.  Aircraft crashes are almost always fatal.  When aircraft and the Granite Planet collide, flesh and blood stands very little chance.  The sea is far more forgiving.

Now go back under your bridge.

Agreed with Lt. Col. K- all those saves include drunken rednecks (personal experience, not stereotyping), crazy college kids on spring break, and a plethora of others who- wait for it!- *generally aren't capable of piloting a plane/allowed a PPL*
Some states (Georgia, for one, and has major waterways!) don't even require a boater's license- just crank it up and grab a six-pack, we can credit the CGAUX with a save today!!!

Well, beyond this... CAP is called out when there are such aircraft crashes, which happen far less often than boater incidents. The CGAux doesn't just get called out in the same way, but in many cases is already out doing patrols and happens to come across (via chance, radio, etc.) boaters needing assistance. Additionally, as already mentioned, CAP gets called out to look for a crash- which by definition has a high fatality rate. CGAux saves don't often result from some huge incident like a crash, thereby promoting a higher rate of survival.

My CGAux Flotilla counts an extremely high number of saves each year, but then again this is Tampa Bay, Florida, and it seems everyone in this area has a boat or knows someone with one. There are far fewer aircraft out there and pilots don't fly as often as boaters go boating. Not to mention that pilots are highly trained, compared to minimal (if any) boater training. These also factor in the total saves for CAP vs. CGAux.

To be honest, I've been involved with both CAP and CGAux, including ES operations, and to compare the saves between the two are like comparing apples and oranges and not a fair comparison. Each has their own mission and set of applicable factors.

I have to say... Wow, this has been one heck of a thread derail. lol