Is CAP Taking Work Away from Profit Companies?

[RADIOMAN015]

Not to pick on Maine wing but see the article here:
http://www.sunjournal.com/story/313377-3/RiverValley/Civil_Air_Patrol_pilots_on_wildfire_patrols/

It looks like the state is not awarding a contract to fly fire patrols but instead is giving it for much less money for CAP to do?  (Saving over $57K a year for the state)

Again, is this something Civil Air Patrol should be doing? (e.g. flying cheap missions to support cash strapped states, but yet causing other aviation companies to lose revenue
RM

[DBlair]

This reminds me of how a certain unit I know of had an agreement with a certain State to do Wildfire and Coastal patrols and another agreement with a Sheriff's Department to do all of their Air Operations so they wouldn't have to spend money on helicopters, pilots, and expenses.

Eventually, that unit decided to break off into their own organization with 'Air Support' as its mission and was essentially adopted by the State/County as far as expenses. The members all still fly their own planes and have organizational grades, staff positions, and similar uniforms to when they were an official CAP unit, but now they are technically under the County.

I'm not saying this is what will result- it just reminded me of how things started for the unit I'm thinking of...


As for should CAP be doing this? Sure, why not? it seems to fit right in line with what we as an organization often do.

[A.Member]

Again, is this something Civil Air Patrol should be doing? (e.g. flying cheap missions to support cash strapped states, but yet causing other aviation companies to lose revenue

Absolutely this is the kind of stuff we should be doing.  This is our value proposition.  

If the work fits within our mission parameters, we should be looking for it.  In this case, I think fire spotting is a worthy mission and loosely falls into a DR type category.  Kudos to Maine Wing for successfully marketing themselves to a value-add mission.

[♠SARKID♠]

If you were a taxpayer in Maine, would you be happy if the state shelled out that much cash when another agency would do the same job for peanuts?  [Insert economy reference here]  Yeah it puts the contractors in a tough spot but with such a year to year contract based/lowest bidder business I fail to see how they could expect job security begin with.

[RiverAux]

Definetely we should be working very closely with all levels of government in any way we can.  One of the reasons CAP was chartered was to "Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare" and in particular, "To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies."

Wildfire patrols were some of the earliest missions we were doing for state governments after CAP was formed. 

Where it gets a little iffy as far as I'm concerned is if CAP were doing this on behalf of an organization that wasn't a government agency. 

[RRLE]

To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies."

Flying a routine fire patrol, looking for a fire is not an emergency situation. I wouldn't expect CAP to be getting much support from the aviation industry if this trend continues. And that support could be lost not only from the pilots and their companies but also all the infrastructure that supports them. If this becomes an industry at war, you had better add up the allies on each side before you pick a winner. It does seem awfully short-sided for CAP to be doing this.

FWIW - the USCG Aux faced a similar dilemna back in 1984. Up to that point the Aux provided free towing, for almost any reason to boaters. In many cases, it provided gasoline to those who ran out. Then as part of some government cut-backs Congress was thinking about taking the USCG out of non-emergency SAR altogether. Congress fostered and encouraged the development and growth of the commercial salvage industry (Boat US, Sea Tow etc). The USCG tried to shift the burden of non-emergency towing to the Aux and that lead to changes to the Boat Crew Qualification Program (BCQP) that we need not go into here. Anyway, the USCG pushed the Aux very heavily into non-emergency SAR. The commercial salvors fought back by going to Congress. Congress forced the USCG to issue the Maritime SAR Assistance Policy. That policy restricts the launching of both USCG and USCG Aux assetts in non-emergency SAR if a commercial salvor is available.

And it ain't over yet. With the proliferation of states requiring boater education and the USCG Aux doing less and less of that each year, private industry began to fill the gap. In at least 2 states, NJ and HI, there has been a movement to boot the Aux out of the boater ed business - since government agencies or government supported non-profits (the Aux fits both definitions) should not be allowed to compete with private industry.

CAP is on a rocky and dangerous road.

[A.Member]

It does seem awfully short-sided for CAP to be doing this...

...CAP is on a rocky and dangerous road.

Bah!  Pure nonsense.

Many states do/have done fire watch missions.  This is not new or unique to the Maine Wing.

[RADIOMAN015]

If you were a taxpayer in Maine, would you be happy if the state shelled out that much cash when another agency would do the same job for peanuts?  [Insert economy reference here]  Yeah it puts the contractors in a tough spot but with such a year to year contract based/lowest bidder business I fail to see how they could expect job security begin with.

Most States have lots of rules that contract bidders must meet, to including paying government determined prevailing wages, which automatically adds (in my opinion) costs to a contract before the bidding process even begins.  Remember there's no wages that CAP has to pay, so we would automatically win in these situations -- this is not a complex mission, requiring complex training.  You just fly over the fire and take a GPS fix & call it in.   I'm not so sure the article is correct in indicating the actual costs that the state of Maine will have to pay to CAP Inc -- it seems to me the cost per hour should be higher.
RM

[RiverAux]

Flying a routine fire patrol, looking for a fire is not an emergency situation

Take a look at your state's emergency plan and you will find wildfires probably have a section all their own.  Various CAP wings have been flying wildfire patrol missions since at least 1942. 

[arajca]

This is not a scheduled service. It's an on-call service. So it's like CAP will be flying each route every day at 1300hrs. When the state feels a check is needed, they call out CAP. No biggie.

[Gunner C]

I've gotta agree.  It's VERY taxpayer friendly.  State governments don't work for the contractors, they work for the folks who are supplying the money.

[ol'fido]

While I think that CAP should supprt the aviation industry as much as possible, I also think that business leaders in aviation should not have a business plan that includes going after jobs that the states can get for less money through CAP or other non-profits.

It would be like Starbucks going into a disaster area and setting up a coffe stand selling  $5 lattes and scones and complaining because everybody was going to the Salvation Army tent and getting Maxwell House and donuts for free. Not good forward thinking in a free market economy.

[lordmonar]

Who said that non profits can't compete with for-profit corporations?

The Red Cross has been in the cheap blood buisness for longer than CAP has been around....anyone complaining?

[DBlair]

I've gotta agree.  It's VERY taxpayer friendly.  State governments don't work for the contractors, they work for the folks who are supplying the money.

Agreed.

I think there is something to be said for a government actually trying to save money instead of throwing away a ton on inflated prices and needless spending- then complaining down the road they they don't have enough money for other things. A government looking for the most financially prudent method is being responsible in its management of tax payer money.

[RADIOMAN015]

I've gotta agree.  It's VERY taxpayer friendly.  State governments don't work for the contractors, they work for the folks who are supplying the money.

Hmm, got to wonder how many years the state of Maine was paying for these contract flights.  Seems to me that CAP's been around in Maine since the days of WW II.

Again I'm not judging anyone, but when you start a start a new program at any level, shouldn't you be looking for the least costly way, and if volunteers can do it, than go that way!

Once you start using small business contractors or paid employees, it's got the potential to become ugly for the volunteers who perform the service, when that government agency cuts out the small businesses or gets rid of the paid employees, and gets some volunteers to replace them.
RM   

[RiverAux]

Quite a bit of government activity could, in theory, be done by a for-profit company and similarily a lot of what the government or a for-profit company does could be done by unpaid volunteers.  

For example, you could have in the same area a for-profit ambulance service, a city operated ambulance service, and a service run by a volunteer fire department.  

So, where someone sees a chance to do something for a profit they will always do what they can to make it difficult for volunteers or a government agency that is supposed to be doing the same basic function.  The political climate over the last few decades has definetely helped out the for-profit people in some of these areas, such as the towing controversey that RRLE mentioned involving the CG Auxiliary.

So far as I know there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents government or volunteers sponsored by the government from competing with private industry, so it is all up to Legislative bodies and the laws that they want to pass.  A state could pass a law making it more difficult for volunteers in these situations, or they could also pass a law giving preference to volunteers in situations involving government contracts for services.    

[A.Member]

Once you start using small business contractors or paid employees, it's got the potential to become ugly for the volunteers who perform the service, when that government agency cuts out the small businesses or gets rid of the paid employees, and gets some volunteers to replace them.

So?   

As a competitor, whether for-profit or non-profit, the burden is on the business to show why the State should chose their services over another.  As with our country's military, it is not a jobs program.   So, a business has the burden of proving their value, plain and simple.

[RADIOMAN015]

Who said that non profits can't compete with for-profit corporations?

The Red Cross has been in the cheap blood buisness for longer than CAP has been around....anyone complaining?

Actually the American Red Cross blood program does make a profit for the organization by charging inflated processing fees that are paid via insurance companies, or the taxpayers via various government programs.  My view is they use a lot of scare tactics about running low/out of blood, that sometimes gets them more blood than they need and the blood expires and has to be destroyed, sans some by product processing. 

The Military thinks so highly of the American Red Cross program, in that they started their own program see: http://www.militaryblood.dod.mil/   
Even in civilian communities the Red Cross blood program is not the only game in town so to speak, and other non profit hospital are running their programs directly, without any publicity scare tactics.
RM
   

[KyCAP]

I would encourage government to utilize assets to the max that they can without "increasing" the size of their resources to the detriment of the capitalistic market.  More return on my tax dollars on an already "size limited (by Congress)" fleet.

[lordmonar]

Who said that non profits can't compete with for-profit corporations?

The Red Cross has been in the cheap blood buisness for longer than CAP has been around....anyone complaining?

Actually the American Red Cross blood program does make a profit for the organization by charging inflated processing fees that are paid via insurance companies, or the taxpayers via various government programs.  My view is they use a lot of scare tactics about running low/out of blood, that sometimes gets them more blood than they need and the blood expires and has to be destroyed, sans some by product processing. 

The Military thinks so highly of the American Red Cross program, in that they started their own program see: http://www.militaryblood.dod.mil/   
Even in civilian communities the Red Cross blood program is not the only game in town so to speak, and other non profit hospital are running their programs directly, without any publicity scare tactics.
RM
   

My point is....a non-profit organisation can compete with for-profit organisations.

[RRLE]

it's got the potential to become ugly for the volunteers who perform the service, when that government agency cuts out the small businesses or gets rid of the paid employees, and gets some volunteers to replace them.

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

And how does the USAF feel about the planes it paid for and maintains being used to put private business out of business?

In case, you are wondering I have no personal or family involvement with the aviation industry.

[RiverAux]

I do agree that there is some potential for some "bad" publicity if CAP takes over where once someone was getting paid to do a job.  The pilot(s) losing their jobs certainly aren't going to feel kindly towards CAP and neither will their friends.  

However, I think that negative impact would be more than outweighed by the public being happy about saving tax dollars and could possibly result in more pilots being interested in joining CAP as we would be able to point out a concrete mission that we are performing at the local level.  Potential recruits are more impressed by what you ARE doing as opposed to what you MIGHT be doing...

And how does the USAF feel about the planes it paid for and maintains being used to put private business out of business?

They approved the regulation that would let us charge up to $.01 cents less than what a private company would charge (it doesn't say that expiciitly, but just requires that we charge less than private companies). 

[SJFedor]

it's got the potential to become ugly for the volunteers who perform the service, when that government agency cuts out the small businesses or gets rid of the paid employees, and gets some volunteers to replace them.

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

And how does the USAF feel about the planes it paid for and maintains being used to put private business out of business?

In case, you are wondering I have no personal or family involvement with the aviation industry.

The USAF doesn't pay for our fleet, the taxpayers do. And the aircraft do not belong to the USAF, they belong to Civil Air Patrol, Inc, they were just purchased with appropriated funds. And when our aircraft are used for non-USAF paid missions, the customer pays for operating expenses (fuel/oil), plus a flat maintenance rate, which goes into the big bucket that Consolidated Maintenance uses to pay for all the mx on our birds.

Honestly, the AF probably doesn't have any opinion on the subject, other then they're happy that we're getting hours on our airframes, and the money the taxpayers spent to purchase these aircraft isn't being wasted by the aircraft sitting on the ground.

This is one contract job where we're doing work for the state government. It's not like we're taking over everything these companies provide. It's a mission we've been doing for years upon years already. You trying to draw that parallel is like saying that every time we do SDIS sorties over a disaster area, we're putting corporate aviation out of business because they, too, could go take the pictures we're doing.

Do you want your taxes to go up so the state can pay out the wazoo for some company to fly over the state, when someone could do it cheaper, and perhaps, better? I'm sure you wouldn't consider it scabbing if it was you paying for it.

So....

[KyCAP]

In the end, if the government is going to be "doing it" then it's probably required by Law or some part of public safety which is in the end funded by your an my tax dollars.    So, I say if there's a cheaper way, then in today's market, then yes, do it.  Lower my taxes.  I don't suggest that CAP go into competing with commercial airlines though (unless we bail out the airlines too).

[heliodoc]

While its worthy for CAP to do wildfire missions...

The State and Feds contract this kind of work to small business and nowadays the 411 is to put National Guard resources on airtanker duty.

Arguments such as 1932 laws come into effect that NG resources will not occupy contract work until ALL civilian resources are exhausted.

Now whatever States that have it written into law that can use CAP can do wildfire patrol....fine.  Lets look at small business vs CAP..

Only argument ...CAP is cheaper in varying degrees.  Alot of small businesses have been doing this and lead plane work for tankers for numbers of years.

While CAP may have been doing this for a number of years and many here will say this is what our intended missions are for DR and whatnot

CAP needs to be REAL careful in this arena...better look at the folks in your community that do this for their bread and butter and they MAY NOT take too kindly to "taking away" from the economy.  

Wildfire contracts where I am from require CFI and most often a 135 ticket, so for CAP to just jump on in....... well I would just check out your States contracting system before jumping in saying we will do it for "free"

Free , no such animal, most wildfire operators need to meet requirements as well as CAP.  Nothing needs to be in the Constitution about this, but there are laws about using military resources over civilian contractors, nothing in the law yet about volunteers that I know about.

While many communities or States may or may not have a wildfire section in their LEOP, resources will be listed.  Usually in the wildland fire business, PAID contractors are listed as the lead for wildfire patrol. Because of their backgrounds, they are contracted and most likely carded by Office of Aircraft Services- USDOI or USFS and that is passed down to the States.

I would think CAP should then submit to this process if they want more of these missions.  Every contractor I know HAS to go thru this process every spring.  To just let CAP do this "cuz we can do it cheaper" without the other processes everyone else has to go thru ..paid or not, CAP should have to be subjected to that process.

Take i t form some body who knows..   I have been in this wildfire business in one form or another for the last 20 yrs.  I have seen and participated in many of the business dealings and have been involved as an aerial observer in one form or another helo or fixed wing...

CAP doesn't get a free pass on this one.  There are procedures for this....and on this forum there are forum talkers that will point out PROCEDURE in CAP operations.  Now it is time for CAP to follow procedure on State contracts or USFS USDOI for wildfire patrols.  Simple as that , just because we have done it since 1942, doesn't always hold during 2009 standards

[RiverAux]

Incidentally, CAP also flies wildfire patrols for DoD....

[KyCAP]

CAP doesn't get a free pass on this one.  There are procedures for this....and on this forum there are forum talkers that will point out PROCEDURE in CAP operations.  Now it is time for CAP to follow procedure on State contracts or USFS USDOI for wildfire patrols.  Simple as that , just because we have done it since 1942, doesn't always hold during 2009 standards

Sounds like a valid point.   What are these procedures and where does one learn about them?  I will bite.

[heliodoc]

^^^
You addressing that to me??

Many States run parallel and respect what the Feds establish for wildfire operations

Does CAP fly wildfire patrols for EVERY DoD operation, bet there are contractors as well...

But i forgot this is CAP forum...... they do evrything don't they Aux??

Nice to get CAP in the plug, tho...

[Johnny Yuma]

It would be like Starbucks going into a disaster area and setting up a coffe stand selling  $5 lattes and scones and complaining because everybody was going to the Salvation Army tent and getting Maxwell House and donuts for free. Not good forward thinking in a free market economy.

Yeah.

Everyone knows that the Red Cross's job!

[A.Member]

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

Again, this is pure nonsense.  If a volunteer puts them out of business, then they didn't demonstrate a viable enough competitive advantage.  The State is not there to provide this opportunity as a job program.  Contracts are won and lost all the time.  And while I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation in Maine, based on the info in the article, it most definitely sounds like the decision was made by the Forest Service in an attempt to cut costs as a response to a reduced budget.

[RiverAux]

Though since we're primarily talking about flying for state agencies, the federal rules that apply to DOI, Agriculture, etc. don't apply at all so are irrelevant.  

[Johnny Yuma]

As a taxpayer, whatever the state, local or Federal governments need to do to reduce spending should be done.

If a bunch of volunteers want to fly missions for the state and it saves money, go for it. It's time for the contractors to find new sources of revenue besides government.

[biomed441]

^^^
Agreed. If the state manages to find cheaper alternatives to performing its duties, in this case fire obseravtions or what have you, then why not? If the state has requirments about individuals performing such duties as mentioned before, then I am sure there are more than enough CAP pilots willing to take care of what ever training is necessary in order to fly these missions.

Theres nothing wrong with a state wanting to save money. And in this economy, can you really blame em?

[FW]

CAP has been doing this kind of mission (with the Forrest Service) for decades (at least the last 25 years).  CAP mission pilots have been doing "patrols" over state and national forests looking for a lot more than wildfires.  IMHO, we do not compete with private companies; we may even serve to augment their capabilities. 
CAP does not want to take work away from anyone.  That is the main reason we do not provide primary flight instruction.  However, we do offer a service to state and local agencies and provide assets that perform the service well. If we weren't successful, we wouldn't be asked to do it.

[jimmydeanno]

Not to pick on Maine wing but see the article here:
http://www.sunjournal.com/story/313377-3/RiverValley/Civil_Air_Patrol_pilots_on_wildfire_patrols/

It looks like the state is not awarding a contract to fly fire patrols but instead is giving it for much less money for CAP to do?  (Saving over $57K a year for the state)

Again, is this something Civil Air Patrol should be doing? (e.g. flying cheap missions to support cash strapped states, but yet causing other aviation companies to lose revenue
RM

Or in NH, the state is laying off state employees that stand in the fire towers.  About three quarters down the article it mentions that the state is using "an air patrol."  That's us.

http://www.wmur.com/news/19186856/detail.html

All in all though, I think it is a good idea.  The government isn't supposed to be a job bank and the more they can do with less resources, the better.

[heliodoc]

Correct the guv isn't a job bank

BUT States and Federal guv have been contracting for services for a number of years  and I see no changes in sight.

I do agree, however, that contracting out work to civilian companies to save the government money has been a spectacular saving to guv operations either.

Either way, you are paying a contractor or you are paying CAP for the fuel to fly missions.

I suppose CAP is going to start manning and getting on volunteer fire departments now to either fight fire or work those towers, eh??  Which in the past they did

Mannining those fire towers are done by 1) volunteers2) temporary state employees such as smoke chasers that earn a whopping 7 to 12 an hr with no benefitsand there is usually a fire training program involved for approx 40 hours plus some job shadowing with other foresters or forest technicians.

It's a skill that not everyone has and certain in some folks views such as CAP's "it's so easy, a caveman can do it" prevails.  CAP MIGHT save some money for some State governments, bur SAR skills and our services do not always match everyones missions.

I would say augement a with contractors on a rotating basis so everyone can get a fair shake.  Thinking CAP can save the day in every DR operation and save money at the same time is not always true and hopefully the "professional membership" here remembers just because we have " a reduced" price as far as labor rates go.....we are NOT the only aviation outfit out there.

Whether or not CAP has been doing this for years with the Forest Service or DoD or not, there are rule s the Feds put out and the States and at bare minimum, with the contracts out there , a bare minimum of a 135 ticket could be involved and that may be how CAP skirts around the rules getting the gigs.  There are other operators that do not require 135 on contracts, each State is different

But just because someone is using CAP, doesn't mean it's free, somebody is getting the bill somewhere

[A.Member]

Thinking CAP can save the day in every DR operation and save money at the same time is not always true and hopefully the "professional membership" here remembers just because we have " a reduced" price as far as labor rates go.....we are NOT the only aviation outfit out there.

True but that's where the burden becomes that of our competitors.   Our value proposition is a lower cost service with skilled/trained personnel.  It's the responsibility of a competitor to successfully argue/demonstrate that they bring an added value to the table that CAP or some other competitor does not.  If they cannot do that, they shouldn't expect a contract.  That's how business works.

[DG]

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

Again, this is pure nonsense.  If a volunteer puts them out of business, then they didn't demonstrate a viable enough competitive advantage.  The State is not there to provide this opportunity as a job program.  Contracts are won and lost all the time.  And while I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation in Maine, based on the info in the article, it most definitely sounds like the decision was made by the Forest Service in an attempt to cut costs as a response to a reduced budget.

Is it legal?  Did it have a full and comprehensive legal review?

Is it covered by Part 119 or does it require we have a Part 135 Certificate?  These are hard to come by.  If you were a Certificate owner, would you be in favor of CAP performing the work without needing to obtain a Certificate?

Is it covered by our exemption to Part 119 or Part 135 from the FAA?  If so, do the individual pilots have a commercial license?  Is our exemption limited to certain transportation flights?

Does it comply with CAPR 60-1 "CAP aircraft will be used only for official CAP business."?

Are the answers in any way different for CAP flights to perform rush-hour traffic reporting?

[wuzafuzz]

it's got the potential to become ugly for the volunteers who perform the service, when that government agency cuts out the small businesses or gets rid of the paid employees, and gets some volunteers to replace them.

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

I'm not a pilot, I don't fly for free, and it IS about saving money.  If the job can be done to an acceptable standard, doing it cheaper will win almost every time. 

As for the derogatory term "scabbing," that term is usually used in reference to people who refuse union membership or replace striking workers.  Not sure it really applies to volunteers who are simply providing a community service.  Like it or not, if you save your community some cash you just did it a service.  On the flip side I've seen plenty of paid folks force out volunteers to improve their own bottom line.  It can work both ways.

[Capt Rivera]

I don't get it. I've seen only one person say "tax me more". (NetFlix CEO)

As a country, over all we want the government to do more with less. We want less income tax, we want less sales tax, we want less property tax, etc.

Although it's not likely that our services will cause less taxation our services can allow thousands of dollars to be used elsewhere.
- unemployment could use more money (debate not needed)
- more law enforcement (debate not needed)
- legal system (public defenders/judges/public prosecutors) (debate not needed)
- public utility (debate not needed)
- infrastructure (debate not needed)
- education (debate not needed)
- etc (debate not needed)

So you contest people might be out of jobs? Education/training is an investment and we all know that not all investments payoff always or forever. Sometimes people need to find new jobs. There are all types of professionals looking at different fields both permanently and temporally.

This is a area in which it should be local governments responsibility to seek CAP/etc out if CAP/etc in that area can successfully meet the mission.  I commend any local/federal government entity that believes it would be better to allow CAP/etc pilots who desire to render this service fly when needed in an efficient manor then to spend unnecessary money to pay select pilots to fly sometimes and sit around most of the time.

While we consider not doing these missions. Lets think about all the Americans who could enlist/commission and do inland SAR as a primary mission. It would be great. We can procure all of the following which will create tuns of jobs.
-Create a new command (lots of people needed for that
- buy air planes - people got to build em
- train/pay pilots - got to fly the planes (sometimes)
- train/hire maintainers - someone has to maintain/fix a/c
- bases - hire a bunch of people to support the regionally placed bases flying this mission (great for that local economy)
- and so on and so on...

or....

We (the US) can pay private contractors to be on call to look for a/c etc and turn of ELTs... that would be a great job. How much would my salary be to be on call all year long and maybe get a call? I'd sign up for that free money, wouldn't you?

I wish our legislative body at all levels was at least introduced to "lean" principals and expected to attempt to find ways to do more with less. They/we should also recognize that when for profit companies look to "lean" themselves... they are looking to increase their profit margin without noticeable/any loss of quality provided. They are NOT usually looking to charge less.

[RRLE]

Here is an experiment to try, if you dare to face the truth.

google this expression (no quotes necessary) volunteer replace workers

Then count up how many times this or similar statements come up:

Ensuring that volunteers do not replace paid workers nor constitute a threat to the job security of paid workers.

What CAP is doing "may" be legal but it certainly violates the ethics of volunteer management and volunteer/paid labor intereaction. BTW - the reason "may" is in quotes, is no one has yet responded to the repeated inquiries of several posters regarding whether CAP and its pilots are being held to the same standard as the commercial companies. Or is CAP getting a 'break' and an uneven playing field. If CAP isn't being held to the same standard then it isn't providing the same value as the commercial companies.

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that the person who brought that up doesn't actually know what requirements, if any, are in place in the CAP wing in question.  Sort of puts the onus on him to prove his point, not the other way around.  There has been no evidence presented that CAP is NOT meeting the standards and quite frankly, it isn't CAP's problem to ensure that but the government agency asking CAP to do the flights.  They know what rules apply to them and if CAP didn't meet them, they're the ones that should know about it, don't you think? 

[FW]

What CAP is doing "may" be legal but it certainly violates the ethics of volunteer management and volunteer/paid labor interaction. BTW - the reason "may" is in quotes, is no one has yet responded to the repeated inquiries of several posters regarding whether CAP and its pilots are being held to the same standard as the commercial companies. Or is CAP getting a 'break' and an uneven playing field. If CAP isn't being held to the same standard then it isn't providing the same value as the commercial companies.

Um, CAP mission pilots are trained to CAP standards.  Govt. agencies understand our standards and ask us to perform at these standards OR ask us to only use MP's who have certain special qualifications.  Some agencies provide extra training for our MPs at their expense.

We provide "recon" services.  CAP mission pilots are well trained in this type of flying and, whether it be looking for wildfires, lost people, downed aircraft, space shuttle parts, pipeline/powerline breaks or, wacky weeds, it is basically all the same to the MP.  BTW, this flying is well within our FAA exemptions.  And, yes, we do get a break.  We get the break because we perform this mission very well. And, have done this type of mission for a long, long time.  Performing as the USAF Auxiliary doesn't hurt either 

CAP members are citizens of their community and, as such volunteer to serve much like a volunteer fire company member does.  No one suggests the volunteer firefighter, EMT or paramedic takes away from a paid individual.  Volunteering for community service is considered a patriotic duty in most areas.  Training is not the issue; IMHO, the issue is service to the community in which we reside.  If a govt. agency feels the need to call on us, not only "should" we serve, we have an "obligation" to serve. 

[sardak]

I found this on the State of Maine budget website:

Divison of Forest Protection
Initiative: Reduces funding by pooling aircraft resources and coordinating dual missions allowing a reduction to contracts with outside vendors for fire detection and savings on maintenance and fuel costs to streamline State Government in accordance with Public Law 2007, chapter 240, Part QQQ. (15) Reduction in General Fund 2008-2009 $57,526 [The article linked to in the original post has a statement of "...save on average, $57,000 per year..."]

The parent initiative document from which the wording was taken, found on the Maine legislature site, includes this additional wording:
If this proposal is not adopted in its entirety, no one element could stand alone. For example, all of the aviation resources would need to be made available for fire detection in order to give up the current contracts. If these air detection contracts were eliminated with no additional resources made available for the mission, fires would not be detected when small and would be more costly and damaging.

In the 2009 budget adjustment, this wording is found:
Initiative: Reduces funding by eliminating fire detection contracts. This initiative relates to the curtailments ordered in Financial Order 004576 F9. 2008-2009 Reduction: $100,000
Justification: Eliminates current fire protection contracts. An arrangement will be made with Civil Air Patrol for necessary fire detection flights.

Oh, and in these same budget documents, from the Department of Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management, this was found:
Initiative: Eliminates funding for the civil air patrol program to maintain costs within available resources. 2008-2009 Reduction $15,000

It would be nice to hear from Maine Wing to know exactly what's going on.

Mike

[Gunner C]

It shows a government's priorities . . . 

[RADIOMAN015]

Hello All:
Just thought I'd give you an update on this.  Recently I got to talk with someone who was very familiar with the Maine Fire Patrol Program.   Apparently when the state contracted with FBO's the way the contract was written the state had to pay for so many hours of aircraft usage, whether it was actually used or not.

They weren't even coming close to the total hours being paid for and decided it would be more cost effective to pay CAP only when they needed them to fly.

My understanding also is that at least one of the contractor's took the state to court -- unsure of the outcome.

The very informed person told me that these patrols weren't a cake walk at all since when they were flying it, usually during the afternoons, there was turbulence that knocked them around.

So in the Maine Wing example, the state rightfully choose CAP to save a good amount of money.

RM