Is CAP Taking Work Away from Profit Companies?

[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