What happened to:H.R.1333 : To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002

Started by wingnut, April 23, 2008, 01:29:11 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DNall

Quote from: Gunner C on May 19, 2008, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: FW on May 18, 2008, 03:58:17 PM
Gunner, that is an interesting opinion.  However, I disagree with it.  We lobby well; perhaps too well.  I see things from a slightly different perspective.  Our "lobbyist" is very busy and gets great responses.  I met with him last week while delivering an aircraft for the CAP exhibit at the JSOH Andrews AFB.  He was very excited about funding for new and existing projects and missions.  He was also optimistic about H.R.1333.
No question, he is a fine officer and does a great service.  He's only one person - we need many more like him to be really effective.  Capitol Hill is up to the gunwales in lobbyists and we need more folks talking to congress AND the executive departments on a continuing basis.

QuoteWe do well with the Air Force.  It is their job to see we spend our grant "appropriately".  Let's say we have an obligation to "question" their judgement from time to time. 
But, in the context of above, the AF doesn't spend much time helping us get our name out there.  1st AF is sold on us but the reason we're not heavily engaged with other organizations is that we (1) don't give them the impression that we're a serious organization and (2) we don't sell ourselves.  If we showed up every time with blue and green flight suits for air missions, BDUs and BBDUs for ground missions, and appropriate "serious" uniforms at mission bases we'd sell ourselves much better.

QuoteOutside agencies are calling for our assistance all the time.  Sorry you don't see it.  Our problem, as you did state,  is having enough qualified members to assist.

(I'll keep this non-descript since the specific info is FOUO) We have 19 lines on the ATO for last week for the whole country. 8 of the lines are to fly other agencies' people so they can do their own recon.  So 11 lines are for CAP doing what CAP does - reconnaissance. BTW, only 1 line is for a GA8.  That's not impressive for a 500 aircraft force.

People aren't getting qualified in the numbers we need because there's not national training plan and we don't retain nearly enough of our people (if folks were getting training, we'd retain many more).  Each region, wing, group, and squadron trains what they see fit.  We spend a lot of money in the wrong places because of that.  Since there's no training management, we don't get the most bang for the buck.  I did this for my last four years in SF and coordinated all SOF high risk training plus all classified courses. 

QuoteOrganizationally, we do play well with others. We will be NIMS compliant by the federal deadline.  IS300 & IS400 courses are being set up all over the country for our members.  But, we can only lead them to the promised land; we can't force them to cross over :angel:

:D As a former commander (2x looser) and former chief of staff I know what you're saying.  But when I talk to ICs, they don't understand the NIMS relationship between CAP and the mission lead agency.  I can tell you that it pisses off other agencies when a CAP officer calls up and introduces himself as the "Incident Commander."  We, as a force, have a long way to go - there's still a lot of the old mission coordinator mentality left over.

QuoteWe may have had some "corrupt" commanders in the past.  There may be some who are less than perfect today.  But, we deal with it best we can.  Give me one example of the "perfect" organization and I'll show you one without members.  And, I'm not really interested in the"self licking icecream cone" comparison anymore.  It is flawed and does not accurately describe our "management" situation. 

The current leadership (collectively, not individually) is a product of decades of no comprehensive program to train leaders at the squadron/group, wing/region, or national levels.  There's a large amount of discussion on this forum about how the CAP PD system doesn't really address the skill sets needed to train the next generation of leaders - a weekend here and there won't get it.  We have thousands of Lt Cols who are great guys and gals, great members, great technicians, but as far as leadership goes, they can't find their wallets with both hands and a flashlight.

QuoteComplaints are good.  I complain all the time.  But I still do the job, and I enjoy what I do. 

Uniforms, well this situation predates my involvement with CAP (1967).  Anyone want an old Guyaberra(sic) shirt? ;D  I wouldn't mind us being a bit more "uniform".

See above.  Uniformity should be part of marketing.

QuoteCAP is no "mess".  Yes, it needs changing and, it will.  The people "in charge" direct the change and they will. Every member of the NEC is committed to positive change.  Don't take my word for it;  just follow the events of the next few months. 

They're good people but they're a bit like the blind men trying to describe an elephant.  Ever since the AF got out of the business of being the national commander, we've been slipping in a bad direction - we need to change.

GC

That's an excellent post! I agree. I'll give you a glaring example. I was training GTLs a couple weeks ago. The task plan & brief sortie that lays out WARNO, OPORD, FRAGO formats & info is all there in the task guide. No one bothers to put in 8 troop leading procedures though. How is this guy supposed to understand how to use those things & what they mean w/o that. I wrote it in & explained the process thru a normal CAP mission scenario. This guy had cadets running all over the place w/ limited comms & no accountability, some untrained cadet out interviewing a witness while the trained ones walked a road. The light blinked on when he figured out TLPs, & he got control of his op real fast.

CAP officers aren't stupid. We train college kids to be real military officers in combat. A lot of the people we're taking in CAP have some education & more life experience. They're capable of learning 7 operating to standard, if we just give them the chance.

DNall

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 21, 2008, 05:11:16 AM
Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.
300/day? are you nuts? That's outlandish!!! A NG/Res E-4 doesn't make that in a full weekend. E-8 with over 24 years makes that kind of money. And Capts, which means a real commissioning program & over five years service.

If you pay CAP members 300/day then they aren't volunteers, they're being compensated on par or at a higher rate than Guard/Reserve personnel. The advantage to CAP is the simple fact that our people work for free where others have to be paid. That's the only thing that keeps us alive and competitive against odds that should have killed us long ago.

I am in favor of per diem, but I'm talking 25-50/day for food, plus fuel to drive to station. 100-150/day would be nice, particularly for longer deployments like katrina, but 300 is just nuts. Employment protection is a must though. The key problem there is individual CAP members are free to volunteer for a mission or not or go home when the feel like. Hence, they as an individual can stay at their job & someone else can go on the mission. The only way you get iron clad employment protection is if individual member scan be placed on orders. It may be their choice if they go on orders or not, but once on they can't just leave. At that point you're taking away the volunteers aspect, which I'm perfectly fine w/ doing, but it has to be done the right way.

Frenchie

The values for gov per diem are already established by GSA and can be found here:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=17943&contentType=GSA_BASIC

No gov agency is going to pay more than the established per diem rate unless there is some type of special circumstance like no accommodations available at the established rate.  If they did pay more than the established per diem rate, it wouldn't be per diem, it would be taxable compensation.

If anything CAP is going to pay less and/or require members to double up in hotel rooms.

DNall

If you follow that link, click your state, and look at the last column on the left. That's the most you should expect to see on a per diem. MAYBE the 100% M/IE on the rare multi-day missions.

A lot of people are misunderstanding what per diem is. It's not for fuel or lost wages. Which is what we really need help with. It's for meals & lodging for people who at home station have govt provided or subsidized food/quarters. CAP doesn't fit that on the food for sure. You'd be paying for your meals if not on that mission, why should the govt pay that expense? As far as lodging, that should be provided or reimbursable with receipt up to the per diem amount.

As I said, CAP isn't going to get paid, regardless of what you want to call it. That's contrary to everything we're about. It's also just a minor issue with non-commercial pilots, especially in govt purchased planes, functioning under an FAA restriction, particularly on non-AFAM, especially when those are for state or even worse C missions.

davedove

Quote from: DNall on May 21, 2008, 08:21:25 PM
It's for meals & lodging for people who at home station have govt provided or subsidized food/quarters. CAP doesn't fit that on the food for sure. You'd be paying for your meals if not on that mission, why should the govt pay that expense? As far as lodging, that should be provided or reimbursable with receipt up to the per diem amount.

Not exactly precise.  You get the per diem for the meals, regardless of your home situation.  I am an Army civilian, and when I get per diem, I get the full daily amount, UNLESS meals are provided at the travel location.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

DNall

Just to be perfectly technical, I would argue that the purpose of per diem is to compensate for being away from govt supplied food/lodging at home station, even though it is extended to some people that don't have that situation at home. But that's not the point.

I understand what I said is a generalization, but people are talking about per diem like its a paycheck they deserve for doing the mission. Specifically, to offset fuel & lost civilian wages, both of which are not what per diem is about.

I do think either the M/IE rate should be paid or meals reimbursed for missions over 24hrs, and fuel/lodging should be reimbursable w/ IC approval if not provided (fuel obviously gets covered on AFAM w/ inbound/outbound sorties, but not as often in other kinds of missions). None of that is an option during training unless you don't want there to be any money left to train with after you get to the ICP.

RiverAux

Since per diem has nothing to do with the bill in front of us, why are we talking about it?

Earhart1971

Quote from: DNall on May 21, 2008, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 21, 2008, 05:11:16 AM
Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.
300/day? are you nuts? That's outlandish!!! A NG/Res E-4 doesn't make that in a full weekend. E-8 with over 24 years makes that kind of money. And Capts, which means a real commissioning program & over five years service.

If you pay CAP members 300/day then they aren't volunteers, they're being compensated on par or at a higher rate than Guard/Reserve personnel. The advantage to CAP is the simple fact that our people work for free where others have to be paid. That's the only thing that keeps us alive and competitive against odds that should have killed us long ago.

I am in favor of per diem, but I'm talking 25-50/day for food, plus fuel to drive to station. 100-150/day would be nice, particularly for longer deployments like katrina, but 300 is just nuts. Employment protection is a must though. The key problem there is individual CAP members are free to volunteer for a mission or not or go home when the feel like. Hence, they as an individual can stay at their job & someone else can go on the mission. The only way you get iron clad employment protection is if individual member scan be placed on orders. It may be their choice if they go on orders or not, but once on they can't just leave. At that point you're taking away the volunteers aspect, which I'm perfectly fine w/ doing, but it has to be done the right way.

$300 per day is not outlandish.

Here is why.

You are asking people, highly qualified pilots, with 1000 hours or more, to fly and take time from their families and jobs.

Even with this payment, CAP is still flying missions at a cost well below National Guard Helicopters and C-130s and any other Government funded flying.

And on the other side of the coin, CAP and National HQ needs to realize, we have churned through the baby boom members.

All the Pilots and Crews we have, are either already burned out, or on their second tour of burn out with CAP.

And on top of that, the pilot pool is shrinking down too. Flying is expensive, Cessna 172s that rented for $75 per hour are now $110 per hour and going NORTH from there.

The days of cheap flying and CAP getting plenty of pilots to fly, under the "pay you back scenario" are over.

And someone with a strong selling spirit at National HQ needs to get with the reality, of the current situation, and have the powers that be get real with CAP.

We missed the opportunity at 911 where check books were being flipped out, now, this is the 2nd phase, we need Home Land Security from now till the next 20 years, and maybe 50 years.

It's a tide and CAP can take this tide, we have the structure and the program, and we need incentives to get pilots on board, who can regularly fly and also, willing to take time from work to fly, and not suffer financial disaster.

We could, with this program, start interviewing prospective members instead of begging for people.

It just takes visualization of reality, what makes sense, and we need to stop volunteering to do the financially impossible.

SJFedor

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 12:35:23 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 21, 2008, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 21, 2008, 05:11:16 AM
Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.
300/day? are you nuts? That's outlandish!!! A NG/Res E-4 doesn't make that in a full weekend. E-8 with over 24 years makes that kind of money. And Capts, which means a real commissioning program & over five years service.

If you pay CAP members 300/day then they aren't volunteers, they're being compensated on par or at a higher rate than Guard/Reserve personnel. The advantage to CAP is the simple fact that our people work for free where others have to be paid. That's the only thing that keeps us alive and competitive against odds that should have killed us long ago.

I am in favor of per diem, but I'm talking 25-50/day for food, plus fuel to drive to station. 100-150/day would be nice, particularly for longer deployments like katrina, but 300 is just nuts. Employment protection is a must though. The key problem there is individual CAP members are free to volunteer for a mission or not or go home when the feel like. Hence, they as an individual can stay at their job & someone else can go on the mission. The only way you get iron clad employment protection is if individual member scan be placed on orders. It may be their choice if they go on orders or not, but once on they can't just leave. At that point you're taking away the volunteers aspect, which I'm perfectly fine w/ doing, but it has to be done the right way.

$300 per day is not outlandish.

Here is why.

You are asking people, highly qualified pilots, with 1000 hours or more, to fly and take time from their families and jobs.

Even with this payment, CAP is still flying missions at a cost well below National Guard Helicopters and C-130s and any other Government funded flying.

And on the other side of the coin, CAP and National HQ needs to realize, we have churned through the baby boom members.

All the Pilots and Crews we have, are either already burned out, or on their second tour of burn out with CAP.

And on top of that, the pilot pool is shrinking down too. Flying is expensive, Cessna 172s that rented for $75 per hour are now $110 per hour and going NORTH from there.

The days of cheap flying and CAP getting plenty of pilots to fly, under the "pay you back scenario" are over.

And someone with a strong selling spirit at National HQ needs to get with the reality, of the current situation, and have the powers that be get real with CAP.

We missed the opportunity at 911 where check books were being flipped out, now, this is the 2nd phase, we need Home Land Security from now till the next 20 years, and maybe 50 years.

It's a tide and CAP can take this tide, we have the structure and the program, and we need incentives to get pilots on board, who can regularly fly and also, willing to take time from work to fly, and not suffer financial disaster.

We could, with this program, start interviewing prospective members instead of begging for people.

It just takes visualization of reality, what makes sense, and we need to stop volunteering to do the financially impossible.


True. But if we start handing out more then a per diem rate, the pilots are acting as "For hire" and require a commercial pilot's license and 2nd class medical. Which cuts our already small pilot force, at least, in half, if not more.

I'd love to see some stats to see how many pilots we have that hold Commercial or higher certs and valid 2nd class medicals. There's not gonna be a whole lot of them. Most of those that do are either retired, or already flying somewhere else for money.

Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)

Earhart1971

Quote from: SJFedor on May 22, 2008, 12:45:08 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 12:35:23 AM
Quote from: DNall on May 21, 2008, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 21, 2008, 05:11:16 AM
Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.
300/day? are you nuts? That's outlandish!!! A NG/Res E-4 doesn't make that in a full weekend. E-8 with over 24 years makes that kind of money. And Capts, which means a real commissioning program & over five years service.

If you pay CAP members 300/day then they aren't volunteers, they're being compensated on par or at a higher rate than Guard/Reserve personnel. The advantage to CAP is the simple fact that our people work for free where others have to be paid. That's the only thing that keeps us alive and competitive against odds that should have killed us long ago.

I am in favor of per diem, but I'm talking 25-50/day for food, plus fuel to drive to station. 100-150/day would be nice, particularly for longer deployments like katrina, but 300 is just nuts. Employment protection is a must though. The key problem there is individual CAP members are free to volunteer for a mission or not or go home when the feel like. Hence, they as an individual can stay at their job & someone else can go on the mission. The only way you get iron clad employment protection is if individual member scan be placed on orders. It may be their choice if they go on orders or not, but once on they can't just leave. At that point you're taking away the volunteers aspect, which I'm perfectly fine w/ doing, but it has to be done the right way.

$300 per day is not outlandish.

Here is why.

You are asking people, highly qualified pilots, with 1000 hours or more, to fly and take time from their families and jobs.

Even with this payment, CAP is still flying missions at a cost well below National Guard Helicopters and C-130s and any other Government funded flying.

And on the other side of the coin, CAP and National HQ needs to realize, we have churned through the baby boom members.

All the Pilots and Crews we have, are either already burned out, or on their second tour of burn out with CAP.

And on top of that, the pilot pool is shrinking down too. Flying is expensive, Cessna 172s that rented for $75 per hour are now $110 per hour and going NORTH from there.

The days of cheap flying and CAP getting plenty of pilots to fly, under the "pay you back scenario" are over.

And someone with a strong selling spirit at National HQ needs to get with the reality, of the current situation, and have the powers that be get real with CAP.

We missed the opportunity at 911 where check books were being flipped out, now, this is the 2nd phase, we need Home Land Security from now till the next 20 years, and maybe 50 years.

It's a tide and CAP can take this tide, we have the structure and the program, and we need incentives to get pilots on board, who can regularly fly and also, willing to take time from work to fly, and not suffer financial disaster.

We could, with this program, start interviewing prospective members instead of begging for people.

It just takes visualization of reality, what makes sense, and we need to stop volunteering to do the financially impossible.


True. But if we start handing out more then a per diem rate, the pilots are acting as "For hire" and require a commercial pilot's license and 2nd class medical. Which cuts our already small pilot force, at least, in half, if not more.

I'd love to see some stats to see how many pilots we have that hold Commercial or higher certs and valid 2nd class medicals. There's not gonna be a whole lot of them. Most of those that do are either retired, or already flying somewhere else for money.

So how does the National Guard and the Air Force get away with paying pilots?

And we can get 1000 hour Commercial Pilots, plenty of them.

If the incentive is there.

We are doing National Guard and Air Force Missions, tell the lawyers to back off, it has no relationship to Commercial Flying.

It's government taskings, for government missions.

FW

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 12:55:35 AM

So how does the National Guard and the Air Force get away with paying pilots?

And we can get 1000 hour Commercial Pilots, plenty of them.

If the incentive is there.

We are doing National Guard and Air Force Missions, tell the lawyers to back off, it has no relationship to Commercial Flying.

It's government taskings, for government missions.

The guard and AF can pay pilots because they are part of the government.
The guardsmen and AF pilots work for the government.
The aircraft they fly are "public use" military aircraft

CAP is a nonprofit corporation
Our aircraft are corporate owned.
We don't work for CAP nor do we work for the government.
Our Aircraft are not "public use".  They are private general aviation aircraft which operates under FAA part 91 regulations and special FAA exemptions.

We do Air Force "authorized" missions; not Air Force missions.
We get reimbursed for our flying.  We don't get paid for our flying.
There are several laws on the books which prohibit us from getting paid.
Changing this fact would take more resources than we could ever hope for.

Our best hope, IMHO, would be successful passage of H.R. 1333, a favorable GAO report, and DHS acceptance and usage.  

If we can offer "almost free" training in the most modern GA aircraft in the country, I think it would help motivate more pilots into CAP and keep the ones we have.  Getting paid to play is not my idea of our volunteer spirit.  It's not why I'm in CAP.  

Earhart1971

Quote from: FW on May 22, 2008, 02:18:30 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 12:55:35 AM

So how does the National Guard and the Air Force get away with paying pilots?

And we can get 1000 hour Commercial Pilots, plenty of them.

If the incentive is there.

We are doing National Guard and Air Force Missions, tell the lawyers to back off, it has no relationship to Commercial Flying.

It's government taskings, for government missions.

The guard and AF can pay pilots because they are part of the government.
The guardsmen and AF pilots work for the government.
The aircraft they fly are "public use" military aircraft

CAP is a nonprofit corporation
Our aircraft are corporate owned.
We don't work for CAP nor do we work for the government.
Our Aircraft are not "public use".  They are private general aviation aircraft which operates under FAA part 91 regulations and special FAA exemptions.

We do Air Force "authorized" missions; not Air Force missions.
We get reimbursed for our flying.  We don't get paid for our flying.
There are several laws on the books which prohibit us from getting paid.
Changing this fact would take more resources than we could ever hope for.

Our best hope, IMHO, would be successful passage of H.R. 1333, a favorable GAO report, and DHS acceptance and usage.  

If we can offer "almost free" training in the most modern GA aircraft in the country, I think it would help motivate more pilots into CAP and keep the ones we have.  Getting paid to play is not my idea of our volunteer spirit.  It's not why I'm in CAP.  

We have to realize, in these economic times.

We will have few takers for almost free training, and the training is never ending, and it could take the better part of 2 years worth of vacation time to complete.

Almost free training, will not work.

Volunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.

Let me count the ways its impossible.

Both Husband and Wife work, and if they have kids, they have hardly anytime left to volunteer and have no money to pay for CAP volunteering.

Only reason I can, is the kids are out of the house, I am a Baby Boomer, but I cannot take off work to fly "missions".

There is no advantage to CAP "Owning Aircraft" let the government own them, and we fly under government mandate, and not part 91. It's wartime activity, tell the FAA to take a hike! Let the Home Land Security Lawyers work it out.

And the non profit status, needs to be delt with.

Non profit is great if you are able to raise funds.

CAP is quasi government or gives that impression, so we have never been able to raise "Millions" or 100s of thousands on a National Level.

Yes local Units can raise some cash, by showcasing Cadets as the recipients of the donations.

On a National level fund raising does not work as far as I can tell.  By the way donations, for a National Security Mission is ridiculous, it should be paid for by the taxpayers.

We have no funds to operate on the level of expectation of the Missions we are gaining.

My feeling is that we have to be raised in status to a National Volunteer Force, that receives better funding for the missions we carry out.

My thinking is that there is the need for several hundred thousand hours of flying per year, the Government needs that mission filled. We can fill it, but not at the previous rates, it simply does not work for CAP, the Volunteers, or the Missions.

We have to develop a plan that makes sense, right now, we are grabbing and volunteering for Missions we simply cannot afford to write the checks for.



RiverAux

QuoteVolunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.
Impossible?  Gee, seems to have been working pretty well for nearly 70 years....

Earhart1971

Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2008, 03:03:45 AM
QuoteVolunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.
Impossible?  Gee, seems to have been working pretty well for nearly 70 years....

Yeah, it works well, if we can find new members to replace 100% of membership every 5 years.

Demographics are working against us now.

Baby Boomers are the largest generation, and most of them have been churned twice.


DNall

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 12:35:23 AM
$300 per day is not outlandish.

Here is why.

You are asking people, highly qualified pilots, with 1000 hours or more, to fly and take time from their families and jobs.

First, a whole lot of those pilots don't have anywhere close to a 1000hrs or a commercial ticket.

Second, you're talking about compensating for skill, not covering expenses. That's pay versus per diem. CAP is not a paid service. That's ANG/AFRes, who for the most part are being paid less than the rate you're stating, and who also take time away from family & job, but don't have a choice of when or how often so that they can balance those competing concerns.

QuoteEven with this payment, CAP is still flying missions at a cost well below National Guard Helicopters and C-130s and any other Government funded flying.
Okay granted, but that's a very unfair comparison.

To the extent DoD flies these types of missions w/ such airframes, there's two factors you aren't looking at. First, it may be specialized sensors we don't have & can't lift - right tool for the job. Second, it's dual use hours. By that I mean these are combat pilots getting proficiency hours w/o tapping the budget. That basically makes the sortie free cause they'd be flying those hours on training anyway.

Also, C130s & helos have never been a fair comparison to CAP. If CAP weren't around, the govt wouldn't actually be flying all those missions for 1500-5000/hr. They'd be using more efficient platforms, just like us, in fact they already do.

DHS flies C182s & 206s with FLIR. They also fly twins with a lot more sensors that we don't have the payload to carry. They also have a predator replacing the one they crashed & funding for a couple more in the future, and some smaller tactical-type UAVs.

All of those are airframes are efficient like CAP. The difference is bang for the buck - we hear that all the time in CAP right? How many sorties does it take over an area doing visual search to get the same coverage as one sortie with all those other sensors? What about all-weather or night capabilities? You want a solid fence only when it's nice out? How long does it take bad guys to figure that out? Try the price comparison again using that math.

QuoteAnd on the other side of the coin, CAP and National HQ needs to realize, we have churned through the baby boom members.

All the Pilots and Crews we have, are either already burned out, or on their second tour of burn out with CAP.

And on top of that, the pilot pool is shrinking down too. Flying is expensive, Cessna 172s that rented for $75 per hour are now $110 per hour and going NORTH from there.

The days of cheap flying and CAP getting plenty of pilots to fly, under the "pay you back scenario" are over.

Clearly we cannot finance missions over the backs of our members. We've mostly overcome that with corporate credit cards, which is a good solution. It's the same deal on the customer end, just being fronted by NHQ instead of members. Yes that process needs to be fixed up nationally & streamlined.

I agree with your other points about the GA pilot pool & cost of flying. That's reality & we do need to deal with it as time goes on, but we also don't need to be overly rash in how we proceed.

QuoteAnd someone with a strong selling spirit at National HQ needs to get with the reality, of the current situation, and have the powers that be get real with CAP.

We missed the opportunity at 911 where check books were being flipped out, now, this is the 2nd phase, we need Home Land Security from now till the next 20 years, and maybe 50 years.

It's a tide and CAP can take this tide, we have the structure and the program, and we need incentives to get pilots on board, who can regularly fly and also, willing to take time from work to fly, and not suffer financial disaster.

We could, with this program, start interviewing prospective members instead of begging for people.

It just takes visualization of reality, what makes sense, and we need to stop volunteering to do the financially impossible.

I absolutely agree that NHQ has to have serious vision and share that inspiration with current as well as potential customers to reach epiphany. That's a tall order, but it's what has to be done.

That said, don't overestimate any one or anything. DHS is not the golden goose. I'm not even sure it's a goose at all.

I said before that if CAP is a more efficient resource available to them, then that makes it harder for them to fund the airframes/sensors they want internally. To the extent that's true, they don't want CAP in the game & will find any way they can to show we can't do the job they actually need done, which may be true to some degree.

Also, you're making some very sweeping assumptions.

For one, is an airborne picket line really the best solution for current or future national security needs? If not & Congress forces them to fund it, then we're making things less secure if we do it. If they thought it was the best solution then they'd already be doing it.

Second, you're assuming they got a fat wallet capable of lifting this picket line into the sky on a regular basis. That's really not the case. A lot of grant money is being funneled thru them to state/local, but lets be honest here, most of that is going to traditional LE/fire/EMS. It's more about pork than security. Can CAP get a couple hundred grand out of that? Well, we're already getting a little thru states. Sure we could get a couple hundred grand nationally. We're working thru wing banker to clean up our financial accountability & moving to NIMS compliance which will make us eligible to get a little more, it's never going to be millions though.

Summing up....

I understand a lot of people are frustrated with how CAP is organized & functions. I know we'd all like triple the funding & each of us could do so much more with just a few thousand or even hundreds.

But I gotta say, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, especially when they give you a 200+ million dollar fleet of aircraft, plus vans, plus comms, plus 45+mil/yr O&M, plus lots of other support, not to mention the millions they fund in missions each year. DHS isn't prepared to do that for us. No one is prepared to do that. In fact our current ES & anything you could hope to morph it into could never justify such an expenditure. It's only possible because the AF has an emotional attachment to cadets & AE that both sides can BS to congress about in addition to the ES. That & dedicated volunteers make everyone feel all warm & fuzzy.

I absolutely agree we need better more realistic funding to help offset the massive costs of doing what we do. I can tell you flat out we won't be paying members. We may at some point figure out a way to reimburse more expenses or to provide for them thru something like a MUCH lower per diem. I think there's a limit how far you can go with govt travel cards before fraud makes it untenable. In fact I wouldn't even go down that road. Whatever happens, you can be sure additional benefits will come with additional obligations. Nothing in the world is free.


Frenchie

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 03:48:01 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2008, 03:03:45 AM
QuoteVolunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.
Impossible?  Gee, seems to have been working pretty well for nearly 70 years....

Yeah, it works well, if we can find new members to replace 100% of membership every 5 years.

Demographics are working against us now.

Baby Boomers are the largest generation, and most of them have been churned twice.

My squadron (which is a senior squadron) has a very low turnover rate and we have members that have been in CAP over 30 years.  We manage to put in about 300 hours of flying per year.  We fly on weekends and during the week if necessary.  Some members are retired, some have days off during the week, some get weekends off.  We fly CAP cadets, AFROTC cadets, SAREX, AF missions, firewatch, ELTs, REDCAPs, you name it.  We make it work and can almost always find someone to fly when we are needed.   The squadron has plenty of complaints, but none about not getting paid.  Zero, zip, nada.

CAP started out as a volunteer organization and people were flying their own planes and not getting paid.  Angel flight pilots provide their own aircraft, pay their own expenses, AND fly for free.  If the cause is worthy, people will always volunteer.  For REDCAP missions we get people to go to remote locations and sleep on the floor of a hanger for days at a time with no complaints.  If you want to get paid, you should look somewhere else.

DNall

^ The expenses do get unmanageable at times. That certainly cuts down the percentage of the population that can participate. That's one thing if you're talking pilots, quite another when it's across the board. That's going to be more & more of an issue as there are the pool of pilots from which we can draw gets smaller, and as aviation continues to get more & more expensive. The issue does need to be addressed, but not in terms of getting paid. More in terms of not putting excessive expense on the member. Their time & incidentals should be enough. It's a real tough issue though.

Earhart1971

Dnall I think you are coming to realize my point.

200 Million in Equipment does not make an operating budget.

In other words adding Equipment stresses the Organization. At a recent Airshow, the Sun and Fun in Lakeland, a Brand New CAP Cessna 182 and the GA Air Van sat out alone with out Pilots to show them on the busiest day of the show (Saturday).

I am guessing that not enough Pilots were available to do that.

We have no money or very little money, to operate or maintain that equipment.

The 35 ro 40 Million per year in budget we get operates National HQ with about 90 Admin People.

We are losing membership.

And dramatic steps need to taken, and the situation completely understood, to change that.  We are not going to "market CAP" or recruit more membership, and get out of this.

In the Cadet Program we will drop below 20,000 Cadets next year. There are Wings with less than 150 Cadets.  I am using Cadets as a yardstick.

Membership is decreasing not increasing.

Earhart1971

Quote from: Frenchie on May 22, 2008, 06:44:36 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 03:48:01 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2008, 03:03:45 AM
QuoteVolunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.
Impossible?  Gee, seems to have been working pretty well for nearly 70 years....

Yeah, it works well, if we can find new members to replace 100% of membership every 5 years.

Demographics are working against us now.

Baby Boomers are the largest generation, and most of them have been churned twice.

My squadron (which is a senior squadron) has a very low turnover rate and we have members that have been in CAP over 30 years.  We manage to put in about 300 hours of flying per year.  We fly on weekends and during the week if necessary.  Some members are retired, some have days off during the week, some get weekends off.  We fly CAP cadets, AFROTC cadets, SAREX, AF missions, firewatch, ELTs, REDCAPs, you name it.  We make it work and can almost always find someone to fly when we are needed.   The squadron has plenty of complaints, but none about not getting paid.  Zero, zip, nada.

CAP started out as a volunteer organization and people were flying their own planes and not getting paid.  Angel flight pilots provide their own aircraft, pay their own expenses, AND fly for free.  If the cause is worthy, people will always volunteer.  For REDCAP missions we get people to go to remote locations and sleep on the floor of a hanger for days at a time with no complaints.  If you want to get paid, you should look somewhere else.

You are missing the point Frenchie.

It's not about getting paid.

Ok, you want me to join CAP. I am a pilot, I have a full time job, so does my wife, and I have kids to raise.

Where am I going to get the time to train to become a CAP Mission Pilot, and take time off work, to fly Missions.

The training alone will take a lot of time, and I lower my income, to take off work to fly and and I pay out of my pocket.

If only that would work, then we would not be losing membership, but the reality is, membership is decreasing.

Why, because CAP has taken on so many missions and so many burdens for membership that it will not work for the long term.



Frenchie

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 02:34:05 PM

You are missing the point Frenchie.

It's not about getting paid.

Ok, you want me to join CAP. I am a pilot, I have a full time job, so does my wife, and I have kids to raise.

Where am I going to get the time to train to become a CAP Mission Pilot, and take time off work, to fly Missions.

The training alone will take a lot of time, and I lower my income, to take off work to fly and and I pay out of my pocket.

If only that would work, then we would not be losing membership, but the reality is, membership is decreasing.

Why, because CAP has taken on so many missions and so many burdens for membership that it will not work for the long term.


I guess I'm having a hard time seeing your point in the first place.  I've never felt membership was a burden.  If I'm not available, I don't fly for CAP.  It's simply a matter of setting priorities.  Family and work come first.  If I can't fly a mission, chances are someone else can.  If nobody else in the squadron can, there are other squadrons.  If nobody is available, the mission doesn't get flown.  If you feel CAP is a burden, you should reevaluate your participation level.

Even if CAP were to throw aircrews a few bucks, how is that going to compare to taking time off work or time away from family?  Personally I'd rather be involved with the types of people who are willing to do these things for free rather than the types of people who would be willing to do these things for small change.  You should also remember that when you start accepting money for anything, that's when the people who give you that money start to place burdens on your life by way of expecting something in return.

I can't speak for other squadrons or CAP as a whole, but my squadron has increased it's membership over the last 2 years.  We spend time bringing CAP aircraft to airshows, fly-ins, and other recruitment activities.  You can't always just expect people to drop in off the street and join.