The Purposes of CAP

[RiverAux]

According to Title 36 Section 40302 of the US Code, the following are the purposes of CAP:

(1) To provide an organization to—
     (A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
    (B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.

One could argue that since it is implied that it is in addition to the purposes laid out above, this part of Title 10 Section 9443 that describes what CAP equipment can be used for is also an official purpose of CAP (though it basically expands on #4 above):

to provide assistance requested by State or local governmental authorities to perform disaster relief missions and activities, other emergency missions and activities, and nonemergency missions and activities

With all that now being understood, should we consider rewriting our purposes to better fit what we actually do? 

For example, I would suggest that the cadet program deserves a more prominent role in our purposes rather than just receiving a passing mention in a clause relating to aviation education and training. 

1A and 4 could probably be combined into one sentence. 

As I've mentioned on this board before, we don't do anything to foster civil aviation other than paying FBOs for gas.  We should either do it or drop it. 

I would probably try to combine the quote I pulled from Title 10 with the existing language in title 36 to highlight our capabilities to assist state and local governments both in emergency and non-emergency situations. 

I would also put the "assist the AF" clause at the very top.  After all, we are their auxiliary. 

Or we could keep it really simple like the CG Aux has.  Their authorizing legislation has this:

The purpose of the Auxiliary is to assist the Coast Guard as authorized by the Commandant, in performing any Coast Guard function, power, duty, role, mission, or operation authorized by law.

And under that they are involved in a much, much broader array of activities than CAP has ever even considered.  As a sidenote, there is another law authorizing the CG (including the Aux) to help local and state governments. 

[flyguy06]

Riveraux,

Thats very interesting

[DNall]

Making things simple would mean a single line of authority like the CGAux has, which would be big changes to CAP (I think for the better). Making things less complex is just not the CAP-way, you know that.

Far as the law, title X is the controlling USC. That's the one that sways the AF. Title 36 just designates the purposes for which CAP exists as a non-profit under congressional charter. It's decisively restrictive or directive in nature. It's more guidance than regulatory.

[stratoflyer]

It's more guidance than regulatory.

Sounds a lot like this guy:

[CadetProgramGuy]

To answer that question you have to look at what mission you are preforming.

A USAF Funded mission would fall under Title 10 of the USC.

A Non-USAF funded (Corporate Mission) is Title 36 of the USC.

INO.....

CAP is Title 36, unless you are on a USAF funded misson.

[RiverAux]

Far as the law, title X is the controlling USC. That's the one that sways the AF. Title 36 just designates the purposes for which CAP exists as a non-profit under congressional charter. It's decisively restrictive or directive in nature. It's more guidance than regulatory.

I don't really care that the FBI isn't going to break down the doors at Maxwell and arrest MG Courter for not following one of the purposes. 

It is about the direction we want our organization to go. 

[DNall]

Yes, I understand. Title 10 is your answer to that. Title 36 is all but meaningless. It is literally "it'd be nice if you could do this touchy feely stuff, but it's okay if you don't." That's congress speaking. With that understanding of the two USCs, what questions do you have?

[A.Member]

With all that now being understood, should we consider rewriting our purposes to better fit what we actually do?  

Or perhaps we could just simply focus on performing those items that we are tasked to do.

I don't see anything that needs to be rewritten there.  In addition, there is no priority assigned to the tasks, so one cannot assume that one task is any more important than another simply as a result of it's placement on the list.  They all carry equal weight. 

[RiverAux]

Title 36 is all but meaningless.

Except that the purposes stated in title 36 are carried through to the CAP Constitution and are also carried through into one of the CAP regulations (I forget which), so they do have some bearing on what we're doing.  

I didn't have any questions, just proposing some changes I would make to the purposes to help clarify them.  

As with any proposal made here, I was making an opportunity for others to comment on my proposal, and perhaps expand on it.  

For example, do we want to add anything to the list of major activities that CAP should be involved in?  Do we want to take anything away?  For example, I don't see any real need in external AE and judging by what CAP actually does, few other CAP members or the administration do either.  

[stratoflyer]

No, I think that instead of dropping the external AE thing, we should actually start doing it more actively. Example: a fly-in at an airport where some CAP instructor pilots provide a flying clinic of some sort (VFR ops within class B airspace near said airport) (in-flight emergencies)--nothing too fancy, but promoting safety in aviation, which in turn falls under aerospace education.

See, most people hear those two words (AE) and think "videos of WWII fighters or pamphlets on the Joint Strike Fighter". Yes, maybe, but oh boy is there so much more to aerospace than just that!!

SO instead of getting rid of external AE, make it a point for CAP to help civilian pilots fly safer, more efficient, all the while getting the word out on who we are and what we do and why aerospace, especially GA, is so important to many local communities.

Folks, the opportunities are there.. and CAP can seize them and make aviation stronger!

[DNall]

Title 36 is all but meaningless.

Except that the purposes stated in title 36 are carried through to the CAP Constitution and are also carried through into one of the CAP regulations (I forget which), so they do have some bearing on what we're doing.  

I didn't have any questions, just proposing some changes I would make to the purposes to help clarify them.  

As with any proposal made here, I was making an opportunity for others to comment on my proposal, and perhaps expand on it.  

For example, do we want to add anything to the list of major activities that CAP should be involved in?  Do we want to take anything away?  For example, I don't see any real need in external AE and judging by what CAP actually does, few other CAP members or the administration do either.  

No on two counts.

First, any revision would not be a minor tweak of that type. That kind of thing rarely happens in federal law. If it's not substantially broke, they aren't going to fix it. I would support a substantial change to alter the nature of the org.. yada yada, we've talked about this a few dozen times. 

Second, I don't believe it's good to make the law overly specific. The regs/constitution/etc sure, cause WE can change those in concert with the AF to adapt to changing times/circumstances/missions/etc. Whereas, the law forces you into a smaller box w/ less decisions to make before you have to go back and get dif permissions from Congress. The law is just there to set general parameters of how big/small that box is & what it kinda looks like. I think it's generally fine now, at least the 36 part of it. Would  I write it dif? of course, and you well know the kinds of things I'd emphasize, but that's out of my lane.