CAP Talk

I like speculative fiction; i.e., "what if Hitler had won World War II?"  Probably my favourite is by the late Australian General Sir John Hackett GCB CBE DSO & Bar, MC – August 1985: The Third World War.  Even though it seems quaint now, the story line is plausible and it is a good read.

So, my own bit of CAP speculative fiction – and that is all it is meant to be.

The question comes up occasionally – what if CAP were cut loose from the Air Force?

The scenario: January 2025.  After many decades of fiscal woes, un-funded wars and wasteful projects, the Pentagon decides it just has to cut back on everything.  All overseas bases are closed.  The U.S. greatly reduces its contribution to NATO.

The Air Force is no exception.  The F-35 has failed to come into service.  The service is forced to revive mothballed F-16's from the "bone yard" at Davis-Monthan AFB.  On a more positive note, the production lines building advanced F-15E derivatives and F-16's for overseas customers are contracted to produce new-build models for the USAF.

However, the Air Force decides that many non-combat programs have to end.  After a lengthy analysis, the USAF decides that the ROI of the Civil Air Patrol, its civilian Auxiliary, is not worth the money it takes to purchase and fund aircraft (and other) operations, and the Cadet Program is not producing recruits like it has in the past.  AETC decides to close down CAP-USAF.  Congress agrees.  The CAP is given six months to close down its operations on Maxwell AFB.  The Air Force ends all funding to the CAP, folds the Cadet Program into Air Force JROTC.  The CAP is no longer connected to the U.S. Air Force in any way.

For the first time since its inception in 1941, the Civil Air Patrol is on its own as a completely civilian, non-profit corporation.  No more funding from the Air Force, no more access to any DoD facilities, and, of course, the privilege of wearing the USAF uniform ends.  The USAF tells the CAP, "we don't care if you set up shop at a civilian dirt airstrip in Jerkwater, USA or at JFK – it isn't our concern anymore.  Thank you for all you've done.  We'll keep your exhibit at the AF Museum open.  Goodbye."

The CAP also no longer has "corporate" aircraft, which the Air Force has taken and is selling on the open market.  There are now only "member owned" aircraft.

After the initial shock of being "amputated" from the Air Force passes (as do about 30% of its adult membership), the CAP sets about reorganising.  Each Wing that had headquarters on DoD installations has to find a new home, as do Squadrons that were based on these installations.  Much "begging, borrowing and stealing" ensues.  Member dues are doubled.  Each Wing and Squadron adds its own dues.  Each unit must purchase its own equipment.  This almost ensures that the CAP will now become more of a "rich boys and girls" club.

Each unit, from the Corporate down to Flight level, must find new partnerships.  The Department of Homeland Security, CERT teams, Citizen Corps, amateur radio enthusiasts, LEO SAR groups, Army and Air National Guard units at the State level, State Defence Forces, volunteer fire departments and the like all receive calls from the CAP to expand existing relationships or form new ones.  Some respond.  Some do not.  Squadrons and Flights close down and/or merge.  The CAP decides that members must possess or learn a skill that can be used for its new mission of "SAR/ES only."  Even though CPPT is no longer required, fingerprint checks are still required, through local police departments, with each member defraying the cost.

The corporate leadership of the CAP has decided to retain uniforms, though they must be completely redesigned, with no Air Force components or military-style rank insignia.  After much debate, the BBDU is kept as a work uniform, though all insignia is deleted except for an aircrew-type leather nameplate with the wearer's aeronautical or ground team qualification and name inscribed.   The polo shirt is kept as a "casual duty" uniform, though the former CAP seal must be removed and is replaced by what is colloquially known as the "triangle thingy."  Both green and blue flight suits are worn, with the sole insignia being the leather nameplate.  The service uniform is redesigned, with a blue Van Heusen pilot shirt and generic dark-blue trousers.  The CSU-era blue nameplate is readopted.  There is no blazer, service coat or headgear.  For "nicer" occasions members simply wear a dark-blue tie and their (much reduced) ribbons and qualification badges.

The airline community also provides insignia, with new titles.  Flight, Squadron, Wing (there are no more Groups) and Corporate leadership are elected, with staff members appointed, somewhat like the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.  New titles and insignia are:

(http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/picture?pic=516000023&table=pictures)

Wing Leader – four gold bars
Deputy Wing Leader – four silver bars
Squadron Leader – three silver bars
Squadron First Officer – two silver bars
Flight Leader – two gold bars
Member, Aircrew – one gold bar
Member, Trained – one silver bar
Member, Untrained – no insignia

National corporate officers wear special insignia.

All leaders, after their term of service is up, revert to the "member" insignia.  There is no longer any saluting or military customs and courtesies.

Now, after reading this completely subjective flight of fancy, please answer the completely subjective and non-scientific poll questions as to whether or not you think such a model could or could not work.  If so, would it be more or less efficient?

Remember that this is purely speculative fiction.

Shhh! Don't give anyone ideas! :-P

Seriously though, USAF is too instrumental to our operations and maintainability. Without the DoD funding and assets, we wouldn't last long given the scale of operations as compared to available corporate-only and member assets.

I'm confused. I thought we got our appropriations from congress who then tells the Air Force to keep tabs on the money.

It's not the Air Force's money. It's ours.

Now we're already seeing the Air Force cut way back on their oversight of us to the point that pretty soon, there really won't be any oversight at all. Not sure what that means for us.

I don't think CAP would succeed in the ES/SAR field without some sort of government endorsement/connection.  No legit ES/SAR organization would allow us anywhere near an active incident.

We would, essentially, become the US Ranger Corps, V2.0. 

Now I said CAP without the USAF is not CAP.

a.  We could continue to provide AIR and Ground SAR/DR resources to our local state and county governments as a purely member funded (or with local funding) organization.   It would probably be some sort of police axillary thought.   I could see the states rolling up the wings into a state trooper axillary.....it would open up a lot of missions for us....no Posse Comutatas.

b.  We could probably keep the cadet program as most of that funding is actually at the local level....CAP CP is way way way cheaper then AFJROTC as the USAF does not pay any of our salaries!  If they were going to ax any program it would be AFJROTC....say good bye to NCSA's though.

c.  Loosing the USAF uniform for the cadets though would probably kill the program though.....but we would not need USAF permission to use their uniforms under title 10......so we could keep them.

Just a not on your speculative fiction about F-35........by your time line the F-35 is going to be a mature platform.   Pulling airframes from the bone yard would just be stupid........it would be cheaper to buy something from over seas instead of refurbing antiques.    Not to mention we would never be able to defend ourselves or project any sort of presences overseas (Yes I know you just said we pulled out of overseas but if that happened then the USAF would not be worried about extra non-combat capabilities).

d.  Also......the ROI on CAP is tremendous!  Assuming that the USAF kept its responsibility to coordinate and conduct in-land SAR.......there is no way they can do it for how much we do it.   The only way for the USAF to "save money" would to just get out of the SAR business all together.    Either pushing it over to the CG or pushing it down to the states to do.......see my point A.

e.  Also another point......notice you said CAP would not have Corporate Owned Aircraft because the USAF took them and sold them......notice that they are COV's and GOV's..........the USAF can't "take them back"!  They certainly would not bother doing so....they would cost more for the USAF to DRMO them they would ever get back any sort of ROI.   IF....IF they could take them back it would not make them any money to sell them......500 aircraft.....say the get a really, really good price at auction (say $100K each) that only $50M......which they will never get, and then they would spend a big chunk of that money collecting, transporting, storing them before the sale.   No.....the USAF would just cut their losses and "give" the aircraft to CAP....which they already have.

If you look at the FAA database, you will see that all of CAP's aircraft are owned by the corporation. When they are "retired", they don't go to the Air Force, they are sold off, by the corporation.

Is it worth pointing out that CAP existed before there was any such thing as the USAF?

In honor of the question though, maybe better stated,
what if CAP had never been associated to USAF in the first place.
would it still be here today?

Maybe, with the funding cuts ordered by congress, the Air Force has other ideas for us.  Maybe, the commander of 1st Air Force (a member of the BoG) would like to integrate us into a larger part of the kingdom? 
Hmm, maybe AFJROTC and the CAP Cadet programs being merged?
CAP pilots and aircraft having greater mission utilization?
Nahh, never happen (?) >:D

Quote from: SarDragon on April 04, 2014, 07:10:23 AM
If you look at the FAA database, you will see that all of CAP's aircraft are owned by the corporation. When they are "retired", they don't go to the Air Force, they are sold off, by the corporation.

They may be "owned" by the corporation, however they were paid for with taxpayer dollars.  When CAP sells an aircraft, the funds can only be used to upgrade the existing fleet, or purchase new aircraft. The Air Force can also dictate the size of the fleet.

It was an interesting story/fiction until you got to the redesigned uniforms, insignias and titles. As usual, every discussion in CT ends up being about these.

There's always a need for volunteers. CAP would survive if it adapted to the new circumstances and focused on concrete community needs. Organizations such as CAP are founded when there's a need to fill, but there longevity is determined by their ability to change with the times and their environment and to face new challenges as they're presented. Otherwise, they die and are replaced by something else. Focusing on some of the trivialities that we tend to focus here certainly don't help.

Quote from: CyBorg on April 04, 2014, 04:30:12 AMFor the first time since its inception in 1941, the Civil Air Patrol is on its own as a completely civilian, non-profit corporation.  No more funding from the Air Force, no more access to any DoD facilities, and, of course, the privilege of wearing the USAF uniform ends.  The USAF tells the CAP, "we don't care if you set up shop at a civilian dirt airstrip in Jerkwater, USA or at JFK – it isn't our concern anymore.  Thank you for all you've done.  We'll keep your exhibit at the AF Museum open.  Goodbye."

The CAP also no longer has "corporate" aircraft, which the Air Force has taken and is selling on the open market.  There are now only "member owned" aircraft.

This is the end of CAP.

It can't exist on its own without military support, nor should it try.
The amount of intangible, but very expensive support we are afforded via those channels is irreplaceable.
From landing fees to encampment cost and everything in between.

There needs to be one more choice on your poll for, "The premise is fundamentally flawed."

First, as has been mentioned already, the aircraft are owned by CAP the corporation, not the Air Force. Therefore, the Air Force can no more take and sell them on the open market than they can equipment privately owned by Air Force personnel or civilian contractors. So that right there has to be thrown out.

Second, while the Air Force administers our federal funding, the money come to us from Congress. If we were to be cut loose from the Air Force (which I'm sure Mr. McCain would like) then we would either have our funding administered by some other part of the federal government, or we would self-administer it with some form of government oversight. However, what would not happen is for that money to go straight to the Air Force or other DoD budgets by default. Now, if Congress decided to stop funding CAP, that's an entirely different animal.

As for uniforms, what would most likely happen, since according to you we've lost the CP, is that we would all go to polo and khaki tac-pants. We might keep some form of coverall for flying the corporate owned aircraft (all 550 of them) though I kind of doubt it.

Given that revised background, we may likely continue doing SAR for the Air Force (because they don't have the manpower to handle it themselves all the time), except that we'd be doing it as contractors, not an auxiliary. We would be more like a volunteer fire department where we are trained for the job and answer the call when needed, but the rest of the time we have our own lives.

Of course since we lost 60-70% of our membership (all cadets plus 30% of adults), we'd have fewer than 20,000 people spread across the country. This would lead to being much less able to serve many of the areas we serve now. Because large numbers beget large numbers, and because it is typically difficult at best to attract new senior members, we may likely end up bleeding off members until we finally shrivel up and blow away.

Of course this is all subjective speculation and we could end up being the largest and most effective volunteer SAR organization in the nation by cutting ties with the Air Force. I doubt it, but it is as equally valid as any other path coming from the basis that we have formed here.

Quote from: jeders on April 04, 2014, 04:48:22 PM

Of course this is all subjective speculation and we could end up being the largest and most effective volunteer SAR organization in the nation by cutting ties with the Air Force. I doubt it, but it is as equally valid as any other path coming from the basis that we have formed here.

Doubtful. What would most likely happen is that big AF retains control of the coordination, and the actual execution goes to the states where it belongs. What could happen, is that before the AF severs ties, we as an organization recognize that we don't actually do SAR. We really do SA. More juristictions are using their own assets. Fewer juristictions have MOUs with CAP. Pretty much comes from the lack of standardized training, and what training does exist is not very thorough as far as the SAR community goes. What we need to do, is train for and take a larger role in DR. There is more work available, we have some fairly specialized assets, and organizationally can be full performance in a fairly compressed time period.

I would also hazard that the 20-30% loss posited by Jeders would include a large number of ES operators
as well as a significant amount of the knowledge leaders and mentors.

The current state and opstempo of CAP's haphazard "occasionally and if they have our number" way of getting missions
would not sustain a lot of members if that was the only thing they were involved in.

What retains a lot of members is the variety of activities they are afforded being involved in both CP and ES (AE is nothing
more then lip service at this point).  CAP tends to run in cycles through the calendar year, ES ebbs and CP flows, etc.
Lose one or the other of those arcs on the sine wave and you lose a lot of people, myself included.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2014, 05:28:28 AM
a.  We could continue to provide AIR and Ground SAR/DR resources to our local state and county governments as a purely member funded (or with local funding) organization.   It would probably be some sort of police axillary thought.   I could see the states rolling up the wings into a state trooper axillary.....it would open up a lot of missions for us....no Posse Comutatas.

Or...the states could pick us up and operate us under Title 32. OR...FEMA could pick up up to do "air stuff" (I seriously heard that at a meeting when I was with DHS) and move more into a traditional emergency management role.

As a public service organization, parts would survive. As an educational entity, bye.

Quote from: FW on April 04, 2014, 11:46:17 AMMaybe, the commander of 1st Air Force (a member of the BoG) would like to integrate us into a larger part of the kingdom? 

I'll put a Venti on this being the front-runner.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2014, 05:40:36 PM
What retains a lot of members is the variety of activities they are afforded being involved in both CP and ES (AE is nothing more then lip service at this point). (emphasis mine)

External AE maybe, but internal AE is pretty strong; it's just very intertwined with the Cadet Programs.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 04, 2014, 06:20:09 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2014, 05:40:36 PM
What retains a lot of members is the variety of activities they are afforded being involved in both CP and ES (AE is nothing more then lip service at this point). (emphasis mine)

External AE maybe, but internal AE is pretty strong; it's just very intertwined with the Cadet Programs.

Agreed - that's always been my point.  By far the vast majority of AE is done either through the CP or ES.
As a separate mission it doesn't exist.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2014, 05:40:36 PM
I would also hazard that the 20-30% loss posited by Jeders would include a large number of ES operators
as well as a significant amount of the knowledge leaders and mentors.

Actually that 20-30% comes from the original speculative fiction, though I absolutely agree with you that it would include much more than just the CP only crowd.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2014, 05:28:28 AM
b.  We could probably keep the cadet program as most of that funding is actually at the local level....CAP CP is way way way cheaper then AFJROTC as the USAF does not pay any of our salaries!  If they were going to ax any program it would be AFJROTC....say good bye to NCSA's though.

c.  Loosing the USAF uniform for the cadets though would probably kill the program though.....but we would not need USAF permission to use their uniforms under title 10......so we could keep them.

In my scenario, though, CP no longer exists, so the issue of keeping uniforms for cadets is moot.  However, I had not considered Title 10, which (I suppose) is how state SDF's get to use them with even fewer modifications than we have to; i.e., only changing a nameplate or collar brass.

I am unsure that I agree with you about AFJROTC being axed before us, because it has always seemed to me that the AF "likes" AFJROTC a lot better than they do us.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2014, 05:28:28 AM
Just a not on your speculative fiction about F-35........by your time line the F-35 is going to be a mature platform.   Pulling airframes from the bone yard would just be stupid........it would be cheaper to buy something from over seas instead of refurbing antiques.

IF the 35 ever comes into full service!  The RAAF has more or less pulled out and bought off-the-shelf F/A-18E/Fs.  The RCAF are considering a similar move with the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon.

OK, "boneyard" scenario aside, there are brand new, ultramodern F-16's being built for customers like Poland and the United Arab Emirates, that, "stealth" aside, are probably as capable as the F-35 would be.

(http://chockblock.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/f-16b6ff.jpg)
(http://images1.fotosik.pl/244/88d473ee167e9554.jpg)

...not to mention the F-15E "Slam Eagle" derivatives being built for South Korea, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/F15K_Landing.jpg)

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2014, 05:28:28 AM
e.  Also another point......notice you said CAP would not have Corporate Owned Aircraft because the USAF took them and sold them......notice that they are COV's and GOV's..........the USAF can't "take them back"!

Frankly, I puzzled over that one.  Thank you for clarifying.

Quote from: jeders on April 04, 2014, 04:48:22 PM
There needs to be one more choice on your poll for, "The premise is fundamentally flawed."

I claim "artistic licence." 8)

Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 04, 2014, 06:20:09 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2014, 05:40:36 PM
What retains a lot of members is the variety of activities they are afforded being involved in both CP and ES (AE is nothing more then lip service at this point). (emphasis mine)

External AE maybe, but internal AE is pretty strong; it's just very intertwined with the Cadet Programs.

I joined mostly for AE.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 04, 2014, 03:22:21 PM
It was an interesting story/fiction until you got to the redesigned uniforms, insignias and titles. As usual, every discussion in CT ends up being about these.

Which is why I saved it until the last.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 04, 2014, 03:22:21 PM
Focusing on some of the trivialities that we tend to focus here certainly don't help.

Again...pure speculation.

Quote from: coudano on April 04, 2014, 09:13:39 AM
Is it worth pointing out that CAP existed before there was any such thing as the USAF?

In honor of the question though, maybe better stated,
what if CAP had never been associated to USAF in the first place.
would it still be here today?

That point was very much in my mind when I conceived this fictitious scenario, that we predated the USAF.

I doubt we would still here if we had never been associated with USAF.  WWII ended and the need that we filled during the war was no longer there.

These have been some very good real-world replies to a flight of fancy that will likely never, ever happen. :clap:

Am I wrong, or is the fact that we are Congressionally...mandated? Is that the word? Wouldn't that take the premise out of the hands of the Air Force? I mean, they could request we be removed as the aux, and since Congress comes up with funding for the Air Force and allocates the money to us...isn't it their problem, and not Ma Blue?

Or am I completely ignorant of the process and how Congress and the Air Force regard us?

$20 million a year won't buy many newfangled jets in my eyes. Basing that number on my last viewing of what the Air Force/Congress gives us a bunch of years back.

So the next "Red Dawn" movie will not have CAP Cadets in it?   ???

From a legal perspective, Congress appropriates and the USAF administers CAP's funding.

CAP is a package, and requires the full sum of its parts.  The planes are there for ES, but some cost justification
is made for O-Rides, etc.  Most of the other parts work the same way.

Broken up, we are pretty much a shell.

$20 million is penny rounding on spilled coffee for the USAF, and if we separated in pieces from the USAF
I would hazard the money would simply be gone.

HLS doesn't work (no need for cadets or aviation advocacy), the Guard is a "maybe" because most states are broke
and would have no idea what to do with us, full separation and independence doesn't work because we're such a
glacier that while other options might be more expensive, they also have a lot less B-S overhead, not to mention
any credibility as a cadet program is lost.

Without free / cheap access to military facilities my wing would have 3-5+ charters instantly homeless, not to mention
two encampments which would have no place to go and likely be prohibitively expensive (or become just another
"band camp" in the noise of all the other activities kids have access to these days).

There's no CAP without cadets or ES because the funding, people, equipment, and affinity are too interdependent and
intertwined.

Quote from: CyBorg on April 04, 2014, 06:59:11 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2014, 05:28:28 AM
b.  We could probably keep the cadet program as most of that funding is actually at the local level....CAP CP is way way way cheaper then AFJROTC as the USAF does not pay any of our salaries!  If they were going to ax any program it would be AFJROTC....say good bye to NCSA's though.

c.  Loosing the USAF uniform for the cadets though would probably kill the program though.....but we would not need USAF permission to use their uniforms under title 10......so we could keep them.

In my scenario, though, CP no longer exists, so the issue of keeping uniforms for cadets is moot.  However, I had not considered Title 10, which (I suppose) is how state SDF's get to use them with even fewer modifications than we have to; i.e., only changing a nameplate or collar brass.

I am unsure that I agree with you about AFJROTC being axed before us, because it has always seemed to me that the AF "likes" AFJROTC a lot better than they do us.

If the USAF is looking to cut things because of money they will cut AFJROTC before the cut CAP CP.
a.  It costs the USAF a hell of lot more then all of the CAP CP money.
b.  CAP could take up the slack from AFJROTC for way less money.
c.  CAP could keep the CP even if we don't get any USAF funding......just no O-rides, NCSAs, Free Uniforms.  CP at the unit and wing level would hardly be affected.

Quote

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2014, 05:28:28 AM
Just a not on your speculative fiction about F-35........by your time line the F-35 is going to be a mature platform.   Pulling airframes from the bone yard would just be stupid........it would be cheaper to buy something from over seas instead of refurbing antiques.

IF the 35 ever comes into full service!  The RAAF has more or less pulled out and bought off-the-shelf F/A-18E/Fs.  The RCAF are considering a similar move with the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon.

No....the F-35 is going to happen.   They are delivering operational aircraft to operation squadrons now (Luke got their first on March 14.  They have been at the Operational Testing squadron at Nellis for a year.   Even if all the other counties pull out....the USAF is committed.

QuoteOK, "boneyard" scenario aside, there are brand new, ultramodern F-16's being built for customers like Poland and the United Arab Emirates, that, "stealth" aside, are probably as capable as the F-35 would be......not to mention the F-15E "Slam Eagle" derivatives being built for South Korea, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Which will be shot down if they ever go head to head with China, Russia or any country with the Typhoon, Rafale, or Grippen.

Quote from: Garibaldi on April 04, 2014, 07:44:27 PM
Am I wrong, or is the fact that we are Congressionally...mandated? Is that the word? Wouldn't that take the premise out of the hands of the Air Force? I mean, they could request we be removed as the aux, and since Congress comes up with funding for the Air Force and allocates the money to us...isn't it their problem, and not Ma Blue?

Or am I completely ignorant of the process and how Congress and the Air Force regard us?

$20 million a year won't buy many newfangled jets in my eyes. Basing that number on my last viewing of what the Air Force/Congress gives us a bunch of years back.

We are Congressionally Chartered.  We have an MOU and get a GRANT from the USAF to do our operations.  All our money comes from congress, through the USAF via the Defense Authorization Bill.   CAP is a line item on that bill so it is difficult (but not impossible) for the USAF to just stop paying us.

I am assuming what Cyborg is proposing is that the USAF decided not to ask for CAP funding in 2025 and congress agreed to it.
Okay it would save them some money.......until you address the costs we saved the USAF from having to fly SAR and CD missions.

I know the cost of a C-130 per hour is a little bit more then a Cessna.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2014, 08:39:21 PM
CAP is a package, and requires the full sum of its parts.  The planes are there for ES, but some cost justification
is made for O-Rides, etc.  Most of the other parts work the same way.

Broken up, we are pretty much a shell.

I disagree CAP is a package.
If we freeze ES funding today......there is no reason why CAP could not continue. 
If we freeze all CP activities.....most of the ES guys would not even blink as the cadets have almost zero impact in our ES function.
AE is freebee anyways.......except interally we hardly do any AE right now.

So no CAP is not a package.........it could break up into three different organizations.....

Quote$20 million is penny rounding on spilled coffee for the USAF, and if we separated in pieces from the USAF
I would hazard the money would simply be gone.

HLS doesn't work (no need for cadets or aviation advocacy), the Guard is a "maybe" because most states are broke
and would have no idea what to do with us, full separation and independence doesn't work because we're such a
glacier that while other options might be more expensive, they also have a lot less B-S overhead, not to mention
any credibility as a cadet program is lost.

You are thinking too small.   HLS, FEMA, State Troopers, State EMS could pay for the ES side of our organisation...while we solicit funding from other sources for the cadet programs.   

If you shop at Sears......I don't care what they carry in the Woman's department so long as I can get my tools in the Men's department.
We offer a good cheap hourly rate for our aircraft and we open up our aircraft for more missions (no USAF no Posse Commutadas) we could easilly recover a lot of the money we lost from the USAF.   It is eaven a failry simple sell.   We got $30M from the USAF....that is only $600K per state!   That's is way cheaper then flying a single C-130 on a SAR sortie (a C-130 is about $10,000 per hour).

QuoteWithout free / cheap access to military facilities my wing would have 3-5+ charters instantly homeless, not to mention
two encampments which would have no place to go and likely be prohibitively expensive (or become just another
"band camp" in the noise of all the other activities kids have access to these days).

BSA exists with our free acess to military facilities.  Sure we would have to scramble to but there are lots of units that don't meet on Air Bases.

QuoteThere's no CAP without cadets or ES because the funding, people, equipment, and affinity are too interdependent and
intertwined.

Again....I disagree with this basic premise.....but even it it was true.....our paying customers would pay for what they use....We could survive with out USAF backing. 

Yes we would be a different organization.......but we would still exist.

The BSA's use of military facilities is an anomaly - a cool thing to do to change the pace or fulfill a merit badge requirement, CAP's is a need.
The BSA is incredibly well-funded, including significant capital investment in facilities, campgrounds, and lot of paid employees.
CAP has none of that, and it would take years if not decades to get to a self-sustaining model.

Saying "not all units meet on a military base" is true, but that doesn't replace the facility for those probably 20-some percent
that would lost their homes, not to mention the encampments.  In my wing, those same units that meet on or near bases also
tend to be the more active and larger units, or they provide ancillary support for a large geographic area.  You can't replace an entire
floor on a base, with access to billeting, classrooms, mess halls, drill halls, gyms, and huge parking area by moving to the
basement of a local church.

ES guys not noticing the CP is gone?  Which CAP are you in?  In my wing, the majority of ES guys are the CP guys. Lose one and you lose both.

As to customer-funded missions.  Maybe NVWG is running so many missions they have money to spare, and I know some wings
get serious state appropriations, but in my wing and region, those customer-funded missions are few and far between and wouldn't
remotely sustain the ownership of aircraft, let alone training, and misc costs.  They pay for the small chunk of time we're working for them,
nothing else, and at the bare minimum cost.  The other 11.5 months of the year, those planes are sitting on someone else's nickel.

Also, and I don't think you can discount this, having the USAF oversight and paramilitary structure, such that it is, keeps
some "personalities" in check.  Lose one or both, and especially combined with losing the CP, and CAP could rapidly become the
worst of the worst of the GOB / FBO crowd.

BTW - $30M / $10K is 3000 flying hours.  I'd be pleasantly surprised if we we clocked 3000 real mission hours as a national organization last year.
We've got pockets of busy wings, but a lot not doing much of anything.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 05, 2014, 01:54:26 AM
The BSA's use of military facilities is an anomaly - a cool thing to do to change the pace or fulfill a merit badge requirement, CAP's is a need.
The BSA is incredibly well-funded, including significant capital investment in facilities, campgrounds, and lot of paid employees.
CAP has none of that, and it would take years if not decades to get to a self-sustaining model.

I agree.....but the premise is that we can't exist with out the USAF funding.....I say we can....sure we would be hurting for a while....but we can survive.

QuoteSaying "not all units meet on a military base" is true, but that doesn't replace the facility for those probably 20-some percent
that would lost their homes, not to mention the encampments.  In my wing, those same units that meet on or near bases also
tend to be the more active and larger units, or they provide ancillary support for a large geographic area.  You can't replace an entire
floor on a base, with access to billeting, classrooms, mess halls, drill halls, gyms, and huge parking area by moving to the
basement of a local church.

You can if you try.

QuoteES guys not noticing the CP is gone?  Which CAP are you in?  In my wing, the majority of ES guys are the CP guys. Lose one and you lose both.

I guess I'm in the CAP where the ES guys don't care about cadets......the one where no cadet under 18 is allowed to fly.  The one where very few cadets are actually called out on ground teams because the ES guys or the controlling agency does not want "kids" around.

QuoteAs to customer-funded missions.  Maybe NVWG is running so many missions they have money to spare, and I know some wings
get serious state appropriations, but in my wing and region, those customer-funded missions are few and far between and wouldn't
remotely sustain the ownership of aircraft, let alone training, and misc costs.  They pay for the small chunk of time we're working for them,
nothing else, and at the bare minimum cost.  The other 11.5 months of the year, those planes are sitting on someone else's nickel.

Now you are not really paying attention.  Right now there are not state/local funded missions....because the USAF is paying for it....but according to this premise that money is gone.....so now the STATE and/or County must search for the missing plane and/or person.  So pre 2025 we would get our wing and region ES guys to work with the states to fund ES and ES training for their states.   Again it would be cheaper to give us the money to do the work then to hire their own guys to do it.

QuoteAlso, and I don't think you can discount this, having the USAF oversight and paramilitary structure, such that it is, keeps
some "personalities" in check.  Lose one or both, and especially combined with losing the CP, and CAP could rapidly become the
worst of the worst of the GOB / FBO crowd.

We can keep the paramilitary structure....and I don't see the USAF controlling the loose cannons any.  And again.......we don't need to USAF to keep the CP......they pay for very little of that.

[quoteBTW - $30M / $10K is 3000 flying hours.  I'd be pleasantly surprised if we we clocked 3000 real mission hours as a national organization last year.
We've got pockets of busy wings, but a lot not doing much of anything.
[/quote]]According to the 2012 Air University Report we flew 2969 hours in 1432 sorties over 703 real SAR missions
We flew 8362 hours in CD missions.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/cf/cfa/digests/aue_digest_12.pdf (http://www.au.af.mil/au/cf/cfa/digests/aue_digest_12.pdf)

So you don't say cite please.  :)

Bottom line for Cyborg is that CAP is cheap.....really, really, really cheap for what we do.
Sure maybe someday congress is just going to say "sorry we got to cut all the non-essentials" and CAP goes out the door.

But the mission is still going to be there.   And there will be people like Wilson and LeGuardia who see a need that we can fill and work to make it happen.

I'll be one of those people.....even if the cadet program is just base in Las Vegas.....I'll keep it going.  I know that just about all of the pilots down here would form up a "flying club" where we would train to do aerial SAR.  I know there is a "private" GSAR organization in Las Vegas that we are working with closely.....and I'm sure there would be one or two people who would just love to go to schools and community meetings to teach people about the cool stuff of AE.

So....CAP would change....but we could survive as a national organization.....if we want it to.

I think that the only thing that gives us any real legitimacy in the ES world is our link to the Air Force.  Without that we are just another volunteer group that may exist somewhere down near the bottom of the call list but is not going to be a real player. 

And without federal funding I would be very surprised if we could keep a significant fraction of our aircraft and I just don't think we have enough folks with planes to take up the slack. 

If this situation had occurred in the 50s or 60s, CAP probably could have continued for a while in the new format, but with easily available satellite technology and with every state soon having a National Guard with drones coming out their ears that need to be used for something, light aircraft are not long for the ES world anyway even when they may be the most cost effective solution to certain problems. 

CAP does a horrible job raising big money from outside groups right now.  Perhaps because folks aren't inclined to give to a group primarily funded by the feds.  In order to exist without that funding we'd have to dramatically increase our effectiveness in this area, I don't see it happening.  The BSA didn't go from near total federal funding to near total donations overnight.  They grew from a small organization to a very large one while learning how to fundraise at the same time.  If they had to start over from scratch they probably wouldn't make it either.

Drones sem-suck for eyeball searches; probably better for ELTs, photography,  hi-bird. Navy replaced some UAV missions with U2's, but I heard that was for $$$ savings mostly. Likely always be a mix, unless management doesn't let facts sway them in the face of higher truths.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 05, 2014, 12:50:13 PMThe BSA didn't go from near total federal funding to near total donations overnight.  They grew from a small organization to a very large one while learning how to fundraise at the same time.  If they had to start over from scratch they probably wouldn't make it either.

Most BSA fundraising is based on local selling of popcorn / candy, etc., etc.  Fine for Scouts, and it sustains their operations
for camps and unit activities, and frankly it's impressive compared to the shoe-string most CAP units run on,
but it would not sustain owning and operating an aircraft, nor would most adults be interested in standing in front
of a Walmart hocking candy just for the "privilege" of working SAR missions for free as well.

If CAP had to go to full-on financial independence, our per-hour customer cost would sky-rocket to the same levels as everyone else
who has to include capital and full operating costs in their invoices, at which point the ROI on volunteers vs. professional assests
shrinks significantly.

We're a bargain at $130 an hour, at $500-1000 we're not worth the hassle.

ES without cadets...?

As Eclipse stated, what CAP are you living?

In my state, cadets do not fly. But...

Who marshals aircraft in the flightline? Cadets. Have pilots and aircrew push their airplanes into the hangar, who seem to be on the majority 55, 60 or older? Doubtful...

Who provides most of the MSA duties at a mission base? Cadets. To include picking trash, opening chairs, and tables, and folding them... Senior members? Doubt it.

Who provides most of the Ground Teams? Cadets.

ES without CP? Cannot happen.

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on April 05, 2014, 08:15:10 PM
ES without cadets...?

As Eclipse stated, what CAP are you living?

In my state, cadets do not fly. But...

Who marshals aircraft in the flightline? Cadets. Have pilots and aircrew push their airplanes into the hangar, who seem to be on the majority 55, 60 or older? Doubtful...

Who provides most of the MSA duties at a mission base? Cadets. To include picking trash, opening chairs, and tables, and folding them... Senior members? Doubt it.

Who provides most of the Ground Teams? Cadets.

ES without CP? Cannot happen.

Flyer

I'm gonna assume you had the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags on.  :)

No sarcasm.

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on April 05, 2014, 09:44:03 PM
No sarcasm.

Flyer

Are you suggesting that your wing can't  do ES because you can't push your planes, and pick the trash?

No.

Remember the scenario.

The discussion is about whether Emergency Services can work without cadet programs.

I am stating that cadet programs are essential to ES. Someone else, I think it was the OP stated that cadet programs are not that important to ES.

If my Wing did not have CP, then ES would be more difficult.

And that is what I see in ES in my Wing.

Seldom do I see aircrew pushing airplanes.

I see a lot of cadets marshaling aircraft.

I see a lot of cadets preparing tables and chairs. And when there are no cadets around but ten seniors, I have to put up those tables and chairs since almost no other senior present will.

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on April 05, 2014, 09:55:03 PM
I am stating that cadet programs are essential to ES. Someone else, I think it was the OP stated that cadet programs are not that important to ES.

The CP is irrelevant to ES.

The people involved in the CP make up the majority of those also involved in ES, and without the CP, would leave CAP, that
includes many valued commanders and a significant portion of CAP's braintrust.

In many cases you would be left with a small number of operators and no leaders, and no one interested in being a leader.
You can't argue that this isn't a big issue in CAP today - people who want to "play", but are not interested in doing any of the
background work that keeps the planes in the sky and the missions coming.  A lot of that work is being done by commanders and staff with a primary focus in the CP.  These people can't be replaced overnight.

A lot of composite squadrons are essentially cadet units with "a few pilots" who are interested in nothing but doing the bare
minimum to maintain their flying status, and when asked to carry a corner, balk wholeheartedly.  Absent the CP, these units
fold and these members are sent to the winds.

They cannot be unwound, and CAP cannot sustain its existence without them.

Sooo many points so little time...
Some that jump out:
Personally I see the reverese scenario; as USAF budgets get crunched I see the scenario going the other way: 60,000 vounteers that the USAF can call on to help support non-combat mission support instead of paying AD, Reserve or Guard airman to come and help out with...win win (I know the practical application may be not as believable, but as far as paper plans it looks good...

But, I have to say that in line with the OP scenario that CAP would survive, though as mentioned a different animal. 
I come from a state with limited military facilities.  Most units do not meet on any kind of military (base or even reserve centers).  I remember 9/11 FPCON delta and charlie, most base housed units had to find new homes for a while.  Its a doable thing.  The logistics would suck for a while but it would work itself out.  As far as encampments go, even when I lived in TX, a very military rich state, they had problems finding available space to host at a reasonable price... civilian locations were more available and better priced. 

Quote....nor would most adults be interested in standing in front of a Walmart hocking candy just for the "privilege" of working SAR missions for free as well.

I am sorry I have seen this very thing happen with non CAP SAR units, for some its the only way to get ANY funding.

My guess with a funding down turn you would see more small units consolidated into single meeting locations (at least in areas where there are numerous units with in a close geographic area.  I agree the subsidized cost of aircraft ops would go away and the operating per hour cost would increase, but maybe along with unit consolidation you would see aircraft numbers decreased but shared among more members/units you still get the number of hours you need, but the scheduling gets a little more complicated

Overall it would be a game changer, but not a game ender.

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on April 06, 2014, 12:07:33 AMPersonally I see the reverese scenario; as USAF budgets get crunched I see the scenario going the other way: 60,000 vounteers that the USAF can call on

It's not 60K by a long shot, and the day NHQ stops publishing that it is, light will be seen again at the other end of the tunnel.

There's 59K on the roster as of today, and I'd hazard 30%+ are empty shirts, non-players,
or not involved in ES.  Possibly closer to 40%, and if it passed 50%, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Before CAP could ever be considered as replacements or augmentation for budgeted airman and troops,
there would need to be a wholesale attitude adjustment regarding readiness, troop strength, and the
expectaiton of performance.

"You're luck I showed up at all." is no way to run a war...

I have known plenty of aircrew who thoroughly dislike the CP, and will take any avenue that they can to avoid giving O-rides or having anything to do with "those kids."

However, I have not really seen this in composite units...much more so (surprise!) senior squadrons.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 05, 2014, 10:12:14 PM

Quote from: flyer333555 on April 05, 2014, 09:55:03 PM
I am stating that cadet programs are essential to ES. Someone else, I think it was the OP stated that cadet programs are not that important to ES.

The CP is irrelevant to ES.

The people involved in the CP make up the majority of those also involved in ES, and without the CP, would leave CAP, that
includes many valued commanders and a significant portion of CAP's braintrust.

In many cases you would be left with a small number of operators and no leaders, and no one interested in being a leader.
You can't argue that this isn't a big issue in CAP today - people who want to "play", but are not interested in doing any of the
background work that keeps the planes in the sky and the missions coming.  A lot of that work is being done by commanders and staff with a primary focus in the CP.  These people can't be replaced overnight.

A lot of composite squadrons are essentially cadet units with "a few pilots" who are interested in nothing but doing the bare
minimum to maintain their flying status, and when asked to carry a corner, balk wholeheartedly.  Absent the CP, these units
fold and these members are sent to the winds.

They cannot be unwound, and CAP cannot sustain its existence without them.

Wow! Almost agree with Eclipse. . .except the pilots I know do a lot more than the bare minimum to stay current. I also doubt that's the case "in a lot" of sqdns. More griping about pilots, forgetting that staying MP proficient takes a bunch of time. . .PIC envy, maybe?

But otherwise, yes. . .he called it; our most active non-pilot members are heavy into CP, and chase the paper and other SAS to feed the machine. We need them. Or, we need nhq to clean up the business processes. Not likely, huh? So if CP folks also tend to be ES support people, and I think they are, then we may need to pause before dropping CP.

I've never seen cadets push an airplane in my wing; us old guys do that.  Pretty sure marshalling is good for cadets, but not really necessary in the real world.  We tend to launch SAREX and other missions out of home base now - not a lot of flying to a mission base, then briefing and heading back out. We use telephones, and save the gas and time.  The days of regularly occuring aircraft gaggles at mission bases are dwindling.

Quote from: flyer333555 on April 05, 2014, 08:15:10 PM
ES without CP? Cannot happen.

Frankly, cadets rarely play a significant role in ES in my Wing.  I'm not saying thats a good thing or a bad thing, its just the way it is. 

Their main role is as ground team members and most missions don't call for ground teams.  And when ground teams are needed, it is becoming more and more common to depend on other agencies to provide them because the other agency (usually a sheriffs office) has more jurisdiction, as well as the fact that we can rarely put more than 1 or 2 4-5 person teams on the ground, which usually isn't enough to make a difference.  Wish we had more ground team capacity, but we don't.

QuoteES without CP? Cannot happen.

With all due respect, I fundamentally agree, and even though I'm only quoting this small comment, I did take the time to read through the rest of the posts.

I understand that CP and ES are in practice, heavily intertwined. However, I don't buy the argument that, without the presence of children, CAP is completely unable to provide emergency services. My experience is that in any real ES situation, use of children will be in a very limited capacity. Unless vast numbers of trained adult responders, CAP or otherwise, are suddenly immobilzed by some unforseen event, we as senior members are not dependent on having children assist us to be effective.

If this is truly CAP's model of conducting ES, then it is fundamentally flawed. Airplane crash scenes and searching for lost/wounded hikers who may be discovered dead  and working in disaster zones is not an appropriate job for children in any context. By all means, give the cadets exposure by allowing them to participate at the outskirts, but it would be irresponsible to put them in any position that could be potentially dangerous.

And, if we don't have enough qualified senior members to perform the low-level, behind-the-scenes functions of ES that would be acceptable for cadets to help out with, then CAP should get out of the business of ES.

By saying that CAP is unable to do effective ES without cadets, you are arguing that CAP is the only agency that I can think of that is dependent on having a child cadre to perform services of this nature.

I get that without cadet programs, many ES qualed seniors with leave/not participate, but what I am addressing is the perception that CAP's model of conducting ES missions is dependent on cadets. :redx:

At the end of the day, Cadets working in ES are an inherent liability, regardless of how helpfull they may be.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on April 06, 2014, 01:53:11 PM

QuoteES without CP? Cannot happen.

but it would be irresponsible to put them in any position that could be potentially dangerous.

I'm not a CP guy, but I know we have them stomping through the woods and flying in light planes. Plenty of potential danger there, right?  They aren't supposed to be safe; just not exposed to unreasonable risk.  Not sure how and when this silly charade-safety mindset sprung up.  It's good to see it's getting a new light shown on it, at least in aviation now. . .

Children?

Are you mature or not? Anyone over 16 is not a child. They are Young Adults. Properly supervised, qualified young adults can be trusted. Even adults can be unreliable.

That's all I will say on this issue.

Flyer

Although I know the OP meant this as a legitimate thought experiment, as a practical matter it comes close to my personal definition of "trolling" because it will inevitably tend to set the ES and CP crowds against each other. 

Which is never helpful, and tends to reinforce a tendency in both camps of "us against them."


It is worth remembering that the Air Force has relatively little choice in the matter about how they support CAP in any event.  They follow the laws enacted by Congress just like the rest of us.  Love us or hate us, CAP and our colleagues at the USAF are going to remain working together for the forseable future for the benefit of all Americans.

CAP was created during a time of great need, and both the ES and CP missions (as well as AE) remain as critical to our nation now as they were in 1941.  Like any marriage, the relationship between the missions has good periods and less good periods.  But CAP would not be CAP without all three of our missions. 

Quote from: Ned on April 07, 2014, 06:29:14 PM
Although I know the OP meant this as a legitimate thought experiment, as a practical matter it comes close to my personal definition of "trolling" because it will inevitably tend to set the ES and CP crowds against each other. 

Colonel, I never, ever intended that.  I do not like trolling, but if I were to do it, it would be in a more overt fashion.  There is very little subtlety with me.

My intent was to be "what would CAP be like without the Air Force," period.  Nothing more, nothing less.

The only way CP (which I ardently support - I would only serve in cadet or composite squadrons as a matter of preference) came into it is because:

The Air Force does seem to like our CP, which is cool.  After all, even though we are not a recruiting organisation, many young people who have got into CAP and have excelled have gone on to distinguished careers in the Air Force (and other services) - Lieutenant Colonel Nicole Malachowski, first female Thunderbird and current CC of the 333d Fighter Squadron, F-15E training squadron, anyone?  Unfortunately, the flip side of that (which I have witnessed) is that some in the Air Force think that's all we're good for.  I have spoken at length about the State Director who visited my then-squadron and a good 95% of his talk was about cadets - the other 5% was about the only real reason seniors are there is to make sure the cadets get their Mitchell.  Had that been my first visit to CAP, I would not have joined.

Also, cadets do get benefits from the Air Force not available to seniors (unlike our counterparts in Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

Without the Air Force, there would be no CP, which was part of my point.

As well, I have personally known many who think we should be "all ES, all the time," who want nothing to do with CP or AE, and who really do not care about our association with the Air Force.

My scenario was depicting CAP as a completely autonomous, self-funded (by necessity) "all ES, all the time" unit with no military affiliation.

I still don't see you point "with out the USAF there would be NO CP".

Please explain.

Like usual the fanboys and fangirls gather behind the ES or the CP banner. AE is left out  8)

Same-same question from me, why is USAF critical to CAP's continued existence? 

If congress wants to keep us around, it doesn't have to be via USAF oversight. It probably makes some sense to have USAF do it, for sure, but FEMA, or DHS, or Coast Guard, or even FAA or the Interior could serve as well. Some pros, some cons, to each.  Nothing super-special about USAF oversight. . .probably just no compelling reason to change it, either, granted.

Not sure I'd describe CP and AE as "critical" to our country - probably not ES, either. Useful and helpful, sure  - "critical" oversells us.  Lot's of other players for CP (Scouting, etc.) and AE is kinda obsolete.  Lot of other ES players, as well, though air assets not nearly so cheap to operate.

CP participants are often ES folks too, so that tie is real;  lot of guys don't do CP, except O Flights, but don't have any heartbuurn with CP.  Just not their thing.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 07, 2014, 08:13:25 PM
I still don't see you point "with out the USAF there would be NO CP".

While I'm not sure I agree 100% with ByBorg's statement, I'd wager a major percentage of our cadets join initially because of the USAF affiliation and the uniform. Once they get in and get involved that can change, but that part of our identity is huge in recruiting cadets. Without that connection, we'd see a lot less teens interested, IMO.

COULD we still have a cadet program? Of course. BUT I think we'd have to do a ton of "rebranding" in order to create a strong enough identity that we could stand on our own.

And as for the connection between ES and CP, there are as many calm and collected 16 year-olds that can handle everything that a true ES mission can throw at them as there are 40 year olds that fold under pressure. Age isn't necessarily a predictor of ability. I'll give you that the life lessons learned and maturity gained by the time one becomes 40 should lead to that person being able to handle it, but not always.

Quote from: Walkman on April 07, 2014, 09:11:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 07, 2014, 08:13:25 PM
I still don't see you point "with out the USAF there would be NO CP".

While I'm not sure I agree 100% with ByBorg's statement, I'd wager a major percentage of our cadets join initially because of the USAF affiliation and the uniform. Once they get in and get involved that can change, but that part of our identity is huge in recruiting cadets. Without that connection, we'd see a lot less teens interested, IMO.

COULD we still have a cadet program? Of course. BUT I think we'd have to do a ton of "rebranding" in order to create a strong enough identity that we could stand on our own.

And as for the connection between ES and CP, there are as many calm and collected 16 year-olds that can handle everything that a true ES mission can throw at them as there are 40 year olds that fold under pressure. Age isn't necessarily a predictor of ability. I'll give you that the life lessons learned and maturity gained by the time one becomes 40 should lead to that person being able to handle it, but not always.

We don't "need" the USAF's permission to have a USAF based Cadet Program.

IF.....IF the USAF dropped all support from us.......we could (at least on the CP side) just continue on.   Yes we would lose the NCSA funding, FCU funding, and O-ride funding....and maybe lose office space at military installations....but none of those things are deal stoppers for the cadet program as far as I can see.

Nothing......nothing as far as how we teach our cadets, what we teach our cadets or what draws our cadets to us would really change all that much.

Quote from: Private Investigator on April 07, 2014, 08:20:01 PM
Like usual the fanboys and fangirls gather behind the ES or the CP banner. AE is left out  8)

What's AE?   >:D

What sort of CP would we have without the AF affiliation and cadets not wearing the AF uniform?

Something like the BSA's ancient Air Explorers?

http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/airexplorer.html (http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/airexplorer.html)

And I do not like - no joke - the insinuations that AE is supposedly finished, obsolete, etc.  It is not the same as it was in pre-internet days, no.  But it still exists.

It was a big part of why I joined.  My squadron has an AEO who is very hard-working; attends all the regional AE conferences etc.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 07, 2014, 09:21:46 PM

Quote from: Private Investigator on April 07, 2014, 08:20:01 PM
Like usual the fanboys and fangirls gather behind the ES or the CP banner. AE is left out  8)

What's AE?   >:D

The home of Storage Wars and Duck Dynasty!

Quote from: CyBorg on April 07, 2014, 09:28:03 PM
What sort of CP would we have without the AF affiliation and cadets not wearing the AF uniform?

We don't need the USAF's permission for cadets to wear their uniform....go read title 10.

QuoteSomething like the BSA's ancient Air Explorers?

You say that like a bad thing.......don't piss off your audience. 

QuoteAnd I do not like - no joke - the insinuations that AE is supposedly finished, obsolete, etc.  It is not the same as it was in pre-internet days, no.  But it still exists.

Sure it does......I just don't see a lot of it in my neck of the woods.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 07, 2014, 09:45:20 PM

QuoteSomething like the BSA's ancient Air Explorers?

You say that like a bad thing.......don't piss off your audience. 

Not meant that way at all.  I was a Cub Scout, Webelos and Boy Scout for almost 10 years.  I was a Senior Patrol Leader and Junior Assistant Scoutmaster.

I WISH the Air Explorers still existed when I was in (1970s).

Quote from: lordmonar on April 07, 2014, 09:21:46 PM

Quote from: Private Investigator on April 07, 2014, 08:20:01 PM
Like usual the fanboys and fangirls gather behind the ES or the CP banner. AE is left out  8)

What's AE?   >:D

AE is for members who can not hang out with the 'high speed, low drag' ES folks and can not have 'pizza parties' due to IBS with the CP folks.  ;)

Quote from: Eclipse on April 07, 2014, 09:28:52 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 07, 2014, 09:21:46 PM

Quote from: Private Investigator on April 07, 2014, 08:20:01 PM
Like usual the fanboys and fangirls gather behind the ES or the CP banner. AE is left out  8)

What's AE?   >:D

The home of Storage Wars and Duck Dynasty!

That brings up a good question, why does AE not have any the cool stuff from the NASA channel?  ???

Quote from: flyer333555 on April 07, 2014, 06:18:13 PM
Children?

Are you mature or not? Anyone over 16 is not a child.

Not sure how many 17 year olds you have around you in your personal life (family members, cadets, etc), but very few, IMHO, act very much like adults. The distiction must be made between capabilties and mindset. They have the capabilities of adults, but they simply lack an life experience living as one (an adult), and it's that experience that by in large, acts as a mediator of our decisions.

The law says a 16 is a child. Pyschologists say that most 16 year olds have the brain development correspondant with a 16 year old and not on the same level as a 20 year old. Look at driving records. The statistics are pretty clear. We should demand that 16 year olds begin to act like an adult, because we want them to become responsible adults. However, it is ignorance to think that their performance will actually be at the level of our demands. It's really not even their fault. Biological growth takes time.

Sure, some 16 year olds will be better off than 25 year olds. But not most of them. Not really sure why this is even a difficult concept.

We can properly supervise them all day long, but does that make it appropriate for them to be exposed to all situations?

QuoteI'm not a CP guy, but I know we have them stomping through the woods and flying in light planes. Plenty of potential danger there, right?  They aren't supposed to be safe; just not exposed to unreasonable risk.

I agree.

QuoteNot sure how and when this silly charade-safety mindset sprung up.

Lawsuits???? I heard recently that back in the 90's, there was a question as to whether not the Cadet program would even continue due to insurance costs. I've also heard that 50% of my $65 annual dues goes strictly to paying for insurance. I heard this from a CAP LtCol who has something like 46+ years in CAP. Not sure if all of this is in fact true, but due to his extensive experience in CAP, I'm inclined to believe him until I hear otherwise.

  It's good to see it's getting a new light shown on it, at least in aviation now. . .

I don't think many here would disagree, but for the most part, when people make comments like that in a CAP context,
they are generally just trying to illicit a reaction from the reader.

In general we make a fair distinction between "children" and "cadets".

Cadets aren't "children", the expectation is higher, but they also aren't adults.

In no way do I ascribe to any nonsense that properly trained and attuned cadets are an ES liability.
Some of the sharpest ES people I've worked with have been cadets.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on April 09, 2014, 07:09:11 PM
Lawsuits???? I heard recently that back in the 90's, there was a question as to whether not the Cadet program would even continue due to insurance costs. I've also heard that 50% of my $65 annual dues goes strictly to paying for insurance. I heard this from a CAP LtCol who has something like 46+ years in CAP. Not sure if all of this is in fact true, but due to his extensive experience in CAP, I'm inclined to believe him until I hear otherwise.

I'd be inclined to throw a 70-foot BS flag on that.

CAP is self-insured, so the majority of the expense is for the plan administrator and actual benefits, not the insurance itself.
I don't know how that equates to any bonds or other instruments that might be required to guarantee payments (or
if those are even necessary), but there's no way 1/2 the dues is for insurance.

QuoteCadets aren't "children", the expectation is higher, but they also aren't adults.

We expect them to act like adults, and that's fine. But if we have to administer CISM (extreme example, I know) to a cadet because of some situation we put them in, I think that means we took the whole "you're a 16 year old fully capable adult thing" too far. Adults have the wherewithall to say, "I'm a volunteer, and I don't feel like continuing my role in this ES mission is healthy for me." 16 year olds, by in large, just don't have that same ability. Not on a practical level, and not on a legal level.

QuoteIn no way do I ascribe to any nonsense that properly trained and attuned cadets are an ES liability.
Some of the sharpest ES people I've worked with have been cadets.

The liability thing isn't really our call. That's the call of our "customer." And most standing SOP's of government agencies explictly say: "No one under 18." I live in MI. I've done a lot of work with local and state emergency managment/response entities. Maybe in your state, it's different.

QuoteI'd be inclined to throw a 70-foot BS flag on that.

CAP is self-insured, so the majority of the expense is for the plan administrator and actual benefits, not the insurance itself.
I don't know how that equates to any bonds or other instruments that might be required to guarantee payments (or
if those are even necessary), but there's no way 1/2 the dues is for insurance.

That's why I put the disclaimer in there..... :)

Pretty much agree.

From a legal and practical perspective:

Most of our cadets are minors; some are adults.

Most of our seniors are adults; some are minors.

None of our members should be exposed to unreasonable risks.  That's kinda the whole point of ORM and good leadership.

Membership category simply isn't a factor in that particular decision.

Quote from: Ned on April 09, 2014, 08:11:24 PM
From a legal and practical perspective:

Most of our cadets are minors; some are adults.

Most of our seniors are adults; some are minors.

None of our members should be exposed to unreasonable risks.  That's kinda the whole point of ORM and good leadership.

Membership category simply isn't a factor in that particular decision.

Are there still jurisdictions where 18 year olds are considered minors?

Quote from: lordmonar on April 09, 2014, 08:17:54 PM
Are there still jurisdictions where 18 year olds are considered minors?

Yes, several US states, including Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska.  Not to mention Puerto Rico.

Plus, 17 year-olds on active duty are cannot be cadets but are welcome as senior members.  (CAPR 39-2, para 3-2(B))

Quote from: Ned on April 09, 2014, 08:52:08 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 09, 2014, 08:17:54 PM
Are there still jurisdictions where 18 year olds are considered minors?

Yes, several US states, including Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska.  Not to mention Puerto Rico.

Plus, 17 year-olds on active duty are cannot be cadets but are welcome as senior members.  (CAPR 39-2, para 3-2(B))

Ahhh.......well the more you know!  :)

QuoteNone of our members should be exposed to unreasonable risks.  That's kinda the whole point of ORM and good leadership.

Membership category simply isn't a factor in that particular decision.

While I agree with you in spirit here, it should be pointed out that the difference here between minors (most of the cadets) and adults (most of the SMs) is that it is not right to expect the minors to be able to always recognize when a risk in unreasonable. That's the adults job.

The structure of the cadet program seems to reflect this: the cadets command and pretty much run 100% if their own program, but the adult SMs still stay in the background just to make sure that cadet command is, in fact, making the appropriate decisions as it relates to safety and policy.

In society, it is expected that adults will recognize risk and deal with it accordingly. We cannot rightfully expect this universally from minors.

^ Rare is the squadron or activity where cadets run anything close to 100% of the program.

That might be the goal or premise, but reality is pretty far afield of that.

But I agree that the structure is such that proper adult supervision is supposed to keep things as safe as possible.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on April 09, 2014, 09:07:53 PM
[While I agree with you in spirit here, it should be pointed out that the difference here between minors (most of the cadets) and adults (most of the SMs) is that it is not right to expect the minors to be able to always recognize when a risk in unreasonable. That's the adults job.

The structure of the cadet program seems to reflect this: the cadets command and pretty much run 100% if their own program, but the adult SMs still stay in the background just to make sure that cadet command is, in fact, making the appropriate decisions as it relates to safety and policy.

In society, it is expected that adults will recognize risk and deal with it accordingly. We cannot rightfully expect this universally from minors.

It does appear that we agree in spirit:  no member -- cadet or senior -- should be exposed to unreasonable risks while participating in CAP.

And I can only agree that cadets are always supervised by senior members whose job it is to ensure that cadets are not exposed to unreasonable risks.

But we don't rely on senior members to recognize risks alone.  That's the point of ORM.  Leaders perform ORM even for activities that only involve adult members, and place limits on member's actions to ensure safety.  Because members directly engaged in the activity may not be able to appreciate risks involved.  And cadet / senior status simply doesn't have much to do with that.

From Ant:

QuoteNot sure how many 17 year olds you have around you in your personal life (family members, cadets, etc), but very few, IMHO, act very much like adults. The distinction must be made between capabilities and mindset. They have the capabilities of adults, but they simply lack an life experience living as one (an adult), and it's that experience that by in large, acts as a mediator of our decisions.

11 years as a public school teacher, about half high school and half elementary plus 12 years in CAP. So yes, I would say plenty of 16, 17, and 18 year old.

Flyer

Quote11 years as a public school teacher, about half high school and half elementary plus 12 years in CAP. So yes, I would say plenty of 16, 17, and 18 year old.

I understand that there are exceptions at every age level, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In this country, the line is pretty clearly drawn at 18. People under this age are children. :)

No.

In this country, they are minors. Not children. In this country and in every state of this country they are young adults. Not children.

You see everything as black or white.

Just because they are minors does not mean they are children.

Flyer

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on April 10, 2014, 12:05:25 AM

Quote11 years as a public school teacher, about half high school and half elementary plus 12 years in CAP. So yes, I would say plenty of 16, 17, and 18 year old.

I understand that there are exceptions at every age level, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In this country, the line is pretty clearly drawn at 18. People under this age are children. :)

So you're saying that there are "children" serving in the US Military. Minimum age to enlist is 17 with parent/guardian consent.

Context is everything.

I know people in their 40's who are still children.

QuoteSo you're saying that there are "children" serving in the US Military.

Yes. At least in the branch that I assist. If you're behavior is so unaccetably below the standard of that of an adult, such that your command recinds any weapons privilages, etc..............and by coincidence, you also happen to be the 17 years of age that your behavior suggests...........you are a child serving in the military. The military survives because of supervison. The branch I assist has the fewest people, and thus insufficient supervison. This is exceptionally apparent among the 20 and under personnel's behaviour and discipline stats. It correlates magnificantly with NJP and discharges.

We've met recruitment goals accross the board folks. For several years now. Might be time to raise the age of enlistment slightly. Or at least do some studies to see if this could help. You can always have a waiver process for the deserving exceptions. It costs so much money as it is (especially with the way the US Gov pays for things) to train an E1-E3 that if age could be correlated with maturity correlated with discharges, there might be some significant money to be saved. :) It will be different when we decide to go invade more countries again. ::)......but until then, let's not confuse building our militaries "Smart" with building them "BIG.".....

QuoteMinimum age to enlist is 17 with parent/guardian consent.

In the particular branch I assist, it is possible to become an NCO at 18 years of age with less than 9 months of service. In the cases I've observed, that tends to work out great. ::)

QuoteContext is everything.

I know people in their 40's who are still children.

There is always exceptions. I'm discussing the majority. Let's look at stats. Young drivers have the same fatality/infraction rates as the very elderly who have legtimate cognitive/physical reasons for their poor driving. So yes, so some 16 year olds are better drivers than some 40 year olds. Statistically, however, this is unlikely. We generally make our driving laws around the majority, not the exception.

Quote from: PHall on April 10, 2014, 12:25:21 AM

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on April 10, 2014, 12:05:25 AM

Quote11 years as a public school teacher, about half high school and half elementary plus 12 years in CAP. So yes, I would say plenty of 16, 17, and 18 year old.

I understand that there are exceptions at every age level, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In this country, the line is pretty clearly drawn at 18. People under this age are children. :)

So you're saying that there are "children" serving in the US Military. Minimum age to enlist is 17 with parent/guardian consent.

I was one of those "children". Learning how to be an Infantryman at age 17, and in Iraq by 18.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 10, 2014, 12:37:50 AM
...I know people in their 40's who are still children.

No argument there from me...

:P

Flyer

Quote from: Ned on April 09, 2014, 08:52:08 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 09, 2014, 08:17:54 PM
Are there still jurisdictions where 18 year olds are considered minors?

Yes, several US states, including Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska.  Not to mention Puerto Rico. (emphasis mine)

Interesting, especially considering that the legal drinking age in Puerto Rico is 18, which is also the legal age to gamble and use tobacco products. I'm not sure I would call that being a minor.

As I've mentioned in other threads, age restrictions are a little like legal trivia.  One of my favorite games.

But the age of majority should not be confused with with gambling, tobacco, firearm , or even voting age restrictions.  Which, like the age of consent for sexual activity or the ability to become President of the United States are not the same thing as the age of majority.

The age of majority in Puerto Rico is 21 - the age at which an individual can make contracts, medical decisions, and is generally considered an adult.

Some states, like California, use the term "minor" differently depending on the context.  California's age of majority is 18, like most states, but we still will refer to a 19 year old caught with a beer in public as a "Minor in possession."

Quote from: flyer333555 on April 10, 2014, 12:23:39 AM
No.

In this country, they are minors. Not children. In this country and in every state of this country they are young adults. Not children.

You see everything as black or white.

Just because they are minors does not mean they are children.

Flyer

Kid=minor=young adult=cadet=are we really arguing about this?

Quote from: lordmonar on April 10, 2014, 04:36:48 AM

Quote from: flyer333555 on April 10, 2014, 12:23:39 AM
No.

In this country, they are minors. Not children. In this country and in every state of this country they are young adults. Not children.

You see everything as black or white.

Just because they are minors does not mean they are children.

Flyer

Kid=minor=young adult=cadet=are we really arguing about this?

Apparently.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 10, 2014, 04:36:48 AM
Kid=minor=young adult=cadet=are we really arguing about this?

That's not even true in the context of this thread, let alone reality.

FWIW, a scenario similar to what the OP gave under General Boyd's term when the Carter administration tried to cut CAP's budget to zero dollars in FY 79 or 80.

Some of you old heads might remember this, speak up!