CAP Talk

There's a rumor going around that that CAP is not mentioned in the proposed 2012 federal budget.  And yes, I've considered the source, and I'll add that even his harshest detractors concede that he's occasionally... right.

Is this "omission" of CAP in fact a normal occurrence (ie, CAP is not a separate line item but handled under USAF). Or is there genuine cause for alarm? Federal funds do constitute a lot more support to CAP than, say, membership dues and state appropriations.

Clock's ticking... FY 2011 money will evaporate in two weeks...  ::)   I don't know whether to fret or shrug.

CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

That presupposes there will be a FY11-12 Federal Budget.

The odds of that happening by October 1:  nil
March 1:  30%
September 30, 2012:  50%

I have no idea where we stand in the budget for FY 2012.  However, if I've read the April 2011 National Finance Committee minutes correctly, CAP does seem to be zeroed out.  If true, it will be the first time this has happened; even if only temporally. 

This is the reference in the minutes:

Quote from: PHall on September 15, 2011, 02:20:37 AM
CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

We are NOT at the mercy of the USAF once the act is passed.....but what may happen between now and then is that the USAF may try to ax us to support something else.

I will say......I really, really, really, really, don't see that happening.

1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).
2.  The USAF (specifically ACC) has spent too much money on us to pull out now.
3.  25,000+/- cadets out on the street would not look good on any politician's resumes.
4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to disolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710 (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710)

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2011, 04:23:02 AM

Quote from: PHall on September 15, 2011, 02:20:37 AM
CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

We are NOT at the mercy of the USAF once the act is passed.....but what may happen between now and then is that the USAF may try to ax us to support something else.

I will say......I really, really, really, really, don't see that happening.

1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).
2.  The USAF (specifically ACC) has spent too much money on us to pull out now.
3.  25,000+/- cadets out on the street would not look good on any politician's resumes.
4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to disolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710 (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710)

and if i may add to your amazing list...

#5. The AF has made it abundantly clear they use CAP in areas they can not get a JROTC in. They like the CP portion alot.

Quote from: NCRblues on September 15, 2011, 04:28:13 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2011, 04:23:02 AM

Quote from: PHall on September 15, 2011, 02:20:37 AM
CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

We are NOT at the mercy of the USAF once the act is passed.....but what may happen between now and then is that the USAF may try to ax us to support something else.

I will say......I really, really, really, really, don't see that happening.

1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).
2.  The USAF (specifically ACC) has spent too much money on us to pull out now.
3.  25,000+/- cadets out on the street would not look good on any politician's resumes.
4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to disolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710 (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710)

and if i may add to your amazing list...

#5. The AF has made it abundantly clear they use CAP in areas they can not get a JROTC in. They like the CP portion alot.

At a third of the cost.

^All very true however, unless congress agrees, we may not get the funding we need to continue as we have.

I'm sure our leadership is working the issue.  Of course, there is no prohibition on calling your local rep. and, making your desires known...

Quote from: FW on September 15, 2011, 11:17:22 AM
^All very true however, unless congress agrees, we may not get the funding we need to continue as we have.

I'm sure our leadership is working the issue.  Of course, there is no prohibition on calling your local rep. and, making your desires known...

Given the way NHQ has been hounding members to vote Civil Air Patrol for the 2011 Lightspeed Aviation Grant, I think if our funding were in any real danger we would be getting a barrage of e-mails telling us to call our reps and senators.

Quote from: Turk on September 15, 2011, 02:11:51 AM
There's a rumor going around that that CAP is not mentioned in the proposed 2012 federal budget.  And yes, I've considered the source, and I'll add that even his harshest detractors concede that he's occasionally... right.

Is this "omission" of CAP in fact a normal occurrence (ie, CAP is not a separate line item but handled under USAF). Or is there genuine cause for alarm? Federal funds do constitute a lot more support to CAP than, say, membership dues and state appropriations.

Clock's ticking... FY 2011 money will evaporate in two weeks...  ::)   I don't know whether to fret or shrug.

Shrug.

Two funding lines affect CAP. Operations of the HQ, Wing and Region reps, and the overall "grant" funding for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation are funded through USAF Operations and Maintenance account, specifically in a line for Administration and Other Servicewide Activities. That's one line. The other is the aircraft procurement, which is funded on Line Item 23, Other Aircraft, in the AF's Procurement request.

In February, the Obama Administration requested $23.338 million for the "grant" amount in the FY2012 O&M budget request, and $2.19 million in Line 23 procurement funds for six Cessna 182Ts.

The House Appropriations Committee acted first, and in the final Full Committee markup of that bill, in May, House Appropriators restored money that fell out during subcommittee markups. The HAC report out on the bill says "Section 8023 has been amended and provides funding for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation." the bill itself (HR 1540) includes the full $23.338 million requested.

The House Armed Services Committee, which writes the National Defense Authorization Bill, also passed that amount, untouched. The Senate Armed Services Committee blessed it as well.

The Senate DID make a cut of a couple of hundred million dollars from the AF's overall $1.8 billion Administration & Other Servicewide Activities request for FY2012, from which the $23.338 million is drawn. But both the House and Senate bills have language specifying that Civil Air Patrol should be funded.

Obviously, it's up to the AF to "peanut-butter spread" the cost cut from the O&M accounts as it sees fit, and CAP could, theoretically, help be a "bill-payer" for that cut. But the politics mitigate against it right now.

The bigger question, as posted earlier, is whether we get a budget bill on time at all, and if history is a guide (as in the past eight or so budget cycles) that answer is "nope."

A CR, or continuing resolution, has the effect of "freezing" spending at current levels...in other words, you can keep paying the bills you already have, but can't obligate new money. Thus, Cessna would have to wait to start building those six new airplanes, and Nat HQ couldn't use its money...likely at last year's $22.8 million level or thereabouts...to do anything new.

Oh and one last point. Except in extraordinary circumstances, it's the Appropriators who count. The Authorizers (Armed Services committees) set policy, sorta, but there have been times when money gets appropriated and not authorized. The program lives on.

Both the House and Senate versions of the FY12 defense appropriations bill (S.1253 and HR.1540) include the same 2.2 million for CAP A/C aquisition and 23.3 million for CAP operations.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2011, 04:23:02 AM

Quote from: PHall on September 15, 2011, 02:20:37 AM
CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to dissolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

The issue is there's too many so called "drop in the bucket" so to speak programs and IF you cut money out of all of these you will achieve overall savings.  EVERYONE is going to have to experience some pain in reducing the federal debt and CAP is of no exception.

Frankly I don't think we need as many aircraft as we have and we need to take a critical looks at the number of aircrews (pilots) we realistically need.  If we have members that are always just "proficiency flying" and never participate in any sort of  mission (ES or cadet support flying support), we don't need them putting hours on the planes that than have to get their 100 hour checks, which cost us taxpayers needless money and volunteer time ferrying the aircraft to the consolidated maintenance locations.

The other thing that needs to be reviewed is the cost of administering this entire CAP cooperative agreement.  Also ensuring the volunteers time is being used efficiently & effectively for direct mission support instead of on mumbo jumbo regulatory compliance.

I also question what the 'real' cost is for a flying hour when you add in all the administrative oversight costs (national HQ & USAF, regional USAF, wing USAF).
RM   
     

Quote from: AirDX on September 15, 2011, 11:52:26 PM
Both the House and Senate versions of the FY12 defense appropriations bill (S.1253 and HR.1540) include the same 2.2 million for CAP A/C acquisition and 23.3 million for CAP operations.

It's good to know CAP is still in the bill.  They are basically the same numbers as for FY11 which, is $4.8 less than FY10 for operations and $7 million less for A/C acquisition.  Last year we did get the operations grant raised however, it doesn't look so good this year.

http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY12_Defense_rev9_xml.pdf

Page 55

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 16, 2011, 11:35:06 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2011, 04:23:02 AM

Quote from: PHall on September 15, 2011, 02:20:37 AM
CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to dissolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

The issue is there's too many so called "drop in the bucket" so to speak programs and IF you cut money out of all of these you will achieve overall savings.  EVERYONE is going to have to experience some pain in reducing the federal debt and CAP is of no exception.

Frankly I don't think we need as many aircraft as we have and we need to take a critical looks at the number of aircrews (pilots) we realistically need.  If we have members that are always just "proficiency flying" and never participate in any sort of  mission (ES or cadet support flying support), we don't need them putting hours on the planes that than have to get their 100 hour checks, which cost us taxpayers needless money and volunteer time ferrying the aircraft to the consolidated maintenance locations.

The other thing that needs to be reviewed is the cost of administering this entire CAP cooperative agreement.  Also ensuring the volunteers time is being used efficiently & effectively for direct mission support instead of on mumbo jumbo regulatory compliance.

I also question what the 'real' cost is for a flying hour when you add in all the administrative oversight costs (national HQ & USAF, regional USAF, wing USAF).
RM   
   

Proficiency flying serves 2 purposes. It helps keep the pilots proficient, and it helps to keep the aircraft in mission ready status.  The worst thing you can do to an aircraft is let it sit on a ramp or in a hangar and rot, waiting for that once in a blue moon mission or a monthly SAREX where it might get 4 hours on it.  The USAF wants us to fly the aircraft 20 hours a month, and they really don't care how we do that if they aren't paying for it, and we comply with our regulations. 

Proficiency flying is done under a C mission, funded by the pilot, and USAF oversight on those is almost non-existant.  USAF oversight costs are built into the maintenance cost and do change annually.  Without the proficiency flying, the maintenance costs would actually increase and aircraft readiness would decrease... Costing us taxpayers more rather than less money.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 16, 2011, 11:35:06 AM
The issue is there's too many so called "drop in the bucket" so to speak programs and IF you cut money out of all of these you will achieve overall savings. 

Sorry, made me think of a great motivational poster:
(http://demotivators.despair.com/irresponsibilitydemotivator.jpg)

I would not be surprised if it got real tight ,Congress mandates that the AC fleet be turned over to the USAF, they can use the AC for light transport and proficiency flying and take over the air mission(DF, PHOTO RECON .ECTC...)  More attention could be directed towards AFJROTC instead of CAP cadet programs.  CAP could be a after thought with the way the budget is.  The USAF would save MONEY by pulling AD folks away from CAP and putting them back to the AF mix.  In the past week I have questioned our disaster relief capabilities and response and I dont believe it what it was back in the day.  The monies for ES could be better spent on more technical rescue organizations and relief societies.  We might want to re-evaluate are role in the over all picture and possibly look for more viable missions.

Quote from: eaker.cadet on September 16, 2011, 03:38:19 PM
the USAF, they can use the AC for light transport and proficiency flying and take over the air mission(DF, PHOTO RECON .ECTC...) 

I guess I know why you'd think that, but I don't buy it. The USAF would not save money doing it that way, nor would the taxpayer, thanks to the opportunity cost of re-directing the efforts of highly trained, expensive rated officers towards DF, photo-recon, and so forth. The investment in each active-duty USAF pilot comes to over $1 million; using that asset to do the work we do for, essentially, the price of gas and some administrative oversight would represent wild OVERspending, in a way that I as a taxpayer (let alone a CAP member) would not support.

Also, USAF would have to invest in maintenance facilities, tooling, parts inventory, etc.; the entire "tail" for the 550+ aircraft it would inherit.

Warts and all, we remain a bargain.

What's likely to happen politically (based on my conversations this week with staff on the Hill) is:

1) we get a CR at the end of the fiscal year.
2) everyone works really, really hard to get an Omnibus Appropriation (essentially a mashup of all the separate appropriations bills) into the pipeline to get done before the end of the calendar year. Everyone on the Hill is giving that outcome better than 60% odds as of today.
3) the Omnibus bill includes efforts to restore cuts, rather than make more of them. That's what all of them are scurrying around right now to do.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2011, 04:23:02 AM
1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).

All they are required to do is coordinate.  The AF isn't obligated to go send people out to look for missing airplanes or any other inland SAR mission.  Note that they have to have an MOU with the state to use CAP to do such SAR. 

Quote from: RiverAux on September 16, 2011, 07:19:35 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2011, 04:23:02 AM
1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).

All they are required to do is coordinate.  The AF isn't obligated to go send people out to look for missing airplanes or any other inland SAR mission. 

I agree to the letter, but the practical is more difficult.  Telling cash-strapped states that they need to add to their missions by becoming the primary resource for mission aircraft, especially then when it will replace a "free" resource in the CAP would not be popular.
That would be one of the things we'd need to get in front of governors should it ever be an issue - a real-world estimate of the
money each respective state would have to pay to have professional ES resources respond to the mission we perform today.

Quote from: RiverAux on September 16, 2011, 07:19:35 PM
Note that they have to have an MOU with the state to use CAP to do such SAR.

Not all states have an MOU with CAP - mine hasn't had one for probably a decade or more.  Some states are simply not interested in the conversation.

Incorrect.  CAP has MOU's with the States, but it's for when The State is footing the bill for the activity, SAR/DR or something else directly.  If The State requests USAF assistance and an "A" or "M" mission number is issued, we are acting as a "Big A" Auxiliary and an instrumentality of the Federal Govt via USAF.  Then the funding agreement is between the State and Federal Gov'ts, and no MOU is required.  Many states (but not all) have told the USAF to just call CAP directly if there is a missing aircraft or beacon going off, and handle it via State-Federal channels, and that may be written into the MOU. Others get the first call and then decide if they want CAP involved.  I know that in MS for example, CAP get's called first, but MEMA also gets notified as their duty officer frequently calls me about 20 minutes after AFRCC does...

AFRCC has a MOU with each state which is what allows CAP to be there representing the AF. 
CAP has a separate MOU with each state that governs missions CAP does for the state. 

Quote from: RiverAux on September 16, 2011, 07:52:30 PM
AFRCC has a MOU with each state which is what allows CAP to be there representing the AF. 
CAP has a separate MOU with each state that governs missions CAP does for the state.

So like I said....if the USAF did not fund CAP then they would be on the stick to provide the service that CAP provides now.

Like I said....the can't just palm it off.

As soon as the USAF started to fail to meet their end of the MOU the states will begin to cry "unfunded mandate" and that won't be pretty.

Nope.  AFRCC's only obligation is to coordinate federal assistance from all federal agencies.  They aren't mandated to do more than that. 

For example, here is a copy of the Oregon-AFRCC MOU -- note that there is no requirement that the Air Force provide any specific assets, just that the AFRCC will coordinate use of federal assets in general.
http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/tech_resp/sar_docs/afrcc-mou.pdf?ga=t

I found virtually identical agreements for ND and IL.

Quote from: RiverAux on September 16, 2011, 08:39:24 PM
Nope.  AFRCC's only obligation is to coordinate federal assistance from all federal agencies.  They aren't mandated to do more than that.

I think you are mistaken on what it means to be a "SAR Coordinator". According to the National Search and Rescue Plan (emphasis mine):

QuoteSAR RESPONSIBILITIES

United States SAR Coordinators

21. The SAR Coordinators, designated below, have overall responsibility for establishing RCCs as necessary, and for providing or arranging for SAR services within United States SRRs. Only RCCs properly established by the4se SAR Coordinators should carry out domestic and international coordination of civil SAR operations.

22. United States SAR Coordinators are listed below:

a.  United States Air Force:  Recognized SAR Coordinator for the United States aeronautical SRR corresponding to the continental United States other than Alaska;
b.  United States Pacific Command:  Recognized SAR Coordinator for the United States aeronautical SRR corresponding to Alaska; and
c.  United States Coast Guard:  Recognized SAR Coordinator for all other United States aeronautical and maritime SRRs.  This includes the State of Hawaii as well as waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, such as navigable waters of the United States.

So when it comes to aeronautical SAR in the contiguous United States, the U.S. Air Force is responsible for the whole thing and not just coordinating.

Folks, you are forgetting that the states and local agencies are primarily responsible for SAR in the US.  If they need help, they ask the feds (in the form of AFRCC) and the AFRCC calls who they think will get the job done best.  Sometimes its the AF sometimes it is not.  If CAP was no longer around, the AF would be under no obligation to purchase 500 light airplanes man them to provide the exact same level of service that CAP now provides.  Heck, the AFRCC calls out the Coast Guard more than the AF to respond to such requests. 

Imagine CAP is gone.
An airplane goes missing.
State asks AFRCC for help.
AFRCC says that we have f-15s, C-130s and some other planes but none are appropriate to assist in this mission.  We can ask the National Guard to send over some helicopters.  Sorry, can't help you out more.

And that's when the fecal matter hits the fan!

Quote from: RiverAux on September 16, 2011, 09:13:44 PMFolks, you are forgetting that the states and local agencies are primarily responsible for SAR in the US.

States are responsible for SAR that is not already the responsibility of certain federal agencies. Aeronautical and maritime SAR are federal responsibilities.

In fact, according to the AFRCC (http://www.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3721):

"Without Civil Air Patrol's highly dedicated personnel, the United States Air Force would find it very difficult to fulfill it's mission responsibilities in the 48 Continental United States."

So, without CAP, the U.S. Air Force would find it difficult to fulfill it's responsibilities to coordinate SAR?

Here's a list of all the MOA's & MOU's, at least as of 2008, from 1AF, which is the most current list I could find.
https://1afnorth.region1.ang.af.mil/JPRC/State%20MOUMOA/Forms/AllItems.aspx

One doc (presumably the AFRCC/state version) is an MOA, signed by the Governor and General Henry Morrow, listed as "Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course, Maxwell AFB, Ala" at the time of the signing.  It indicates that it is in force until rescinded in writing with 60 day notice.

The other (presumably the corporate version) is an MOU signed by my state's EMA and a Lt. Col. Wash, indicated as the commander of AFRCC, and the last paragraph says it remains in force only by "mutual agreement", and can be modified via phone, with a requirement that it be updated in writing "immediately".  One note of interest is that the procedures outlined by the document are not what we follow in my state on missing aircraft searches and related activations, nor has it ever worked as indicated.  Since my wing got a finding last year on the CI for not having an MOU (with a CAP-USAF note that it is the state who is not interested in the conversation), I have to assume that one or both of these are no longer in force.

I'd be interested in the legal nuance between an MOU and an MOA, and why and how we can in what appears to be a vacuum of a formal agreement.  Knowing how my state tends to do things in general, it could be anything from "a handshake", to "we'd prefer to not be bothered, you guys just figure it out..."

Quote from: N Harmon on September 16, 2011, 10:08:52 PM
So, without CAP, the U.S. Air Force would find it difficult to fulfill it's responsibilities to coordinate SAR?

I would say "yes" - coordination requires command and control assest, not to mention resources that care what you say.

USAF fulfills it's mandate by handing off the taskings to another trained and qualified agency in CAP.  Absent CAP, an entire network and
hierarchy of authority would need to be established, at the typical costs for doing these things in government agencies.  The arguments over jurisdiction and funding could go on for years.  I would hazard a lot of agencies would work to disavow the job on principle alone.

Unless of course there was an HLS grant associated with it, in which case you'd have agencies fighting in the streets to be first on the list.

Well, you guys can believe what you want, but if CAP were gone the federal government would end up saving money in relation to SAR/DR as there is almost nothing that CAP does that the feds would pick up and do using other resources simply because they are under no obligation to provide any specific level of service. 

States, on the other hand, which do have a duty to do this sort of thing may end up spending more money. 

Keep in mind that I'm certainly not in favor of the feds taking any such action. 

This was forwarded by my WG/CC this morning.  It pays to have the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee on your speed dial:

Roger and Stan

Very good news!  We've just learned that the Senate Appropriations Committee has restored funding for CAP Operations and Maintenance and aircraft procurement.  Here are the figures:

O&M +$4.5 million for a total of $27.8 million

Aircraft +$6.8 million for a total of $9.0 million

Both the House and the Senate have increased our O&M so that is a done deal.  As to the aircraft funding the House only gave us $2.2 million so exactly what CAP receives will have to be worked out in the upcoming defense conference committee.

This means a great deal to CAP especially given the current political climate and the fact that 580 line items were cut in the Senate Defense Appropriations bill to reduce it by $26 billion.

Central to this happening is the help that both of you gave CAP in talking with Senator Inouye and his staff about our needs and requirements.

I can't thank you enough for your help!  When you next talk to the Senator and/or his staff please let them know how much we appreciate their help.

Aloha,

John

John Swain
Washington Representative
Civil Air Patrol - United States Air Force Auxiliary

^That's what I call good news.... :clap:

Turn the fleet over to the National Guard , problem solved......Guard does search and find and turns technical rescue over to local agencies. 

Quote from: eaker.cadet on September 17, 2011, 02:40:57 AM
Turn the fleet over to the National Guard , problem solved......Guard does search and find and turns technical rescue over to local agencies.

There are seveal problems with that from a budget stand point.

The military maintaining the 500+/- aircraft would cost MORE then the CAP maintaining those same planes.
Also operations costs climbe as all those aircrews are paid for their flight time.  You also have to add in the costs of their housing, education, medical, retirement, and other benifits.

So handing the mission and the assets to someone else and axing $22M from the budget is not really a cost savings.

Also you have the figure the service GAP.  Say 1 Oct our funding goes away and everything is handed over to the National Guard.
What base gets the planes?
Who maintains them?
Is the AVGAS available on that base?
Where is the envionmental impact study?
Where is the logistics train? (where you buy parts from)
Who is the lead command?
Who is the SPOO?
Where is the training facility?
Does ACC set up a Weapons School for this/these platform(s)?
Who developes the TTL's?

The USAF does not do anything "simple".  It is not like they are just going to tell their local NG pilots to "learn how to fly SAR and get back to me".
Like I said before.......the USAF cannot afford to take on the inland SAR mission.

Maintenance is done at local FBO(CONTRACT), Most Air Guard bases are co located at local Air Ports.  The guard would not need the entire fleet maybe three or four.  I t can be done and there would be more considerably savings by doing these.  The USAF could use our vans for sure.......Worst case.  We better start looking for more missions to justify are existence. Some wings have a pretty good grasps on this and some dont.  Many people are joining  CAP these days to find out that they train and when the button is pushed only a few actually particpate in the real world mission.   Also, many obstacles are in peoples way when it comes to get training.  I have heard comments through out the country that people feel that they are playing dress up and whn they are asked to do something its like parking cars at the air show.  I remeber a CAP commercial and in the run up it says something like "when disaters strike we are there" from what I have experinced recently it is more like when disaster strikes we will try and get permission to be there but funding is low so we cant make any promises.  I have even heard from elected officials that they would not support CAP because of the difficulties they have had to go through to get CAP to respond.  I guess CAP made an attempt to get a new mission(VSAF) what happened?.  We should look at the MARS program to see if we can contribute there. 

That's not how the USAF works.

FBO's are NOT.....I SAY AGAIN.....NOT going to cut it with USAF maintenance policies and directives....take a look at AFI 21-101 and you will know what I mean.

Second.....operations.

CAP
a) does not pay it's pilots...that's millions of dollars in pay, benifits, retirment, education and housing that does not have to be factored into the "cost per hour" calculations.
b) duel utiliese its pilots, that is they have other jobs to keep the busy...the USAF would have to dedicate squadrons and personnel to doing this mission.  It is not like they can just tack this onto a C-130 squadron's mission or an A-10 squadron's mission.  Standing up new squadrons take a lot of overhead.....even it is just a bunch of detachments run out of a central squadron.
c) does not have to pay for thing like currencies or initial training.  Once the squadrons or detachments were established then the USAF rules of currencies would be in effect.  That would mean that once IQT and MQT traing was completed then they would have to do CT storties every 30-60days just to keep current ON TOP of any actual missions they fly as they would have CT for each major task.

Third....manning.
The USAF would have to find enough pilots to do the mission.  (you got 200+ pilots sitting around not doing anything?  If so I think you should tell the USAF they are having a problem getting butts into their existing seats).
they would have to establish a training squadron somewhere to conduct inital platform training and inital qualification training.
They would have to stand up a logistics train.....that is depot personnel ready to help maintain the aircraft, procure and manage the spare parts, maintain the technical orders, flight manuals, etc.
You would have to find the guys to do the training and currencies paperwork (called ARMS in the USAF).
You would have to stand up operational support squadrons and MAJCOM staffs to manage this new weapons system.

Fourth real estate.
You will have to find the hangar space for these planes, office space for the pilots, maintainers, planners, ect.  Getting hanger space at local airport is not an easy or cheap thing to do.  Building new on military bases takes 5+ years from "hey we need to a hanger" to "Put the plane in the corner".....and that is if there is no political, operational or fincial hold up that slips the project to the right.

Once and for all......loud and clear.....it is impossible for the USAF to do this mission at the same cost that CAP does it.  PERIOD.
The only way to "save" money would be to completely drop it.....tell the states and counties that they are on their own and then live with the political fall out from that........Bottom line to that is that the USAF would only be forceing an even BIGGER cost onto the states (already cash strapped) because each state would have to recreate the wheel on a local level.

CAP is not in any danger of becomming ill relevent.  We lost a lot of BS missions when they stopped monitoring 121.5.....but when a plane is actually mission or an ELT is detected (121.5 or 435) we get the call and do the mission.....for way, way, way, way, way less then the USAF or any other government agency or civilian contractor could do it.

Palming it off onto the states or counties.....is only shifting and increasing the bill.

VSAF was not a CAP mission, it was tangential at best, and challenged from the start when they began "adjusting" our uniform and added all the asterisks its execution. 

The total operational budget for CAP wings, on top of the appropriate funds, is less than $2M, and probably nearer to $1.5M.  Everything else is member-funded and operates at or near cost.

So saying CAP "costs" about $25M a year is good enough for the discussion, and you'd never get near replacing it through professional channels like the military or the guard, and that assumes either is interested in the conversation.

We already know you can't do MX at the local FBO and hold down costs - that's why we have the highly successful consolidated MX system.

Most states have only one or two guard bases, and few, if any, have anyone on "alert" in the same way that CAP members are - you'd need at least the same number of planes distributed in basically the same way, in order to be able to launch anything close to a real alert SAR sortie.  That or you'd need the aircrews sleeping on alert like they do for the HLS combat stuff, and that ain't free.

Put all the planes in one place with alert crews, and you could be talking about 3-4 hour flight times just to get to the AO, let alone the mission itself.
Missions, no matter who runs them, require IC personnel, support and logistics.  And bear in mind the military and the guard aren't going to put up with the nonsense CAP members do about "pay your own way", "bring your own lunch", and "buy your own gear".

Additional sorties means more risk for the actuaries to calc as well - more medicals, more flight physicals, blah, blah.

Not to mention who's going to train these crews and provide retrain, proficiency, etc?  Again, unlike CAP, these guys won't get into a cockpit or sit in a class for free.  You also have to ramp up a whole new set of specialties, with all the ancillary costs associated with creating a new military program and training-up.

Almost everything on the above list, and the 1000 other little details we are not mentioning are done by CAP members for free.  You can't replace "free" with "government" and expect to save money.

My guess would be that the ramp up / down would be a 3-5 year process, at which time AOPA or other organizations start complaining about the lack of response and increased costs and the feds start looking to re-animate CAP in some form or another to "save money". 

$25M just to have 60,000 Americans show up to a meeting every week and not be a PITA to their neighbors for a few hours would be a good bargain, let alone what the good taxpayers of this country are getting for their buck.

Thanks for clearing up the VSAf thing, I was some what confused about the details of it execution.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 17, 2011, 04:36:17 PM
Once and for all......loud and clear.....it is impossible for the USAF to do this mission at the same cost that CAP does it.  PERIOD.

Agreed

Quote from: lordmonar on September 17, 2011, 04:36:17 PMThe only way to "save" money would be to completely drop it.....tell the states and counties that they are on their own and then live with the political fall out from that........

This is pretty much what I was predicting would be the outcome. 

Quote from: JeffDG on September 15, 2011, 02:22:43 AM
That presupposes there will be a FY11-12 Federal Budget.

The odds of that happening by October 1:  nil
March 1:  30%
September 30, 2012:  50%

Optimist!

Quote from: eaker.cadet on September 17, 2011, 04:04:06 PMMaintenance is done at local FBO(CONTRACT), Most Air Guard bases are co located at local Air Ports.

Not even CAP does maintenance at any given FBO. We require shops with highly qualified mechanics who stand behind their work with a lot of liability insurance. I am quite sure the USAF would require nothing less.

QuoteThe guard would not need the entire fleet maybe three or four.

Three or four CAP aircraft for the whole USAF CONUS SAR mission? May I ask you what your experience is in regards to CAP operational missions? What happens when your three or four birds are in Maine looking for a lost boy scout, and a mission pops up for a missing aircraft in Colorado?

Even three or four per state is pushing it if you expect to have sufficient capacity when one is in maintenance. And some states are quite large.

QuoteMany people are joining CAP these days to find out that they train and when the button is pushed only a few actually participate in the real world mission. Also, many obstacles are in peoples way when it comes to get training.

This is how our organization works. Most of our people have day jobs so we train and qualify a lot of personnel to ensure appropriate coverage. Is this the best way to get the job done? I don't know. But I will say if you are unable to commit the time necessary to attend training, then maybe you should reconsider how available you will be in an emergency.

QuoteI remeber a CAP commercial and in the run up it says something like "when disaters strike we are there" from what I have experinced recently it is more like when disaster strikes we will try and get permission to be there but funding is low so we cant make any promises.

Our funding does not stop us from participating in federally assigned missions, because that money comes from a different pot. Non-AFAMs should be looked at as CAP providing mutual aid like any other responding agency would. And in such a case, the jurisdiction requesting aid is on the hook for paying.

But that does not stop us from flying missions pro-bono. My unit has self-funded missions in the past to assist the local Red Cross, and municipalities cleaning up after a storm.

I can not recall a recent major disaster where CAP was not involved in some way. Anybody? Hell, we even provided assistance to Japan after their recent earthquake.

QuoteI have even heard from elected officials that they would not support CAP because of the difficulties they have had to go through to get CAP to respond.

Are you willing to give specifics, like names and titles of these elected officials? Because it has never been easier than it is now to request CAP assistance.

We recently had a missing person search where the local Sheriff called a local CAP member, who directed the Sheriff to call AFRCC. Within hours there were USCG and CAP aircraft on scene beginning the search and within 24 hours there were CAP boots on the ground looking as well. And we're talking a fairly remote part of Michigan.

Any government officials complaining that it is "too hard" to request CAP assistance either does not know how, or is finding an excuse to not do so.

Senate passed the budget yesterday.  $2.1M for aircraft, $23.3M for everything else.  Exactly as requested.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2011, 02:09:16 PM
Senate passed the budget yesterday.  $2.1M for aircraft, $23.3M for everything else.  Exactly as requested.

Now, if the House can just get it done...

Quote from: JeffDG on December 02, 2011, 04:11:28 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2011, 02:09:16 PM
Senate passed the budget yesterday.  $2.1M for aircraft, $23.3M for everything else.  Exactly as requested.

Now, if the House can just get it done...

There seems to be a lot more concern about the detainees than funding a defense force.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2011, 04:49:24 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on December 02, 2011, 04:11:28 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2011, 02:09:16 PM
Senate passed the budget yesterday.  $2.1M for aircraft, $23.3M for everything else.  Exactly as requested.

Now, if the House can just get it done...

There seems to be a lot more concern about the detainees than funding a defense force.

True, true...unfortunately at this point, they're a package deal.

^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 03, 2011, 04:23:22 PM
^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Have you watched how the House of Commons works up in Ottawa? It isn't any better.

That's probably the saving grace!

Quote from: PHall on December 03, 2011, 04:26:03 PM

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 03, 2011, 04:23:22 PM
^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Have you watched how the House of Commons works up in Ottawa? It isn't any better.

On budgetary matters...yes.

A)  Nothing that spends money can be introduced without a "Royal Recommendation", which means to spend money, it has to be proposed by the PM.  That mean no "every MP gets to tag something on for their constituency"

B)  If an appropriations bill fails, the government falls, Parliament is dissolved, and there is a new election 5 weeks later.

That means there is a very strong incentive to get budgets and appropriations right!

[disclosure:  I once worked on the local staff of a Member of Parliament...so I have learned a bit about the backrooms of how it works in the GWN]

Quote from: JeffDG on December 03, 2011, 05:15:16 PM

Quote from: PHall on December 03, 2011, 04:26:03 PM

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 03, 2011, 04:23:22 PM
^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Have you watched how the House of Commons works up in Ottawa? It isn't any better.

On budgetary matters...yes.

A)  Nothing that spends money can be introduced without a "Royal Recommendation", which means to spend money, it has to be proposed by the PM.  That mean no "every MP gets to tag something on for their constituency"

B)  If an appropriations bill fails, the government falls, Parliament is dissolved, and there is a new election 5 weeks later.

That means there is a very strong incentive to get budgets and appropriations right!

[disclosure:  I once worked on the local staff of a Member of Parliament...so I have learned a bit about the backrooms of how it works in the GWN]

And yet, depending on who you're talking to, the Canadian Budget process is as messed up as ours is and there's fraud and waste everywhere! ::)
Unless you're a member of the ruling party. ;)

Quote from: PHall on December 03, 2011, 06:42:50 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on December 03, 2011, 05:15:16 PM

Quote from: PHall on December 03, 2011, 04:26:03 PM

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 03, 2011, 04:23:22 PM
^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Have you watched how the House of Commons works up in Ottawa? It isn't any better.

On budgetary matters...yes.

A)  Nothing that spends money can be introduced without a "Royal Recommendation", which means to spend money, it has to be proposed by the PM.  That mean no "every MP gets to tag something on for their constituency"

B)  If an appropriations bill fails, the government falls, Parliament is dissolved, and there is a new election 5 weeks later.

That means there is a very strong incentive to get budgets and appropriations right!

[disclosure:  I once worked on the local staff of a Member of Parliament...so I have learned a bit about the backrooms of how it works in the GWN]

And yet, depending on who you're talking to, the Canadian Budget process is as messed up as ours is and there's fraud and waste everywhere! ::)
Unless you're a member of the ruling party. ;)

Oh, I'm not saying that government spending isn't inefficient, but they don't have threats of shutdowns and people holding their breath until they turn blue over it!

One advantage, with the fact that all spending has to be approved by the government of the day (ie. the Cabinet), there is more accountability.  The PM can't just say "well, some MP put an earmark in there for a bridge to nowhere."  The old saying "One back to pat, one throat to choke." responsibility is there.

There is no "Federal Budget", and has not been one for several years, as is required in Article 1, Section 9, Clause, 7, or the Constitution, and 31 USC 1105. The Congress has just issued " Continuing Resolutions". This is occurs in much the same way we wage war without actually declaring war, by essentially disregarding that pesky old Constitution that gets in the way of so many good things that could be done to spread the wealth, make high income earners pay their "fair share", and make people understand that the Bill of Rights is supposed to give the Government the power to determine whats fair to the people without infringing on the Governments right to confiscate private property for the greater good. Cuba is more fiscally responsible than the Congress.....Yay, we got out money.


Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on December 03, 2011, 08:39:50 PM
There is no "Federal Budget", and has not been one for several years, as is required in Article 1, Section 9, Clause, 7

Due respect, but Article 1, Section 9 Clause 7 does not require a "federal budget" in any way:

QuoteNo money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

A "Continuing Resolution" is a Joint Resolution of the House and Senate, and presented to the President (per Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2) just like any other law.   It is an appropriation made by law.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 03, 2011, 04:23:22 PM
Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

To the average American spending measures are like tax deductions. If it benefits the 'other guy' it is a loophole, if it benefits me it is a valid and needed deduction.

If the spending benefits the 'other guy' it is pork barrel spending. If it benefits me it is a necessary federal expenditure, vital to national security etc etc etc or so we tell our Congress Critters to tell the other Congress Critters.

While Congress as a whole is held in low esteem by most voters, the voter also tends to rate their own Congress Critter very highly and usually (about 80%) return them to Congress.

"We have met the enemy and he is us". Pogo

So I'm attaching an image here that I thought my CT friends would find interesting. It comes from the webinar I produced today in which we ventured some projections and discussion about the upcoming new fiscal year defense budget request...which will reflect the change in strategy that President Obama announced last week at the Pentagon. When the Fiscal 2013 request is dropped, probably around Feb. 6, it will happen against a backdrop in which the congressionally passed Budget Control Act is mandating deep defense cuts, and the "automatic triggers" will kick in because the congressional "super committee" this summer couldn't agree on how to cut.

The chart comes from one of our guests at the webinar, Todd Harrison at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. It was commented on extensively by our second guest, Steve Grundman, principal at Grundman Advisory and a former DOD Comptroller official. I took the liberty of annotating the chart just for the purpose of showing it to my fellow CAPTalkers.

The red arrows mark when each of our recent Presidents were inaugurated. The three green arrows point out what the legend box may not make clear...the budget level that President Obama proposed in the most recent Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), the budget level that would result from the Budget Control Act, and the budget level that comes after the "automatic cuts" from sequestration.

I'm making no political argument here, one way or the other. I thought it would be interesting perspective as we all talk about what's likely to happen to defense funding, Air Force funding, and our relative worth/non-worth to the U.S. Air Force as an auxiliary. The chart shows the context in which those debates are taking place.

The webinar can be replayed for the next 11 months, and it's pretty interesting stuff (if I do say so myself! :-)) If anyone wants, I'll post a link to it. It's free, but the marketing folks will make you part with your email address to watch the webinar (so they can pester you for a few months to subscribe to Aviation Week & Space Technology).

(And for whatever reason I haven't figured out how to make it display inline with my post. I'm open to instruction!)

Quote from: ProdigalJim on January 11, 2012, 09:39:26 PM(And for whatever reason I haven't figured out how to make it display inline with my post. I'm open to instruction!)

(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13833.0;attach=4600)

In the context of "CAP's reletive worth"...you still have to figure in the basic fact that someone is going to have to do SAR.

If CAP were to close down today.....who is ready to take on the mission?  Counties.....a lot of counties don't have any air assets.  States?  Okay...maybe the State Troopers can do it...but that is increasing their work load with out any increase in their funding.
ANG?  Sure...but same argument.  Federal Government?  DoD has the assets to do it.....but their per hour cost will quickly eat up any savings they get from axing CAP.

Bottom line is that unless states are ready to start up some home grown SAR organisations where members fund the missions....someone is going to have pay a LOT of money to do what CAP does for $30M+/- now.

One way for CAP to cut costs quick and dirty is to get rid of the corporate fleet.  Member owned aircraft/member paid maintenance with USAF paid flighing for SAR and training.

Down side of this...is we lose the communications equipment, we loose the ability to monitory readiness states, the ability to deploy assets at will.  So the Fosset Search/Katrina/New Horizon missions would not have happened.

Add the other costs saveings CAP aircraft brings to the USAF.....the Surrogate Predator program is bringing HUGE saveings to the military!

CAP is NOT IMHO doomed to fade away anytime soon.  Even with automatic cuts and a drastic reduction in the size of the military.  $30M is simply too small a drop in the bucket and it has too many strings attached that would make it worse for the military in the long run.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2012, 12:47:47 AM
In the context of "CAP's reletive worth"...you still have to figure in the basic fact that someone is going to have to do SAR.

If CAP were to close down today.....who is ready to take on the mission? 

I doubt there even is a mission for CAP at this point, in terms of ES.  In CAWG, we went from 400 missions a year to probably 20/year.  Plus our big CD activity disappeared.  In CA, the local county SAR teams do a great job, and their ground team members are capable of actually doing things like high angle rescues or providing medical care beyond what a Boy Scout is allowed to do.     

Some of this is the "market."  Fewer people are flying these days, so we've got fewer crashes to search for.  But not chasing ELTs is the big thing.  Our crews don't have any way to stay nearly as proficient and our airplanes are flying a lot less.  If this were a corporation, there would have been a big layoff corresponding to the loss of business.

But not all of it is due to external factors.  I see no signs that Wing or National is putting sufficient effort into attracting ops business.  Look at the minutes from National...they spend more time discussing uniforms and awards than they do about the ops side.  They're perfectly fine with a 3 bladed prop that chucked one of the blades.

After 20+ years in it (from MP to almost done IC-T), I really wish CAP were still relevant in ES or CD.  But it isn't, and it was an easy but sad decision to not renew this year to be able to devote my time to another organization that actually needs it.

At worst that chart shows the AF going back to funding levels similar to what they were 4 years ago or in the medium term projection what they were just a couple of years ago.  Big deal.  Neither represent large spending cuts and considering the fact that there is one less country that we're flying massive number of transport and air support missions over than we were then, may have very little actual impact on the AF, much less us. 

Quote from: dbaran on January 12, 2012, 02:19:41 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2012, 12:47:47 AM
In the context of "CAP's reletive worth"...you still have to figure in the basic fact that someone is going to have to do SAR.

If CAP were to close down today.....who is ready to take on the mission? 

I doubt there even is a mission for CAP at this point, in terms of ES.  In CAWG, we went from 400 missions a year to probably 20/year.  Plus our big CD activity disappeared.  In CA, the local county SAR teams do a great job, and their ground team members are capable of actually doing things like high angle rescues or providing medical care beyond what a Boy Scout is allowed to do.     

Some of this is the "market."  Fewer people are flying these days, so we've got fewer crashes to search for.  But not chasing ELTs is the big thing.  Our crews don't have any way to stay nearly as proficient and our airplanes are flying a lot less.  If this were a corporation, there would have been a big layoff corresponding to the loss of business.

But not all of it is due to external factors.  I see no signs that Wing or National is putting sufficient effort into attracting ops business.  Look at the minutes from National...they spend more time discussing uniforms and awards than they do about the ops side.  They're perfectly fine with a 3 bladed prop that chucked one of the blades.

After 20+ years in it (from MP to almost done IC-T), I really wish CAP were still relevant in ES or CD.  But it isn't, and it was an easy but sad decision to not renew this year to be able to devote my time to another organization that actually needs it.

I'm afraid you're only looking in your own back yard.  Yes there's been a decrease in ELT hunts, and a trend of decreasing SAR/DR missions in the more populous and urban states. This is an expected result of a state government with a larger tax base and higher demand for local services.  We see this in the proliferation of counties and cites with aviation assets.  However, in the less populous/more rural states we see state aviation fleets being cut and CAP being asked to pick up quite a bit of the slack.  Here in MS, we've been doing everything from counting sea-turtles and crab pots to filming tornado tracks and providing aerial photography for flooding damage assessment/hazard analysis.  In the west, CAP is supporting state agencies by doing aerial flood damage assessments/hazard analysis, locating stranded motorists and livestock, and other disaster recovery type missions.  Frankly it's a lot more cost effective for a State to call on CAP for 100 flight hrs a year when disasters hit than to maintain their own aviation fleet and associated equipment and personnel to man it.  While the missions may be changing, I don't see them going away anytime soon.  As States that are short on cash figure out that we can provide the services they need for a fraction of the cost of maintaining a full time aviation program, we are going to see an increasing trend of those type of missions.

Quote from: Al Sayre on January 12, 2012, 01:03:02 PM
I'm afraid you're only looking in your own back yard.

I agree. This is from the MIWG official website:

QuoteOperations & Emergency Services
... In 2010, the Michigan Wing participated in 21 search-and-rescue missions and credited with saving one life. Wing volunteers juggled four distress finds on last Easter weekend alone.

Members are well-trained for missions; in 2010 the Michigan Wing conducted mission aircrew training that graduated eight new aircrew members. Meanwhile, the wing supported homeland security, counterdrug missions and disaster relief. Ranking eighth in its use of aircraft, the Michigan Wing flew its nine airplanes in support of numerous state and federal agenciesfor a total of:
Search & Rescue, Disaster Relief, Counter Drug & Homeland Security: 605
Training Missions, Aircrew Profficiency and Evaluation: 1,173
CAP, AFROTC, AFJROTC Flights: 402
Maintenance / Liaison Flights: 266
Total: 2,445

Assuming that those who think the apocalypse is coming are wrong and CAP survives, there is the possibility that this could help prod along the apparently defunct VSAF program aimed at getting CAP members to provide direct augmentation support to AF units.  With the AF cutting both civilian and airmen, this may open up some gaps that CAP volunteers could fill. 

I don't think this is terribly likely to happen, but as long as we are speculating, I'd like to throw in a positive speculation. 

Well interesting our Wing Operations Officer just sent out an email stating tht Cadet Orientation Flights would be about 50% of the funding received last fiscal year :(   Is this money normally 'fenced' at the National level or is it just a lump sum of flying time that is sent to the regions to decide ???

RM     

It's January - wing budgets were submitted and approved 5-6 months ago.  I don't see why / how allocations would be cut that significantly
this far into the game.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on January 24, 2012, 02:26:46 AM
Well interesting our Wing Operations Officer just sent out an email stating tht Cadet Orientation Flights would be about 50% of the funding received last fiscal year :(   Is this money normally 'fenced' at the National level or is it just a lump sum of flying time that is sent to the regions to decide ???

RM   

Sucks for you. Our oride budget has increased every year for the past three.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on January 24, 2012, 02:26:46 AM
Well interesting our Wing Operations Officer just sent out an email stating tht Cadet Orientation Flights would be about 50% of the funding received last fiscal year :(   Is this money normally 'fenced' at the National level or is it just a lump sum of flying time that is sent to the regions to decide ???

RM   

It's up to the wing to decide how much of their ops budget they want to spend on oflights.  When times get tough, why let some snot nosed kid get in the way of your free flying?

UPDATE -- CAP gets full funding in budget: http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?fiscal_2012_budget_fully_restored&show=news&newsID=12397 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?fiscal_2012_budget_fully_restored&show=news&newsID=12397)