I believe CAP members ARE covered by the Public Safety Officers Benefit Act

[RiverAux]

Some of you may be familiar with the federal Public Safety Officers Benefit Act which provides significant benefits to those killed or seriously injured.  See here for more info: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/psob/psob_main.html

Back in 2005 bills were introduced in both houses of Congress to put language in this act that would specifically include CAP members when on AFAMs.  However, it never went anyplace.

I recently started looking at this Act and I don't see any reason why CAP would not be covered under it as it now stands.  Follow my logic. 

Who is eligible?  Here is a quote from the site with the broad overview:

As defined by Congress in Public Law 90-351 (Sec. 1217), a public safety officer is an individual serving a public agency in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew. In October 2000, Public Law 106-390 (Sec. 305) designated employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as public safety officers under the PSOB Act if they were performing official, hazardous duties related to a declared major disaster or emergency. The legislation also indicated that state, local, or tribal emergency management or civil defense agency employees working in cooperation with FEMA are, under the same circumstances, considered public safety officers under the PSOB Act. Retroactive to September 11, 2001, chaplains also are included in the PSOB Act definition of a public safety officer.

Where does CAP fit?  I believe CAP members would be covered under the provisions for "rescue squad members."  Lets walk it down.  First here is the official public safety officer definition from the legislation:

"public safety officer" means—
(A) an individual serving a public agency in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer, as a firefighter, as a chaplain, or as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew;

Is a CAP a public agency?  No, but the Air Force, as part of the federal government certainly fits and when on an AFAM we are considered an instrumentality of the US.

8) "public agency" means the United States....

Well, are we seving the feds in an official capacity?

Official capacity – An individual serves a public agency in an official capacity only if—
(1)  He is officially authorized, ‑recognized, or ‑designated (by such agency) as functionally within or ‑part of it; and
(2)  His acts and omissions, while so serving, are legally those of such agency, which legally recognizes them as such (or, at a minimum, does not deny (or has not denied) them to be such).

.
So, we're serving the feds in an official capacity without compensation, so would we fall under the rescue squad definition?

Here is the definition of the squad and I believe we fall under "officially recognized"

7) "member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew" means an officially recognized or designated public employee member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew;

Does CAP do what a rescue squad does?  Well, we are trained in rescue activity and the AF gives us the authority to carry this out in accordance with the MOUs they have with the various state.

Rescue squad or ambulance crew means a squad or crew whose members are rescue workers, ambulance drivers, paramedics, health-care responders, emergency medical technicians, or other similar workers, who—
(1)  Are trained in rescue activity or the provision of emergency medical services; and
(2)  As such members, have the legal authority and ‑responsibility to—
(i)     Engage in rescue activity; or
(ii)    Provide emergency medical services.

I know some people will say we rarely actually rescue anyone, but that is irrelevant.  Here is the definition of rescue activity they use:

Rescue activity means search or rescue assistance in locating or extracting from danger persons lost, missing, or in imminent danger of serious bodily harm.

So, we very clearly provide services that fall in that definition.  Please note that there are a lot of "or"'s in this code so don't try to say that because we don't provide medical services we wouldn't be covered. 

So, I know we have a lawyer or two here.  Where am I wrong? 

[Flying Pig]

Your reaching......really far.

[RiverAux]

Please explain how.  I've gone point by point through the requirements in the law itself (except for the initial quote, all the quotes I give come from the actual text of the legislation) and shown how CAP fits, at least when we are performing SAR work on an AFAM. 

Which part of the law am I misinterpreting? 

Incidentally, I think the same reasoning could be used to cover members of SAR teams run by county sheriffs or local emergency management agencies. 

[Trung Si Ma]

Why bother - your president is cutting the program anyway

[capchiro]

I think the magic words you overlooked are "public employee".  We are not considered employees in any shape of the word..   jmho..

[heliodoc]

I would imagine this is reaching pretty far

CAP covered by FTCA / FECA

CAP is a support function an not a direct LE or Fire Response "agency"

I would also imagine CAP Inc, and its lawyers would weigh in on this one

Mandates are different......  I suppose if Congress wrote us in differently in the 1940's, this may have been different

BUT CAP Inc is not a First Response organization established under Federal, State, City, and County laws and therefore should not be eligible for PSOB UNTIL ALL CAP NHQ do some politicing for it.  It require alot more than what CAP has done currently and in the past AND if they were REALLY concened about it....it would have been done already

Again WE (CAP) MAY think we are a First Response agency...........we are not

Like FP says.....reaching...................really far

[heliodoc]

That is why CAP is "so cheap" on use during missions....

READ the PSOB.... more directly toward employed FIRE, LE, Volly FD, etc

We could argue this all night....keep tryin

CAP is not "employed"  and again because we are CAP INC  and not tied to a "govt agency...there's the explanation, pure and simple

WE ARE NOT Public Safety or DESIGNATED disaster workers as defined by the Staaford Act or FEMA....we are a requested resource known for our capability and "being cheaper to the US Govt"

Until we are written and SPELLED out in the PSOB......well,  good luck

Wildland fire folks and airtankers pilot have been fighting to in on the PSOB FOR YEEEEEEAAARS

CAP, get in line

[RiverAux]

I think the magic words you overlooked are "public employee".

Read closer.  Whether or not you are paid is not a factor. 

CAP is a support function an not a direct LE or Fire Response "agency"

Does not matter that we're not a LE or Fire Response agency.  All that matters is that we are working under the auspices of a federal agency -- it doesn't speciffy what type of agency.  What matters is what we are doing. 

READ the PSOB.... more directly toward employed FIRE, LE, Volly FD, etc

Actually it covers volunteers. 

CAP is not "employed"  and again because we are CAP INC  and not tied to a "govt agency...there's the explanation, pure and simple

Again, it doesn't matter that we're volunteer.  Read the federal law that explicitly says that CAP is an instrumentality of the federal government when on an Air Force Assigned Mission.  CAP members going to meetings or doing corporate flying certainly would not be covered under this law.  CAP members doing a CD flight probably wouldn't either since they weren't being used as a rescue squad at the time.  But a CAP aircrew or ground team (or chaplain) on a AFAM SAR mission would be. 

WE ARE NOT Public Safety or DESIGNATED disaster workers as defined by the Staaford Act or FEMA....

I never claimed that we were.  That is a separate part of the Act from what I brought up. 

[Rotorhead]

"public safety officer" means—
(A) an individual serving a public agency in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer, as a firefighter, as a chaplain, or as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew;

We're not members of any of those categories.

And don't try the "rescue squad" angle, because we don't typically rescue victims.

[heliodoc]

AGAIN RiverAux,  your interpretation

You can keep the "volunteer" reminder up

Does not matter woildland fire and airtanker pilots by virtue of designator for wildland firefighters are technically known as forest technicians and range technicians NOT firefighters and that has been the sticking point for YEARS

Airtanker pilots have been told they are contractors to US Govt and not a First Responder for what ever reason dictated by the writers of PSOB

PROVE how CAP goes ahead of these folks and will start chewing my hat when it occurs

So by my operating knowledge, if these folks have not been written in, and they RESPOND ALOT FASTER than CAP can, where does CAP fit in to this??

I have an answer and I will stick with it.....we are a SUPPORT function not a First Response agency

I have read and read it closely...being in the wildland fire biz.  If I pass away on the fireline...no dinero for me except a State agency pittance and MAYBE some insurance money

I HAVE READ the PSOB many a time and I know where I fit because of my  wildland fire title....again not designated in the PSOB and wildland is considered First Response in  many States and because of TITLES and how PSOB is written

SO again , how does CAP fit in this when our title is not a disaster worker..please explain that to a wildland fire operator who sees more action in several days over CAP SAR missions and assignments that are basically support functions as designated by the (not SAR) incident IC, 1AF, or an emergency manager of a community on case by case basis and NOT an incident that requires emergency response ?

How about the airtanker operators that have gone down with their aircraft in the last 6 + yrs...Their families have been trying for years for PSOB because of the dangers of airtanker operations.  NO dinero for them.  Follow THAT industry for awhile.... and you get a sense of what unfair might be

Again from my humble post and work for the last 20 yrs......CAP can get their act together and get to DC and politic for it like my wildland fire kin have and got not too far

CAP can get in line or piggy back with these operators, but don't expect CAP to get in on it anytime soon....Like the DHS stuff CAP is hoping for....I would NOT hold my breath

Continue argument...........

[SJFedor]

Concur on the far stretch on this one.

CAP does NOT engage in rescue activities, and CAP members are not trained for rescue activity. CAP is trained and utilized for "search and locate". If we manage to find a live victim, do we extricate, evacuate, treat, and transport the victim/patient? Negative, because CAP regulations specifically prohibit us doing anything more then first aid, and most supporting activities that go with the ones i listed typically require a higher level of training, nor do we have the capabilities to treat and transport beyond a basic first aid level.  What we end up doing is providing first aid, and calling in help for formal rescue. Maybe we're able to get them into a stokes basket and get them a little closer to pre-hospital care, but that would be the extent of it.

Case in point: you're out trucking through the woods looking for a victim. Maybe it's a crashed plane, maybe it's a missing person. Most likely, they're going to fall under the general summary term of a trauma patient, meaning that they've probably sustained some form of physical trauma. I don't have hard statistics, but i'm willing to bet a majority of rescue victims have some form of trauma.  So, when you find this victim, let's say they fell down a hill or crashed their plane and self extracated or whatever. There's going to be a high index of suspicion for spinal injury. Who's going to immobilize that patient to a long spine board and apply a CSID? Who's going to take responsibility for the medical well being of that patient until they reach a higher level of care? And ultimately, who's going to be liable if something goes wrong, like when you go to immobilize that patient, all of a sudden they can't feel their legs anymore? We're not equipped, nor trained, to provide rescue services beyond location, reporting, and first aid.


And honestly River, why? Does it really matter? Is it going to affect what I do in the field? Is this flag pole really worth urinating vertically upon?

[RiverAux]

"public safety officer" means—
(A) an individual serving a public agency in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer, as a firefighter, as a chaplain, or as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew;

We're not members of any of those categories.

And don't try the "rescue squad" angle, because we don't typically rescue victims.

I already went through the definition of what a rescue squad is under this law and that it very clearly includes search and rescue activities which we clearly perform.  Yes, the end result of most of our searches is that we don't rescue anyone, but we train to do so.  Take a look at the task guides for both aircrew and ground teams and you will find multiple tasks clearly focused on rescue activities ranging from looking for signals set up by survivors to carrying people out of the woods. 

And please read the law.  It does not require that rescue teams provide medical services.  If a team does provide medical services, it is covered.  But, there is a big OR in that same sentence that covers a team only doing SAR.  Remember the definition they use for "rescue assistance".  If we find someone that is merely lost, whether or not they are injured, it is covered by that definition.

[Spike]

From the Lawyers side.......

Since CAP members are given reasonable coverage by the Federal Government for loss of life or limb while assigned on an "Air Force Assigned Mission" (to include duty with, for or detached to another Federal Agency), taking other benefits (like those presented above) would equate to remove the CAP member from a protected category while carrying out "Air Force Assigned Missions".

Trust me, this has been hashed out at levels beyond your imagination.  Lawyers for and against both cases (for and against a new law, or amendment of such laws) have battled, and those against adding CAP Members to the list of covered individuals protected by the PSOBA......WON.

If you can factually state why CAP members need to be added, instead of saying "I believe" or "My Opinion is", then you may have a case.

[RiverAux]

I stated the facts.  I'm not arguing that CAP members should be specifically added to the act as has been proposed, but rather that we are already covered under the existing language of the law.  Whether or not we should be specifically covered is for another thread. 

Yes, we are also covered by other statutes, but I don't see where that precludes also being covered here.  Other federal government employees would seem to be covered by both as well.

Perhaps it has been argued about at high levels and if you know the details, perhaps you can explain specifically where I went wrong in analyzing the law as it now stands. 

[heliodoc]

Well Spike

If those lawyers are so bright...

I have wondered what those "wonderful folks" have done for the wildland fire business AND the airtanker industry to help those folks??

Those folks have had more than "I believe" and "in my opinion" and alot of FACTS put to  the the lawyerly trade

The wonderful lawyer community still has not done a service to those disciplines and after all those years of "hashed out beyond your imagination"  There has been plenty of folks that have pushed the facts and "in my opinion" the lawyer trade has not done a justifiable service to wildland fire and airtanker folks

So IF CAP could address facts and get that written into the PSOB, think some lawyer would that leg work for pro bono??  I thought not!!

[wingnut55]

we have gone through this before

CAP is covered there have been several Aircraft Crashes killing the crew and they were covered, look for the South Carolina Crash, a federal Judge ruled that the crew was involved in a CD mission as such they were qualified.

In addition several states cover CAP for workers comp and getting killed in the line of duty.

I can't get over the people in CAP who think CAP means you're screwed if injured or killed on an AFAM when clearly it is written that the aircraft and crew are an instrument of the US Government and directly under the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force.

FICA means if you are killed or injured you are covered as a GS-9

[wingnut55]

This is North Carolina

Chapter 143. State Departments, Institutions, and Commissions.
ARTICLE 12A. Law-Enforcement Officers', Firemen's, Rescue Squad Workers' and Civil Air Patrol Members' Death Benefits Act.
§ 143-166.3. Payments; determination.

(a) When any law-enforcement officer, fireman, rescue squad worker or senior Civil Air Patrol member shall be killed in the line of duty, the Industrial Commission shall award a death benefit to be paid in the amounts set forth in subsection (b) to the following:
(1) The spouse of such officer, fireman, rescue squad worker or senior Civil Air Patrol member if there be a surviving spouse; or
(2) If there be no spouse qualifying under the provisions of this Article, then payments shall be made to any surviving dependent child of such officer, fireman, rescue squad worker or senior Civil Air Patrol member and if there be more than one surviving dependent child, then said payment shall be made to and equally divided among all surviving dependent children; or
(3) If there be no spouse and no dependent child or children qualifying under the provisions of this Article, then payments shall be made to the surviving dependent parent of such officer, fireman, rescue squad worker or senior Civil Air Patrol member and if there be more than one surviving dependent parent then said payments shall be made to and equally divided between the surviving dependent parents of said officer, fireman, rescue squad worker or senior Civil Air Patrol member.
(b) Payment shall be made to the person or persons qualifying therefor under subsection (a) in the following amounts:
(1) At the time of the death of an officer, fireman, rescue squad worker or senior Civil Air Patrol member, twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) shall be paid to the person or persons entitled thereto.
(2) Thereafter, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) shall be paid annually to the person or persons entitled thereto until the sum of the initial payment and each annual payment reaches fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
(3) In the event there is no person qualifying under subsection (a) of this section, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) shall be paid to the estate of the deceased officer, fireman, rescue squad worker or senior Civil Air Patrol member at the time of death.
(c) In the event that any person or persons eligible for payments under subsection (a) of this section shall become ineligible, and other eligible person or persons qualify for said death benefit payments under subsection (a), then they shall receive the remainder of any payments up to the limit of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in the manner set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
(d) In the event any person or persons eligible for payments under subsection (a) of this section shall become ineligible and no other person or persons qualify for payments under that subsection and where the sum of the initial payment of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) and each subsequent annual payment of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) does not total fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), then the difference between the total of the payments made and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) shall immediately be payable to the estate of the deceased officer, fireman, rescue squad worker, or senior Civil Air Patrol member.

[wingnut55]

This is the FICA reg on CAP and others

http://www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/dfec/regs/compliance/DFECfolio/FECA-PT4.pdf

Due to CAP's expanding role in the 21st century to include increased homeland security work, Congress in February 2003 amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits.

Under this bill, Civil Air Patrol members who lose their lives in the line of duty will become eligible for the same federal death benefit provided to other public safety personnel. The bill, entitled the Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Benefits Act (H.R. 3681)applies to the members of CAP who lose their lives or become permanently disabled while engaged in active service in support of operational missions of the U.S. Air Force.

[wingnut55]

South Carolina

South Carolina Permanent
South Carolina - Education Benefit for Families of Firefighters Killed or Permanently Disabled in the Line of Duty

ARTICLE 3.

FREE TUITION FOR CHILDREN OF CERTAIN FIREMEN, LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE LIKE

SECTION 59-111-110. Tuition not charged children of firemen, law-enforcement officers and government employees totally disabled or killed in line of duty.

No tuition may be charged for a period of four school years by any state-supported college or university or any state-supported vocational or technical school for children of:

(1) firemen, both regularly employed and members of volunteer organized units, organized rescue squad members, members of the Civil Air Patrol, law enforcement officers, or corrections officers, as defined herein, including reserve and auxiliary units of counties or municipalities who become totally disabled or are killed in the line of duty on or after July 1, 1964;

(2) government employees who become totally disabled or are killed in the line of duty while working on state time on or after July 1, 1996, as a result of a criminal act committed against them which constitutes a felony under the laws of this State.

The tuition authorized to be paid by this section applies only to undergraduate courses or curriculum and may be paid for a period not exceeding four years, regardless of the number of state-supported colleges, universities, or state-supported vocational or technical schools the child attends.

SECTION 59-111-120. "Fireman" defined.

For the purposes of this article, a fireman shall be defined as any person performing general fire-fighting duties who is either employed by an official State, municipal or county fire department in this State, or is a member of any organized volunteer fire department within this State, whose name has been entered on an official roster of such volunteer organization prior to the time such person is totally disabled or killed in line of duty.

SECTION 59-111-130. "Law-enforcement officer" defined.

For the purposes of this article, a law enforcement officer means a:

(1) person performing law enforcement duties at the request of and under the supervision of an official state, municipal, or county law enforcement agency in South Carolina when the person is totally disabled or killed in the line of duty;

(2) person performing law enforcement duties at the request of and under the supervision of a federal agency when the person is totally disabled or killed in the line of duty if he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least eighteen years. This item applies whether or not the law enforcement officer was disabled or killed in South Carolina or another state.

SECTION 59-111-140. "Corrections officer" defined.

For purposes of this article a corrections officer shall be defined as any person who performs duties of security, control, or discipline over inmates at the request of and under the supervision of any official State, municipal, or county correctional institution and who was performing such duties at the time of his death or total disability.

SECTION 59-111-145. "Government employee" defined.

For the purposes of this article, a government employee means a person who is required to participate in the state retirement system.

SECTION 59-111-150. "State-supported college or university" defined.

For the purposes of this article, a State-supported college or university shall be defined as any two-year or four-year college or university supported by the State of South Carolina, including colleges or universities offering postgraduate or professional courses of study.

SECTION 59-111-160. "Total disability" defined.

For the purposes of this article, total disability shall mean the physical inability to perform work in any gainful occupation, which disability directly results from any injury received in line of duty. In cases of such total disability, the free tuition provided for herein shall be extended only while such fireman or law-enforcement officer continues to be totally disabled.

This article shall not apply to a child or children born after the first year of total disability as herein defined.

SECTION 59-111-170. Application for free tuition.

Application for the free tuition provided for in this article shall be filed with the governing body of the institution and shall be accompanied by proof or evidence of the death or total disability of the parent of the applicant and such proof or evidence that the injury or death occurred in the line of duty as considered necessary by such governing body, which shall have sole discretion in granting or not granting free tuition.

[wingnut55]

Some States Use us for many Law Enforcement functions

Minneapolis Minnesota Procedures Manual

6-107 REQUESTING FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

Federal law enforcement agencies may be contacted for assistance in emergency situations through the Chief of Police, Chief's designee or the on-duty Watch Commander in their absence. The following Federal agencies may be called; the phone numbers are on file with the Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center or may be found in the blue colored government pages of the Minneapolis Telephone Directory: (04/01/93)

    * Drug Enforcement Administration

    * Federal Bureau of Investigation

    * Immigration and Naturalization

    * Department of Treasury

    * U.S. Marshall

    * ATF- Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

    * U.S. Postal Inspector

    * Civil Air Patrol

    * Federal Protection and Safety Division

    * U.S. Secret Service

[wingnut55]

New Mexico

SB 148

Law enforcement, officer's, fireman's,rescue squad workers, and civil air patrol members death benefit Act.

[NCRblues]

wingnut55 thank you for doing the research its nice to see someone who knows what their doing :clap:. I also really appreciate all those "experts" out their who "know" how federal judges and other elected officials see cap!! i love captalk's "experts"! facts? who needs facts when we have mid- level volunteer officers opinions. 

[wingnut55]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 17, 2005

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the `Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Benefits Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF CIVIL AIR PATROL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DEATH BENEFITS.

      (a) In General- Section 1204( of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b() is amended--

            (1) by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (B);

            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting `; or'; and

            (3) by adding at the end the following:

                  `(C) a volunteer civilian member of the Civil Air Patrol who is engaged in--

                        `(i) active service, if such service is--

                              `(I) rendered in performance or support of operational missions of the Civil Air Patrol under the direction of the Department of the Air Force; and

                              `(II) pursuant to, and is performed consistent with, written authorization from competent authority that specifies a finite assignment and a finite period of time for such assignment; or

                        `(ii) travel to or from such service.'.

      (b) Consultation- Section 1205 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796c) is amended by adding at the end the following:

      `(d) Consultation- In making determinations under section 1201 with respect to the eligibility of a volunteer civilian member of the Civil Air Patrol, the Bureau may consult with the Secretary of the Air Force and, if consulted, the Secretary of the Air Force shall provide to the Bureau such assistance and information as the Bureau considers necessary.'.

[wingnut55]

Can't sleep

1:00am. need to install 5 more computers at the Sqdn, fix a GPS, send flowers to mom

The research was for me too

All MEMBERS MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR SURVIVOR INFORMATION ON FILE!!!!

i SUSPECT THAT IF YOUR FAMILY DOES NOT ASK FOR BENEFITS IF YOUR KILLED

no one in cap will tell them or help them

[biomed441]

Can't sleep and its only 1 am? I've been having issues going to sleep earlier than 4am for the last 5 weeks.  Yeah I've got some issues. 

I concur with the others that your research, regardless of the time of day/evening it occured is certainly helpful. Sure hope RiverAux isn't planning on going down in the line of duty though 

My cousin is an attorney. I've been trying to get him involved with CAP as a legal officer. Not sure if my attempts are working though...

[JoeTomasone]

My "barracks lawyer" interpretation:


The OP stretches by making USAF a "Public Agency" on whose behalf we operate.   USAF is not (and has never been considered) a "Public Agency" -- it is a branch of the military.   Therefore, USAF (and by extension, CAP) are not Public Agencies and thus do not qualify.

The PSO Death Benefit act had to be amended to specifically include CAP -- meaning that CAP was EXCLUDED before  -  and thus logically would have to be ADDED to the Benefit Act to be covered.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Air Force is not a "Public Agency?  Then what is it?  Private?

Screw up your accounting in the USAF and see how quickly you are reminded that the USAF is a Public Agency using Public Funds.

Personally, I think that River's analysis is correct.  Since the definition of "Rescue or Ambulance Squad Member" includes persons who perform SAR, since the USAF is a "Public Agency" under the definition, and since we are "Employees, with OR WITHOUT compensation," if you die, your family can get whatever Obama has left after he pays his debts to Acorn for registering dead Democrats to vote.

[heliodoc]

I can stand corrected now....

But then it is NOT wll advertised and mentioned thru CAP circles.

But after reading these posts...it is up to States interp of the OCC Act  of 1968 and how it is applied.

But again CAP like other isn't going to look out for anybody unless the family(ies) ask

I will stand corrected....I don't have the time to look ALL this up and I will admit my own ignorance.

Then Hooray for CAP  Why then bring up anymore posts on this???

[JoeTomasone]

The Air Force is not a "Public Agency?  Then what is it?  Private?

Actually, I had figured that the military would not be legally considered an agency (along the lines of the DOD not being an agency but a Department, perhaps), but subsequent research says otherwise.   

[Flying Pig]

Well, someone needs to figure it out because its not something that should be open for interpretation.  This is something national should be able to answer.

[caplegalnc]

If you read both the PSOB in the United States Code (42 USC 3796) AND in the implementing Code of Federal Regulations (28 CFR 32.3) you find that CAP in not likely to be covered as "Rescue Squad".  If you go to the BJA webpage on River Aux's first post you can read the US Code and travel the hyperlink the the CFR and find the Rescue Squad definition.  It deals with medical treatment providers. 

[RiverAux]

Wingnut, although you seem to have been trying to support me (and we're rarely on the same page), you got it wrong. The 2005 bill that would have specifically added CAP to the PSOB was not actually approved. 

I was also not talking about FECA benefits.  Those clearly already apply to CAP and there is specific federal legislation for that. 

You are also right that some states provide coverage for CAP in various circumstances. 

The PSOB Act is something totally different and actually would provide significantly more benefits than we get under FECA. 

Heliodoc makes a significant point in that the agency overseeing PSOB claims has made some extremely weird decisions and if they have denied coverage to people who died while flying airtankers on wildlife fire missions, they've apparently got a very big stick in a place where the sun rarely shines.  I did a little research and found another case where they managed to come up with some slick reasoning to deny coverage to a lady who was a deputiezed law enforcement officer for the slimmest of reasons. 

If they can get away with that, I would have to admit that the chances of a CAP member getting covered could be slim. 

The OP stretches by making USAF a "Public Agency" on whose behalf we operate.   USAF is not (and has never been considered) a "Public Agency" -- it is a branch of the military.   Therefore, USAF (and by extension, CAP) are not Public Agencies and thus do not qualify.

While the assertion that the USAF wouldn't be considered a public agency is absurd, there is other language in the act that make a point of talking about people acting in a civilian capacity.  And while we are of course civilians, perhaps the same legal geniuses who think that posse comitatus applies can apply to us even though the act is specific to the Army and Navy (and by implication the Air Force and Marines) even though we're civilians might make that same argument in this case. 

If you go to the BJA webpage on River Aux's first post you can read the US Code and travel the hyperlink the the CFR and find the Rescue Squad definition.  It deals with medical treatment providers. 

I provided the relevant quote in the first post.  Let me remind you:

Rescue squad or ambulance crew means a squad or crew whose members are rescue workers, ambulance drivers, paramedics, health-care responders, emergency medical technicians, or other similar workers, who—
(1)  Are trained in rescue activity or the provision of emergency medical services; and
(2)  As such members, have the legal authority and ‑responsibility to—
(i)     Engage in rescue activity; or
(ii)    Provide emergency medical services.

And what is rescue activity?

Rescue activity means search or rescue assistance in locating or extracting from danger persons lost, missing, or in imminent danger of serious bodily harm.

We provide both search and rescue assistance in locating or extracting from danger persons lost, missing, or in imminent danger of serious bodily harm.  The clause about providing medical care is not linked to the above with an AND, but with an OR.  So, you can either do what we do or provide medical care to be covered.

[RiverAux]

Sure hope RiverAux isn't planning on going down in the line of duty though 

Jeez, I hope not, though I've always had a nagging suspicion that I may be tempting fate in bringing up issues like this. 

Incidentally, I brought this up because I came across it while researching some issues regarding volunteer fire departments and CAP.  I didn't make the CAP connection right away, but when I came across the PSOB I realized that some people I work with in my real life job probably would meet the criteria were they to be injured while performing certain duties (wouldn't include me at this point, by the way).  I was pretty sure my bosses probably hadn't thought about it, so after bringing this to the attention of the powers that be, it then occurred to me that CAP should already be covered for the reasons I've explained above. 

By the way, the only way anyone will ever know for sure is to try to file a claim for a CAP member and see what happens.  I would fully expect the agency that oversees it to reject such an application based on some of the issues wingnut and I discussed above, but it would ultimately be up to the courts to decide if that would be a correct decision.   

[wingnut55]

River AUX you're right it seems that our fate is left to the courts in many cases, I know of several cases where the pilot screwed the pooch and the family had to sue for coverage. In CA the workers comp covers CAP along with FECA, however the FICA is a difficult bureaucratic organization. Workers comp pays more money and the death Benefits are much better. I am not sure at what pay scale worker comp pays, the maximum is $860.00 per week that is not enough if you are a Dr. or Lawyer or ??
Most insurance company's will not cover any military activity and several that I have talked to consider CAP as Military Activity.

I talked to the Pilot's insurance company and they told me that flying for CAP requires a rider and so a higher rate because we fly at 1,000 feet for extended periods of time??? that was interesting.

I have to say that this is really NHQs responsibility, however it is clear NHQ is just as bureaucratic and keeping this subject cloudy is in their best interest.

It is hard to recruit young family Men/Women if they find out that should they die on a Mission or Training flight their family could end up on welfare.

[es_g0d]

Can someone kindly outline what the benefit of being part of the PSOB would be?

FWIW, I do believe that CAP needs to legally pursue the "volunteer firefighter" model for our status.   All too often we're left in limbo as to whether we're a local, state, or federal agency.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Can someone kindly outline what the benefit of being part of the PSOB would be?

FWIW, I do believe that CAP needs to legally pursue the "volunteer firefighter" model for our status.   All too often we're left in limbo as to whether we're a local, state, or federal agency.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act is a Federal law that pays a cash settlement of (Last I heard but subject to change) $50,000 to the surviving next of kin of any policeman, fireman, or other public safety professional killed in the line of duty.  I believe that CAP members on an AFAM SAR mission would be covered in the event of such a death.  I also believe that, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE MISSION, missions other than AFAM's would be included.  Of course, Drug Interdiction missions are a no-brainer, the CAP is acting in direct support of LE.  Search missions called by local sheriffs would also extend PSOB coverage to CAP, I think.  Counting wildlife for the Department of Wildlife Counting, no.

[RiverAux]

Actually, the PSOB death benefit is now $315,000.  There is also a disability benefit available. 

Of course, Drug Interdiction missions are a no-brainer, the CAP is acting in direct support of LE.

Here is how this law defines law enforcement officer:

(6) "law enforcement officer" means an individual involved in crime and juvenile delinquency control or reduction, or enforcement of the criminal laws (including juvenile delinquency), including, but not limited to, police, corrections, probation, parole, and judicial officers;

On the face of it, you might think a CAP member might have a chance of being coverred since it doesn't limit it to just police and we are helping to enforce criminal law in those situations.

But the court decision I came across and mentioned above would very strongly indicate that CAP members on CD missions wouldn't be covered since we actually aren't authorized to enforce criminal laws (by being deputized, for example). 

However, if someone had the money to afford the lawyers that would eventually be necessary, the family of a CAP member could try. 

There is one other thing that could throw a kink in the works for covering CAP under the rescue squad provision of the act -- the legislative history associated with the act.  For example, when Congress was debating the bill they might have gone into more detail about what they meant by rescue squad.  Heck, somone might even have asked the sponsor -- "Do you intend this to cover the Civil Air Patrol? and the sponsor might have said, "No".  If that was the case, we'd have no chance.  Howevever, I don't know how to research the legislative history to see if that could be a problem. 

[bosshawk]

Why not consult a few members of CAPtalk who happen to be lawyers?  Ned, Alice and SocalCapOfficer are all attorneys in CA and I happen to know that Alice has direct experience in dealing with the deaths of several CAP members on AFAMs.

Hey, guys we could use your expertise.

[RiverAux]

There is another scenario where CAP members could potentially make a claim for coverage under this act -- firefighting.

CAP members in several wings do provide aerial observation and imagery to assist in fighting wildfires.  I don't know the specifics of these arrangements, but I could see a possibility for a claim if the mission was being done in a state that provides some sort of state coverage for CAP members while performing those missions.  For example, some states provide workers comp.  However, if the firefighting was being done as an entirely corporate mission then I don't think we would be covered by PSOB. 

Of course, if wingnut is right that people actually dropping water or fire suppressent on wildfires are getting denied coverage, then a CAP member would have little chance either. 

[JayT]

There is another scenario where CAP members could potentially make a claim for coverage under this act -- firefighting.

CAP members in several wings do provide aerial observation and imagery to assist in fighting wildfires.  I don't know the specifics of these arrangements, but I could see a possibility for a claim if the mission was being done in a state that provides some sort of state coverage for CAP members while performing those missions.  For example, some states provide workers comp.  However, if the firefighting was being done as an entirely corporate mission then I don't think we would be covered by PSOB. 

Of course, if wingnut is right that people actually dropping water or fire suppressent on wildfires are getting denied coverage, then a CAP member would have little chance either.

I think you guys are really over thinking this.

In no way is CAP a "firefighting" agency.

Also, Rescue Squad, to me at least, plainly refers to ambulance units or heavy rescue (car accident) units. I have never seen any CAP documentation labeling us a "rescue squad," but I see it written on fire trucks and ambulances all the time.

Of course, this could just be because our last president started a war in a foreign country which caused us to squander trillions which could be spent on providing insurance to CAPers.

[RiverAux]

Also, Rescue Squad, to me at least, plainly refers to ambulance units or heavy rescue (car accident) units.

How do you square this with the law's definition (previously cited) of rescue activity as searching for lost and missing people?  Isn't that what we do?

Ambulance squads don't generally go out looking for lost people and have no training in that area to speak of except for limited situations regarding structural fire or collapse situations.  Take your average city ambulance driver and ask him to look for a lost hiker and see what he can do. 

CAP on the other hand is trained to look for lost people from the air and on the ground. 

I think you're failing to understand how the clauses of this law are put together so that providing emergency medical care and providing rescue services are separate ways to get covered and that you don't have to provide both.

Now, I will say that it is an open question whether Congress meant to cover rural search and rescue teams such as a county sheriff might sponsor or CAP under this law.  They may or may not have meant to, but the wording of the law would seem to cover these folks and us (in certain situations). 

If they wanted to exclude most rural SAR teams (and CAP) all it would take is changing one "or" to "and".  However, even then some SAR teams do provide significant emergency medical care that could qualify them even in those situations.   

[RRLE]

Howevever, I don't know how to research the legislative history to see if that could be a problem. 

You don't really need to investigate the legistlative history - you already have the answer. A court would take notice that Congress considered an amendment to the act to add CAP. That provides evidence that CAP was not covered nor intended to be covered by the original act. Then by rejecting the amendment the court could and probably would infer that Congress did not intend CAP to be covered.

Also be careful trying to justify a position with dictionary definitions. The Supreme Court has ruled on word meaning going back to the late 1800s. The doctrine came out of customs cases since what a thing 'is' determines its tariff and duty. For example, in Nix v. Hedden 149 U.S. 304 (1893) the Supremes had to decide if a tomatoe was a fruit or a vegetable. The former position was taken by the Customs Bureau and cited both dictionaries and scientific evidence that tomatoes are fruits and therefore subject to a tariff. The latter position was taken by the importer since, at the time vegetables were not tariffed. The importer cited the common ordinary meaning and use of the term. The Supremes laid out a very common sense approach to the problem. If Congress defined a word, then that definition was controlling. In this case Congress had not defined either fruit or vegetable. The next 'authority' so  sayeth the court would be any definition used in the trade. There was evidence that the vegetable trade included tomatoes but the fruit trade did not. And the next controlling factor was the common ordinary use of the term and product. Dictionary definitions can be used as evidence to support any of the 3 situations but in and of themselves they are not controlling. In this case the court held (pretty much on its own opinion) that tomatoes were vegetables by both common understanding and use.

Similiar logic was applied in Sonn v. Magone, 159 U.S. 417 (1895),  which also cited Nix, to determine that beans were also vegetables and not fruits or seeds. There are at least a dozen more cases like this from the late 1800s to the early 1900s.

So what does this has to do with CAP and the issue at hand. The original attempt at proof via dictionary is almost useless in Court.

The Court would look for evidence that CAP is defined in the statute or included within the statute as falling within one of the occcupations covered. We know it is not. It would then look for evidence that the trade, occupation or profession, in this case, public safety, SAR and LE considers CAP as falling within the group. Given the evidence that other occupations that you would expect to be covered are not - CAP probably loses here as well. Then the Court might look for evidence that the general public thinks that CAP falls within the group - and as we know the general public knows very little about CAP. And that pales in comparision to the fact that as noted - Congress did not include CAP in the original legislation and rejected an amendment to add CAP.

I would chalk this one up to a good try that failed to hit the mark.

[RiverAux]

A court would take notice that Congress considered an amendment to the act to add CAP. That provides evidence that CAP was not covered nor intended to be covered by the original act. Then by rejecting the amendment the court could and probably would infer that Congress did not intend CAP to be covered.

I don't think you can say that having a bill introduced that was never voted on by anyone in Congress can be said to be a precedent.  You could view it either as a clarification of existing law or as adding an entirely new category of people (CAP) to the coverage.  If Congress as a whole had explicitly voted down this proposal, I would agree with you, but they didn't. 

Also be careful trying to justify a position with dictionary definitions.

Who referred to a dictionary?  I didn't.  Every single definition I cited is from the Public Safety Officers Benefit Act itself and are the definitions that Congress chose to use for the interpretation of this act. 

[RRLE]

I don't think you can say that having a bill introduced that was never voted on by anyone in Congress can be said to be a precedent.

The Surpemes regularly look at bill introductions and their history as part of the overall legislative history and legistlative intent. And this issue has a bigger and losing history then you may be aware of. The Court would definitely consider the following as evidence that CAP was not included in the original bill and that Congress has no intention of adding them.

107th CONGRESS 2d Session (2002)

H. R. 3681 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. 27 co-sponsors. Dies in sub-committee.

108th CONGRESS 1st Session (2003)

S. 693 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. 3 co-sponsors and dies in committee.

108th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 732 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. Companion bill to the Senate bill. 36 co-sponsors. Dies in committee.

109th CONGRESS (2005) 1st Session

S. 649 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. 2 co-sponsors. Dies in committee.

109th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 1393 To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. Companion to the Senate bill. 26 co-sponsors. Dies in committee.

[JayT]

Also, Rescue Squad, to me at least, plainly refers to ambulance units or heavy rescue (car accident) units.

How do you square this with the law's definition (previously cited) of rescue activity as searching for lost and missing people?  Isn't that what we do?

Ambulance squads don't generally go out looking for lost people and have no training in that area to speak of except for limited situations regarding structural fire or collapse situations.  Take your average city ambulance driver and ask him to look for a lost hiker and see what he can do. 

CAP on the other hand is trained to look for lost people from the air and on the ground. 

I think you're failing to understand how the clauses of this law are put together so that providing emergency medical care and providing rescue services are separate ways to get covered and that you don't have to provide both.

Now, I will say that it is an open question whether Congress meant to cover rural search and rescue teams such as a county sheriff might sponsor or CAP under this law.  They may or may not have meant to, but the wording of the law would seem to cover these folks and us (in certain situations). 

If they wanted to exclude most rural SAR teams (and CAP) all it would take is changing one "or" to "and".  However, even then some SAR teams do provide significant emergency medical care that could qualify them even in those situations.   

Well, speaking as your average "City ambulance driver" (really love that term by the way, I'm gonna change the patch on my shoulder to say it.)

Yes, some SAR Teams do provide significant medial care. Teams who are formally trained in wilderness medical care, who has insurance to cover the use of said training, and are equiped to provide a level of care. Does that sound like CAP?

I think what you're failing to do is seperate what CAP does by defination of its regulations (searching and providing limisted assistance for recovery and supervision of lost personnal and aircraft) with the world "rescue." In this context, rescue means the FF/EMS defination.

If you want some examples of FF\EMS involvment with "rescue," look up the 1986 plane crash on Northern Long Island, and tell me who was primary for both search and rescue.

[N Harmon]

The Court would definitely consider the following as evidence that CAP was not included in the original bill and that Congress has no intention of adding them.

That doesn't make sense. The reasoning for CAP not being included in the original bill could be because the congress felt the language already clearly included the CAP. Or perhaps they felt that including any specific agency would serve to exclude others so none were named specifically.

I have a hard time believing the court would seriously consider the reasoning for the congress NOT to do something as defining the reason for something they did do. Granted, stranger things have happened, but this seems like a stretch.

This would be relevant to this discussion:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2202.msg38680#msg38680

[RiverAux]

with the world "rescue." In this context, rescue means the FF/EMS defination.

Actually, as I've cited their definition of rescue activity several times already it goes beyond the meaning of SAR typically used in the FF/EMS community and also specifically talks about search being separate from providing medical care.

Teams who are formally trained in wilderness medical care, who has insurance to cover the use of said training, and are equiped to provide a level of care. Does that sound like CAP?

And yet again I'll say that the act separates SAR from medical care and we clearly fit the SAR side of the equation. 

The reasoning for CAP not being included in the original bill could be because the congress felt the language already clearly included the CAP. Or perhaps they felt that including any specific agency would serve to exclude others so none were named specifically.

Exactly.  Unless there is some additional legislative history available for any of those previous attempts, you can't tell exactly what the issue was or why it never went further. 

I've some experience in writing regulations and have seen numerous occasions where a new proposal never went anywhere because it was felt it was redundant with an existing regulation.

[RRLE]

Going back to the first post:

So, we're serving the feds in an official capacity without compensation, so would we fall under the rescue squad definition?

Here is the definition of the squad and I believe we fall under "officially recognized"
....

Does CAP do what a rescue squad does?  Well, we are trained in rescue activity and the AF gives us the authority to carry this out in accordance with the MOUs they have with the various state.

...

I know some people will say we rarely actually rescue anyone, but that is irrelevant.  Here is the definition of rescue activity they use:
...
So, we very clearly provide services that fall in that definition.  Please note that there are a lot of "or"'s in this code so don't try to say that because we don't provide medical services we wouldn't be covered.  So, I know we have a lawyer or two here.  Where am I wrong?

Did you go to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Affairs Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program ? They administer the PSOB.

Your claim since the first post rests on CAP being some sort of rescue squad by your interpretation of that phrase. Should a CAP member try and collect under that defintion they would need to get Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program Documentation Instructions for Emergency Rescue Squads/Ambulance Departments signed.

This is the text of that document (bolding in original).

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Act requires that a volunteer rescue squad/ ambulance department be organized, formed or chartered by a unit of government to act on its behalf in providing rescue squad and/or ambulance services to the general public. To establish the eligibility of your department under the PSOB Act, please provide the following documentation:
A. If the Volunteer Rescue Squad/Ambulance Department is a nonprofit/chartered corporation:
1. A statement, signed by an elected official such as a mayor, county commissioner, etc. and also notarized, which states:
"The (insert name of the department) is legally organized and is authorized by the (insert name of government agency) to act on its behalf by providing emergency rescue squad/ambulance services, as its primary function, to the community of (insert name of jurisdiction)."
2. A certified copy of the charter or minutes of the government agency's meeting establishing the rescue squad/ambulance department as that government agency's rescue squad/ambulance department.
B. If the rescue squad/ambulance department is a unit of government which utilizes volunteers:
1. A statement, signed by an elected official and also notarized, which states:
[/b]"The (insert name of department) is a unit of (insert level of government), government."[/b]

CAP is not the designated agency for rescue for any locality. No mayor, county commissioner, etc. is going to sign that document for a CAP member or their heirs. Also "providing emergency rescue squad/ambulance services, as its primary function" is not the prime mission of CAP. CAP has several missions. ES is one of them but ES is not "providing emergency rescue squad/ambulance services, as its primary function" as is clearly meant by the instructions.

Trying to collect under this act could subject a CAPer or their familty to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 287 False, fictitious or fraudulent claims.

[aveighter]

Of course, this could just be because our last president started a war in a foreign country which caused us to squander trillions which could be spent on providing insurance to CAPers.

Now, here from young Joseph (our freshly minted ambulance driver) is a sterling emanation of intellectual acumen.

I'm sure a posting to the Department of Neurosurgery as Chief Resident is just around the corner!

[Gunner C]

Of course, this could just be because our last president started a war in a foreign country which caused us to squander trillions which could be spent on providing insurance to CAPers.

Now, here from young Joseph (our freshly minted ambulance driver) is a sterling emanation of intellectual acumen.

I'm sure a posting to the Department of Neurosurgery as Chief Resident is just around the corner!

So much for my study of international affairs and military doctrine.  I yield to the EMT-B.

[RiverAux]

RRLE, under the scenario I propose, CAP would be covered as an instrumentality of the federal government, which it is when serving on Air Force Assigned Missions and would not be acting as an corporation.  Therefore, the second statement is what would apply

B. If the rescue squad/ambulance department is a unit of government which utilizes volunteers:
1. A statement, signed by an elected official and also notarized, which states:
"The (insert name of department) is a unit of (insert level of government), government."

In this case, it is the Air Force which would be certified as a unit of government and for which CAP volunteers are being utilized and it matters not that SAR isn't our primary purpose. 

I'm a little disappointed that the only person seriously attempting their own research on this issue isn't a CAP member, though I'm not surprised knowing him that he is doing so. 

I suppose what might be helpful to my case is if there is a volunteer wilderness SAR team associated with a local government out there that is also making the claim that their members would be covered by PSOB Act or one that has actually successfully made such a claim in the past.  That would at least settle whether or not they mean SAR as they have defined it or the more limited type of SAR done by ambulance teams. 

[JayT]

Of course, this could just be because our last president started a war in a foreign country which caused us to squander trillions which could be spent on providing insurance to CAPers.

Now, here from young Joseph (our freshly minted ambulance driver) is a sterling emanation of intellectual acumen.

I'm sure a posting to the Department of Neurosurgery as Chief Resident is just around the corner!

First off, don't do that. You want to mock me, feel free to email me and we can discuss it on more personnal terms.

Second off, I was poking fun at another post concerning President Obama in a seemly non sequitur manner.

See, I can use big fancy latin terms to try to impress people I think are less intelligent then me also.

[RiverAux]

It seems I'm not the only one that thinks that this Act applies to wilderness SAR teams.  A 2001 newsletter put out by the same folks who have produced a lot of wilderness SAR manuals also makes that claim:  http://www.dbs-sar.com/Newsletter/1025.htm#Public%20Safety%20Officers%20Death%20Benefit

Apparently it was successfully used for a SAR team member. 

[wingnut55]

The Federal guidelines the wing Commander, NHQ and USAF all certify in writing should a CAP member be killed in the line of duty.

I really think the issue concerning state programs is up to the state.


I get paid by the County on CAP missions, it was approved by HR years ago (15 days per year). You know a few days ago one of our 72 year old members said: I am going to report you to the IRS for fraud???

What a complete IDIOT, the biggest problem with CAP is the FOG of misinformation being spread by members who have never been Chased by an F-16, flown Security for the Air Force during a Space Shuttle Landing, Flown the Border with Home Land Security, Worked with the DEA and US Customs, 1st Air Force, NORAD. and the MEN IN BLACK. I have over 300 hours of missions in 3 years!!

having a negative opinion about CAP is OK, But I have decided that unless you are not willing to help solve the problem; Than just bite it, because CAP has a big mission, many people depend on us. More importantly it sucks the blood out of the members moral.  As for me I will try to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the positive.

I have had enough of CAP members doing nothing but B%&*#*@!

[Spike]

I get paid by the County on CAP missions, it was approved by HR years ago (15 days per year). You know a few days ago one of our 72 year old members said: I am going to report you to the IRS for fraud???

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you actually get paid for your time in CAP performing Volunteer Missions??

If so, you are not a volunteer anymore.  You are basically a paid employee.  You are taking tax dollars where tax dollars should not be taken.  In my opinion that is almost like stealing.   

[RRLE]

Apparently it was successfully used for a SAR team member.

Once again you attempt to use a case that is NOT analogous to CAP. This is from the document you cite. I added the bolding.

First, make sure your team is chartered or recognized by a local government.  When a fellow team member was killed on a search our team had a memorandum of understanding with the State but not the local government.  We were fortunate in that the local government passed a retroactive resolution.

So the SAR unit you look for as proof of your assertion has documnetation that they are the local rescue squad. CAP doesn't have that and could not provide that.

[N Harmon]

having a negative opinion about CAP is OK, But I have decided that unless you are not willing to help solve the problem; Than just bite it, because CAP has a big mission, many people depend on us. More importantly it sucks the blood out of the members moral.  As for me I will try to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the positive.

I have had enough of CAP members doing nothing but B%&*#*@!

+1  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

I too am sick of the destructive criticism. If you want to criticise CAP's short comings, then be my guest. Just be prepared to get the heck out of the way when we go to fix them.

[RiverAux]

Apparently it was successfully used for a SAR team member.

Once again you attempt to use a case that is NOT analogous to CAP. This is from the document you cite. I added the bolding.

First, make sure your team is chartered or recognized by a local government.  When a fellow team member was killed on a search our team had a memorandum of understanding with the State but not the local government.  We were fortunate in that the local government passed a retroactive resolution.

So the SAR unit you look for as proof of your assertion has documnetation that they are the local rescue squad. CAP doesn't have that and could not provide that.

My point was that a wilderness SAR team was being covered by the act rather than some sort of ambulance crew.   That is the part relevant to CAP not the specific relationship of that team to a public agency.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Federal guidelines the wing Commander, NHQ and USAF all certify in writing should a CAP member be killed in the line of duty.

I really think the issue concerning state programs is up to the state.


I get paid by the County on CAP missions, it was approved by HR years ago (15 days per year). You know a few days ago one of our 72 year old members said: I am going to report you to the IRS for fraud???

What a complete IDIOT, the biggest problem with CAP is the FOG of misinformation being spread by members who have never been Chased by an F-16, flown Security for the Air Force during a Space Shuttle Landing, Flown the Border with Home Land Security, Worked with the DEA and US Customs, 1st Air Force, NORAD. and the MEN IN BLACK. I have over 300 hours of missions in 3 years!!

having a negative opinion about CAP is OK, But I have decided that unless you are not willing to help solve the problem; Than just bite it, because CAP has a big mission, many people depend on us. More importantly it sucks the blood out of the members moral.  As for me I will try to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the positive.

I have had enough of CAP members doing nothing but B%&*#*@!

Dang it, Wingnut... I take back some of the things I said about you!!!!   :clap:

CAP is an aviation legend.  We do things that regular flight instructors tell their students NOT to do... engage in maneuvering flight at low airspeed and low altitude... and yes, we do it "That others might live."  We save way more lives through our cadet program than through our ES program, and the Air Force loves having us as its auxiliary.

I personally believe that River Aux is spot on in his legal analysis.  We DO conduct search missions, and search missions are defined as "Rescue Squad activity" in the PSOB.  The fact that some Adidas-wearing bearded camping freaks do it different from us is not material to the issue.

Our biggest problem is the self-defeating attitude of some of the members (and some of the members at NHQ).  We are a serious force muliplier and can be a bigger and better force multiplier if some of our members would quit whining about what THEY cannot do and by extension implying that none of us can do these things.

[RRLE]

That is the part relevant to CAP not the specific relationship of that team to a public agency.   

Of course you want to ignore the relationship test - it is one of the two key factors to getting under the PSOB. Without the signature of a publicly elected officer any application is a non-starter. CAP and CAP members cannot get that signature.

The other key factor is that SAR, Rescue - call it what you will - must be the primary activity of the organization. Rescue or SAR is only a part of what CAP does and not the primary activity.

CAP does not satisfy eithr of the two key factors to be covered.

[RiverAux]

I already explained that CAP would not fall under the part that you're talking about, but rather that of a public agency itself as CAP members are considered instrumentalities of the federal government while on AF missions. 

One might make an entirely separate argument that CAP could potentially get covered under that clause while conducting non-AFAM SAR missions for local and state governments (which we do), then yes we would need to do what you suggest and get the relevant local government to sponsor us. 

[wingnut55]

John Kachenmeister

You forget we joined the same Cadet squadron, although you had been in when they still flew jenny's.

I have decided to stop being a negative force and to move forward on a positive footing.

[JohnKachenmeister]

That is the part relevant to CAP not the specific relationship of that team to a public agency.   

Of course you want to ignore the relationship test - it is one of the two key factors to getting under the PSOB. Without the signature of a publicly elected officer any application is a non-starter. CAP and CAP members cannot get that signature.

The other key factor is that SAR, Rescue - call it what you will - must be the primary activity of the organization. Rescue or SAR is only a part of what CAP does and not the primary activity.

CAP does not satisfy eithr of the two key factors to be covered.

Actually, RRLE, the Congress (elected officials) have stated that CAP is the Auxiliary of the United States Air Force whenever called into Federal service at the request of any Federal agency.  Since the law authorizes us to perform any "Noncombat mission or program" of the Air Force, I think that would would qualify under the law cited above, WHEN the CAP is acting in one of the defined activites.

Border patrol, drug interdiction, SAR, missing person searches on Corp. missions for local govt., YES, CAP would be covered under the PSOB.  Transporting blood, moving repair parts for the USAF, NO, not covered. 

[RRLE]

I think that would would qualify under the law cited above, WHEN the CAP is acting in one of the defined activites.

Then why isn't it? I did a search of the CAP Knowledge base and found nothing that even comes close to suggesting that CAP qualifies for the PSOB. I did stumble over one thing that may (or may not) play a role here. You guys know and understand your own rules & regs better then I do. I did locate in CAPR 900-5 or 900-S (I can't read my own note) a statement that since a CAP member is covered by FECA (whether they apply for the benefits or not) then FECA is the 'exclusive remedy'. A CAP member cannot bring suit against the federal government for other benes because of that.

[RiverAux]

It wouldn't be the first time there could be a conflict between various federal laws.  All I've got to go on is the actual text of the law as passed. 

The reason that it isn't mentioned in CAP's knowledgebase is because CAP and/or the AF apparently doesn't agree with me or there actually could be a history of CAP trying to get benefits for a lost member that was rejected by the agency that administers it.  Heck, there could even be a court case somewhere that specifically says CAP can't get it.  It could also be that CAP and/or the AF does think it applies to us, but don't want to raise the issue for varioius reasons.  Maybe the AF would end up having to pay the benefits out of one of their budget accounts and they just don't want to do it.  Hard to tell. 

All I've got to go on is the text of the law itself.  It seems clear enough to me, but as I said earlier and as wingnut mentioned, the people that run this system and the courts have made some nutso decisions before.

[RRLE]

I thought you might find this interesting since the error appears in several other places including CAP documents. We both know the statement is false.

I'm not sure this is the original source of the misinformation but it is the first one that pops in a google search. Some of the CAP documents reference this as their source.

Global Security.org Civil Air Patrol

At the bottom is this:

Due to CAP's expanding role in the 21st century to include increased homeland security work, Congress in February 2003 amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits.

Under this bill, Civil Air Patrol members who lose their lives in the line of duty will become eligible for the same federal death benefit provided to other public safety personnel. The bill, entitled the Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Benefits Act (H.R. 3681)applies to the members of CAP who lose their lives or become permanently disabled while engaged in active service in support of operational missions of the U.S. Air Force.

That also appears in the following CAP places:

FL Group 4 Cadet Programs
SD Wing News Release - Word Doc
South Brevard Cadet Squadron

[wingnut55]

It is a Huge Grey area, we here seem to know more than our leaders. I challenge someone to stand in front of NHQ with a Big Sign.

" HEY What's UP Here".

But I will Quote a USAF document from before 911. It stated that CAP leaders are unable to effectively explain to their members as to what kind of relationship they have with the USAF.

Should anyone want that interesting evaluation of CAP let me know. I will send it to you.

God help us if the GAO looks at us, the cost of the review is shy of 1million dollars. According to the bill that passed. But it may die in the Senate.

I just want NHQ to be forthcoming in explaining to a 35 year old accountant why they think 10,000 dollar is appropriate for getting killed. And NHQ should be more open with their knowledge that maybe 99% of all Life insurance policies explicitly exclude paying out when killed flying for CAP.

Why should your widow and kids be put on the street. I will gladly donate $5.00 to a CAP widows and Survivors fund. Lets Do it.  $5.00 x 30,000= $150,000 saved in a fund every year.  $10,000 is what they give now, God that is an embarrassment to American decency. $10,000 was what a soldiers family got paid 70 YEARS AGO.

Truth is. We loose several CAP members every year.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Personally, I think NHQ does not mention this because it would not always and consistently apply to us.  I think it would apply on SAR/DR/Drug/HLS missions, but not on some of the administrative missions we fly... counting cougars, for example.

Rather than try to explain that in a serious fact sheet, NHQ spends its time creating new and increasingly-ugly logos and "Branding initiatives."

[wingnut55]

    

So that be true, I find this blog to be a great way to get a pulse on our comrades.