NEC/BoG

[RiverAux]

Has anyone heard anything out of the November meeting of the NEC or the meeting of the Board of Governors last week? 

I'm still waiting to see something in print about the supposed move to take USAF Aux off the tails of our planes.  This goes back to an existing AF reg that says curtails use of CAP planes for law enforcement missions.  However, in one of the meetings earlier this year there was discussion of a recent Attorney General's opinion stating that posse comitatuts didn't apply to DoD civilians and that this would apply to CAP as well since even when on an AFAM we are still civilians.  Supposedly they were going to see how this opinion influenced the need for the AF reg. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

River:

You are confusing two issues.

The AF instruction requires approval from (I think) Chief of Staff to us planes marked with "USAF" or "US Air Force" on law enforcement missions, even if that mission is authorized under the Posse Commitatus Act due to the mission's limited scope.

If the mission violated the PCA, then repainting the "USAF" off the planes would make no difference.  It would still be Air Force personnel participating in prohibited civil law enforcement.

[Hotel 179]

Hello All,

That old PCA was a response to the use of Federal Troops preventing the Confederate States of America's officers from voting.....time to move on.  I fly CD missions and I fly photo missions and there's not a whole lot of active law enforcing that you are going to do from the cockpit of a C172. Most folks don't have any idea why we still talk about PCA in these contexts.

My cop buddies have called the NOC to request a photo mission for the purpose of raid planning.  NOC denied the request as being too specific but if the request had been for a recon of the area for the purpose of detecting suspicious vegetation, then we could have taken pictures as we flew along....what's the difference.....

Good Morning. 

Stephen

[RiverAux]

You are confusing two issues.

Well, considering that the National Board considered them to be a single issue, I feel pretty confident in doing so myself.  Their discussion of the PCA directly referenced the tail markings:

From March NB Minutes

COL PALERMO/NLO reported that in the last few weeks he was given a copy of a U. S. Attorney opinion dealing with the Posse Comitatus applicability to DoD civilians. It was a very significant opinion. It didn't come from the DoD, but from a U. S. Attorney's office, which makes it very persuasive. The Attorney General's office opined that Posse Comitatus did not apply to DoD civilians, and generally believed that this opinion would extend to Civil Air Patrol and perhaps even as auxiliarists since CAP members are civilians. Importantly, it might allow CAP to perform missions that had previously been restricted as "A" missions—not "C" missions. CAP would have to be concerned about the insurer. He added that there are still many issues that need to be ferreted out but the attorney general's opinion should be seen as a welcome and a positive step forward
on this issue. He further added that they would continue to work with them, the
restrictions of AFI 10-2701, specifically Sections 2.2.3 on support to law enforcement agencies and Section 2.8 on the other restrictions of Civil Air Patrol flying. He added the following: "Col Karton and his committee have been working on what the parameters would look like as corporate missions. Hopefully, he can give it a broader scope on how we can fit in the new framework of possibly allowing this as an "A" mission and having some sensible rules of engagement so that we don't damage any aircraft or hurt personnel in the process. That is our plan ahead and we will continue to update you."

[mikeylikey]

Are we DoD Civilians?  I am not that smart of a person, but when I look at CAP I see a bunch of Civilians.  The AF and CAP need to reaffirm their relationship, change outdated regulations and make definitions as clear as possible.  Why don't the geniuses at NHQ get together and update our systems in line with the AF.  It was easier when the Army or AF wrote CAP regs I guess.

[DNall]

It was easier when tehy at least approved regs, meaning they were checked for compliance w/ AF regs & the law, plus acceptable to the AF, not to mention better & more consistently written.

Anyway, the issue w/ PCA is two fold. One is CAP doing the activity. That can be debated a bit & the limits pushed this way or that. It's basically legal if it'll survive an ACLU challenge in court.

The other aspect is: the equipment, training, etc & mission support is all funded & staffed by teh AF. Regardless if it is a corporate or AF mission, the AF is still involved & there's a pretty strong legal opinion that this alone keeps CAP restricted just as though we were active duty, regardless of anything else.

[JohnKachenmeister]

You are confusing two issues.

Well, considering that the National Board considered them to be a single issue, I feel pretty confident in doing so myself.  Their discussion of the PCA directly referenced the tail markings:

From March NB Minutes

COL PALERMO/NLO reported that in the last few weeks he was given a copy of a U. S. Attorney opinion dealing with the Posse Comitatus applicability to DoD civilians. It was a very significant opinion. It didn't come from the DoD, but from a U. S. Attorney's office, which makes it very persuasive. The Attorney General's office opined that Posse Comitatus did not apply to DoD civilians, and generally believed that this opinion would extend to Civil Air Patrol and perhaps even as auxiliarists since CAP members are civilians. Importantly, it might allow CAP to perform missions that had previously been restricted as "A" missions—not "C" missions. CAP would have to be concerned about the insurer. He added that there are still many issues that need to be ferreted out but the attorney general's opinion should be seen as a welcome and a positive step forward
on this issue. He further added that they would continue to work with them, the
restrictions of AFI 10-2701, specifically Sections 2.2.3 on support to law enforcement agencies and Section 2.8 on the other restrictions of Civil Air Patrol flying. He added the following: "Col Karton and his committee have been working on what the parameters would look like as corporate missions. Hopefully, he can give it a broader scope on how we can fit in the new framework of possibly allowing this as an "A" mission and having some sensible rules of engagement so that we don't damage any aircraft or hurt personnel in the process. That is our plan ahead and we will continue to update you."

Sure, River, Palermo discussed both issues together, but they ARE two separate issues.

Issue #1:  What can CAP do vis-a-vis support to Law Enforcement without violating the terms of the PCA?  And CAN we change the nature of the mission from an AF Aux. mision to a Corporate mission and do more?

Issue #2:  Will the USAF permit the aircraft participating in a Law Enforcement support role to be marked with "USAF" on their tails?

Painting over "USAF" does not change the nature of the mission nor the personnel in and of itself.  An action either complies with or does not comply with the PCA.  An action that is a violation of the PCA is still a violation even if flown in a completely unmarked airplane.

[RiverAux]

Again, can you give me another legitimate reason that the AF would care that it said USAF Aux on the tail of a CAP plane doing a law enforcement support mission other than the PCA?  If the PCA didn't exist, they wouldn't care at all.  Since it does exist it very obviously is the reason behind that AF reg.  If it is determined that PCA doesn't apply to CAP under any conditions (either AF or corporate mission status), the tail marking issue will go away. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm tempted to point out that the Air Force doesn't need a legitimate reason to create a regulation, but I'll pass on it.

OK, you win.  You're the king.

[DNall]

I think the AF would be legit concerned at anything that might give the appearance of the AF, or any govt funded force, renting out to the highest bidder or competing against commercial aviation. LE visa vie the PCA is the big one though...

If I could reiterate... the point of putting AFAux on the tail & the AFI controlling it is use is to give AF power to stop CAP from doing certain corporate missions that are technically legal for CAP, BUT may make it illegal for AF to have supported the planes, training, maint, etc that made the mission possible, which then puts our federal funding in danger. The AFI & having that on the table is meant to restrict us for our own protection.

[RiverAux]

The Nov NEC minutes are up. 

Among other things was the approval of the new command patch (with Civil Air Patrol across the bottom and US in the middle).  No real mention of why this is necessary in the first place.  Directed revision of appropriate regs. 

[Monty]

The Nov NEC minutes are up. 

Among other things was the approval of the new command patch (with Civil Air Patrol across the bottom and US in the middle).  No real mention of why this is necessary in the first place.  Directed revision of appropriate regs. 

Either I'm not awake or I just plumb didn't see 'em (minutes.)

[RiverAux]

Get some more sleep.  I was fairly sure I didn't imagine reading them last night so went and checked just now.  They're there.

[Monty]

Get some more sleep.  I was fairly sure I didn't imagine reading them last night so went and checked just now.  They're there.

Yup....sleep.  I was thinking you meant December BOG minutes....you must have meant November NEC meetings.

Nytol, help me get my Z's.   

[ZigZag911]

Shouldn't the draft agenda for December BOG meeting have been posted BEFORE they met?