It’s time for a Structural Change.
Get used to controversy. With CAP' current (post 2000) organizational structure you will always have it. It will come in two forms: nonfeasance or malfeasance. The source of the attack will be disgruntled electors. Why? The nature of the current organization creates what is known as a conflict conundrum. 52 electors chose a leader, the leader has the power to appoint the electors, the electors have the power to chose the leader, and so it goes. A weak leader will do nothing (nonfeasance) for fear of alienating the adverse camp. A leader who acts boldly will almost always draw the fire of malfeasance from the opposition. Both, but mostly the bold leader, will be criticized for stacking in regards to their appointments. The result? The organization will either stagnate under the weak leader or constantly be under fire at the helm of the bold. Ultimately the controversy will mount to such a level that there will be calls for a reorganization. I've seen this happen in many organizations and associations and CAP is no exception.
The current structure is a prescription for failure. CAP is run by the BOG and they are chosen (SECAF and CAP/CC), not elected. The National Board is ultimately picked by CAP/CC by appointing R/CC who appoints W/CC who elects CAP/CC and back around again. Note the disconnect between the BOG and NB. The situation is even made worse by the fact that the second in command is also elected but not for the same term. Almost guaranteed to provide a divided house. Not a good way to run a business.
Look into Title 36 (where all the federal corporations are listed) and you fill find no other structure like this.
There are two solutions: An appointment or an electoral system. If you want more USAF control you chose the appointment system whereby the BOG chooses CAP/CC and CAP/CC chooses the R/CC who in turn chose the W/CC with the BOG being chosen as it now is. Staff reports to CAP/CC who reports to BOG. . On the other hand, if you prefer less USAF involvement, go for an electoral or corporate system modeled after the other Title 36 federal corporations: Membership elects all or part of BOG who chose CAP/CC who chooses R/CC who appoints W/CC. Again Staff reports to CAP/CC who reports to the BOG. Either systems will break
the conflict conundrum because the chief operating officer (CAP/CC) does not appoint his electors.
Given the culture and nature of CAP no one person will be able to bring peace to the organization and make it progressive at the same time.
If offered the job of CAP/CC under the present system, think real hard and then run away real fast. It's time for a structural change.
[NOTE: These are my personal views and not the position of the IAWG or any other organization with which I am associated.].
You are forgetting the third option, namely CC CAP-USAF takes back the pre-1990's CAP structure. It's a given that the majority of CAP members want more USAF involvement. But it's not a CAP decision. It would have to come from the Sec of the Air Force. It would require a General grade officer as CC CAP-USAF to be effective. And it even should go down to active duty USAF personnel at Wing level., previosuly called USAF Wing Liaison Officer. Another change would have to be the Sec of the Air Force select the entire Board of Governors from CAP, retired or active USAF General grade officers, and the aviation industry.
As you mention, the big problem is what amounts to the Good-Old-Boy system currently in place where the CAP CC selects the members of the NEC, and thus to a degree is instrumental in selecting the Wing CC's. One answer that appeared on another CAP web page was that members of the Wing elect their Wing Commanders' and the Wing Commanders elect their Regional CC.
Personally I consider MGen Pineda a stong leader. The only problem I see is the lack of communication from the CAP CC to the membership on HIS goals for the organization.
Quote from: BillB on December 23, 2006, 01:03:21 PM
You are forgetting the third option, namely CC CAP-USAF takes back the pre-1990's CAP structure. It's a given that the majority of CAP members want more USAF involvement. But it's not a CAP decision. It would have to come from the Sec of the Air Force. It would require a General grade officer as CC CAP-USAF to be effective. And it even should go down to active duty USAF personnel at Wing level., previosuly called USAF Wing Liaison Officer. Another change would have to be the Sec of the Air Force select the entire Board of Governors from CAP, retired or active USAF General grade officers, and the aviation industry.
As you mention, the big problem is what amounts to the Good-Old-Boy system currently in place where the CAP CC selects the members of the NEC, and thus to a degree is instrumental in selecting the Wing CC's. One answer that appeared on another CAP web page was that members of the Wing elect their Wing Commanders' and the Wing Commanders elect their Regional CC.
Personally I consider MGen Pineda a stong leader. The only problem I see is the lack of communication from the CAP CC to the membership on HIS goals for the organization.
Having served in CAP in the days when LO/LNCO were active duty, I suggest that we don't want that system back.....these posts tended to be 'sunset tours' for individuals awaiting retirement -- some were fine officers/NCOs....unfortunately, just as many(if not more than half) were marking time till they got out....we're better off with the retirees at that level.
Elected Wing CCs? I don't know, how happy is Coast Guard Aux with that system?
How about this:
1) return to USAF general officer as National CC, only retired rather than active AF general
2) top volunteer post is Chair of BOG, elected by NB (mirroring CAP of 60s-70s, when top volunteer was Chair of NB), subject to confirmation by BOG.
3) National volunteer staff & region CCs appointed by National CC, confirmed by BOG
4) Wing CCs (who would be corporate officers, but NOT members of NB) to be chosen by Region CC, confirmed by Nat. CC
5) Wing NB representative chosen by wing CC from a list of 3 names submitted by an internal wing board....confirmed by BOG Chair
To work, this would require IRONCLAD standards for commander and board posts....no waivers....certain CAP accomplishments, time in CAP, time in grade.
Quote from: SJFedor on December 22, 2006, 10:55:49 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 22, 2006, 10:49:24 PM
Unless Pineda gives himself a third star, then... Back to the purple epaulets!
I think it'll be lime green epaulets, orange flight suits, and severely modified USAF service dress uniform. Short sleeve blue shirt with blue shorts and red socks up to the knees. With khaki colored shoes.
^ next corporate uniform combo
Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! ;D
Can I bring in option 4? The structure written by the house armed service cmte, prior to it being trashed on the floor the the 2000 law hastily thrown together to replace it, said SECAF will appoint ALL Wg/Reg CCs & Nat CC/VCC.
I highly oppose an elctive system for commanders, because it results natuarally in poiltics for one. Also, it means the guy that's easy on members when maybe he needs to be strict is going to get votes - conflict of interest. What I prefer is an adult version of CAC, call it a 1Sgt system, that's elected by members to speak for us in the same way CAC does for cadets, but not in command.
I think there's still a place in that for CAP to have a voice in its own leadership as well. I think that can come with recommending a list of officers from which AF selects, or perhaps some of those appointments can be made by CAP subject to BoG/AF confirmation.
In any case, I whole heartedly agree with LtCol Critelli that what we got is broken & just stages us for worse to come. I'd really like to see AF take firm control, at least for a few years to set things straight.
Any system that has the government appointing all of our leadership will not work.
1. It completely destroys the whole private organization thing.
2. Who is going to pay for it?
The Air Force is trying to down size right now...and now we are going to ask them to shake loose 60+ officers to run the official civilian axillary?!
Just not going to happen.
I don't like the idea of them appointing non CAP members to lead us. Yes any col or gen worth his salt has the leadership skills but if is not part of the program can he effectively lead us?
I mean we don't see Army col's getting put in charge of Navy ships....so why would we want a USAF Col leading a CAP wing?
Also...in the big picture from the USAF side...the only col's we would get would be the 3rd stringers...those guys who were not good enough to get real jobs so they gave them ours so they can collect their 2.5% increase in retirement pay.
I think the system we have now, as clunky as it is, is the best solution for our situation. Is it prone to abuse? Sure...but it works more than it does not.
This discussion is headed for a split guys.
My advice, for CAP Commanders and CAP members, do not ask people to resign, and do not resign, if you have a need for a DAY IN COURT, have your day in Court in front of a CAP Review Board and not the Miami Herald.
Instead, Commanders should file a termination action. Assume the Termination will go to a Board. Assume any dirty laundry will come to light.
CAP is better off having more board actions, than people leaving, and then digging out the dirty laundry later in the National Press or on Blogs.
As a CAP member do not resign, if you think you will need a DAY IN COURT, to satisfy your need for justice, do not resign.
A review board is the equivalent to a pressure relief value on a boiler.
Quote from: BillB on December 23, 2006, 01:03:21 PM
Personally I consider MGen Pineda a stong leader. The only problem I see is the lack of communication from the CAP CC to the membership on HIS goals for the organization.
I have to strongly disagree. He may be a strong 'manager' but he is far from a strong 'leader'. A good leader would communicate their vision for CAP (or any organization). He's displayed his strong arm management skills in the sacking of many CAP Officers. Given the amount of time he has sat at the top he has done nothing to stem the growing tide of membership decline in the past five years, nor has he communicated to us what the blazes "Performing Missions for America" are.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 24, 2006, 12:37:43 AM
Any system that has the government appointing all of our leadership will not work.
1. It completely destroys the whole private organization thing.
2. Who is going to pay for it?
The Air Force is trying to down size right now...and now we are going to ask them to shake loose 60+ officers to run the official civilian axillary?!
Just not going to happen.
I don't like the idea of them appointing non CAP members to lead us. Yes any col or gen worth his salt has the leadership skills but if is not part of the program can he effectively lead us?
I mean we don't see Army col's getting put in charge of Navy ships....so why would we want a USAF Col leading a CAP wing?
Also...in the big picture from the USAF side...the only col's we would get would be the 3rd stringers...those guys who were not good enough to get real jobs so they gave them ours so they can collect their 2.5% increase in retirement pay.
I think the system we have now, as clunky as it is, is the best solution for our situation. Is it prone to abuse? Sure...but it works more than it does not.
We could take the LO's we have now, and repalce them with AD Officers that the AF has assigned. The LO's are paid more than the 0-6's that would come in.
The system of military appointed Officers running CAP seemed to work for twenty years. It would work again.
I seriously doubt we would get third stringers from the AF. No Colonel is a third stringer. They have proven themselves to be the best of the best. CAP needs a new change in culture and AF control would be a good thing for the organization. We would still have our volunteer reps at every level, except decisions would be made quicker. If you read the NEC minutes from NOV, it appears the AF wants CAP to adopt some AF practices to make the organization run smoother (writing regs).
I support a change.
The leadership for CAP needs to come from within not the Air Force, there are people with vision in CAP.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 24, 2006, 12:37:43 AM
Any system that has the government appointing all of our leadership will not work.
1. It completely destroys the whole private organization thing.
Good!
Quote2. Who is going to pay for it?
Who pays for it now?? Oh right, the AF.
QuoteThe Air Force is trying to down size right now...and now we are going to ask them to shake loose 60+ officers to run the official civilian axillary?!
Just not going to happen.
I don't like the idea of them appointing non CAP members to lead us. Yes any col or gen worth his salt has the leadership skills but if is not part of the program can he effectively lead us?
I mean we don't see Army col's getting put in charge of Navy ships....so why would we want a USAF Col leading a CAP wing?
Also...in the big picture from the USAF side...the only col's we would get would be the 3rd stringers...those guys who were not good enough to get real jobs so they gave them ours so they can collect their 2.5% increase in retirement pay.
I think the system we have now, as clunky as it is, is the best solution for our situation. Is it prone to abuse? Sure...but it works more than it does not.
Oh come on, you know it'd be more like a naval officer commanding a coast guard cutter... I'd like to keep disagreeing with you, but really that's not what anyone said. A few options were listed... One said, AD LO/LNCO staff in the state director job. I believe that's funding neutral since they are paid w/ appropriated funds now. Another (created by AF && HASC discussion) said AF appoints postitions from CAP officers. Another said RETIRED officers should be appointed. Another said the CAP-USAF CC should assume command. None of those said AF officers rule the world.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 24, 2006, 01:56:14 AM
The leadership for CAP needs to come from within not the Air Force, there are people with vision in CAP.
In a system that does an extremely poor job developing leaders from within, that supresses visionary ideas & people that may upset the status quo, and divides the power of the few that emerge so that they can accomplish little in their few opportunities... all the while driving away our best people. The leadership of CAP
should come from within CAP. It should be the right leadership selected by our parent to carry out the tasks delegated by them, and with a helping hand from them to make us capable of standing on our own two feet.
Quote from: MIKE on December 24, 2006, 12:40:38 AM
This discussion is headed for a split guys.
You mean you disapprove of bending this topic away from where it started? Cause I'm not sure there's any more value down that road.
Oh, and far as a third stringer... CAP, now after a big retention hit, is the size of a numbered AF. It has a huge numebr of planes & vehicles, a huge numebr of subordinate units. It has the unique situation where you have to make peopel want to follow your orders cause you can't really force them. It's a great big joint operating enviro. It has a mix of civilian-military mgmt aspects. It's a place where you learn to stretch a budget further than anywhere else... Are you telling me that's not a wonderful place to put a rising star Col or Brig Gen, who may have commanded a Wing before & is on track to command a MAJCOM or NAF down the road? As important as CAP is to the AF, I think the person you'd see assigned to a top level job would be far from 3rd string. LOs there to monitor inspections & help CAP get military assistance, yeah that's more of a sunset job. Switch that to a command slot & dif people get picked. Hell, you pitch this plan to AF as a training/development opportunity for their senior officers looking at command bilelts & I think you'd get some traction. It'd just ocme down to money & if you can show them close to funding neutral you're in business.
Quote from: DNall on December 24, 2006, 02:20:27 AM
Quote from: MIKE on December 24, 2006, 12:40:38 AM
This discussion is headed for a split guys.
You mean you disapprove of bending this topic away from where it started? Cause I'm not sure there's any more value down that road.
All the more reason for the split... Let the other one die.
It is possible to have elected leaders and actually have a closer relationship with the parent organization having more control --- that is the very definition of the CG Aux.
In fact, I would say that this system has allowed the CG and the CG Aux to be much closer than CAP has ever been to the AF.
However, for that relationship to work you would have to do away with the CAP corporation and place the AF in total control of all CAP regulations.
I've got no problem with that.
Having an election system puts the politics out in the open (for the most part) rather than hidden behind the scenes as it is now in CAP. And that is better for everybody.
The other factor that makes things work so well in CG Aux is that only the CG can kick somebody out of the CG Aux. It is basically like making it so only a CAP-USAF State Director could disenroll somebody. Yes, there are still controversies and personality conflicts but everybody sees the CG as a much more impartial observer than people would see the same situation in CAP. Granted, I'm not sure the CG really appreciates getting caught up in the middle of it when it happens though.
Face it, the AF is cutting back on their own people right now. They are not going to be dedicating personnel to CAP anyime soon. And I'm not really sure that would help anything.
[/quote]
We could take the LO's we have now, and repalce them with AD Officers that the AF has assigned. The LO's are paid more than the 0-6's that would come in.
The system of military appointed Officers running CAP seemed to work for twenty years. It would work again.
I seriously doubt we would get third stringers from the AF. No Colonel is a third stringer. They have proven themselves to be the best of the best. CAP needs a new change in culture and AF control would be a good thing for the organization. We would still have our volunteer reps at every level, except decisions would be made quicker. If you read the NEC minutes from NOV, it appears the AF wants CAP to adopt some AF practices to make the organization run smoother (writing regs).
I support a change.
[/quote]
I'm for change too....something with more accountability, transparency, and representation.
However, I doubt you'll get active duty USAF/USAFR colonels as wing/region CCs OR LOs.
Current AD region LOs are lt colonels....not sure if they are 'sunset tour' folks (like AD LOs & LNCOs in wings used to be) or not....
Oh, and far as a third stringer... CAP, now after a big retention hit, is the size of a numbered AF. It has a huge numebr of planes & vehicles, a huge numebr of subordinate units. It has the unique situation where you have to make peopel want to follow your orders cause you can't really force them. It's a great big joint operating enviro. It has a mix of civilian-military mgmt aspects. It's a place where you learn to stretch a budget further than anywhere else... Are you telling me that's not a wonderful place to put a rising star Col or Brig Gen, who may have commanded a Wing before & is on track to command a MAJCOM or NAF down the road? As important as CAP is to the AF, I think the person you'd see assigned to a top level job would be far from 3rd string. LOs there to monitor inspections & help CAP get military assistance, yeah that's more of a sunset job. Switch that to a command slot & dif people get picked. Hell, you pitch this plan to AF as a training/development opportunity for their senior officers looking at command bilelts & I think you'd get some traction. It'd just ocme down to money & if you can show them close to funding neutral you're in business.
[/quote]
You may be correct....if this is the way the structure changes, I certainly hope you are correct.....but after several decades in CAP, watching how things transpire, i simply don't see someone headed for two/three/four stars becoming CAP national commander as an active duty USAF general officer....if it's an active duty officer, it's more likely to be someone that the folks at the top (DoD/Pentagon/Air Staff) want to reward with a star or two, but simply could not find a slot for this favored colonel.
I hope I'm wrong.....but I think if we have a USAF general running the show, we're better off with a retiree.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 24, 2006, 05:08:26 AM
It is possible to have elected leaders and actually have a closer relationship with the parent organization having more control --- that is the very definition of the CG Aux.
In fact, I would say that this system has allowed the CG and the CG Aux to be much closer than CAP has ever been to the AF.
However, for that relationship to work you would have to do away with the CAP corporation and place the AF in total control of all CAP regulations.
I've got no problem with that.
Having an election system puts the politics out in the open (for the most part) rather than hidden behind the scenes as it is now in CAP. And that is better for everybody.
The other factor that makes things work so well in CG Aux is that only the CG can kick somebody out of the CG Aux. It is basically like making it so only a CAP-USAF State Director could disenroll somebody. Yes, there are still controversies and personality conflicts but everybody sees the CG as a much more impartial observer than people would see the same situation in CAP. Granted, I'm not sure the CG really appreciates getting caught up in the middle of it when it happens though.
Face it, the AF is cutting back on their own people right now. They are not going to be dedicating personnel to CAP anyime soon. And I'm not really sure that would help anything.
Another big difference is that USCG really needs CG Aux as a 'force multiplier'.
No matter how useful we are to USAF, we virtually never fill any such role for them
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 24, 2006, 01:43:11 AM
We could take the LO's we have now, and replace them with AD Officers that the AF has assigned. The LO's are paid more than the 0-6's that would come in.
There are not AD officers to be had...the USAF is trying to eliminate as many of them as they can......
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 24, 2006, 01:43:11 AMThe system of military appointed Officers running CAP seemed to work for twenty years. It would work again.
Times change...and even if the old system worked...it cannot work to day because both of our organizations are different today. The USAF is going through it's second draw down in 15 years! They are killing 40K people to pay for new airplanes. And you want to go to their personnel office and say..." need 52 AD LO's in the rank of Major to Col to support a non-profit organization" I doubt you would make it out of AFPC alive!
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 24, 2006, 01:43:11 AM
I seriously doubt we would get third stringers from the AF. No Colonel is a third stringer. They have proven themselves to be the best of the best.
Sure....sure....there are no O-6 on active duty sitting at some desk in head quarters counting ceiling tiles because they can't be trusted to with anything sharper than safety scissors.
My point is all those proven cols you have met have been leaders of real units. The way the USAF tells a particular officer that he has no future in the USAF is to "promote" him to a dead end job....these officers get their 20 years and then punch. CAP LO would be a dead end job. No significant supervision, no flying (or not much any way), no budget, not much of a mission (as compared to an AD unit). No...any officer that got handed a CAP LO job would be looking to write his resume and finding a private sector job. This is not to say that the particular officer is a dead beat or something...but just that he would be one with no future.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 24, 2006, 01:43:11 AMCAP needs a new change in culture and AF control would be a good thing for the organization. We would still have our volunteer reps at every level, except decisions would be made quicker. If you read the NEC minutes from NOV, it appears the AF wants CAP to adopt some AF practices to make the organization run smoother (writing regs).
The USAF wants us to stream line our regs procedures...they don't want to take them over. We may have "representation" at every level but what does that mean? The USAF would be in charge. We would not be a "volunteer" organization any more.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 24, 2006, 01:43:11 AMI support a change.
Change for change's sake is not good. If we can come up with meaningful changes to the process, organization, leadership, or any combination of these things...let's do it. But sweeping changes in the hope for a better tommorrow is just dumb. Lets analyze the real problems in the current system and correct them.
Quote from: DNall on December 23, 2006, 11:53:53 PM
I highly oppose an elctive system for commanders, because it results natuarally in poiltics for one.
I think there's still a place in that for CAP to have a voice in its own leadership as well. I think that can come with recommending a list of officers from which AF selects, or perhaps some of those appointments can be made by CAP subject to BoG/AF confirmation.
Its unrealistic to think you are going to get rid of politics.
Let's instead have a more democratic CAP. The general membership of CAP gets proxy votes to elect members to the board from each Wing. The elected board members then select the National Leadership.
This could be part of the annual Wing conferences, with stagering of terms, so there is constant flow of new board members.
And can you keep the Air Force out of "Selecting" people to run CAP. You have no idea how uninteresting CAP is to the Air Force.
Lets surprise the Air Force and raise CAP up from the ashes, of bad decision making.
Keep CAP in the hands of CAP Members, and make prospective CAP Board Members explain what their vision of CAP is, prior to their election to office.
Clean house.
I'm going to resurrect a proposal I made earlier, as long as we are engaging in "Erotic fantasies" about re-organizing CAP.
Read this slowly, don't just scan it, since it is COMPLETELY different from other proposals.
1. CAP NHQ becomes a subordinate unit under the National Guard Bureau. It doesn't matter how the National CC is appointed/elected. He reports to the Chief, NGB. The BoG would be good as an appointing body.
2. National Board continues to write CAP regs. Chief, NGB reviews those with impact on the Air Force (i.e., uniforms).
3. CAP NHQ assigns each wing under the operational control of the respective state AG. This is OPERATIONAL CONTROL only. The AG does not hire or fire the wing CC, that's NHQ's job, but letter input (good or bad) would be encouraged.
4. OPCON does not extend to the cadet program, nor to the AE mission. Wing CC's will have two masters: The AG for ES, and NHQ/Region for AE and CP.
5. SAR missions can be tasked directly to the wing by AFRCC. DR missions would be tasked and coordinated through the state AG, with CAP responding as the light aviation asset of the Air National Guard.
6. Regions would be operational commands, with the mission to coordinate multi-state SAR and DR missions, transferring CAP assets from state-to-state as needed, and maintaining liasion with all AG's/Asst AG's within their region.
A similar plan was rejected by the Air Force a few years ago, but I think it needs to be reconsidered. A big reason for the rejection was the Cadet Program... the state AG's did not want responsibility to supervise that program. That's why I kept that close-hold in CAP channels.
Some advantages:
1. Posse Comitatus is a non-issue. CAP would be National Guard troops.
2. Use of state Armories would be as a matter of right, not hat-in-hand requests.
3. CAP planes would be based at Guard bases, increasing our security.
4. Our efforts would fall under the command and control of the officer responsible for state response to disaster, the AG. We would be better cordinated and employed.
5. Iowa has a good plan to do this, but running this on a state-to-state basis by MOU is a lot of spinning of wheels. This organization plan puts the Iowa plan as the standard nationwide, and does it with the proper level of National support and coordination.
(The writer pauses a moment, savoring the cheers of the assembled crowd. He picks up one of the hundreds of roses thrown at him by the adoring multitude, slowly smells it, drinking in its beauty. He then gallantly hands it to a sulty, raven- haired girl in the front row...)
John It won't work.
You have to many involved in command decisions. You have a wing operating under the state AG, AFRCC, Region for AE and CP, National Guard Bureau and NHQ. Plus how many Wings have Air Guard bases to base CAP aircraft, and are they distributed around the state to facilitate CAP useage for missions? Also placing aircraft at a few locations would decrease proficiency flying for many pilots in a Wing. To say nothing of access to ANG bases.
Much more effective would be having the National Board under HQ CAP-USAF or more military control under 1st Air Force or Board of Governors. The National Board, National CC or NEC recommends to HQ CAP-USAF who would be approval authority. In other words go back to the 1940's to 1960's CAP and USAF relationship. Do away with the civilian Wing Director and replace them with active or reserve USAF or ANG Officers in grade of O-5 or O-6.
Bill... We would not HAVE to base our planes at ANG bases, but under this proposal, we could.
The Guard itself, especially the Air Guard, has been working under a similarly-convoluted chain of command since at least 1916. They respond to:
For example:
A ANG wing CC might have all of these on his plate on any given morning for breakfast:
1. New NGB regulations regarding security of small arms.
2. A meeting to plan disaster response under state active duty in the event of a hurricane/tornado/blizzard/earthquake/other disaster (specify___).
3. A Federal requirement to provide three airframes and crews to Operation Freedom For A Place Ending In _Stan.
4. A new USAF instruction pertaining to flight line security at Threat Level Burgundy.
5. The State Supplement to the USAF Instruction, Subject: Threat Level Burgundy, flight line access and procedures.
If anybody that is or was in the Guard wants to call me a liar, we'll talk. Placing CAP under the guard will solve SOME of our problems, but will create new ones that will need to be worked through. But... The new ones will be easier than the old, hard-to-solve problems. Almost like dropping advanced calculus and taking bonehead math in college.
John,
Send me an email alert when the election is scheduled for Chief Wizard Whats In Charge.
You have my vote.
Reminder: No.1 rule in organizational theory: Form is the slave of mission. CAP's organizational structure MUST facilitate it's mission. Unless Congress decided to change (by adding to or eliminating from ) Title 36 USC 40302, "The purpose of CAP is:
(1) To provide an organization to--
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities .
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies .
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions."
With that in mind let's discuss the structural form that best facilitates the mission.
So far we have: (1) RiverAux favoring a USAF dominated structure ala USCG-AUX. (2) DNall supporting an independent organization and (3) JohnKachenmeister putting forth an integrated structure like the Air National Guard. Any others out there?
Any other suggestions out there? BTW: Don't shoot at someone else's suggestion without offering one yourself. >:D
Tell us why you thing your suggestion best facilitates the Title 36 mission of CAP.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2006, 02:36:25 PM
I'm going to resurrect a proposal I made earlier, as long as we are engaging in "Erotic fantasies" about re-organizing CAP.
Read this slowly, don't just scan it, since it is COMPLETELY different from other proposals.
1. CAP NHQ becomes a subordinate unit under the National Guard Bureau. It doesn't matter how the National CC is appointed/elected. He reports to the Chief, NGB. The BoG would be good as an appointing body.
Quote2. National Board continues to write CAP regs. Chief, NGB reviews those with impact on the Air Force (i.e., uniforms).
NB/NEC sets policy, NHQ writes regs. minor point.
Quote3. CAP NHQ assigns each wing under the operational control of the respective state AG. This is OPERATIONAL CONTROL only. The AG does not hire or fire the wing CC, that's NHQ's job, but letter input (good or bad) would be encouraged.
4. OPCON does not extend to the cadet program, nor to the AE mission. Wing CC's will have two masters: The AG for ES, and NHQ/Region for AE and CP.
Every member will have two masters, not just the wing/cc. Also, what do you do if the AG decides no cadets in ES? That is a operational issue. Why would the AG support a mission he has no desire for nor control over?
Quote5. SAR missions can be tasked directly to the wing by AFRCC. DR missions would be tasked and coordinated through the state AG, with CAP responding as the light aviation asset of the Air National Guard.
SO the NOC goes away?
Quote6. Regions would be operational commands, with the mission to coordinate multi-state SAR and DR missions, transferring CAP assets from state-to-state as needed, and maintaining liasion with all AG's/Asst AG's within their region.
Nice idea.
QuoteSome advantages:
1. Posse Comitatus is a non-issue. CAP would be National Guard troops.
OK. What about AF taskings?
Quote2. Use of state Armories would be as a matter of right, not hat-in-hand requests.
If there are any available.
Quote3. CAP planes would be based at Guard bases, increasing our security.
In CO there are only three ANG bases with airfield access, one of which is an AFB, two are part of commercial airports - one of which we already use, and the other has no CAP units within 100 miles.
Quote4. Our efforts would fall under the command and control of the officer responsible for state response to disaster, the AG. We would be better cordinated and employed.
Not true in all states. The AG may command the National Guard forces, but has no control over non-NG forces - including AD forces.
Quote5. Iowa has a good plan to do this, but running this on a state-to-state basis by MOU is a lot of spinning of wheels. This organization plan puts the Iowa plan as the standard nationwide, and does it with the proper level of National support and coordination.
You'll still need state-by-state MOU's, unless you can get the AF to fund every wing to a greater extent than they do now. (i.e. CO gets one full-time employee from Dept. Military Affairs in addition to the WG/AA, plus money)
Quote(The writer pauses a moment, savoring the cheers of the assembled crowd. He picks up one of the hundreds of roses thrown at him by the adoring multitude, slowly smells it, drinking in its beauty. He then gallantly hands it to a sulty, raven- haired girl in the front row...)
**SPALSH** JK gets large pail of ice cold water thrown on him. >:D
Arajca
OK...now where's you proposal ;D
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on December 24, 2006, 05:11:06 PM
Arajca
OK...now where's you proposal ;D
I can already hear it. "Whaddya mean: Proposal? I wasn't making a proposal!"
And yeah, I know what you mean...
Quote from: arajca on December 24, 2006, 04:56:58 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2006, 02:36:25 PM
I'm going to resurrect a proposal I made earlier, as long as we are engaging in "Erotic fantasies" about re-organizing CAP.
Read this slowly, don't just scan it, since it is COMPLETELY different from other proposals.
1. CAP NHQ becomes a subordinate unit under the National Guard Bureau. It doesn't matter how the National CC is appointed/elected. He reports to the Chief, NGB. The BoG would be good as an appointing body.
Quote2. National Board continues to write CAP regs. Chief, NGB reviews those with impact on the Air Force (i.e., uniforms).
NB/NEC sets policy, NHQ writes regs. minor point.
True, but the NB votes to approve/disapprove regs authored by NHQ. I just don't write that good early in the morning.
Quote3. CAP NHQ assigns each wing under the operational control of the respective state AG. This is OPERATIONAL CONTROL only. The AG does not hire or fire the wing CC, that's NHQ's job, but letter input (good or bad) would be encouraged.
4. OPCON does not extend to the cadet program, nor to the AE mission. Wing CC's will have two masters: The AG for ES, and NHQ/Region for AE and CP.
Every member will have two masters, not just the wing/cc. Also, what do you do if the AG decides no cadets in ES? That is a operational issue. Why would the AG support a mission he has no desire for nor control over?
That is a valid point, and one that has to be addressed. Right now, we can't use cadets in ES unless they are 18 years of age or over in DR. (FEMA's rule). I would suggest that part of the structural change we are dscussing would be to codify into NGB Reguations the role of cadets in ES missions originated under state authority, perhaps limiting cadet involvement to mission base support. ES missions tasked by AFRCC would be unchanged. The codified change, however, MAY end up being that only cadets over 18 can serve on DR missions. We would have to live with the status quo.
Quote5. SAR missions can be tasked directly to the wing by AFRCC. DR missions would be tasked and coordinated through the state AG, with CAP responding as the light aviation asset of the Air National Guard.
SO the NOC goes away?
Yes.
Quote6. Regions would be operational commands, with the mission to coordinate multi-state SAR and DR missions, transferring CAP assets from state-to-state as needed, and maintaining liasion with all AG's/Asst AG's within their region.
Nice idea.
QuoteSome advantages:
1. Posse Comitatus is a non-issue. CAP would be National Guard troops.
OK. What about AF taskings?
What about them? AF Taskings from AFRCC would not be law enforcement anyway. AF Taskings such as border patrol or homeland defense missions would be tasked via the AG, keeping us under the Guard chain. Taskings orginating at state level could, in fact, be law enforcement support operations, and we would be relieved of the duty to split legal hairs to avoid conflict with the PCA.
Quote2. Use of state Armories would be as a matter of right, not hat-in-hand requests.
If there are any available.
Availability would vary from state to state, certainly. But if we had a unit in a certain location, and there was a state armory there too, I'm pretty sure they could find the room to put up our gear and hold a meeting once a week. It beats using a VFW post or a church basement.
Quote3. CAP planes would be based at Guard bases, increasing our security.
In CO there are only three ANG bases with airfield access, one of which is an AFB, two are part of commercial airports - one of which we already use, and the other has no CAP units within 100 miles.
I answered this one on an inquiry from BillB. Authorized, but not required.
Quote4. Our efforts would fall under the command and control of the officer responsible for state response to disaster, the AG. We would be better cordinated and employed.
Not true in all states. The AG may command the National Guard forces, but has no control over non-NG forces - including AD forces.
Bingo. We need to fall under the military forces, not the civilian FEMA guys.
Quote5. Iowa has a good plan to do this, but running this on a state-to-state basis by MOU is a lot of spinning of wheels. This organization plan puts the Iowa plan as the standard nationwide, and does it with the proper level of National support and coordination.
You'll still need state-by-state MOU's, unless you can get the AF to fund every wing to a greater extent than they do now. (i.e. CO gets one full-time employee from Dept. Military Affairs in addition to the WG/AA, plus money)
So, why would your situation in CO change any except for the better? You already sound like you have some official contact with the NG already.
Quote(The writer pauses a moment, savoring the cheers of the assembled crowd. He picks up one of the hundreds of roses thrown at him by the adoring multitude, slowly smells it, drinking in its beauty. He then gallantly hands it to a sulty, raven- haired girl in the front row...)
**SPALSH** JK gets large pail of ice cold water thrown on him. >:D
(The crowd become an angry mob and turns on the prankster with the bucket, beating him with sticks and rocks. In the confusion, the Writer slips off with the sultry raven-haired beauty! She dries his brow with the hem of her skirt.)
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2006, 02:36:25 PM1. CAP NHQ becomes a subordinate unit under the National Guard Bureau. It doesn't matter how the National CC is appointed/elected. He reports to the Chief, NGB. The BoG would be good as an appointing body.
If you're talking the Federal level bureau, then I could get on board with that idea. Although a few of the states integrate the wings with the TAG and it seems to go pretty well. Might be best to use the model of the states that have gotten it right, work from there.
Quote2. National Board continues to write CAP regs. Chief, NGB reviews those with impact on the Air Force (i.e., uniforms).
Not sure what to say here. If it impacts the Air Force level, then the Air Force itself should be looking at it, not just a branch of the Air Force. We need to get closer to the AF as a whole, not just a part of it.
Quote3. CAP NHQ assigns each wing under the operational control of the respective state AG. This is OPERATIONAL CONTROL only. The AG does not hire or fire the wing CC, that's NHQ's job, but letter input (good or bad) would be encouraged.
I would say call it "tasking" as opposed to control. TAG would "task" based on his requirements from the governor.
And as far as the tasking goes, there wouldn't be an option for the TAG to say "No cadets" on tasking. If he had
control, then he could. Although it would be a poor commander that would micromanage that way. Easiest way to have something done is to tell somewhat what you need, and then let them handle it from there.
Quote4. OPCON does not extend to the cadet program, nor to the AE mission. Wing CC's will have two masters: The AG for ES, and NHQ/Region for AE and CP.
Seems to fit. We just need to specify which has the priority. Does a cadet programs function get drawn down if a mission comes up? The TAG should be told before hand.
Quote5. SAR missions can be tasked directly to the wing by AFRCC. DR missions would be tasked and coordinated through the state AG, with CAP responding as the light aviation asset of the Air National Guard.
If this would give us a legitimate job that only we could do, then I'm all for it. I'm not talking about "Well, CAP can do it cheaper, we'll use them
for now." I want to hear "CAP is the only ones trained in the proper manner
to do this for us." There are loads of various organizations that fall under a "SAR" umbrella, but so far I'm not impressed with the ones I've seen. Not to say there aren't good ones, I just haven't seen any of them.
Quote6. Regions would be operational commands, with the mission to coordinate multi-state SAR and DR missions, transferring CAP assets from state-to-state as needed, and maintaining liasion with all AG's/Asst AG's within their region.
Multi state coordination would probably be done by the TAGs themselves, so I'm not sure a region would be necessary for something like that. As far as assets go, I think that's a good idea. Nice to have an upper level control on your assets (as opposed to having an upper level on your ......), that way your TAG's aren't reassigning property that doesn't really belong to them.
One thing I would say that a Region should do is training, and I think that should include
Mobile Training Teams. There is far too much training done at Regions that only a few select people get to attend; for others it can be inconvenient, or just not possible. Bring the training to the field, not vice versa. (As a friend of mine would say "Get them to a place where they can get their learn on!")
An additional note on training, surely we could have someone qualifed to teach those classroom ICS courses, couldn't we?
QuoteA similar plan was rejected by the Air Force a few years ago, but I think it needs to be reconsidered. A big reason for the rejection was the Cadet Program... the state AG's did not want responsibility to supervise that program. That's why I kept that close-hold in CAP channels.
Like I said above, don't make it operational control, make it tasking. Should smooth out that problem.
QuoteSome advantages:
1. Posse Comitatus is a non-issue. CAP would be National Guard troops.
I like this point, it would solve any PC problems. You either are useable under PC or your not. This way, there isn't any question.
Quote2. Use of state Armories would be as a matter of right, not hat-in-hand requests.
This would really be nice. I know there are joint Guard/Reserve, Army/Navy, Army/Air armories across this country. This could bring this us to the same level. Not to mention it would have the state paying the bills.
Although I would bring another point here. Make a determination on what gear anyone needs for a mission, and issue that kit. The Guard issues you stuff, it would be nice if CAP could. How do we pay for it? That would be a real good question.
Quote3. CAP planes would be based at Guard bases, increasing our security.
Nice idea, but as someone pointed out, not all states have a Guard base. There is really no solving for that fact. Obviously, you can't demand the state build a base just for our planes. That would go over like a lead balloon.
Quote4. Our efforts would fall under the command and control of the officer responsible for state response to disaster, the AG. We would be better cordinated and employed.
Seems to me to be fairly reasonable. Especially if we had some of the same ICS training that the Guard side did. I think the MEMS academy that the SGAUS has would probably be a real good idea for a start, as least as far as to what I've read of it.
Quote5. Iowa has a good plan to do this, but running this on a state-to-state basis by MOU is a lot of spinning of wheels. This organization plan puts the Iowa plan as the standard nationwide, and does it with the proper level of National support and coordination.
Good point. If it gets changed as far as USC goes, we could implement pretty well. Although to do it on that level, there are some TAGs that might want our officers to be a little more educated (Take your SOS, ACSC, and AWC if you can get it!)
Big Question, overall: Where do we get the funding? I would love to see a CAP run like this. Who do we give the idea to, though?
Quote(The writer pauses a moment, savoring the cheers of the assembled crowd. He picks up one of the hundreds of roses thrown at him by the adoring multitude, slowly smells it, drinking in its beauty. He then gallantly hands it to a sulty, raven- haired girl in the front row...)
We put the coffee on for ya, buddy... ;)
Three points of information for purposes of this discussion....
1. I believe every state has a National Guard. It is a creature of state statute which puts the governor in charge of the NG for its Title 32 missions. Federal law creates the NBG which looks and operates like our NB and coordinates the Army's Title 10 tasking of the NG.
2. Most funding for the support and maintenance of the NG comes from the Federal Government. But there is sizeable structural funding (maintenance of armories, salaries of NG officers on "state active duty" (Title 32 missions) etc. [IAWG and other CAP wings get their funding under this heading.]
3. There is very little state funding for the Air National Guard because it has a very limited state mission. Most Governors would look at CAP as providing more day to day support to the state than the Air National Guard. It's easier to SAR in a 182 than an F16.
Good discussion so far....KEEP IT UP. There will be a report when we are done.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 24, 2006, 08:19:11 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2006, 02:36:25 PM1. CAP NHQ becomes a subordinate unit under the National Guard Bureau. It doesn't matter how the National CC is appointed/elected. He reports to the Chief, NGB. The BoG would be good as an appointing body.
If you're talking the Federal level bureau, then I could get on board with that idea. Although a few of the states integrate the wings with the TAG and it seems to go pretty well. Might be best to use the model of the states that have gotten it right, work from there.
Quote2. National Board continues to write CAP regs. Chief, NGB reviews those with impact on the Air Force (i.e., uniforms).
Not sure what to say here. If it impacts the Air Force level, then the Air Force itself should be looking at it, not just a branch of the Air Force. We need to get closer to the AF as a whole, not just a part of it.
Right now, we refer such regs to the Air University. They refer proposals to the Uniform Board. This would merely replace AU with NGB.
Quote3. CAP NHQ assigns each wing under the operational control of the respective state AG. This is OPERATIONAL CONTROL only. The AG does not hire or fire the wing CC, that's NHQ's job, but letter input (good or bad) would be encouraged.
I would say call it "tasking" as opposed to control. TAG would "task" based on his requirements from the governor.
And as far as the tasking goes, there wouldn't be an option for the TAG to say "No cadets" on tasking. If he had control, then he could. Although it would be a poor commander that would micromanage that way. Easiest way to have something done is to tell somewhat what you need, and then let them handle it from there.
Quote4. OPCON does not extend to the cadet program, nor to the AE mission. Wing CC's will have two masters: The AG for ES, and NHQ/Region for AE and CP.
Seems to fit. We just need to specify which has the priority. Does a cadet programs function get drawn down if a mission comes up? The TAG should be told before hand.
Quote5. SAR missions can be tasked directly to the wing by AFRCC. DR missions would be tasked and coordinated through the state AG, with CAP responding as the light aviation asset of the Air National Guard.
If this would give us a legitimate job that only we could do, then I'm all for it. I'm not talking about "Well, CAP can do it cheaper, we'll use them for now." I want to hear "CAP is the only ones trained in the proper manner to do this for us." There are loads of various organizations that fall under a "SAR" umbrella, but so far I'm not impressed with the ones I've seen. Not to say there aren't good ones, I just haven't seen any of them.
Quote6. Regions would be operational commands, with the mission to coordinate multi-state SAR and DR missions, transferring CAP assets from state-to-state as needed, and maintaining liasion with all AG's/Asst AG's within their region.
Multi state coordination would probably be done by the TAGs themselves, so I'm not sure a region would be necessary for something like that. As far as assets go, I think that's a good idea. Nice to have an upper level control on your assets (as opposed to having an upper level on your ......), that way your TAG's aren't reassigning property that doesn't really belong to them.
But what about multi-state SAR missions? Those would not be run through the TAGs. Also, you are right, the assets are CAP's, not the TAG's. Regions would also provide command and control for multi-state disasters (Katrina?).
One thing I would say that a Region should do is training, and I think that should include Mobile Training Teams. There is far too much training done at Regions that only a few select people get to attend; for others it can be inconvenient, or just not possible. Bring the training to the field, not vice versa. (As a friend of mine would say "Get them to a place where they can get their learn on!")
An additional note on training, surely we could have someone qualifed to teach those classroom ICS courses, couldn't we?
QuoteA similar plan was rejected by the Air Force a few years ago, but I think it needs to be reconsidered. A big reason for the rejection was the Cadet Program... the state AG's did not want responsibility to supervise that program. That's why I kept that close-hold in CAP channels.
Like I said above, don't make it operational control, make it tasking. Should smooth out that problem.
QuoteSome advantages:
1. Posse Comitatus is a non-issue. CAP would be National Guard troops.
I like this point, it would solve any PC problems. You either are useable under PC or your not. This way, there isn't any question.
Quote2. Use of state Armories would be as a matter of right, not hat-in-hand requests.
This would really be nice. I know there are joint Guard/Reserve, Army/Navy, Army/Air armories across this country. This could bring this us to the same level. Not to mention it would have the state paying the bills.
Although I would bring another point here. Make a determination on what gear anyone needs for a mission, and issue that kit. The Guard issues you stuff, it would be nice if CAP could. How do we pay for it? That would be a real good question.
Quote3. CAP planes would be based at Guard bases, increasing our security.
Nice idea, but as someone pointed out, not all states have a Guard base. There is really no solving for that fact. Obviously, you can't demand the state build a base just for our planes. That would go over like a lead balloon.
Quote4. Our efforts would fall under the command and control of the officer responsible for state response to disaster, the AG. We would be better cordinated and employed.
Seems to me to be fairly reasonable. Especially if we had some of the same ICS training that the Guard side did. I think the MEMS academy that the SGAUS has would probably be a real good idea for a start, as least as far as to what I've read of it.
Quote5. Iowa has a good plan to do this, but running this on a state-to-state basis by MOU is a lot of spinning of wheels. This organization plan puts the Iowa plan as the standard nationwide, and does it with the proper level of National support and coordination.
Good point. If it gets changed as far as USC goes, we could implement pretty well. Although to do it on that level, there are some TAGs that might want our officers to be a little more educated (Take your SOS, ACSC, and AWC if you can get it!)
Another advantage here... Most TAGs also have State Military Academies. We could structure some state-unique training through them.
Big Question, overall: Where do we get the funding? I would love to see a CAP run like this. Who do we give the idea to, though?
Quote(The writer pauses a moment, savoring the cheers of the assembled crowd. He picks up one of the hundreds of roses thrown at him by the adoring multitude, slowly smells it, drinking in its beauty. He then gallantly hands it to a sulty, raven- haired girl in the front row...)
We put the coffee on for ya, buddy... ;)
(Graciously declining the offer of coffee from his comrades, the Writer awakes in his Mediterranean villa to see the raven-haired beauty in a white sundress on the balcony overlooking the ocean, her pearl-white teeth lighting up her smile as she pours his morning coffee.)
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on December 24, 2006, 09:06:04 PM
Three points of information for purposes of this discussion....
1. I believe every state has a National Guard. It is a creature of state statute which puts the governor in charge of the NG for its Title 32 missions. Federal law creates the NBG which looks and operates like our NB and coordinates the Army's Title 10 tasking of the NG.
2. Most funding for the support and maintenance of the NG comes from the Federal Government. But there is sizeable structural funding (maintenance of armories, salaries of NG officers on "state active duty" (Title 32 missions) etc. [IAWG and other CAP wings get their funding under this heading.]
3. There is very little state funding for the Air National Guard because it has a very limited state mission. Most Governors would look at CAP as providing more day to day support to the state than the Air National Guard. It's easier to SAR in a 182 than an F16.
Good discussion so far....KEEP IT UP. There will be a report when we are done.
You hit what I think is the man selling point in item #3. IF CAP were a unit of the ANG, there would be funding made available, both from state AND federal appropriations, which would exceed out current funding in total. Simply because the Air Guard would then be a primary player in DR.
Other advantages:
Most states have laws protecting the jobs of Guardsmen called to active duty. We would fall under those laws.
Officer standards would HAVE to be raised.
Why is everyone her etrying to tie the National Guard in with CAP? The Chief NGB is an Army three star and probably has never heard of CAP.
Looking at the locations of the Ntional Guard in Florida, I see that 3/4 of the CAP Squadrons are not within a 45 minute to 2 hour drive from a National Guard facility. Take my home town for example, there is an Army Reserve unit here (several as a matter of fact) but the nearest National Guard unit is over an hour away. Camp Blanding with both army and Air Guard is closer, but there are no facilities available year-round for a CAP Squadron. (we've asked in the recent past)
Jacksonville is the closest Air National Guard base, and there are three CAP Squadrons in Jacksonville already. None of which meets at the Guard facility. If the CAP aircraft in the Group were based at the Air Guard facility, you would be taking aircraft from several squadrons far removed from Jacksonville.
You would still have CAP Squadrons out doing fund raising to get the money to pay for utility bills and normal Squadron expenses since there is no nearby National Guard facility. So any National Guard funding for CAP would go to only a few CAP units, leaving the other out in the cold. How would you get pilots to join CAP if the nearest aircraft for proficency is 2 hours away? Even then the missions would go to the Squadrons located near the aircraft so Squadrons distant from the based aircraft would be forced to be Ground team ES trained only.
The negative effect on the cadet program far outweighs any advantage of state National Guard funding. Cadet O-rides would be reduced in all probability. Who would furnish the basic uniforms that USAF suppies to cadets now? I can see CAP under the National Guard having an effect on CAP Encampments, chances are USAF will move CAP down in priority to have the encampment at an Air Force Base. But then again, many Wings have no USAF Bases to hold encampments at any way, Florida included.
Most all ideas proposed for restructure of CAP deals with Senior, ooopps, Officer activity, and doesn't take cadet programs into consideration. It would be alot easier to get Congress to exempt CAP from PC even using USAF equipment than to move CAP under fifty different State AG, with their own agenda.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 24, 2006, 10:32:35 PM
Why is everyone her etrying to tie the National Guard in with CAP? The Chief NGB is an Army three star and probably has never heard of CAP.
The National Guard Bureau doesn't just oversee the Army side. There is an Air National Guard as well. It doesn't matter if the Chief of the NGB hasn't heard of the CAP...if CAP became a National Guard asset, I am sure he or she would be briefed on the capabilities of the CAP.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 24, 2006, 10:32:35 PM
Why is everyone her etrying to tie the National Guard in with CAP? The Chief NGB is an Army three star and probably has never heard of CAP.
Be an awfully ignorant 3 star. All the Army officers I've ever worked with knew more than the average bear when it came to Civil Air Patrol.
Most of the officers in my ArNG unit know I'm in, and pretty much know what I do. Didn't even have to tell them, they told me.
Quote(1) RiverAux favoring a USAF dominated structure ala USCG-AUX.
Actually, that wasn't what I was proposing. I was just demonstrating that you can have an elective structure that answers very directly to the parent service while having an extremely close working relationship.
Frankly, if I had my druthers we would elect all our leaders (squadrons elect squadron commanders, squadron commanders elect Group/Wing Commanders, etc.). As to where to place CAP in the military structure, that is a different issue, but I would probably lean more towards DNall.
I understand the arguments in favor of the NGB, but the fact is that unlike the NG we are not a dual state/federal organization like they are. We are a federal organization designed to undertake both federal and state missions. Keep in mind that the Adjutant Generals of many states don't even want State Defense Forces to assist their National Guard units, so I very much doubt they would be exploding in cheers to be handed a civilian auxiliary.
We could get all the state missions we want under our current structure if we really focused on outreach to local and state agencies. Putting our organization partly under state control like that isn't really likely to help much without that sort of outreach anyway.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 24, 2006, 10:32:35 PM
Why is everyone her etrying to tie the National Guard in with CAP? The Chief NGB is an Army three star and probably has never heard of CAP.
NGB is a combined Army-AF command. And "Everybody" isn't trying to place CAP under the Guard. There have been several well-reasoned and rational non-concurrences.
Quote from: BillB on December 24, 2006, 10:41:02 PM
Looking at the locations of the Ntional Guard in Florida, I see that 3/4 of the CAP Squadrons are not within a 45 minute to 2 hour drive from a National Guard facility. Take my home town for example, there is an Army Reserve unit here (several as a matter of fact) but the nearest National Guard unit is over an hour away. Camp Blanding with both army and Air Guard is closer, but there are no facilities available year-round for a CAP Squadron. (we've asked in the recent past)
Jacksonville is the closest Air National Guard base, and there are three CAP Squadrons in Jacksonville already. None of which meets at the Guard facility. If the CAP aircraft in the Group were based at the Air Guard facility, you would be taking aircraft from several squadrons far removed from Jacksonville.
You would still have CAP Squadrons out doing fund raising to get the money to pay for utility bills and normal Squadron expenses since there is no nearby National Guard facility. So any National Guard funding for CAP would go to only a few CAP units, leaving the other out in the cold. How would you get pilots to join CAP if the nearest aircraft for proficency is 2 hours away? Even then the missions would go to the Squadrons located near the aircraft so Squadrons distant from the based aircraft would be forced to be Ground team ES trained only.
The negative effect on the cadet program far outweighs any advantage of state National Guard funding. Cadet O-rides would be reduced in all probability. Who would furnish the basic uniforms that USAF suppies to cadets now? I can see CAP under the National Guard having an effect on CAP Encampments, chances are USAF will move CAP down in priority to have the encampment at an Air Force Base. But then again, many Wings have no USAF Bases to hold encampments at any way, Florida included.
Most all ideas proposed for restructure of CAP deals with Senior, ooopps, Officer activity, and doesn't take cadet programs into consideration. It would be alot easier to get Congress to exempt CAP from PC even using USAF equipment than to move CAP under fifty different State AG, with their own agenda.
Bill:
It is true that not all CAP units would move into NG facilities, and not all aircraft would be based out of NG facilities. It is, however, an option.
I don't see how the Cadet program, which under my plan would be managed out of NHQ to the wings, without going through the TAG's, would be effected by this command relationship. This would include the Free Cadet Uniform program and encampments.
Quote from: BillB on December 24, 2006, 02:58:24 PM
John It won't work.
You have to many involved in command decisions. You have a wing operating under the state AG, AFRCC, Region for AE and CP, National Guard Bureau and NHQ. Plus how many Wings have Air Guard bases to base CAP aircraft, and are they distributed around the state to facilitate CAP useage for missions? Also placing aircraft at a few locations would decrease proficiency flying for many pilots in a Wing. To say nothing of access to ANG bases.
Much more effective would be having the National Board under HQ CAP-USAF or more military control under 1st Air Force or Board of Governors. The National Board, National CC or NEC recommends to HQ CAP-USAF who would be approval authority. In other words go back to the 1940's to 1960's CAP and USAF relationship. Do away with the civilian Wing Director and replace them with active or reserve USAF or ANG Officers in grade of O-5 or O-6.
I tend to prefer something along these lines with a few alterations. First, the state director/LO positions can just as easily be a retired officer. Just so they are employed by, accountable, & loyal to AF governance of CAP.
Second, AFRCC belongs to 1AF, Disater Respose by the AF belongs to AF, HLS belongs to 1AF... they should be the OPCON org & therefore be able to set readiness & accountability standards (much like guard is doing in Iowa). Those standards would effect CAP training, where we put resources, etc. If we stay in the ADCON of AU or not is a seperate discussion. If so, we should link under AFOATS & tie in with their training resources, connections, & capabilities.
None of this addresses the CAP structure at all. We have to do something about how our leaders are selected, cause the system we have now pushes away the best people (they won't tolerate that crap & leave) & advances people that are political comepetent, but not so much as officers. I think we need to take a two pronged approach on this.
You already know what I'd like to see on officer training, development, & progression. I don't want to digress into that seperate conversation. Let me just merely say that we need a foundation, a pool from which we can draw outstanding homegrown leaders to take these command billets. That requires a fair & impartial merit based promotion system that rewards & retains our best people, while discouraging incompent & incapable folks from moving up. The only way that system remains clean is to have an AF voice in it & standards/rates tied to the AF. Short version is we ramp up to something like a federal SDF for the AF.
The other part is how & who selects command billets. Elections cannot work. That would just be a hyper version of what we have now. Members may get more of what they want on the surface, but that may be bad for CAP as a whole. It's a military style orgainzation, and cannot function with leaders worried about members liking them. I think the AF deserves a major voice in this process. That may be directly selecting the commanders (at Wg & above) from CAP officers (as AF recommened to congress in 99/00), it may be AF selecting from a list provided by CAP or vice versa, or it may be CAP selecting & AF or BoG confirming. Firings need to go in front of BoG as well, or it may be still some other system, just so its a lot different than what we have now.
With something like this in place, I don't see a need for there to be a national board or NEC. All of that should be decided at BoG (in coordination w/ AF) as was intended in the first place. A conf of Wg & reg CCs is a good thing, and they should have input up the chain, but need not control the org. I'd also re-evaluate the need of regions. We may need them, we may not. I don't know.
Then finally you get a 1Sgt type system with elected reps in a CAC-like program rep'ing the views of memebers directly to leadership.
Recognizing that form serves mission and our mission is weighted heavily on the side of state and local as compared to national, does CAP need a strategic military partner to allow it to better serve its mission OR can it go it alone like the Red Cross or even some other entities under the Dept. of Defense?
Anyone in favor of going it alone? If so, why?
(As the sultry raven-haired beauty pours the exhausted CAP officer a cuppa coffee she casts a glance at the ES qualification patch on his BUD's and says "....")
Quote from: RiverAux on December 25, 2006, 12:21:25 AM
QuoteFrankly, if I had my druthers we would elect all our leaders (squadrons elect squadron commanders, squadron commanders elect Group/Wing Commanders, etc.). As to where to place CAP in the military structure, that is a different issue, but I would probably lean more towards DNall.
IF the commanders are to be elected, I prefer that they be elected by the membership at large so the leadership is accountable to the rank and file. HOWEVER, I really don't see how electing the leadership can produce effective leaders. Didn't the state militias do that during the Civil War and often it put incompetant leaders in command of units?
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on December 25, 2006, 01:09:14 AM
Recognizing that form serves mission and our mission is weighted heavily on the side of state and local as compared to national, does CAP need a strategic military partner to allow it to better serve its mission OR can it go it alone like the Red Cross or even some other entities under the Dept. of Defense?
Anyone in favor of going it alone? If so, why?
(As the sultry raven-haired beauty pours the exhausted CAP officer a cuppa coffee she casts a glance at the ES qualification patch on his BUD's and says "....")
My vote is absolutely NO on going it alone. CAP doesn't have nearly the name recognition that organizations like the Red Cross have. The RC doesn't have 550 aircraft, and however thousands of vehicles, radios and other toys to purchase and maintain. Also, the RC mission usually puts it in direct connection with "consumers" in large quantities. By that, I mean that the RC feeds, clothes, houses and helps large quantities of citizens needing assistance. As a result, they have a large name recognition, and everybody knows what they do and the service they perform. While CAP certainly helps people, it is either in small groups, like in a aircraft search, or more behind the scenes in DR. I don't see how CAP could raise the kind of funding we need without a agency suger daddy.
Is it just me, or has something happened to the spell check? I apologize in advance for any mispellings.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on December 25, 2006, 01:09:14 AM
Recognizing that form serves mission and our mission is weighted heavily on the side of state and local as compared to national, does CAP need a strategic military partner to allow it to better serve its mission OR can it go it alone like the Red Cross or even some other entities under the Dept. of Defense?
Anyone in favor of going it alone? If so, why?
(As the sultry raven-haired beauty pours the exhausted CAP officer a cuppa coffee she casts a glance at the ES qualification patch on his BUD's and says "....")
I would oppose the "Go it alone" route. Historically, we have always been the air arm of a larger organization, initially Civil Defense, then the Army Air Corps/USAF. After more than six decades, the Air Force is a part of our heritage, and we are a part of theirs.
How else can the Air Force claim that volunteer light plane pilots literally drove an enemy away from our shores?
("His looks just like yours, Dreamboat, but yours looks better under those pretty wings. When do you want me to fly away with you?" she said, breathlessly.)
Quote from: DNall on December 25, 2006, 12:46:49 AM
You already know what I'd like to see on officer training, development, & progression. I don't want to digress into that seperate conversation. Let me just merely say that we need a foundation, a pool from which we can draw outstanding homegrown leaders to take these command billets. That requires a fair & impartial merit based promotion system that rewards & retains our best people, while discouraging incompent & incapable folks from moving up. The only way that system remains clean is to have an AF voice in it & standards/rates tied to the AF. Short version is we ramp up to something like a federal SDF for the AF.
The other part is how & who selects command billets. Elections cannot work. That would just be a hyper version of what we have now. Members may get more of what they want on the surface, but that may be bad for CAP as a whole. It's a military style orgainzation, and cannot function with leaders worried about members liking them. I think the AF deserves a major voice in this process. That may be directly selecting the commanders (at Wg & above) from CAP officers (as AF recommened to congress in 99/00), it may be AF selecting from a list provided by CAP or vice versa, or it may be CAP selecting & AF or BoG confirming. Firings need to go in front of BoG as well, or it may be still some other system, just so its a lot different than what we have now.
If regulations called for minimum grade for each echelon, with time-in-grade requirements for grades were actually enforce, that would go along way toward getting good experienced people in billets.
For example, squadron commander had to hold 1st Lt grade, with minimum 1 year in a staff position, plus SLS, CLC and Unit Commanders course. Group CC required minimum grade of Capt or Maj plus at least one year in a command position or at least one year as a staff member on group or wing staff. Wing CC would require minimum grade of Lt. Col. plus one year group level command or wing staff. Something along those lines all the way up to National CC.
I think a lot of the people that are more politically motivated would not stay around long enough to get command positions of they had to work at grade advancement and lower level command jobs for years before getting promoted to the upper levels of command.
Quote from: ELThunter on December 25, 2006, 01:18:00 AMI don't see how CAP could raise the kind of funding we need without a agency suger daddy.
We raise the funds by hiring professional fund raisers just like the Red Cross and Boy Scouts (and just about every other major non-proffit) does.
CAP has had such a great realtionship with the USAF that they have forgotten that we are supposed to be a stand alone organisation.
Here me all! CAP is a stand alone organisation. We do not need Congress' or the USAF permission to exist!
It is nice that the USAF and congress gives us a big chunk of change and allows us to use their facilities and get first pickings of the DRMO stuff. But if we found an alternate source of funds (say selling 100M cookies or beggin on street corners) we could do the with out this source of funding.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING A BREAK WITH THE USAF !!! I am only saying that there is nothing special about us that is preventing us from seeking other sources of funding.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 25, 2006, 01:44:34 AM
CAP has had such a great realtionship with the USAF that they have forgotten that we are supposed to be a stand alone organisation.
Here me all! CAP is a stand alone organisation. We do not need Congress' or the USAF permission to exist!
Considering that Congress passed the laws that allow the Civil Air Patrol to exist...I would say that we need their permission to exist. If we didn't need their permission to exist...would we be submitting annual reports to them?
QuoteThat would just be a hyper version of what we have now. Members may get more of what they want on the surface, but that may be bad for CAP as a whole. It's a military style orgainzation, and cannot function with leaders worried about members liking them.
Again, it seems to work pretty well in the CG Aux.
I think you are dramatically overemphasizing the degree to which CAP members are anxious for higher office in the first place. Even under our current structure it is often very difficult to get somebody to take over as squadron commander. Wny? Because it is basically an open-ended committment. If they know up front that it will only last a limited period of time (2 years seems about right to me, with maybe an option for a year extra), some of your more talented people would be more likely to agree to do it. The same goes for the higher offices.
I think the best compromise would be to treat all squadron, group, region commander slots like job vacancies. Set certain minimum requirements (time in CAP, ratings, etc.) and let anyone apply who meets the requirements when an opening occurs. This does appear to happen at the Wing level and there isn't any reason it couldn't work for squadron commanders (except for what I mentioned earlier in that it is difficult to get people to do it, much less apply for it).
Quote from: lordmonar on December 25, 2006, 01:44:34 AM
Quote from: ELThunter on December 25, 2006, 01:18:00 AMI don't see how CAP could raise the kind of funding we need without a agency suger daddy.
We raise the funds by hiring professional fund raisers just like the Red Cross and Boy Scouts (and just about every other major non-proffit) does.
Fund raising does not work for CAP, National HQ has hired people before, they don't last long. I recall the CAP Stock Car Sponsorship.
The Boy Scouts have been around more than 100 years, with a heavy alumni and sponsorship following, they own Real Estate, rich people donate land, money, and leave estates for the Boy Scouts.
Lets be realistic, we are associated with the Government, the perception is we get money from the Governement, which bars attempts at getting real huge National donations.
Congress has our money, if we had a leader with a vision, and a leader that can formulate a way to bring membership up to say 150,000.
Then we could probably get more money from Congress.
Quote from: DeputyDog on December 25, 2006, 01:56:49 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 25, 2006, 01:44:34 AM
CAP has had such a great relationship with the USAF that they have forgotten that we are supposed to be a stand alone organization.
Here me all! CAP is a stand alone organization. We do not need Congress' or the USAF permission to exist!
Considering that Congress passed the laws that allow the Civil Air Patrol to exist...I would say that we need their permission to exist. If we didn't need their permission to exist...would we be submitting annual reports to them?
No congress passed a law to allow us special status...not for for us to exist.
I can form a completely separate, completely private sector, non-profit, Air Bourne Search and Rescue organization tomorrow and I don't need anyone's permission.
It does not take a special license to install a DF receiver in a Cessna and offer your services to the local sherrif's department. It does not take any special certification to form ground teams, train them and have them on stand by ready to support your local sheriff.
I can even make arrangements with AFRCC (through my local sherrif's department) to be the first one called if an ELT goes off in a particular area.
We need Congress' and USAF's permission to be the USAF-AUX...but not to be the Civil Air Patrol. We can continue to provide SAR functions with out the USAF-AUX title.
As for cadet programs....is ACA federally recognized? How about any military academy? They all do cadet programs with out a law greatening them.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 25, 2006, 02:10:36 AM
Quote from: DeputyDog on December 25, 2006, 01:56:49 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 25, 2006, 01:44:34 AM
CAP has had such a great relationship with the USAF that they have forgotten that we are supposed to be a stand alone organization.
Here me all! CAP is a stand alone organization. We do not need Congress' or the USAF permission to exist!
Considering that Congress passed the laws that allow the Civil Air Patrol to exist...I would say that we need their permission to exist. If we didn't need their permission to exist...would we be submitting annual reports to them?
No congress passed a law to allow us special status...not for for us to exist.
I can form a completely separate, completely private sector, non-profit, Air Bourne Search and Rescue organization tomorrow and I don't need anyone's permission.
It does not take a special license to install a DF receiver in a Cessna and offer your services to the local sherrif's department. It does not take any special certification to form ground teams, train them and have them on stand by ready to support your local sheriff.
I can even make arrangements with AFRCC (through my local sherrif's department) to be the first one called if an ELT goes off in a particular area.
We need Congress' and USAF's permission to be the USAF-AUX...but not to be the Civil Air Patrol. We can continue to provide SAR functions with out the USAF-AUX title.
As for cadet programs....is ACA federally recognized? How about any military academy? They all do cadet programs with out a law greatening them.
I think you are dreaming if you think CAP, with the assets we have, can exist as a stand alone organization. There is now way the organization could sustain operating all of the planes and vehicles we have, and most of all, fund the insurance required to conduct our operations, through private funding. Look at the millions of dollars that congress has appropriated for communications equipment, aircraft, vehicles, etc, etc. The BSA and RC does not have that kind of burden to procure, maintain and replace. Additionally, I don't know when the last time was you were associated with the Boy Scouts, but if you think it's expensive to be in CAP, try being in the Scouts. I pay way more in dues, uniforms and various other fees for my son and I to be in Scouts, and we don't have to pay for radios, DF's, etc., etc.
Quote from: ELThunter on December 25, 2006, 02:52:47 AMI think you are dreaming if you think CAP, with the assets we have, can exist as a stand alone organization. There is now way the organization could sustain operating all of the planes and vehicles we have, and most of all, fund the insurance required to conduct our operations, through private funding. Look at the millions of dollars that congress has appropriated for communications equipment, aircraft, vehicles, etc, etc. The BSA and RC does not have that kind of burden to procure, maintain and replace. Additionally, I don't know when the last time was you were associated with the Boy Scouts, but if you think it's expensive to be in CAP, try being in the Scouts. I pay way more in dues, uniforms and various other fees for my son and I to be in Scouts, and we don't have to pay for radios, DF's, etc., etc.
The BSA and ARC most certainly have this and more in the way of assets and operating budgets. They have insurance problems as well. I have worked for both the BSA and ARC at council and chapter level.
Could CAP self fund? Sure it could. Could it do it tomorrow? Now because we don't have the infrastructure yet. It would take as a conservative guess about 10 years to transition to a full self funded organization.
But it could be done. Congress had to give us all those millions because of a major upgrade in communications. The Red Cross is facing the same problem right now with out congressional help.
Would it be easy? No. We would have to make some real belt tightening actions to get it done. But we could certainly be possible. If you think that CAP's budget is too great...how much to do you think a BSA Jamboree costs? The BSA has no troubles nor the Red Cross in raising the kind of money it would take to keep CAP flying. They are able to do so...because they pay for it...they hire professionals to provide the services and raise the moneys their organization need.
I just checked the Red Cross' web site and checked out their 2005 tax returns....
The Red Cross raised....hold on tight.....$1.3B (that is B as in Billion) in contributions including $83M in government contributions. http://www.redcross.org/pubs/car05/990fy2005.pdf (http://www.redcross.org/pubs/car05/990fy2005.pdf) that would be line 1d on their return.
Ergo...it is possible to raise the paltry $20M we got in 2005 and it is possible to raise money AND receive government funding at the same time. The CAP is small time operation compared to both the ARC and BSA.
Another argument against the NGB linkage is the fact that the Air National Guard is in the middle of a drawdown of about 14,000 people right now.
Yes, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't take many of their folks to take over current military slots involved in running CAP, or even under some of the proposals given here. But, I don't believe they would see any advantage to them of having CAP under their control when they can use CAP now if they want to without having to deal with the overhead of being in charge.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 24, 2006, 10:32:35 PM
Why is everyone her etrying to tie the National Guard in with CAP? The Chief NGB is an Army three star and probably has never heard of CAP.
I know, THe NGB is the National Guard Bureau which is Joint AIR and ARMY National Guard. I think that it wshould fall under the AIR National Guard.
OK, OK everyone...stay focused. We're talking STRUCTURE.
Discuss this:
No.1. CAP BOG composed of 2 appointed by SECDEF (whose interests would be our Title 10 mission) , 2 appointed by President of NGB (whose interests would be our Title 36 mission) and 3 elected by membership of CAP. BOG appoints the N/CC .
Think deeply about this before you reply. Then give us your best comments.
The only problem I see is the 3 ELECTED by the membership of CAP. Members in Maine have no idea who Col Doe from Texas might be. And the National Board would still be wrong area to elect those three members from due to politics of the Board and NEC.
Better idea would be interested people apply for the National CC or BoG positions and have the CAP-USAF staff evaluate them and make recommendations to the BoG who to appoint.
Your potential structure assumes there will be some sort of relationship with the NGB and that it further assumes they would adequately represent the interests of CAP's state "customers". Since the NGB uses CAP for very little I don't see that they would be the best at oversight. I would rather see people from state emergency management agencies since they are by far a much bigger "customer" (both now and in the future) than the national guard.
Quote from: BillB on December 25, 2006, 05:29:17 PM
The only problem I see is the 3 ELECTED by the membership of CAP. Members in Maine have no idea who Col Doe from Texas might be. And the National Board would still be wrong area to elect those three members from due to politics of the Board and NEC.
Better idea would be interested people apply for the National CC or BoG positions and have the CAP-USAF staff evaluate them and make recommendations to the BoG who to appoint.
A good point. The idea of applying for a position sounds like a good one. The Guard already does that for technician and AGR jobs, it would be a simple matter of enacting a similar system. An AGR tour is a set period, where as technician are indefinite once you get past the first year (an annoying flaw in the system).
For CAP board positions, set a term. Re-announce the job position six months before the term is up. Specify the requirements for the job and if people don't meet them, offer them the chance to resign, terminate them if they refuse to and won't do the job.
I don't like going under the NGB because it's a n Army dominated org. As Nick can tell you, the ANG is not well equipped for & tends not to participate heavily in state missions. It's a big step down for CAP.
A lot of the state missions Iowa & others are involved in ar enice things - missing persons & such. They are state missions that should be on LE with Fire/EMS backing up. When those resources are not enough, which is common in less populated states like Iowa & virtually NEVER the case in a place like Texas, then the national guard can supplememnt. The argument here is that inside that chain then the Guard resources aren't enough then CAP will get a call. Okay that's fine, missions for state & local, but in no way does it benefit the AF. It isn't part of their mission & it doesn't make them more combat capable. The National Guard is focused on their title 32 (state) mission & step up to their title 10 (federal) mission every now & then. CAP is supposed to be focused on title 10 (federal), where we do direct federal missions & we do other stuff to save money/support/force multiply/etc for the big AF; we do any title 36 (corporate) missions in our spare time with our spare resources.
I understand Iowa is doing a lot for their state, and that's fine but it's not & cannot be the focus of our national organization or we won't long be funded by an AF that doesn't need us any more. The focus has to be on changing CAP into a new animal that can step to new & dif AF missions (that may or may not involve flying). I believe that requires us to change the requirements of our personnel to be comparable to military officers of the same grade - which in turn requires an enlisted side running more of our traditional PD program, I believe it requires a fair & impartial merit based promotions system that retains good people & stomps on petty foolishness while giving AF a voice on standards w/ a seat on the boards, and I believe the leadership structure built on that foundation has to become acountable in the AF chain just as though we were any other AF unit.
Overall, I don't believe our status as a seperate corporation is necessary. You don't see such a thing for the CG Aux. I belive the corporate status was obselete the moment the Auxiliary law was passed 60 years ago. I believe the 2000 law should be altered to abolish the coporate status & state that CAP is the perm Aux serving as a civil-military reserve component responsdible to the AF. An independent board selected by general membership will advise SECAF on the matter.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 25, 2006, 05:40:10 PM
Your potential structure assumes there will be some sort of relationship with the NGB and that it further assumes they would adequately represent the interests of CAP's state "customers". Since the NGB uses CAP for very little I don't see that they would be the best at oversight. I would rather see people from state emergency management agencies since they are by far a much bigger "customer" (both now and in the future) than the national guard.
I don't think we should be controlled by a state EMA. Like it or not, Civil Air Patrol is a paramilitary ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paramilitary ) organization. It doesn't need to be controlled under a wholly civilian organization.
The Guard does get tasked out to assist emergency agencies, I've worked a few of those myself. One of which my paycheck for that particular incident came from the Forestry Service. The benefit there is that the Guard could task us out on incidents, and could make sure we get paid. We can't afford to be performing our services for free.
You really get a check direct from forrestry service, or was it from the state & they were reimbursed by forrestry? Cause that's wierd, I've never heard of that.
I don't think you're goign to get paid by falling under the state. CAP can add a per diem, regs already allow for that. The best chance it to pay a small amount from grant money as some of the amtr radio orgs have worked out. We can charge it as part of our rate on corporate missions though. I'm all for it, that & protected leave from work on a national level.
Like it or not, state emergency management officials are going to have a much better idea of how CAP can be utilized in emergencies than some random AF or NG officer. Having some representatives of these agencies involved in running CAP could not hurt.
Quote from: DNall on December 25, 2006, 06:10:34 PM
You really get a check direct from forrestry service, or was it from the state & they were reimbursed by forrestry? Cause that's wierd, I've never heard of that.
I think it was Forestry. It came direct, not from the state. I don't even remember the amount, they only used us for one day. IT was small though. But even nickels and dimes will add up to thousands of dollars eventually.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 25, 2006, 06:27:25 PM
Like it or not, state emergency management officials are going to have a much better idea of how CAP can be utilized in emergencies than some random AF or NG officer. Having some representatives of these agencies involved in running CAP could not hurt.
They may have a better idea, but we shouldn't be run by them. That's why I say the TAG can task CAP to the State EMAs. The TAG tasks Guard troops to state EMAs all the time. It would be easier, if all he or she had to say was "CAP, you're handling the state emergency stuff from now on. We'll call the Guard in if you don't have enough folks to handle it."
Civil Air Patrol should never have to answer to state EMAs. We are a military modeled organization, we should never be administered or by an agency that isn't directly affiliated with the military. For the TAG to task you to an EMA is one thing, completely different story when they're your boss.
Again, everyone is focused on ES. We have two other prmary missions. I doubt the EMS or Air Guard could help us with those two missions
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 25, 2006, 06:42:44 PM
Again, everyone is focused on ES. We have two other prmary missions. I doubt the EMS or Air Guard could help us with those two missions
Not entirely focused on ES :) . I think the idea concerning the reins of CP and AE should indeed remain in NHQ's hands.
I think the idea of aligning under the Guard is a really good one. There have been some quite thought out questions, but I think this idea would work. Question is, who do we sell it to?
QuoteCivil Air Patrol should never have to answer to state EMAs. We are a military modeled organization, we should never be administered or by an agency that isn't directly affiliated with the military.
Having a few representatives from state emergency management agencies on the CAP BoG is a far cry from being administered by them.
Focus....the question is who is the BEST strategic governmental partner (DoD,FEMA, USN, USA, USMC,USCG, USAF, NGB, DHS, USCG-Aux) to oversee and assist us with our Title 36 mission. I described the Title 36 tasking in an earlier post. Refer back to it and you will see that we have two missions....one very broad (to assist the federal government i.e. Title 10) and the other specifically referencing local communities.)
It's about ES but it is also about civil aviation, aviation education, etc.
Let's vote on a strategic partner then we'll go to work on the relationship: Rank the following from 1 to 10 with 10 being the hightest: Keep in mind the sponsoring agency MUST facilitate both national and state relationships and missions.
1. DoD (Like the FDIC and other federal corporations, CAP would be under the DoD with no operational sponsor)
2. FEMA
3. US Navy
4, US Army
5. US Marine Corps
6. US Coast Guard
7. US Air Force
8. National Guard Bureau (Air/Army NG)
9, Dept Homeland Security, (CAP would be under the DHS with no operational sponsor)
10. USCG-Aux CAP and USCG-AUX would merge.
DNall:
As always, your points are well taken.
The ANG is NOT currently involved in state missions. This is for a very good reason, and the reason is also one which has effected the long-term missions of CAP.
The Feds support the ANG as an element of the Air Force. They are trained and equipped by the feds for a federal mission. The federal mission of the USAF is to establish and maintain air superiority and to provide strategic and theater air logistical supprt. To do this requires aircraft that have very little use elsewhere.
So it is NOT that the states do not need a light-plane air arm, its just that they don't have one readily available for the missions that call for it. One cannot do DR evacuation route recon from an F-16.
So since the ANG doesn't have the aircraft that CAN help, they are simply not asked to help.
Under the plan I proposed, our CAP wing in each state will become functionally an ANG asset. As such, we would be included in all planning. Our status would be constantly reviewed by the AG and Asst AG/Air. Our planes and crews would be called up early and often.
Just as the NG has a dual state/federal role, so would we. The AFRCC could still directly task CAP wings with SAR missions on Uncle Sam's dime.
Now, under the current system, an AG could call up CAP assets by making a request to 1AF, but that puts another whole HQ into the mix, and the state AG would have an asset for a single mission, but none of the flexibility that he would have if the air asset were his own.
That's why AG's end up calling up their Army aviation assets. They cost more, and in the long run such callups degrade the ability to respond to federal missions, but C3 is a lot simpler.
Wouldn't it be so much better to have a seat with the AG and all the major Guard units in the advance planning and exercises for disasters? Wouldn't we be able to serve our country and communities better by being the "Go-to guys" when air assets are needed?
And by having a seat, I mean that our wing commander's response to a tasking is, "Can-do, sir!" not "I'll run that by NHQ (or the SJA, or 1AF) and get back with you."
So, I still don't see what is in this for the NG. Under this theory a "NG asset" would be getting missions directly from the AFRCC bypassing the NG leadership entirely? I don't see that flying at all. If the NG wants a light air arm all they have to do is convince their Governor to start an SDF with a few airplanes and they would have total control over the whole structure. Sure, it would cost some money, but I bet they would rather spend money and have total control over not spending money and getting the administrative headaches without total control over what we're doing.
Everything we want to do can be accomplished under the current structure, its just not terribly efficient. As long as we're still being primarily a federal asset we need to be under federal "control". I agree with Dnall that we're currently in the wrong part of the AF.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 25, 2006, 10:41:36 PM
So, I still don't see what is in this for the NG. Under this theory a "NG asset" would be getting missions directly from the AFRCC bypassing the NG leadership entirely? I don't see that flying at all. If the NG wants a light air arm all they have to do is convince their Governor to start an SDF with a few airplanes and they would have total control over the whole structure. Sure, it would cost some money, but I bet they would rather spend money and have total control over not spending money and getting the administrative headaches without total control over what we're doing.
Everything we want to do can be accomplished under the current structure, its just not terribly efficient. As long as we're still being primarily a federal asset we need to be under federal "control". I agree with Dnall that we're currently in the wrong part of the AF.
River:
Of course, you are correct. A state COULD establish a non-federal state defense force and attach it to the ANG. And it would only cost money. The rub is it would cost LOTS of money! The fed. govt gives zero support (by law, it cannot) to SDF's. That means the state has to pay all the bills. A fleet of planes, gas, uniforms for members, training, basing, insurance, support vehicles, etc., ad infinitum.
Using this plan, the organization has already been created, and is supported by the federal government. CAP already has, just like the "regular" ANG, a federal mission. We perform missions that ordinarily WOULD be state missions, but we only perform them at the order of the federal govt. Placing us under the ANG seems a natural fit.
I don't know if you have ever served as a Guardsman, but this dual chain of command and duality of taskings is not unusual. Having ANG assets federalized for an AF mission is an everyday occurance. The fact that AFRCC can mobilize CAP assets for a fed. mission would not even raise an eyebrow at the AG's office.
River Aux: don't recall which state you are from and I guess that it really doesn't matter. In CA, we have an MOU with state OES that says, essentially, that we respond to requirements from them when they call. They back that up with a sum of money sent to the CAP coffers every year. Not a big sum, but money nonetheless, that is used by CAWG for equipment to be able to communicate with state police and emergency agencies.
That makes us responsible for responding to state OES as well as the AF: just what, I guess, you are objecting to. Doesn't bother CAWG, we just respond to whomever calls. We operate on OES mission numbers and OES pays the tab when we file a 108. In my nearly 14 years of doing this, I have flown a bunch of OES missions without a single hitch.
Could resurrect the MOU, I guess, if necessary.
CAP & ANG are VERY different in key ways. The guard has a Captial title 32 state mission, and a lower case title 10 federal mission, both are well defined & not infringed upon. CAP has a capital title 10 mission set as defined by 1AF and AFNSEP http://www.afnsep.af.mil/ (http://www.afnsep.af.mil/) , and a lower case title 36 corporate mission set which is not defined well in law. Note: that's misleading as well cause title 36 doesn't actually grant any authority or mission.
This is an important distinction because it defines how we serve different masters. There is a place, in disaster response, where we may come together on similiar objectives, but the TAG is not in charge of that, FEMA is. In a federally declared disaster, it would be stupid for the state to task CAP to do anything when they can just as easily request that CAP support from the AF and have it paid on the fed dime. That need not be a single mission request. A smart EMA/TAG would request a CAP task force to provide SaR, assessment, comm, & logistics support for a defined timeframe, and they'd get everything they ask for plus a CAP-USAF team to keep it in the lines.
The only circumstance under which a state needs CAP is when they don't have the resources to respond to an incident, which is exactly the criteria for it becoming a federally declared disaster. Can CAP get in the show faster to trailblaze for state & federal response, yeah sure, that's a national MOU you're talking about between NGB, 1AF, & CAP. The framework of that MOU can streamline the process all the way down to putting CAP assets under the command of TAGs when that's appropriate.
Here's the bigger thing though. I can see where you're coming from on disaster, and that's fine, but 1AF runs homeland air defense (including air recon/detection/etc), ANG provides assets to that effort, but they don't run that show. Then there's inland SaR, run by AFRCC which works for 1AF. States & Feds run their own seperate shows on that one. What I owa has going isn't a bad method... send in CAP advisors to liaise at a state mission & if the circumstance is right for CAP then call AFRCC for the authroization (funding).
I really do appreciate where this NGB train of thought is coming from, but to me the dots seem to connect so much better under 1AF, and like I said in that framework we can be streamed as a resource to state command if we set up the agreement to do so. Lets be honest here, it's a lot easier to get an MOU like that done than to restructure CAP under the guard but hold back CP & AE... that just gets too complicated.
I'm all in favor of CAP doing a lot more state missions, I just fail to see how associating us with the NG will do that.
In Virginia they have an SDF air wing that uses private planes. In that case it would just cost the state the same sort of fuel costs that they would have to pay to CAP to do non-AFAMs anyway, plus they have full control and no PCA issues. Last I saw I think they actually have over 20 planes involved. This model (the same used by the CG Aux by the way) would be relatively inexpensive.
The Alaska SDF does have some ancient state-owned low-wing airplanes which I can't see being of much use at all.
No matter what military agency you put us under (NGB, 1AF, or any other ) most CAP missions are going to originate with county or state agencies anyway.
Quote from: bosshawk on December 26, 2006, 12:15:25 AM
River Aux: don't recall which state you are from and I guess that it really doesn't matter. In CA, we have an MOU with state OES that says, essentially, that we respond to requirements from them when they call. They back that up with a sum of money sent to the CAP coffers every year. Not a big sum, but money nonetheless, that is used by CAWG for equipment to be able to communicate with state police and emergency agencies.
That makes us responsible for responding to state OES as well as the AF: just what, I guess, you are objecting to. Doesn't bother CAWG, we just respond to whomever calls. We operate on OES mission numbers and OES pays the tab when we file a 108. In my nearly 14 years of doing this, I have flown a bunch of OES missions without a single hitch.
See this is fine, that's exactly what I'm saying. That is in my view the best way to run this show. Now, I think you could enhance that MOU somewhat w/ lessons learned from Iowa. I think you should add the condition that "additional assets will be made available, but when conflict exists, priority will go to AF/federal mission requests." From there you can ask for more money, but in exchage agree to meet readiness goals, quality standards, etc in conjunciton w/ the guard & overseen by the TAG or AAG-Air. I like that just fine. Feel free to ask for employment protection & the possibility of deployed per diem while you're at it.
In no way does that conflict with OPCON under 1AF, which opens up a wider range of possibilities then I think are generally understood.
Quote from: DNall on December 26, 2006, 01:16:44 AM
Quote from: bosshawk on December 26, 2006, 12:15:25 AM
River Aux: don't recall which state you are from and I guess that it really doesn't matter. In CA, we have an MOU with state OES that says, essentially, that we respond to requirements from them when they call. They back that up with a sum of money sent to the CAP coffers every year. Not a big sum, but money nonetheless, that is used by CAWG for equipment to be able to communicate with state police and emergency agencies.
That makes us responsible for responding to state OES as well as the AF: just what, I guess, you are objecting to. Doesn't bother CAWG, we just respond to whomever calls. We operate on OES mission numbers and OES pays the tab when we file a 108. In my nearly 14 years of doing this, I have flown a bunch of OES missions without a single hitch.
See this is fine, that's exactly what I'm saying. That is in my view the best way to run this show. Now, I think you could enhance that MOU somewhat w/ lessons learned from Iowa. I think you should add the condition that "additional assets will be made available, but when conflict exists, priority will go to AF/federal mission requests." From there you can ask for more money, but in exchage agree to meet readiness goals, quality standards, etc in conjunciton w/ the guard & overseen by the TAG or AAG-Air. I like that just fine. Feel free to ask for employment protection & the possibility of deployed per diem while you're at it.
In no way does that conflict with OPCON under 1AF, which opens up a wider range of possibilities then I think are generally understood.
When I learned to call in artillery, I learned that once a 50 meter bracket is established by WP marking rounds, you call for "Fire for Effect."
DNall and I have established the 50 meter bracket. Both of us are using the Iowa model as the basis for operations under the military authority of TAG. (Yes, FEMA is the fed response in charge, but the TAG commands all military assets in the state. If FEMA wants military forces, the run the tasking to TAG. Fed. military forces are only used when NG forces are insufficient).
DNall wants to use the existing OPCON to 1AF, with Iowa-esque MOU's in all 52 wings. That will work.
I propose restructuring the entire CAP command relationship so that the Iowa plan can be implemented nationwide. That will also work.
The question then becomes, which plan is better? Which can be implemented the easiest, and which offers the most benefits to us?
And those questions are tough. DNall's plan IS easier to implement.
But I think my plan offers the most benefit to CAP and to its members.
Keep in mind that CAP already has MOUs with every state (or should -- I seem to recall hearing that one of the Katrina states had let their's lapse).
Exactly what is in the Iowa MOU? Frankly, it doesn't seem that different than some others from what I have heard posted. Other states use NG facilities for meetings, many other Wings get state funding. Other Wings do quite a few state missions. The only significant difference seems to be the willingess to billet CAP on one of their bases every month and that isn't necessarily something that every state could do or be willing to do. I'm just asking for information, not making a judgement call.
I'm also trying to wrap my head around exactly how the states are going to be forced to accept CAP into their National Guard structure. I can understand how CAP, as a national organization can be placed under the command of the National Guard Bureau, but do not see how the feds will be able to mandate that each state set aside people and money to oversee CAP.
I think you're dramatically overestimating how much interest the NG will have in getting this responsibility. I don't recall if I said it yet in this thread, but keep in mind that about half the state's haven't created a State Defense Force and of those States with them they get almost no money at all and in many states the Adjutant General would disband them if they had the opportunity and uses them as little as possible. That is the sort of situation you would be dropping CAP into.
By trying to integrate CAP into the state structure you will be putting CAP into a very risky situation where we would be at the whim of folks to whom we are a very insignificant part of their mission. It is a receipe for making CAP into even more of a patchwork than we are now. Some states may have great relationships and be overwhelmed with missions and resources while others get the short end of the stick.
I don't know if I'd go that far with it, but I share some of those concerns... moving to an Army dominated command, reinforced fragmentation, 52 seperate standards. All bad. It was the right move for Iowa, but not the smae thing on a national scale. He's also right that many wings get tons of money from their states, & most have access to similiar facilities.
The logical "partner" on a national scale that gives you everything they are getting from the states while preserving the much more important roles we can be playing nationally; the place where all our missions converge.... that's 1AF.
I don't think you even need 52 seperate MOUs. What you need is ONE national MOU. 1AF takes resources from the states to run airspace monitoring, defense, HLS, counter-narc, etc & they have AFRCC too. What we need is an MOU that allows that flow to be reversed to address certain state needs. It'd spell out: the simple streamlined proceedures, range of resources & misisons that can be addressed, etc. 1AF is the coordinating agency & resource provider. NGB sets national readiness standards to meet TAG needs, ensures support & interaction from TAGs, etc. TAGs are the requestor & merely need to affirm knowledge of this national agreement. I'd try to add that state participation in the agreement requires CAP members activated at state request to be covered by equiv employment & liability protections as NG members on state active duty.
I appreciate the NG centric perspective, but to me this broader simpler move is the best of both worlds. It is no small thing. It would be the same kind of thing you're seeing in Iowa, and states would have a high level of interaction & a lot to say about readiness standards for CAP in their state, but it keeps us federal first & focused on the big picture rather than the narrow mission set that the NG can hand us. I think we're shooting the same target though. How to get this done is a negotiation somewhere over our paygrade, unfortunately.
Quote from: CAP Sergeant on December 24, 2006, 01:03:59 AM
Quote from: BillB on December 23, 2006, 01:03:21 PM
Personally I consider MGen Pineda a stong leader. The only problem I see is the lack of communication from the CAP CC to the membership on HIS goals for the organization.
I have to strongly disagree. He may be a strong 'manager' but he is far from a strong 'leader'. A good leader would communicate their vision for CAP (or any organization). He's displayed his strong arm management skills in the sacking of many CAP Officers. Given the amount of time he has sat at the top he has done nothing to stem the growing tide of membership decline in the past five years, nor has he communicated to us what the blazes "Performing Missions for America" are.
I'm not sure "strong manager" should apply. The evidence would seem to suggest "Micro Manager". That is a trap many leaders easily fall in to for a variety of reaons. Review the CAP publications page and note the number of /CC letters posted as clarification and explanation. Many could and should have been passed down through the chain of command by staff at NHQ. Strong "leaders" and stong "managers" both know how to delegate. The role of the CG should be to develop a vision for the organization, communicate that vision to members/subordinates and outside interests, and then inspire others to take measures necessary to achieve the previously articulated vision.
They have to be posted on the web page to be considered official and he is the only one with the authority to author them.
Quote from: DNall on December 26, 2006, 08:39:56 AM
I don't know if I'd go that far with it, but I share some of those concerns... moving to an Army dominated command, reinforced fragmentation, 52 seperate standards. All bad. It was the right move for Iowa, but not the smae thing on a national scale. He's also right that many wings get tons of money from their states, & most have access to similiar facilities.
The logical "partner" on a national scale that gives you everything they are getting from the states while preserving the much more important roles we can be playing nationally; the place where all our missions converge.... that's 1AF.
I don't think you even need 52 seperate MOUs. What you need is ONE national MOU. 1AF takes resources from the states to run airspace monitoring, defense, HLS, counter-narc, etc & they have AFRCC too. What we need is an MOU that allows that flow to be reversed to address certain state needs. It'd spell out: the simple streamlined proceedures, range of resources & misisons that can be addressed, etc. 1AF is the coordinating agency & resource provider. NGB sets national readiness standards to meet TAG needs, ensures support & interaction from TAGs, etc. TAGs are the requestor & merely need to affirm knowledge of this national agreement. I'd try to add that state participation in the agreement requires CAP members activated at state request to be covered by equiv employment & liability protections as NG members on state active duty.
I appreciate the NG centric perspective, but to me this broader simpler move is the best of both worlds. It is no small thing. It would be the same kind of thing you're seeing in Iowa, and states would have a high level of interaction & a lot to say about readiness standards for CAP in their state, but it keeps us federal first & focused on the big picture rather than the narrow mission set that the NG can hand us. I think we're shooting the same target though. How to get this done is a negotiation somewhere over our paygrade, unfortunately.
Good points. I was, however, considering the effect of affiliating with the NG as a means of stepping out from under the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act. The PCA does not affect Guard forces, and the proposed Homeland Defense/Homeland Security missions that we could do with light aircraft place us in possible conflict with the PCA. Putting CAP under the Guard would eliminate that consideration.
That being said, if the MOU were structured correctly, and affirmatively placed deployed CAP assets under the command of TAG, would the fact that they started out as federal forces and are paid by the federal govt. impact the PCA status? The alternative would be to deploy CAP on a Corporate mission to the state, with the state paying up front, and federal re-imbursement paid to the state. This is a complex financial arrangement, and may be a war-stopper.
That, however, was precisely the arrangement when NG troops were sent to guard airports after 9/11.
An additional consideration is re-employment rights. Guard troops' civlian jobs are protected on state missions by state laws. Putting CAP under TAG would place us under the protection of those state laws. The alternatives to changing the command relationship would include legislation at the state level to include CAP specifically under those laws. This did happen in Iowa, and a few other states already.
And, as you mentioned, the entire process needs to be streamlined.
Please give me a few hours to reconsider my proposal in the light of the cognitions you have provided.
(The raven-haired beauty watched as the Writer poured a glass of wine, and sat, pensively staring out over the ocean. She then realized that he was not just drop-dead handsome and a great lover, but one of the truly great thinkers in the history of Western civilization. Much more of a man than her slug husband, who could only splash ice water on him, and who was beaten by the crowd for his trouble.)
::::::Noting the raven haired beauty is a CAP cadet and pouring the wine would be a violation of CPPT::::: Tisk-Tisk
Since the applicability of PCA to CAP is questionable anyway (according to the Attorney General) making such a radical change just to avoid PCA for a few missions seems like a radical leap. It would be simpler to just ammend PCA to exclude CAP (if its even necessary in the first place).
QuoteAn additional consideration is re-employment rights. Guard troops' civlian jobs are protected on state missions by state laws. Putting CAP under TAG would place us under the protection of those state laws. The alternatives to changing the command relationship would include legislation at the state level to include CAP specifically under those laws. This did happen in Iowa, and a few other states already.
Putting CAP in the state military department in itself would probably require changes to every state's law as well as federal law and you're also talking about changing state laws to include CAP in job protections. I think that as a coordinated strategy for structural change it just isn't workable since I guarantee you that there will be many states that will not want any part of this at any level.
By the way, can someone from Iowa give me the citation in the Iowa laws requiring CAP members get leave for CAP duty? I can't find it in the online version of the code. Thanks.
Overall I think we need to use the KISS theory here. What is the minimum amount of change required to acheive what we want?
If the goal is to have closer relationships with the NG that can be achieved through MOUs. In fact, there is nothing that is really keeping the NG from using CAP assets now when they want to for state missions they are willing to pay for. All they need to do is request it and all we need to do is take the initiative in selling it to them, just like we're supposed to sell ourselves to other potential mission requestors.
If the goal is to make it more likely for the AF to use us for homeland security missions, the easiest thing to do would be to move us over to 1st AF. That doesn't require any changes in federal law at all. While I'm not convinced it would make a big difference, I'm not opposed to it.
I appreciate PCA concerns. What I can't tell you abou tthat is this... obviously CAP is covered while working for the feds, BUT there is some debate if it applies on corporate missions. There is a strong view that it wouldn't be illegal for CAP, but because that resource wouldn't exist w/o AF aquasition, maint, training, etc then AF is violating PCA by continuing to provide funding if we choose to fly those missions for states. The guard gets around that with a very complex funding arrangement that basically makes the states a percentage owner of peopl & things & able to use them within that scope. Merely moving command around isn't enough, they get what they pay for.
Pus, I'm not sure AF or I want us free from PCA. It does open up some missions, but it also opens up direct support of LE, which I'm nto sure I want to be involved in. Not that I have anything against LE, but you know that gets messy fast. I think that's what putting USAF Aux on the planes & the connected AFI was about, was AF gaining the ability to stop us from flying those sorts of missions because it was in doubt if it was legal or not.
Do we really want to go down the road of getting directly involved with law enforcement activities? Do you want to be called into court and then have your
observations and activities picked apart by a defense attorney hell bent on clearing
his client of growing an acre of Mary Jane?
Can you afford to take time off from work to appear in court? I know I can't.
Do I want to be shot at by some criminal because I am providing LE support? Not really, especially if I can't shoot back.
Do I want to endanger a cadet who may get caught up in the LE support. Absolutely not.
Quoteobviously CAP is covered while working for the feds,
No, it isn't obvious at all, which is why the Attorney General said that it wouldn't apply to DoD civilians.
But, that is a different thread (and has already been beat to death).
Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2006, 04:34:58 PM
Overall I think we need to use the KISS theory here. What is the minimum amount of change required to acheive what we want?
You know, I like the idea of aligning under the Guard, but this is an extremely compelling point. To make these major changes, are we making things more difficult for our existing members?
Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2006, 07:14:48 PM
Quoteobviously CAP is covered while working for the feds,
No, it isn't obvious at all, which is why the Attorney General said that it wouldn't apply to DoD civilians.
Not to digress, but that was
a US Attorney, not
THE Attorney General, nor would the Attorney General's opinion be binding. Also, the opinion regarded CAP while NOT operating on an AFAM (which covers all federal missions). Furthermore, that's not the question that needs answering. It doesn't matter if you as a CAP member, or CAP Corp are breaking the law. It matters if by you doing that mission the AF is by extention breaking the law by continuing to support you. The general consensus is that while it's a gray area, that if you are majority funded by the military, especially when the resource being used is only possible by that funding, then you have to stay within PCA or give up AF funds. The US Attorney is merely giving a legal opnion about their ability to successfully prosecute a case involving such a questionable action by CAP, not what the ramifications of that action would be outside the direct criminal matter.
For those of you who want to be put in with the Guard, this is a 2002 report http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2001-111.2.pdf (http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2001-111.2.pdf) on the ability of the CA National Guard to respond to state missions, especially aviation ones. While obviously not all of the factors listed in the report would be relevant to this proposal, and I recognize it is a few years old it still maks for some interesting reading.
DNall:
The thrust of the discussion illustrates my point. Nobody seems to know, or have any real authorative opinions on exactly where we stand with regard to the PCA. And with the border missions and additional HD/HS missions being considered, we need a clear standard.
I do not want to get involved in day-to-day police work. Been there, done that, got the hat. And cadets MUST NOT be involved in any such missions, except as mission base support. But I also do not want to have to add a JAG officer to the flight crew to tell me what I can and can't do. We're flyers, not lawyers. I want a clear legal standard, and nobody can offer one.
Placing us under the Guard does away with all these concerns, and allows us to perform missions that could involve direct support to local or state police, when the situation is serious enough to literally, "Call out the militia."
I have even heard some not-so-random talk about the need to have CAP lawyers at mission bases for normal SAR missions. Hopefully that will never catch on.
By the way, that CA report offers some intersting information on the LE issue. In a 3 year-period the CA Air NG only had 13 state missions related to law enforcement and their Army Guard only had 8. And somewhere in the report it is claimed that CA has one of the highest numbers of state missions among the NG. Again, this seems like a lot of trouble to be able to respond to a tiny handful of new missions.
Quote from: ELThunter on December 25, 2006, 01:28:52 AM
Quote from: DNall on December 25, 2006, 12:46:49 AM
That may be directly selecting the commanders (at Wg & above) from CAP officers (as AF recommened to congress in 99/00), it may be AF selecting from a list provided by CAP or vice versa, or it may be CAP selecting & AF or BoG confirming. Firings need to go in front of BoG as well, or it may be still some other system, just so its a lot different than what we have now.
If regulations called for minimum grade for each echelon, with time-in-grade requirements for grades were actually enforce, that would go along way toward getting good experienced people in billets.
For example, squadron commander had to hold 1st Lt grade, with minimum 1 year in a staff position, plus SLS, CLC and Unit Commanders course. Group CC required minimum grade of Capt or Maj plus at least one year in a command position or at least one year as a staff member on group or wing staff. Wing CC would require minimum grade of Lt. Col. plus one year group level command or wing staff. Something along those lines all the way up to National CC.
I think a lot of the people that are more politically motivated would not stay around long enough to get command positions of they had to work at grade advancement and lower level command jobs for years before getting promoted to the upper levels of command.
With modifications, this is a good idea.
There should be a 'minimum time as CAP officer" requirement:
--two years for squadron commander
-- five years for group commander
--ten years for wing commander
Also, I would tend to extend your 'minimum staff experience' requirements by at least one year per echelon.
Granted that this would limit the pool of potential CCs....it would also eliminate most of the politicians and opportunists.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on December 25, 2006, 07:14:18 PM
Focus....the question is who is the BEST strategic governmental partner (DoD,FEMA, USN, USA, USMC,USCG, USAF, NGB, DHS, USCG-Aux) to oversee and assist us with our Title 36 mission. I described the Title 36 tasking in an earlier post. Refer back to it and you will see that we have two missions....one very broad (to assist the federal government i.e. Title 10) and the other specifically referencing local communities.)
It's about ES but it is also about civil aviation, aviation education, etc.
Let's vote on a strategic partner then we'll go to work on the relationship: Rank the following from 1 to 10 with 10 being the hightest: Keep in mind the sponsoring agency MUST facilitate both national and state relationships and missions.
1. DoD (Like the FDIC and other federal corporations, CAP would be under the DoD with no operational sponsor)
2. FEMA
3. US Navy
4, US Army
5. US Marine Corps
6. US Coast Guard
7. US Air Force
8. National Guard Bureau (Air/Army NG)
9, Dept Homeland Security, (CAP would be under the DHS with no operational sponsor)
10. USCG-Aux CAP and USCG-AUX would merge.
My first choice would be to remain under USAF.....the interesting thing here is that, if it were determined that the best supervisory ecehlon for CAP were the Air NGB, this could be done WITHIN the Air Force, I believe....simply a matter of moving us from Air University (or are we under AETC now? which is my point....we've been moved around before!)....doing it this way, all 3 Congressionally mandated missions could remain under a single umbrella of AF supervision ( I suspect that an organization that has warfighting, disaster relief, and Drug Demand Reduction capabilities could quickly figure out how to support AE & cadet programs!)
If the consensus is that we need new sponsorship (and I'm not really sure why, our most serious problems seem to arise from internal politics rather than the Air Force), then I'd like to see us under Dept. of Homeland Security as an independent agency....while I realize they have not nearly got their act together over there, I think of the alternatives offered, they are best suited and most experienced at dealing with volunteers, auxiliaries, and the like.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2006, 03:43:01 AM
I'm also trying to wrap my head around exactly how the states are going to be forced to accept CAP into their National Guard structure. I can understand how CAP, as a national organization can be placed under the command of the National Guard Bureau, but do not see how the feds will be able to mandate that each state set aside people and money to oversee CAP.
Pretty much the same way the feds compel anything else (seat belt laws, DUI standards, 55 mph speed limit)...tie it into "carrot & stick" of federal funding
Quote from: DNall on December 26, 2006, 08:39:56 AM
The logical "partner" on a national scale that gives you everything they are getting from the states while preserving the much more important roles we can be playing nationally; the place where all our missions converge.... that's 1AF.
I don't think you even need 52 seperate MOUs. What you need is ONE national MOU. 1AF takes resources from the states to run airspace monitoring, defense, HLS, counter-narc, etc & they have AFRCC too. What we need is an MOU that allows that flow to be reversed to address certain state needs. It'd spell out: the simple streamlined proceedures, range of resources & misisons that can be addressed, etc. 1AF is the coordinating agency & resource provider. NGB sets national readiness standards to meet TAG needs, ensures support & interaction from TAGs, etc. TAGs are the requestor & merely need to affirm knowledge of this national agreement. I'd try to add that state participation in the agreement requires CAP members activated at state request to be covered by equiv employment & liability protections as NG members on state active duty.
This makes a lot of sense.
It seems to me that most of the reorganization ideas revolve around the missions CAP currently perform for states and local agencies. Perhaps we should be thinking about a total reevaluation what CAP's role ought to be in total. In other words, CAP had one set of missions from 1941 - 1948. Another set from 1948 - present. Or something along those lines. Do we restructure the organization around how the missions have been for the last few decades, or do we think outside the box and see how we need to evolve to meet new challenges and new missions that we are not doing. Do we stay the USAF Aux and change or missions to better contribute to the USAF as a force multiplier, or do we stay the same and migrate to a state directed, NG aux?
Just thinking out loud.
Quote from: ELThunter on December 27, 2006, 03:52:37 AM
It seems to me that most of the reorganization ideas revolve around the missions CAP currently perform for states and local agencies. Perhaps we should be thinking about a total reevaluation what CAP's role ought to be in total. In other words, CAP had one set of missions from 1941 - 1948. Another set from 1948 - present. Or something along those lines. Do we restructure the organization around how the missions have been for the last few decades, or do we think outside the box and see how we need to evolve to meet new challenges and new missions that we are not doing. Do we stay the USAF Aux and change or missions to better contribute to the USAF as a force multiplier, or do we stay the same and migrate to a state directed, NG aux?
Just thinking out loud.
Perhaps because I've been a member, cadet & senior, for over thirty years, but my 'vote' is to stay where we are and fix what we have....if need be, re-imagine & re-define our role for the 21st century....but as part of the USAF family.....in whatever version CAP existed, that's our heritage, and where I feel we belong.
The discussion on Structural Change has produced some very interesting ideas on a sponsoring agency as well as CAP governance.
In order to come to conclusion, I think it would be wise for us to have a real in percon conference. We can do this by a Webinar Teleconference which I'll will host.
I ask that DNall, RiverAux, JohnKachenmeister, El Thunder, ZigZag911, Hawk200, Lordmonar, and Bill B assist me as presenters. Please send me your personal e-mail addresses if you wish to do so and I'll explain how it works by return e-mail.
I can host up to 1000 attendees so any one on Captalk can call in and attend. I am sure you are familiar with webinars. It requires you to log on to a URL and call into a teleconference center. The URL will contain a powerpoint presentatiion or other visual.
I can facilitate up to ten presenters who will be able to hear and talk to each other and conduct what amounts to a round table teleconference. We can handle up to 1000 attendees who can hear the teleconference but not talk to the presenters except by Internet text message which the presenters will hopefully address.
I'll handle the costs and your only cost would be the long distance telephone call to the teleconference center unless you happen to be in Ohio or use a cell phone with no long distance charges.
The co-presenters and I will pick a date and time, work up the powerpoint presentation based upon your postings and comments and we'll set an agenda for the discussion which will last 30 to 60 minutes. When this is set, I'll post the details.
NICKCRITELLI
Lt. Col. Critelli,
First let me say that I think what you guys have done with the Iowa Wing is nothing short of miraculous. I love some of the "out of the box" thinking you have done with the program. I wish we could all have those same job protections thru out the Nation.
My weigh in on the structure change question you have asked, is to stay with the USAF and specifically be under 1st AF. We would need to change our image and remake ourselves more in the AF standard to really fit in and be seen as a true force multiplier rather then a group of "boy scouts with airplanes" that I fear we're seen as in some circles of the AF.
The other option I would support would be a move under the NG, specifically tasked under the NGB as an asset to the Air Guard. Once again this would require the same changes as we would need to make if we stayed with the Air Force. Either way, no matter where we decided the best fit for CAP was, we would need to remake ourselves completely to be taken seriously.
I look very forward to a round table discussion via Webinar Teleconference. I think the presenters may very well come up with some wonderful ideas or even solutions that may help us reshape CAP into the 21 century. Please let me know when you are able to bring it together, anything I can do to help please ask.
I am surprised that other than two members, no one is interested in a Webinar. I guess they'd rather let their fingers do the talking. If I don't hear from the other proposed co-presenters, e.g. DNall and others, I'll assume there is no interest and we'll let the webinar idea die.
Nick Critelli
I personally like the webinar idea, and am looking forward to hear all of your proposals. I would like to see all of them laid out side by side with "cost/benefit" type of analysis. I'll offer my meager help with the caveat that I am no expert on the workings of the upper echelons of the Air Force and National Guard. In real life, I'm an Engineer, and my job is to figure out what is broken and then fix it. My experience tells me that we are starting to get to the root of "what's broke". Once we get our arms around that (and can raise the awareness level of our membership), then we can work on the fix.
I got your mesage, Nick.
Maybe instead of a webinar, anybody interested could present a more detailed, thoughtful proposal as a new thread here on CAPtalk. That would allow for some attachments if graphics were needed, such a organizational charts.
By the nature of these proposals, the length of the original post to the thread would be long. As a suggestion, the paragraphs should be numbered, so reference can be made to "The provisions of your paragraph 10 a," rather than making use of quotes.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on December 28, 2006, 02:37:45 PM
I am surprised that other than two members, no one is interested in a Webinar. I guess they'd rather let their fingers do the talking. If I don't hear from the other proposed co-presenters, e.g. DNall and others, I'll assume there is no interest and we'll let the webinar idea die.
Nick Critelli
Actually, I'm interested. I just don't know what to present, what to gather together. Many of the ideas I had were reformed as new opinions presented themselves. My own thoughts are constantly being modified. A lot times my opinions only change a little, a few times they've changed a lot.
When might this conference occur? Need time to put together everything I had in a manner that would be presentable.
We would ALL need some time, Hawk. But whatever we have is a work-in-progress, and we all might change our views after hearing from others.
But the topic is "Structural Change" and if you think that the proper change can be achieved without major modifications to the overall structure of CAP, than explain your position and recommended improvements. Everything can be on the table, from tear it down and start over to minor changes in regulations.
The question I have is, what happens IF we achieve a consensus? Do we want to cook up a formal proposal, write an article for publication, or just hope somebody important is monitoring the boards?
Add me to the list of those interested in a webinar.
Schedule permitting, I'd like to participate as well. Don't know for sure what if anything I'd have to contribute, but would like to see what everyone else has.
Q. Why are we doing this?
A. to gather the views of those in the field regarding their experience and reasoned opinions concerning the governance structure of CAP and its effectiveness regarding CAP's statutory missions.
Q. What are we going to do with the information?
A. Ascertain if there is consensus regarding the CAP structure and operation and if so prepare and file a written report witih the NB.
Q. What assurances do we have that the NB will receive our report?
A. I am confident that if presented in the correct manner and in the right spirit the NB will receive and process the report.
Looks like the webinar is ON. I'll be working with the co-presenters, studying the materials and working on the presentation. Stay tuned.
Nick Critelli
Count me in
For the record, I am very much interested in a restructuring of our governing bodies, however I don't have the answers.
A change is needed in how CAP selects it next National Commander as well as the NEC members. I know how I would like to see it done but the answer is usually not as simple as saying "Have the SECAF make the decision." That just passes the buck and relieves us of any responsibility in the matter.
Add one more member to the webinar idea. It is easy to propose change but those in the position of power have to be willing to change.
Lt. Col. Critelli,
I can echo the comments of Hawk. I'd certainly be willing to contribute anything I can, I just don't have a lot of well thought out ideas, just things that have come to mind as I read others posts here on the forum. I do believe that a good discussion amongst the members here might yield something constructive. I'll drop you my e-mail.
Part of my proposal will necessarily include a significant legislative change, based on information I recently learned.
But I'm starting a new thread to discuss it.
The Webinar to discuss structural changes regarding the governance of CAP and the need for and identity of a governmental strategic partner for CAP will be held Thursday, 4 January 2007 at 7:00 PM CST.
The Webinar works like this:
1. Send me your personal e-mail at ncritelli@iawg.cap.gov. By return e-mail you will sent an invitation to the Webinar containing the call in details, number etc.
2. At the appointed time be at your computer logged into the teleconference website. You will also need to place a telephone call to the teleconference center. Unless you live in Ohio, this will be a long distance call for you. This will be your only expense.
3. As the Webinar begins, you will only be able to hear the presenters but not be able to talk to them. From the Internet website you will be able to send a text message to the presentor who will see it on his screen and answer your question.
The presentors will be myself as moderator, DNall, ZigZag911, ELTHunder and JackKachenmeister.
NICK CRITELLI
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 28, 2006, 05:42:52 PM
Do we want to cook up a formal proposal, write an article for publication, or just hope somebody important is monitoring the boards?
You'd be suprised, what kind of strategic thinking on CAP gets highlighted to the AF side. I know I was when it came back around to me. Formal proposal sounds great. Even if we can't agree we can devils advocate for each other & present a series of strong ideas in need of further study at all levels. I also think a decent article should make the rounds. That's critical to getting a fair look on the proposal. There's several sources that'll need to get a copy. Yeah I think we can do a good job with this. At very least it makes clear that there is strategic thinking going on around CAP & the need for a strong strategic vision & good communication of it to the troops.
Okay now for the presentations... is this free-for-all, we staking out positions, what's the plan? You want slides or something, cause that may take a little more time. What kind of format are you looking for: couple minutes from each presenter followed by discussion, just discussion... whatever you want is fine, I just don't want to be unprepared. I can work something up, but I wouldn't expect anyone to be too suprised what direction it'll come from.
There's still time to register for the Thursday 4 January 2007 7:00 PM CST Webinar on this topic. Simple e-mail me at ncritelli@iawg.cap.gov and I'll send you the invitatiion form with all the details.
Nick Critelli
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and positions expressed during the teleconference are not sanctioned or approved by CAP, the IAWG or any other wing , person or the owners and operators of the CAPTalk BBS and are simply those of the presentor. This is an unofficial teleconference seminar the result from which may be used to form the basis for strategic planning or a report and recommendation to the NB. ;D
Nick:
How about each presentor post a read-ahead document with his/her proposal?
DISCLAIMER: This opinions expressed by Major Kachenmeister are his own, and are not sanctioned by CAP, the Florida Wing, any other wing, the US Air Force, the air force of any other country, or the King of Sweden. The opinions expressed by Maj. Kachenmeister may or may not be rational, and may or may not represent the cumulative effects of drug or alcohol abuse, the effect of prescribed medications, or the acceptance of opinions expressed by voices in his head, that cannot be heard by others, but which may or may not be the actual Voice of God.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 01, 2007, 03:38:53 PM
Nick:
How about each presentor post a read-ahead document with his/her proposal?
That's a good idea. quick talking paper (some bullets).
QuoteDISCLAIMER: This opinions expressed by Major Kachenmeister are his own, and are not sanctioned by CAP, the Florida Wing, any other wing, the US Air Force, the air force of any other country, or the King of Sweden. The opinions expressed by Maj. Kachenmeister may or may not be rational, and may or may not represent the cumulative effects of drug or alcohol abuse, the effect of prescribed medications, or the acceptance of opinions expressed by voices in his head, that cannot be heard by others, but which may or may not be the actual Voice of God.
;D
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 05:19:01 AM
Part of my proposal will necessarily include a significant legislative change, based on information I recently learned.
But I'm starting a new thread to discuss it.
I read your proposal ref the National Guard.
Civil Air Patrol can raise itself to the status of nearly a National Guard, without the association with the National Guard.
We have clout in both the Senate and Congress. We have members in both houses of the Congress, and the missing element is we have no plan or focus on how to promote and sell the program.
First we need a vision for the future.
Is SAR going to give us the horse power for further Growth?
No, my opinion is Search and Rescue Operations are declining and the Sheriff Departments are taking over that.
Is the Cadet Program going to be the driving force?
My opinion is the Cadet Program is the growth opportunity.
We can expand our membership further faster by enhancing the Cadet Program, and starting to acquire local training areas that we in fact own, real estate and all, and additionally, utilizing Air Force and Army facilities.
Also, promoting the Middle School Elective Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program.
We could double the membership in a very short time by focusing on the Cadet Program.
As far as structure, membership wide votes for the Boards that elect the National Commander, cuts out the old boys club.
Also, give the National Commander authority to execute the plan.
As far as I can tell now, the National Commander is not required to have a vision or a plan, and even if he did, he cannot carry out any execution of a vision without constant votes of approval.
The Command of Civil Air Patrol should come from within CAP, and there are people with a vision in our ranks now.
Earhart...
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 02:22:21 AM
No, my opinion is Search and Rescue Operations are declining and the Sheriff Departments are taking over that.
Sheriffs, i.e. law enforcement, are not taking over SAR...they always HAD control over SAR. CAP is a
support asset to to the authority that is responsible for SAR. This is what Congress meant in Title 36 when it talks about support to state and local authorities for emergency services.
Nick Critelli
What CAP needs to focus on is four main areas. We need to structure our change around:
1) Emergency services/disaster relief...currently what our National Guard does.
2) Cadet Programs..... you can wrap the AE mission under Cadet Programs.
3) AF/ANG job relief (doing those jobs for AF/ANG that saves them money & allows them to complete the mission cheaper/faster/more efficient.
4) Homeland Security missions
If we concentrate our mission these areas we would have a future and a role in the ever changing world. Of course in order to fully play ball on these areas we will need a complete structure/image change. We need to redefine what CAP does and what CAP is capable of doing.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on January 02, 2007, 02:48:46 AM
Earhart...
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 02:22:21 AM
No, my opinion is Search and Rescue Operations are declining and the Sheriff Departments are taking over that.
Sheriffs, i.e. law enforcement, are not taking over SAR...they always HAD control over SAR. CAP is a support asset to to the authority that is responsible for SAR. This is what Congress meant in Title 36 when it talks about support to state and local authorities for emergency services.
Nick Critelli
SAR is FLAT, and its not going to increase our membership or our Congressional Funding substantially, there is not enough of it to spread over the membership.
CAP needs to get exposure in the Middle Schools, I am talking 200 Cadet Squadrons, lots of need for Seniors with experience in running Squadrons.
We got tonnes of program to expose kids to between the ages of 12 and 18.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 05:13:46 AMSAR is FLAT, and its not going to increase our membership or our Congressional Funding substantially, there is not enough of it to spread over the membership
If that is the situation in your Wing you've got serious problems. Are refering to ELT's when you claim that SAR is flat? SAR is generic term that covers all types of actions most importantly including lost or missing persons. Even in a small state like Iowa there are hundreds of MP-SAR's a good percentage of which CAP could and does provide service. Who do you think pays for SAR's ...Congress in its funding for AFRCC for those missions that qualify.
Does law enforcement need CAP...you bet it does. I don't know of many local sheriff's offices that possess the trained air and ground assets that CAP does...at no cost or legal liability. It's a huge asset.
If your Wing is banking on CAP, USAF or Congress for your Wing's funding you're going to have nothing. We get $100,000 a year because of our ES service. That goes a long way in helping fund a cadet program.
Fixed quote tags - MIKE
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on January 02, 2007, 06:28:42 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 05:13:46 AMSAR is FLAT, and its not going to increase our membership or our Congressional Funding substantially, there is not enough of it to spread over the membership
If that is the situation in your Wing you've got serious problems. Are refering to ELT's when you claim that SAR is flat? SAR is generic term that covers all types of actions most importantly including lost or missing persons. Even in a small state like Iowa there are hundreds of MP-SAR's a good percentage of which CAP could and does provide service. Who do you think pays for SAR's ...Congress in its funding for AFRCC for those missions that qualify.
Does law enforcement need CAP...you bet it does. I don't know of many local sheriff's offices that possess the trained air and ground assets that CAP does...at no cost or legal liability. It's a huge asset.
If your Wing is banking on CAP, USAF or Congress for your Wing's funding you're going to have nothing. We get $100,000 a year because of our ES service. That goes a long way in helping fund a cadet program.
Fixed quote tags - MIKE
Not referring to ELTs at all.
I am really talking about, people utilized for Ground Search. How many times has a Ground Team been deployed in your Wing in 06 for a real search, other than ELT searches?
I bet its less than 10 events in a year.
And CAP is going to get 99% of its funding from Congress, because that's where the money is. A Wing getting $50,000 from a State Government, a year is nothing, it pays admin cost.
You talk about "Wings" like it is now, every Wing for itself (getting funding from the states), now that is not going to grow anything.
I am sure some individual Wings, have a great SAR Mission, like Alaska, then others don't.
SAR does not sell (yes, we'll get funding for equipment, like expensive Airplanes) but do we have the funding to train crews (no), its paid for by individual Members.
We are doing SAR too too cheap, we have always done it cheap, and there is an expectation by Government that will we continue to do it on the cheap.
We could get more money for the SAR Mission, though, if the right people learned to talk to Congress about it.
Flying Missions for $75 an hour or even $100 per Hour is stupid, it should be more like $400 per hour.
The Cadet Program will sell, if we can penatrate into the Middle Schools.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 04:10:44 PM
SAR does not sell (yes, we'll get funding for equipment, like expensive Airplanes) but do we have the funding to train crews (no), its paid for by individual Members.
I got to throw the BS flag on this one...we have lots of funding for crew training. Most of the hours flown is for crew proficiancy training and SAREXs and for the most part they are funded missions.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 04:10:44 PMWe are doing SAR too too cheap, we have always done it cheap, and there is an expectation by Government that will we continue to do it on the cheap.
We could get more money for the SAR Mission, though, if the right people learned to talk to Congress about it.
You know I was looking at some of the GAO reports (from that other thread) and one of the recurring problmes USAF has with CAP is just that. Going to congress directly seeking funding. If we want to improve our relaitonship with the USAF we can't be back dooring them on the funding issue. There are only so many federal dollars to be had and if we compete with the USAF for those dollars then we become a liability to them.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 04:10:44 PMFlying Missions for $75 an hour or even $100 per Hour is stupid, it should be more like $400 per hour.
You can rent airplanes retail for that kind of money. The question is....what does it actaully cost to fly an 182 or 206? $100/per hours is not a bad rate when you consider that the maintence is already paid for...all you are paying for is gas and oil.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 04:10:44 PM
The Cadet Program will sell, if we can penatrate into the Middle Schools.
That I agree with...but to effectively do that we need to make it across the board and not just at the middle school squadrons. Lowering the age of entry was tried before and too many people has heart burn over it. I personally think we should lower the age to 10 1/2 years and in the 5th grade (the same as the Boy Scouts) but that is a different thread.
Getting $50K from a state agency is not a drop in the bucket. It is 500 flying hours. If your state has 500 flying hours worth of missions for you....why not take it?
We get funded from Congress, and we avoided a budget cut by going to Congress.
The Air Force wanted to cut 4 to 6 million out of our funding in 2006.
The Air Force found out they could not do that.
Tying our funding to the Air Force Budget is a mistake.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 05:01:22 PM
We get funded from Congress, and we avoided a budget cut by going to Congress.
The Air Force wanted to cut 4 to 6 million out of our funding in 2006.
The Air Force found out they could not do that.
Tying our funding to the Air Force Budget is a mistake.
Yes, we get funded by congress....anyone can get funded by congress. What I was pointing out is that those of who want CAP to be the USAF-AUX all the time, have to accept that the single easist way to piss them off it to fight them over money. If we want to go directly to congress for funding....fine....but we have to accept the consequences of the course of action.
The USAF cut $4-6M out of our budget.....and they are cutting 40K blue suiters out of the force. You cannot say "I want to be the USAF-AUX" and then go around them and back door them for money and expect them to be happy about it.
The USAF could care less about uniform changes and the name painted on the side of airplanes....but when you start competing with them for O&M funds, building constuction funds and weapoins system development and procurment funds....that is when the USAF will want to push us away.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 02, 2007, 08:02:57 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 05:01:22 PM
We get funded from Congress, and we avoided a budget cut by going to Congress.
The Air Force wanted to cut 4 to 6 million out of our funding in 2006.
The Air Force found out they could not do that.
Tying our funding to the Air Force Budget is a mistake.
Yes, we get funded by congress....anyone can get funded by congress. What I was pointing out is that those of who want CAP to be the USAF-AUX all the time, have to accept that the single easist way to piss them off it to fight them over money. If we want to go directly to congress for funding....fine....but we have to accept the consequences of the course of action.
The USAF cut $4-6M out of our budget.....and they are cutting 40K blue suiters out of the force. You cannot say "I want to be the USAF-AUX" and then go around them and back door them for money and expect them to be happy about it.
We are not "going around the Air Force" and we are not competing with the Air Force.
The Air Force could do their own SAR in the Continental US for a about 500 million Dollars a year. I don't think they are going to take that option and dump CAP as a USAF AUX anytime soon.
If we are afraid of the Air Force, and what they will think, sorry, its all lost.
When you deal with Generals in the Air Force, you are dealing with a highly Political Animal, that cannot go to the bathroom without permission.
And they have no money, the money is in Congress. A Congressman that happens to be a CAP Colonel, is pure terror to an Air Force General and to a Secretary of the Air Force.
Interesting...everyone has an opinion on everything based on nothing.
SARs are FLAT...are you crazy. CAP's involvement in SARs may be flat because we have not taken the time to work the relationships with state and local government to get them. That's what Col. Critelli has been trying to tell us all. Go read the Iowa Wing thread. When there is a SAR in Iowa they are involved from the very beginning. That's the service they give for the big bucks they receive.
If there is one thing we can learn from the Iowa experience it is that your wing has to do its due diligence. To put it another way, an opinion based on nothing is worth nothing.
You say the cadet program will sell...my friend the cadet program is dying. There are over 79,500,000 young people in the US. Boy Scouts have over 1,000,000 of them; JROTC has over 500,000. CAP has 20,000. You really believe that Congress is going to give you big bucks for a program that reaches so small a group that most calculators can't even compute the minescule percentage. Get real. The cadet program should be merged into jrotc and CAP tasked with providing aviation assistance "O" rides, etc. to jrotc.
Now for the money part. Get off this USAF kick. We're not the Air Force. Heck we're not even the Air Force Auxiliary unless we're on an AFAM and then ONLY those members who are actually on the mission are considered Air Force Auxiliary. We're civilians who have joined a federal corporation. Go look at the postings on this thread. Col. Critelli has set the law all out for us.
You're worried about the AF getting rid of us...wakeup they already did. And that's not all that bad. We can do a lot more now than we used to be able to do before the law change in 2000. You talk about the AF doing SAR missions. The AF's main objective is to blow and shoot things up. They don't have an inland SAR mission, Coast Guard does.
If CAP is going to survive it has to return to tangible basics...helping the nation by ES and DR. Right now we have a lot of AF wannabes and not enough realists.
Count me in on the Webinar. Sounds like fun.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 10:11:02 PM
We are not "going around the Air Force" and we are not competing with the Air Force.
According to the GAO report I read that is in fact what the USAF thinks we are doing.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 10:11:02 PM
The Air Force could do their own SAR in the Continental US for a about 500 million Dollars a year. I don't think they are going to take that option and dump CAP as a USAF AUX anytime soon.
If we are afraid of the Air Force, and what they will think, sorry, its all lost.
Did not say the USAF was totally upset with us or that they are right now contemplating dumping CAP....but don't get stuck on the $500M mark. There are lots of ways the USAF could drop CAP like a hot potato and still meet their SAR requirements. Already there are other organizations that do airborne SAR and they already fund the AFJROTC program. There is nothing that CAP is doing that cannot be replaced.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 10:11:02 PMWhen you deal with Generals in the Air Force, you are dealing with a highly Political Animal, that cannot go to the bathroom without permission.
And they have no money, the money is in Congress. A Congressman that happens to be a CAP Colonel, is pure terror to an Air Force General and to a Secretary of the Air Force.
And that is what I am talking about. Who can we be talking about improving our relationship with the USAF when we have generals who have a real live mission completed being terrorized by a congress. The budget process is already too politicized as it is and the USAF has real needs it feels it has to accomplish with a limited pool of money. So if the SECAF gets to the point to where CAP is too much a PITA then he will bite the bullet and start lobbying to cut CAP out of his back yard.
Friends, $500M is pocket-change to the USAF ... heck it's merely 1/4 of a B-2 "Spirit."
Furthermore, the USAF could easily dump CAP as their "go-to" group for 0200L ELT searches and even missing aircraft -- AND SAVE MONEY.
Although the Congress gave the USAF responsibility for inland SAR for the CONUS (less navigable waterways); the USAF has effectively ACCOMPLISHED tasking that through creation and maintenance of the AFRCC (which, as you know, owns no actual field search assets whatsoever). They are RESPONSIBLE for it, but they don't actually do it.
IAW the National SAR Plan, each individual state is tasked with ultimate field SAR duty responsibility --- NOT the USAF. The "boots on the ground" belong to the state ... at least in some states (perhaps all) the AFRCC calls the state agent for SAR [e.g. the State Police, etc.] and asks whether they --the state agency-- wants to do the mission or to have it given to CAP.
If the USAF/AFRCC "dumps" CAP for SAR --which functionally they can't (they can only cut our USAF FUNDING and federal benefits for missions)-- CAP could and likely would still be engaged by the individual states as their "go-to" group for certain SAR -- like the 0200L ELT search.
So, the USAF/AFRCC could cut us and SAVE themselves money ... and EVEN if it cost them $500M --it won't-- what's $0.5B to the DoD ... nothing.
Quote from: flapsUP on January 02, 2007, 10:43:15 PM
You say the cadet program will sell...my friend the cadet program is dying. There are over 79,500,000 young people in the US. Boy Scouts have over 1,000,000 of them; JROTC has over 500,000. CAP has 20,000. You really believe that Congress is going to give you big bucks for a program that reaches so small a group that most calculators can't even compute the minescule percentage. Get real. The cadet program should be merged into jrotc and CAP tasked with providing aviation assistance "O" rides, etc. to jrotc.
You are correct the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is on the ropes, for lack of funding, and inproper National Leadership and Vision.
AFJROTC initally got their Aerospace and Leadership Books from HQCAP and they printed them up as their own, in 1966!
Then the Air Force funded AFJROTC to the tune of 200 million per year.
Yes, CAP does the Cadet Program and SAR for 30 Million a year.
We are a great deal for the Air Force. You fail to understand the relationship we have with the Air Force.
The Air Force cannot afford to dump us and they need us.
If the Air Force dumps us, next stop 500 million per year for them to do in continent Search and Rescue and ELT missions.
The CAP designed the Air Force JROTC program, and the Air Force funded it properly, therefore they have 200,000 cadets in AFJROTC.
The CAP Middle School Program could do the same with about 1/3 that funding or less.
The CAP Cadet Program is far better, though underfunded, than AFJROTC.
Our leaders need to be able to sell CAP, I would say CAP is due at least 50 million per year, at our current level of Mission activity.
Within each of the services, it's made very clear that you don't go to Congress on your own - you only go through your service's legislative liaison office.
Reason? Very simple. The Secretary makes up a budget. He sets the priorities. That means some folks wins and somefolks loses. If folks within the Service individually hit up Congress for more money, guess where it comes from? You guessed it - other parts of that Secretary's budget. And suddenly, his priorities don't happen.
CAP, by going direct to Congress, effectively told the Air Force "we want your money, and we don't care what you have to cut in order to make it happen"
Which is fine if you consider yourself a seperate service (the Navy, Army and Air Force do this to each other all the time). But if you're trying to claim you're part of the Air Force, you've just been rather, well, insubordinate.
It's very true that if we just did what USAF wanted, we probably wouldn't get some of the fiscal bennies we get now. But that's part of followship. We didn't want to do that, so now we're a corporation and (effectively) and non-profit contract to USAF, instead of a full time auxiliary. That's the tradeoff - more bucks, but at the expense of the relationship.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 03, 2007, 01:30:38 AM
Within each of the services, it's made very clear that you don't go to Congress on your own - you only go through your service's legislative liaison office.
Dragoon is technically accurate, however, CAP has an "ace in the hole" where Congressional access is concerned: the Congressional Squadron.
That "squadron" exists for no other reason than to grant NHQ and CAPFLT001 exclusive DIRECT access to the money printing machine called Congress.
Although,
OSTENSIBLY, CAP cannot lobby the Congress for funds outside of USAF-approved channels, the Congressional Squadron --as CAP members AND Members of the Congress CAN.
And the USAF can't do anything but stamp their little feet and be unhappy. The Air Staff will be more than a little circumspect in challenging the actions of such Congress-persons as the USAF budget could suffer.
It's a very clever, convenient, and undoubtedly profitable arrangement.
I disagree. At the AF's insistence, CAP is a separate federal corporation.. It need not and should not go through AF for Congressional funding. It must have its own legislative funding initiative. Congress wrote the 2000 legislation to give that right to CAP. (appropriated funds belong to CAP).
If the AF has heartburn because CAP doesn't go through its chain of command before it goes to Congress it needs a good lesson in goverment and a big bottle of tums. That, AF is the risk you took when you cut us loose in 2000 now you got to live with it.
BTW: All those AF CI's ..how about a CAP CI of the AF. Under the 2000 law the USAF is obligated by federal law to provide specific goods and services to CAP. Who's checking up on them?
Quote from: flapsUP on January 03, 2007, 02:16:52 AM
I disagree. At the AF's insistence, CAP is a separate federal corporation.. It need not and should not go through AF for Congressional funding. It must have its own legislative funding initiative. Congress wrote the 2000 legislation to give that right to CAP. (appropriated funds belong to CAP).
If the AF has heartburn because CAP doesn't go through its chain of command before it goes to Congress it needs a good lesson in goverment and a big bottle of tums. That, AF is the risk you took when you cut us loose in 2000 now you got to live with it.
BTW: All those AF CI's ..how about a CAP CI of the AF. Under the 2000 law the USAF is obligated by federal law to provide specific goods and services to CAP. Who's checking up on them?
I like your post and I might add:
Civil Air Patrol has the upper hand with input to Congress, I cannot believe we have not played our cards better, over the past 60 years.
We have every advantage, with membership in Congress, a Congressional Squadron.
I looked at Federal Funding of the Middle School Initative (CAP Cadet Program).
As a start up, I projected a budget for 10 Middle Schools in Each State (Wing).
Funded at $1000 per Student per year, cost of operation.
So lets say we have a Wing that Starts 5 to 10 School programs over a 2 year period.
100 cadets per school, paid instructors and so on.
We easily increase our membership rolls, it would be possible to reach 100,000 Cadets, very quickly, you cannot do that with Seniors that quick, but what CAP does have is experienced Seniors that could support and give orientation rides, that presents another opportunity, more flying time for Seniors.
Then you have a program to talk about.
Congressmen, want to hear about youth programs that work.
This could be done with any amount of money, its a proven program, that has been in some schools for several years now.
With that program funded we can do wonders with the entire program including raising CAP to the level and funding of the National Guard.
Quote from: flapsUP on January 03, 2007, 02:16:52 AM
I disagree. At the AF's insistence, CAP is a separate federal corporation.. It need not and should not go through AF for Congressional funding. It must have its own legislative funding initiative. Congress wrote the 2000 legislation to give that right to CAP. (appropriated funds belong to CAP).
If the AF has heartburn because CAP doesn't go through its chain of command before it goes to Congress it needs a good lesson in goverment and a big bottle of tums. That, AF is the risk you took when you cut us loose in 2000 now you got to live with it.
BTW: All those AF CI's ..how about a CAP CI of the AF. Under the 2000 law the USAF is obligated by federal law to provide specific goods and services to CAP. Who's checking up on them?
Do you believe for minute that the 2000 law was written by the Air Force? The way I recall it going down was that CAP under BG Bobick lobbied Congress rather hard to get away from USAF in order to avoid the overhead involved in DoD auditing practices and the like.
In fact, I saw one potential draft legislation that put a USAF reserve officer in charge of every wing....
For those interested in logging onto and attending Thursday evening's Webinar (7:00 CSt 4 Jan 2007) here is the url:
https://www.gotomeeting.com/register/472612695
You will be given the teleconference phone number. Unless you live in Ohio you will incure a long distance phone charge. Otherwise there are no additional charges.
NICK CRITELLI
LTC Critelli,
I have followed this thread for some time with interest. Change will come wether or not we generate that change, or if it comes imposed by congress; I for one, prefer the former. I believe that before change can be made successful there is a deeper and more devisive issue: WHO ARE WE?
Our seeming inability to define who we are must be resolved, or we are putting lip-stick on the pig once again. Change, the NCO issue, uniforms, etc., are rooted in the schizophrenic nature of CAP: are we, or are we not "military"? The Air Force says they want us to wear their unifrom - and then works like hell to ensure that we don't look like the Air Force. The Air Force expects us to abide by customs and courtesies, but instructs its people not to salute us back. Is it any wonder we are confused, frustrated, and demoralised?
And CAP is just as bad; authorizing award of distintictive achievements, like the Blue Beret - then forbiding anyone to wear it (I know, I know, I know - that has recently changed). But the idea is basic and still applies; and it sends a terrible message.
Our Officers are not "real" but expected to act like they are; until you try to hold one accountable, then its the old "Hey, I'm a Vounteer - worship me because I am here" song and dance. Try pulling that one off in the all "volunteer" military and see what happens. Try to correct a misworn uniform and you get the - "I'm not in the military" excuse.
We desparately need trainable people but we have an any-moron-wannabe can join membership policy. I have watched smart and talented people come to a meeting with intention to join, get a good look at Capt. Snuffy and his refugee-from-a-surplus-store appearance, and we never see them again.
Before CAP will ever get its house in order, it must decide what it is. If we are military then we need to embrace it whole heartedly. Set manning documents for each unit and recruit to fill slots, demand discipline, and all other things military; and send those who cannot or will not comply to the Boy Scouts.
If we are not military - then lets dump all the pretence and return the uniforms to the Air Force with a "thank you very much, but we don't pretend anymore."
No man can serve two masters - neither can CAP. For he will serve only one to neglect the other, or dispise them both.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 02, 2007, 04:33:17 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 04:10:44 PM
The Cadet Program will sell, if we can penatrate into the Middle Schools.
That I agree with...but to effectively do that we need to make it across the board and not just at the middle school squadrons. Lowering the age of entry was tried before and too many people has heart burn over it. I personally think we should lower the age to 10 1/2 years and in the 5th grade (the same as the Boy Scouts) but that is a different thread.
If we do something like this in a big way, it needs to be run separately....Naval Cadets, Boy & Girl Scouting do much the same thing in terms of age-separated units
I'm not arguing CAP's right to lobby congress directly for funds. What I am arguing is that if you aim is to increase the closeness of CAP and the USAF...you cannot compete with them for money. It is simple as that. If we are the USAF-AUX (or want to be at least) the USAF will fund us in the way that insures that we both get our missions done. (notice I said missions both CAP's and the USAF's).
But if you back door them...you are creating an adversarial situation. Kind of like asking Daddy for a cookie after Mom says no.
So....again I say...I've got no real problem with us lobbying Congress directly and getting the money we need. But we also have to accept the consequences of that.
Is the USAF going to drop us? I don't think so...not any time soon. But I would not put it passed them...that right now there is a feasibility report sitting in a file drawer right now looking at various options to drop CAP from the AF budget.
Just off the top of my head?
Funding to local law enforcement agencies that already have an aviation capability to pick up the ELT Search mission. Is there any state that does not have at least one Cessna type aircraft in its State Police unit? The Air Force can easily offer them $150/hour to fly SAR.
There are various other organizations out there that do aerial SAR. The Oregon ES report thread said something about CAP only handling something like 30% of the missions in that state. I think Washington state has a private SAR organization. What do you need to really start one? A plane and a DF unit.
Now I am not saying there is doom and gloom on the horizon. I am only saying that we really need to get our priorities straight.
Until I read the GAO report I thought it what the USAF that was pushing us away. Now I can see we are doing it ourselves.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 03, 2007, 03:59:23 AM
If we are the USAF-AUX (or want to be at least) the USAF will fund us in the way that insures that we both get our missions done. (notice I said missions both CAP's and the USAF's).
But if you back door them...you are creating an adversarial situation. Kind of like asking Daddy for a cookie after Mom says no.
Fearing what the Air Force thinks or might do is not going to get us anywhere.
And isn't that what we've always done, depended on the Air Force to throw us an increase in budget.
The problem is CAP has far greater potential than envisioned by the Air Force.
Or else why did the Air Force see fit to circumvent the CAP Cadet Program in 1966 and form AFJROTC with our Aerospace Books and our fully developed Leadership Lab Manual, and then fund their Cadet Program with more than 6 times the entire budget of CAP?
They fund their "Cadet Program", which comparing apples to apples, the CAP Cadet Program is the stronger program, we just lack the funding to impliment it in the numbers that generate 200,000 cadets. If CAP had 200 Million Dollars a year in funding a lot could be done.
The Air Force will never pull Search and Rescue away from CAP, we operate so cheap, there is no one that can do it like we do. A Sheriff Dept would have to pay $600 per hour for a helicopter, and Fixed Wing Sheriff Dept Aircraft would cost $300 per hour, including the crew and benefits, retirement, medical, dental and health insurance. By the way our local Sheriff just paid $500,000 for their fixed wing aircraft, a Cessna product.
Civil Air Patrol by doing SAR on the cheap has a cost too, and that cost is burning out members and having to replace members with new members every 6 years. (100% turnover in 6 years).
Here is the proposal I would run by the DOD on the way to Congress.
Fund us at a level we can operate SAR, pay our pilots an hourly rate, and per diem, and pay our ground teams. SAR is $300 per Aircraft Hour, we budget, maint, training, paying pilots, and instructors. This results in a increase in our mission capabilities.
Cadet Program: Abolish or phase out AFJROTC in favor of the CAP Middle School Program. We reach kids sooner than AFJROTC in High Schools. We have a broader mission for Cadets, and more extra curricular activities. We propose to save the Air Force about 100 Million per year on not having to run and administer AFJROTC, and we show them the same Cadet numbers starting at 100,000 and progressing to 200,000 Cadets.
If the Air Force were to choose, which would they prefer a large recruiting pool of CAP Cadets or AFJROTC Cadets, who took an easy "class" in High School.
The Air Force is already starting to defund AFJROTC.
The Seniors will take care themselves, less out of pocket money from membership, more benefits, and some participation, pay will increase Senior Membership and decrease turnover.
We need to change our mind set, on funding, we are not taking away from the Air Force, everything we do enhances our relationship with the Air Force and DOD, if we execute our plan.
And no organization can duplicate the low cost of CAP operations, even with the increases to our budget.
I think you guys are working off some mistaken perceptions.
The federal govt funds CAP to help complete teh AF mission & for no other purpose. They don't even a tiny bit care what we have, are, or might do for anyone else at any time for any reason. We are ALLOWED to branch out a LITTLE bit in our spare time just because we have the resources & training in the right place at the right time, but we're not allowed to exist for that purpose.
Let me be VERY clear about this. There a very strong forces in Congress, including very prominant & respected senators from both parties who are each running for President, who want to do away with CAP. They have a plan, including options to sieze & sell or redistribute our aircraft & radios; push our SaR missions (and assets/funding) to NIMS compliant state law enforcement; balance funding in JROTC programs, drop AE to AFA. They are VERY VERY powerful & may get their way no matter what AF wants or how good or bad CAP is. You have 1-3 years, 5 on the outside, before CAP has to PROVE it's so critical to the AF that it must exist or AF can't accomplish their mission (at least not w/o another 80mil/year).
By the way, State/County LE is responsible to respond to SaR situations, not CAP or AF. AF is ONLY responsible for running AFRCC. If they wanted to do the minimum required by law, all they'd have to do is inform state/county LE where the hits are in their jurisdiction & tell them to call back if they find it or after they've exhausted all available mutual aid & need federal support. Even then, the AF doesn't HAVE to pay for that federal support. They just have to front the money till the appropriate authorities or victims can be billed. Of course that's not what happens, but I'm just saying they can give (sieze & sell for a buck) our planes to state police & provide tehm the training to do the missions on their own. They can do that via DHS, which means AF gets the money back elsewhere. Plus, ELTs are dropping off & a very big 10 year+ cycle of budget crunches is coming.
There's critical things CAP can be doing for AF! There's a whole big ton of things we can do in HLS, from night CN on the border w/ FLIR, to NRBC over border/ports/transportation routes... There's a federal disaster assessment function that needs type 1 & 2 capability resourced & close in w/ combined adaptable air/grd/comm teams that can switch roles on the fly to be interchangable w/ NG emergency response personnel... there's territory in the new 8AF cyber mission that's getting pushed hard, and creating a whole new CAP-like org to deal with it has been suggested - install lightbulb over head w/ CAP incorporating the job... there's the direct augmentation (CGAux style) that John & other have talked about to expand beyond Chaplains to legal, medical, & even to unskilled grunt work.... there's recruiter augmentation.... the list can be pretty endless. The thing is, al of that costs virtually nothing or the money os already available. Here's the problem. No one trusts a bunch of silly moron civilians to be close to as capable as paid AF professionals. Of course they don't think any idiot off the street can do their job, and they're right. The problem is they think of CAP as idots off the street cause we don't meet their standards. We have to fix that, and with that they'll give us a shot at the rest, but you can't put the cart before the horse.
AFJROTC is tied to other service JROTC, and it's funded by school districts. The AF spends very littel direct money on it. The reports are misleading cause they count outside money, but that's not what's appropriated. I do think they get more bang for their buck w/ CAP, but CAP is SO SO small & the quality of the program is so inconsistent, it's really hard to say....
Now you guys know I love CAP & I wouldn't be up here if I wasn't trying to wrestle it into a turn for teh better. Just don't take some of that negative sounding stuff like I'm not optomistic. I am! I'm just cognizant of the threats & driven to stay out front of them.
Yea John Good Idea :clap:
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 03, 2007, 04:53:53 AM
Fearing what the Air Force thinks or might do is not going to get us anywhere.
And isn't that what we've always done, depended on the Air Force to throw us an increase in budget.
The problem is CAP has far greater potential than envisioned by the Air Force.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 03, 2007, 04:53:53 AMOr else why did the Air Force see fit to circumvent the CAP Cadet Program in 1966 and form AFJROTC with our Aerospace Books and our fully developed Leadership Lab Manual, and then fund their Cadet Program with more than 6 times the entire budget of CAP?
Maybe because each service had a JROTC program....and that the JROTC program in NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN the same as CAP Cadet Program.
The JROTC program was a way to get a military presence into high schools. CAP is not in high schools.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 03, 2007, 04:53:53 AMThey fund their "Cadet Program", which comparing apples to apples, the CAP Cadet Program is the stronger program, we just lack the funding to implement it in the numbers that generate 200,000 cadets. If CAP had 200 Million Dollars a year in funding a lot could be done.
Well got to ask you what you mean by "stronger". JROTC has a lot more cadets, it has a lot more presence and it has full time professional instructors.
I was an AFJROTC cadet back in the day...while I was never a CAP cadet....I would be hard pressed to say which one is the "stronger" program. AFJROTC is one hour 5 days a week. Plus you have more exposure when you add staff time, or drill team. CAP is maybe 3-4 hours once a week.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 03, 2007, 04:53:53 AMThe Air Force will never pull Search and Rescue away from CAP, we operate so cheap, there is no one that can do it like we do. A Sheriff Dept would have to pay $600 per hour for a helicopter, and Fixed Wing Sheriff Dept Aircraft would cost $300 per hour, including the crew and benefits, retirement, medical, dental and health insurance. By the way our local Sheriff just paid $500,000 for their fixed wing aircraft, a Cessna product.
You are missing the point. The point is that there are a lot of organizations out there that already have the assists. There are organizations out there that would be willing to pick up our SAR responsibilities for less than we do them now...because as you say...your sheriff department just bought an aircraft. They are already paying the $300 per hour to fly it. USAF would not have to pay for proficiency flights, o-flights, SAREXs or transporting personnel around to and from meetings. They would only have to pay for actual mission hours.
And again I point out that there are organizations out there willing to fly those SAR flights for free! They are already doing it. BSA Explorer posts, Washington Search and Rescue http://www.eskimo.com/~c180tom/ (http://www.eskimo.com/~c180tom/). In addition the USAF would not have to pay for all the cadet and AE related programs.
http://www.eskimo.com/~c180tom/Civil Air Patrol by doing SAR on the cheap has a cost too, and that cost is burning out members and having to replace members with new members every 6 years. (100% turnover in 6 years).
Here is the proposal I would run by the DOD on the way to Congress.
Fund us at a level we can operate SAR, pay our pilots an hourly rate, and per diem, and pay our ground teams. SAR is $300 per Aircraft Hour, we budget, maint, training, paying pilots, and instructors. This results in a increase in our mission capabilities.
Can't happen. If we are paid we all have to CPL's. The FAA gives us a by on that simply because we only receive reimbursement for actual expenses. If we got "paid" for flying SAR, then we would fall under the commercial pilot rules and the rules that commercial air serves fall under.
Also...once you started paying pilots and ground crews, and mission base personnel we would quickly be no longer cheaper than letting the USAF doing it themselves. You can get 40-50 people at a SAREX. Even at a cheap rate of say $40 per diem that is $2000 per day before you fly a single hour or send out a single ground team. Times that by 52 wings and 12 SAREXs a year (this is very very conservative) you have spent $1.2M with out flying a single hour.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 03, 2007, 04:53:53 AM
Cadet Program: Abolish or phase out AFJROTC in favor of the CAP Middle School Program. We reach kids sooner than AFJROTC in High Schools. We have a broader mission for Cadets, and more extra curricular activities. We propose to save the Air Force about 100 Million per year on not having to run and administer AFJROTC, and we show them the same Cadet numbers starting at 100,000 and progressing to 200,000 Cadets.
That is 794 high schools you would have implement a program for. These units run 100 cadets or so each and they have two full time instructors. Again...you cannot say CAP is stronger than AFJROTC.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 03, 2007, 04:53:53 AMIf the Air Force were to choose, which would they prefer a large recruiting pool of CAP Cadets or AFJROTC Cadets, who took an easy "class" in High School.
The Air Force is already starting to defund AFJROTC.
Really....They just expanded the number of schools in the last 3-4 years. The Air Force could really care less about what sort of cadets the programs put out. Heck you get the same promotion for enlisting for six years as you do for earning Mitchell or attending 3 years of AFJROTC. USAF recruiters are not in any way shape or form dependent out our contribution to their quotas.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 03, 2007, 04:53:53 AMThe Seniors will take care themselves, less out of pocket money from membership, more benefits, and some participation, pay will increase Senior Membership and decrease turnover.
Do you really thing the money a senior member would make on SAREXs and Missions would make up for all the hard work it takes to get there in the first place? Burn out is not caused by too much training or too many missions. Burn out is caused by lack of leadership, lack of training, sketchy oversight and arbitrary rules and regulations. The three big reason for people quiting was lack of leadership (no one was telling them what to do), Lack of training (they could not do what they wanted because leadership was not training them to do it) and lack of meaningful job or missions (I joined to do SAR, or work with Cadets, or Teach AE, or operate radios....and they never call me for missions or they got me doing nothing but paper work that goes no where).
It is not....it's too expensive.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 03, 2007, 04:53:53 AM
And no organization can duplicate the low cost of CAP operations, even with the increases to our budget.
Not true. With a concerted effort I can organize a 3 aircraft flying club that would be willing to answer the call of any customer to fly 24/7 and they would pay for it them selves. People have not problem doing the SARs. They have problems with everything else. CAP is not irreplaceable.
Quote from: DNall on January 03, 2007, 06:07:00 AM
Now you guys know I love CAP & I wouldn't be up here if I wasn't trying to wrestle it into a turn for the better. Just don't take some of that negative sounding stuff like I'm not optomistic. I am! I'm just cognizant of the threats & driven to stay out front of them.
DNall, you and I have wrestled on this issue before and thanks to that GAO link...I've come around to your way of seeing on this issue. I still don't buy into all your doom and gloom..but I do buy into your take on CAP is pushing the USAF away and that may be a bad thing in the long run. However...and I said this before...just because congress stops funding us and pulls our charter....there is no reason why we cannot continue to exist as a SAR organization.
Okay....bottom line then is that we have to kiss and make up to the USAF. We need to bow to all their oversight wishes and get with USAF's vision of CAP.
Now I got the same question to the USAF as I had to the Chief...what is that vision.
I'm very interested in hearing some of the details of who has what exact plan for dismantling CAP.
I do remember Sen McCain's plan back in the 90s. It wasn't to dismantle CAP, but rather to move the SAR mission away from USAF.
After all, it's hardly a core USAF mission.
He wanted to move SAR to NTSB or some other worthy federal agency, so that DoD dollars could be focused on preparing to kill bad guys.
And truthfully, as a taxpayer and a soldier, I think that actually made some sense.
But, it would have hurt CAP. Because we'd then have two bosses - USAF for the cadet mission and somebody else for SAR. The worry was that the NTSB would want a non-military, non cadet SAR organization, and USAF would decide that the cadet program by itself wasn't worth much money.
Needless to say, CAP cranked up the 'ol lobbying machine and killed the plan.
But truthfully, this is the only "plan" I've ever heard from a prominent politician to affect CAP. Our budget is so small it's not worth them paying much attention to.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 03, 2007, 03:59:23 AM
I'm not arguing CAP's right to lobby congress directly for funds. What I am arguing is that if you aim is to increase the closeness of CAP and the USAF...you cannot compete with them for money. It is simple as that. If we are the USAF-AUX (or want to be at least) the USAF will fund us in the way that insures that we both get our missions done. (notice I said missions both CAP's and the USAF's).
But if you back door them...you are creating an adversarial situation. Kind of like asking Daddy for a cookie after Mom says no.
lordmonar summed up what I was trying to say quite nicely.
We hear two things all the time on this board.
1. We're not close enough to the Air Force
2. The Air Force won't let us do what we want to do.
If we care about #1, we need to back off on #2. If we care more about #2, we need to back off on #1. Either will work. But if we choose #2, we may have to all go by Corporate Blues sometime soon...
Quote from: lordmonar on January 03, 2007, 07:57:00 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 03, 2007, 06:07:00 AM
Now you guys know I love CAP & I wouldn't be up here if I wasn't trying to wrestle it into a turn for the better. Just don't take some of that negative sounding stuff like I'm not optomistic. I am! I'm just cognizant of the threats & driven to stay out front of them.
DNall, you and I have wrestled on this issue before and thanks to that GAO link...I've come around to your way of seeing on this issue. I still don't buy into all your doom and gloom..but I do buy into your take on CAP is pushing the USAF away and that may be a bad thing in the long run. However...and I said this before...just because congress stops funding us and pulls our charter....there is no reason why we cannot continue to exist as a SAR organization.
Okay....bottom line then is that we have to kiss and make up to the USAF. We need to bow to all their oversight wishes and get with USAF's vision of CAP.
Now I got the same question to the USAF as I had to the Chief...what is that vision.
Interesting turn of events... I don't necessarily think the sky is falling. My point of view comes from knowing the deal in Congress (as of this past summer anyway). There's good & bad there. Then stack it next to declining ELT missions & failure to step up to require NIMS standards. That's all jus too much ammunition for the other side.
Far as the timeline, I know major discussion will be on the agenda one way or another after the Presidential. We need to provide as much pro-CAP ammunition before that happens so the resulting action can be historic in our favor rather than historic in our demise. Especially when the forces allied agaisnt us are powerful in a way they never have been in the history of CAP or the AF.
Far as a vision... they're searching in all directions but they don't have an answer. They're talking about all the same things we are - hell a lot of our conversations play off each other believe it or not. I view it like SAC watching the cold war wind down & knowing you're about to be obselete. You stand there & take it, wait for the AF to define the future for you? OR, do you work teh issue & try to evolve your command within the lattitudse you're given (that's significant in our case) to show them what you can be. See I'd go tthat way. I'd give them more opportunities to utilize us & more choices than they have time to make.
I think you'll find though - and I just got done sayin ghtis in another thread - that the limiting factor on us is not the laws, or the AF relationship, but just ourselves. You can blame the top a bit for pushing off, but I can't do anything about that. The other part of the issue is our people. This is the line of logic that gets me to my stance on Professional Development. I think we have to run out some serious standards & a legit grade system so AF can look at us & not think of us as idiots off the street, but will have to understand that we met roughly the same quals & passed roughly the same courses... that & the people it turns out produce a degree of confidecen that has them more enthusiastic about out aircrews flying some complex gear around being the defense & deterence line against nuclear transport & that sort of big time mission that we need to be doing but can't because no one believes in us.
The plan I heard came from a particular Senator's aide, but is apparently supported by a few people - not as many as support CAP, but the detractors are pretty big names.
The plan is short & sweet... if you revoke title 36, CAP is not a properly constituted corporation capable of recieving or holding govt property. (I actually want to do away with the title 36 corporate status, but you have to change title 10 at the same time to re-estabilish us as the full time AFAux in the same kind of framework CGAux is working under.) If we get closed down, they'll take all our stuff. We won't be allowed to go on w/o them.
I understand about the title 36 proposal to make us inelelgible to receive federal property. But legally....CAP aircraft are corporate property...they are NOT federal property. Yes they were bought with federal money...but I don't think congress can just arbitrailly take them back. I may be wrong...but that is one of the whole points about use NOT being part of the USAF. If they were USAF assets and they were just loaned to us...then that would be a different story. I just don't think that is the case in this situation.
It would be like Boeing having to turn over a factory floor to the USAF because it was built with federal money to build USAF aircraft. The money was federal but the property is private.
Quote from: DNall on January 03, 2007, 08:24:32 PM
The plan is short & sweet... if you revoke title 36, CAP is not a properly constituted corporation capable of recieving or holding govt property. (I actually want to do away with the title 36 corporate status, but you have to change title 10 at the same time to re-estabilish us as the full time AFAux in the same kind of framework CGAux is working under.) If we get closed down, they'll take all our stuff. We won't be allowed to go on w/o them.
Okay so the "plan" is revoke title 36. Two questions
1. Who in congress (or in the presidential race) is in favor of this plan?
2. Given all the problems in this country with much bigger price tags, why do they care?
Just wondering. The whole thing sounds a bit like idle speculation. I'm just having problems seeing a newly elected president caring at all about piddly little CAP...
Can you provide the details so we can do our own risk analysis?
Thanks!
Uh....guys?!
Let's not start fiddleing around with the Structure of CAP and then solicit the support of people running for office to "help it along."
Why?
1) Any proposal that holds the existance of CAP in the balance and put to a vote in the Congress is likey to result in the end of CAP resulting in us all joing SDFs because the rug was pulled from under us.
Any changes to these titles would have to be done by amendment aborgating and correcting at the same time and all at once. If not, one could get the one without the other which might open fresh wounds in CAP. OUCH...that would smart!
2) Dealing with politicans before an election will likely yield lots of promises and even more forgetfull Jone syndrome later.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 03, 2007, 09:04:31 PM
Uh....guys?!
Let's not start fiddleing around with the Structure of CAP and then solicit the support of people running for office to "help it along."
Why?
1) Any proposal that holds the existance of CAP in the balance and put to a vote in the Congress is likey to result in the end of CAP resulting in us all joing SDFs because the rug was pulled from under us.
Any changes to these titles would have to be done by amendment aborgating and correcting at the same time and all at once. If not, one could get the one without the other which might open fresh wounds in CAP. OUCH...that would smart!
2) Dealing with politicans before an election will likely yield lots of promises and even more forgetfull Jone syndrome later.
Not all of us can join SDF's either. You cannot be active, reserve, or NG. Retired is okay...
Quote from: sandman on January 03, 2007, 09:06:35 PM
Not all of us can join SDF's either. You cannot be active, reserve, or NG. Retired is okay...
True, but with CAP dissolved there are going to be many "homeless" volunteers.
With all due respect, some of these 'this candidate...' and 'that candidate...' sounds an awful lot like rumor and speculation and little else.
That's not to say that our house doesn't need to be set in order - absolutely it does. It's just that I've grown more than a little weary of so many rumors over the years.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 03, 2007, 09:13:44 PM
Quote from: sandman on January 03, 2007, 09:06:35 PM
Not all of us can join SDF's either. You cannot be active, reserve, or NG. Retired is okay...
True, but with CAP dissolved there are going to be many "homeless" volunteers.
Yep...maybe it's a good thing. CG AUX has its air wing and needs volunteers for HLS missions. Maybe inland SAR could be AUX Air's new mission?
Just throwing a little salt on the wound ;)
I sincerely doubt that there are going to be too many candidates running on dissolving CAP. Most Democrats have been making points about the under-funding of HLS while most Republicans wouldn't do it as it would tarnish their "pro-defense" image.
CAP is very important to all of us, but you could throw darts in the air and hit hundreds of programs that cost more than CAP and have no real constituency to fight for them.
Quote from: sandman on January 03, 2007, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 03, 2007, 09:13:44 PM
Quote from: sandman on January 03, 2007, 09:06:35 PM
Not all of us can join SDF's either. You cannot be active, reserve, or NG. Retired is okay...
True, but with CAP dissolved there are going to be many "homeless" volunteers.
Yep...maybe it's a good thing. CG AUX has its air wing and needs volunteers for HLS missions. Maybe inland SAR could be AUX Air's new mission?
Just throwing a little salt on the wound ;)
Yes, but that might not do the people in Wyoming Wing or over in Oddessa, Texas very much good. That is to assume that a Coast line is necessary for a Coast Guard and its auxiliary. I guess one could invent "land boats." ;) This is, of course, whimsy!!
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 03, 2007, 10:03:57 PM
I guess one could invent "land boats." ;) This is, of course, whimsy!!
Or one could just realize that the CG can be found on "waterways", not just "coastline areas". There was a flotilla in Idaho when I was there. Plenty of water them to work with.
I've owned and driven several "Land Yachts" over the years... do those count? :D
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 03, 2007, 10:15:18 PM
I've owned and driven several "Land Yachts" over the years... do those count? :D
Yes, "land yachts" and "Air Ships" welcome!!!! :D
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 03, 2007, 10:17:41 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 03, 2007, 10:15:18 PM
I've owned and driven several "Land Yachts" over the years... do those count? :D
Yes, "land yachts" and "Air Ships" welcome!!!! :D
;D
Actually, that is ONE of the things that have been discussed... Abolishing CAP as an instrumentality of the USAF and boosting the USCG Aux Air with our aircraft.
Don't ask me who does inland SAR in Nebraska under this plan. I know it exists but I don't know the details.
But, after all, when would a politician concern himself with all the mundane "Details" of a plan? Remember the Vietnam War?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 03, 2007, 10:24:06 PM
Actually, that is ONE of the things that have been discussed... Abolishing CAP as an instrumentality of the USAF and boosting the USCG Aux Air with our aircraft.
Don't ask me who does inland SAR in Nebraska under this plan. I know it exists but I don't know the details.
But, after all, when would a politician concern himself with all the mundane "Details" of a plan? Remember the Vietnam War?
Who was discussing this? Was it on an official level or just a blog?
QuoteThat is to assume that a Coast line is necessary for a Coast Guard and its auxiliary.
CG Aux is found just about everywhere. Keep in mind that many large rivers and lakes are considered federal waters over which the CG has jurisdiction. However, CG Aux Air is primarily a coastal mission.
John, let us not kid ourselves. Abolish CAP and it will be gone forever, no matter where its former members go. That would be sad.
Quote from: sandman on January 03, 2007, 10:26:12 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 03, 2007, 10:24:06 PM
Actually, that is ONE of the things that have been discussed... Abolishing CAP as an instrumentality of the USAF and boosting the USCG Aux Air with our aircraft.
Don't ask me who does inland SAR in Nebraska under this plan. I know it exists but I don't know the details.
But, after all, when would a politician concern himself with all the mundane "Details" of a plan? Remember the Vietnam War?
Who was discussing this? Was it on an official level or just a blog?
I heard it from a region commander, but I don't know the status of the consideration. I also heard the same issue raised back in the 1990's, when I discussed it with the RAP officer assigned to my wing.
Sorry. I didn't notice there was another line to your post, and I inserted my answer in your quote. My bad.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 04, 2007, 01:27:04 AM
Sorry. I didn't notice there was another line to your post, and I inserted my answer in your quote. My bad.
Fixed.
Quote from: MIKE on January 04, 2007, 03:13:36 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 04, 2007, 01:27:04 AM
Sorry. I didn't notice there was another line to your post, and I inserted my answer in your quote. My bad.
Fixed.
Thanks.
Quote from: MIKE on January 04, 2007, 03:13:36 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 04, 2007, 01:27:04 AM
Sorry. I didn't notice there was another line to your post, and I inserted my answer in your quote. My bad.
Fixed.
Ya know, Mike...you should do that as a fund raiser for the forums.
Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.
The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it. I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"
Dragoon:
There are advantages and disadvantages to any of the proposed courses of action, including the current course we are on.
Would you, maybe by coordinating with RiverAux, be interested in developing some facts about the concept of placing CAP under the USCG AuxAir that we could discuss?
It's show time!
If you want to hear what John Kachenmeister, DNall and ZigZag911 really think about this topic... AND if you want your questions answered you still have time to register for this evening's 7:00 PM CST Webinar. Log on at : https://www.gotomeeting.com/register/472612695
Will anyone really care what we think? Will anyone listen? You bet they will...they've already registered. We will be heard.
NICK CRITELLI
Well, I'm not able to particpate but I'll simply say this:
There is significant opportunity for change/improvement within the organization. We should start there first before reaching out with all this pie-in-the-sky talk of changing laws, changing oversight from USAF to NGB, CGAUX or whoever, etc.
Start with what we can control - and there is plenty. We haven't done that yet - not at all. We can change the reporting structure of the CC, BOG, NB to minimize some of the glaring issues with it's structure. We can change/improve our training for members - to the point of bringing back enlisted ranks for seniors if we wanted. Eliminate the focus on all these silly uniform changes - we control that. Set a strategic direction and communicate it - we control that!
Once we get our act together internally, there will be plenty of opportunities/missions for us with external customers. If we don't get our act together internally, none of the other stuff matters.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 04, 2007, 02:57:45 PM
Dragoon:
There are advantages and disadvantages to any of the proposed courses of action, including the current course we are on.
Would you, maybe by coordinating with RiverAux, be interested in developing some facts about the concept of placing CAP under the USCG AuxAir that we could discuss?
Not sure I'd know where to start in fleshing out the concept. RiverAux, any ideas?
Quote from: Dragoon on January 04, 2007, 02:29:46 PM
Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.
The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it. I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"
In a sense, that's true as far as the CAP cadetting program goes. However, there are several cadetting programs that are available as an alternative as you're aware and discussed on other threads. The CG AUX charter does not allow it to have an organic cadet program (although that can change too) but it is very involved with US Sea Cadets. IMHO, USNSCC would be a great alternative as it does not have cadet officers, and the cadets get great training on land and sea (Seabee training, SEAL orientation, Flight orientation, etc. etc.)
Sorry to blather too far off topic, but the point is is that if CAP is folded, while missed it is not irreplaceable.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 04, 2007, 02:29:46 PM
Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.
The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it. I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"
From what I've heard USAF's prime interest in CAP IS the Cadet Program!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 04, 2007, 07:53:07 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 04, 2007, 02:29:46 PM
Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.
The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it. I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"
From what I've heard USAF's prime interest in CAP IS the Cadet Program!
I've heard that as well, for many years. But if you look at the dollars - it's clear that ES is the thing they're actually willing to pay for.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 04, 2007, 07:53:07 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 04, 2007, 02:29:46 PM
Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.
The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it. I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"
From what I've heard USAF's prime interest in CAP IS the Cadet Program!
Always will be, especially in light of todays modern marval technology. I feel that sometimes we over inflate our importance as 'low cost' when the same observation missions can now be accomplished by a small remote control plane with a camera mounted on it.
I am going to use the search for that missing guy Kim out west as an example. The sheriff who had operational control for the search failed to use our assets, even acknowledged we had them but still opted not to bring us to the table.
To add to the whole mess is our own messed up reality of 'corporate vs air force' mentality. We do our ownselves in all the time.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 04, 2007, 07:53:07 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 04, 2007, 02:29:46 PM
From what I've heard USAF's prime interest in CAP IS the Cadet Program!
I've heard that as well, for many years. But if you look at the dollars - it's clear that ES is the thing they're actually willing to pay for.
Cadet program is for some time now the thing that delivers them the most contribution to AF - just period right the, but certainly for the money.
Are we seriously charting the demise of CAP here. I mean there's already plans out there by people that want to destroy this organization, do you really think they need our help?
I guess after they take our planes away & throw us all in the street that they might give some of the planes to CGAux rather than just state police & sell the rest. What's the difference. Either way CAP is out of business for good. The CP mitigation I've heard if this goes down is to roll in w/ ACA as an AF based program, or aborb under their existing programs. That'd work fine.
The point of this thread is how to get CAP's crap together, so AF will hand us real work, which'll make us so critical they can't do w/o us. That means changing who we are, how we do business, & what our missions are - nothing CAP hasn't done a half dozen times in 65 years.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 03, 2007, 08:34:35 PM
I understand about the title 36 proposal to make us inelelgible to receive federal property. But legally....CAP aircraft are corporate property...they are NOT federal property. Yes they were bought with federal money...but I don't think congress can just arbitrailly take them back. I may be wrong...but that is one of the whole points about use NOT being part of the USAF. If they were USAF assets and they were just loaned to us...then that would be a different story. I just don't think that is the case in this situation.
Yes & no... for instance, if CAP knows AF requires a fleet of 525 planes all spread out, it can't decide we didn't get enough in the budget so we'll sell down to 500 to finance the dif & AF can replace the planes if they want to. That would be illegal. They're given to us conditionally, and we can't get rid of them except under a very tight proceedure - there's a lot of law to prevent converting govt property to personal profit. So anyways, if you dissolve CAP as a legal entity, then who owns the planes? That's right, either the planes or profits from govt supervised sale have to be returned to the treasury. You don't even have to go that far with it. Congress decides to take back the planes, they can just order it done & hold them while CAP tries to fight it - they can wait you out & have them sold or re-distributed before you can do anything about it. Also, after you fight the govt for rights to the stuff, & get painted as stealing taxpayer resources after the job is over... assuming you win & get some of the stuff back in usable condition, who are you flying missions for again, and how do you pay the tens of millions per year to keep a quarter of the fleet going?
If they want you dead, you're dead. I'd prefer to make it so they have to shoot themselves to get to us. And THAT is the central point of my vision/philosophy on just about all subjects CAP related.
Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on January 03, 2007, 09:31:51 PM
With all due respect, some of these 'this candidate...' and 'that candidate...' sounds an awful lot like rumor and speculation and little else.
That's not to say that our house doesn't need to be set in order - absolutely it does. It's just that I've grown more than a little weary of so many rumors over the years.
I wouldn't want to name members of congress in a public forum. I worked as a consultant & junior staffer to a well known congressman for a couple years ending this past summer. This individual was a former CAP cadet & stayed very in tune with the subject. CAP was forst established as & has always been a pet project for which a bi-partisan group of fans trades political capital to protect & keep us funded. There has not ever until 1999 been a group of congressmen who stuck with their opposition to CAP. The problem these people have is still related to the stinck created in 98/99, that they feel CAP was pandered to & got special treatment, which is true, and the structure put in place in 2000 has failed to bring the accountability demanded at that time.
QuoteWould you, maybe by coordinating with RiverAux, be interested in developing some facts about the concept of placing CAP under the USCG AuxAir that we could discuss?
I wouldn't favor it at all. CG Aux Air is aimed primarily at conducting routine patrols, primarily along the coastline. They rarely do any emergency response.
Aux Air is also based entirely on privately-owned airplanes which lack any comm or DF gear.
Basically, if we were wanting to do some combination it would make much more sense to transfere CG Aux Air to CAP. Our ES infrastructure and corporate owned fleet are far superior to theirs. There really is just no comparison. The only thing they have the advantage over CAP is having some multi-engine airplanes that are more appropriate for overwater missions.
The other issue is that CG Aux does not really run any of their operations. Ops are directed by the CG and control is scattered among stations all over the country. They just are not geared towards responding over a large area, and as noted before, while CG and CG Aux can be found within the interior of the country, they are spread incredibly thin. They just wouldn't have the people to run things.
Guys, I like a lot of things about the CG Aux and I'm not saying anything bad about CG Aux Air crews, but their mission and capabilities are so different that it would be much easier for us to absorb their missions rather than them trying to absorb ours.
Attempted several times to log into the Webinar with no luck. >:(
It is scheduled for 7PM CST, not Eastern.
Hope that helps!
Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2007, 12:16:06 AM
QuoteWould you, maybe by coordinating with RiverAux, be interested in developing some facts about the concept of placing CAP under the USCG AuxAir that we could discuss?
I wouldn't favor it at all. CG Aux Air is aimed primarily at conducting routine patrols, primarily along the coastline. They rarely do any emergency response.
Aux Air is also based entirely on privately-owned airplanes which lack any comm or DF gear.
Basically, if we were wanting to do some combination it would make much more sense to transfere CG Aux Air to CAP. Our ES infrastructure and corporate owned fleet are far superior to theirs. There really is just no comparison. The only thing they have the advantage over CAP is having some multi-engine airplanes that are more appropriate for overwater missions.
The other issue is that CG Aux does not really run any of their operations. Ops are directed by the CG and control is scattered among stations all over the country. They just are not geared towards responding over a large area, and as noted before, while CG and CG Aux can be found within the interior of the country, they are spread incredibly thin. They just wouldn't have the people to run things.
Guys, I like a lot of things about the CG Aux and I'm not saying anything bad about CG Aux Air crews, but their mission and capabilities are so different that it would be much easier for us to absorb their missions rather than them trying to absorb ours.
The question is - what if the SAR mission was transferred from USAF to CG? What then?
that would require a re write of the National SAR plan
Yup. And I'm not advocating it - but about a decade ago McCain was. He wasn't thinking CG - I think the plan was NTSB. Let the guys who deal with plan crashes go find them as well, and get the DoD out of a "non warfighter" line of business.
I attended the meeting, I thought it was very good. I could not hear anything, but just the same I was able to view it. Will it be rebroadcast?
I so far am leaning to Kack's plan.
Even though at present time I am not in CAP, I try to keep up to date with what's going on.
Well that was interesting.
I for one enjoyed hearing a frank discussion about CAP, it's future, and our organization. Lt. Col. Critelli asked that I post a summary of what I heard during the talk.
The first talking was our current organizational structure. The moderators talked about the current BOG, NEC, NB, and Staff organization. The consensus seemed to be that our current organization made it difficult for any commander to get anything accomplished, and that accountability was muttered across the board. The group talked about ideas to improve the existing structure, and each moderator added insight into improvements. The group felt that the best organization for CAP would be a Top down hierarchy with the BOG selecting command officers, with a purely vertical structure.
Next each of the presenters talked about the need for a strategic partner. All three felt that CAP needed a Governmental agency to partner with CAP to support all of our missions, and operations.
Three major programs were presented.
#1 moved CAP under direct operational control of First air force
#2 moved CAP under direct Operational control of the National guard bureau
#3 (whose presenter could not talk due to technical difficulties) maintained CAP under AETC.
The talk was interesting and heated, but in the end all of the presenters seemed to agree that a strategic partner needed to be established with specific goals to support federal, state, and local takings.
If I missed something let me know. I would like to hear what others got from the talk.
One of the early topics was a CAC type system for the rank and file membership to have their voices heard. I kind of like that one.
If you couldn't hear the convo you missed a LOT but yes it was VERY good, and THANK YOU Nick for hosting!! Outstanding strategic conversation. I felt like I was getting double teamed in there w/ Iowa swinging to the NG perspective, but no problems. I think Iowa is great, but I don't think it scales w/ NGB as the partner, but rather w/ 1AF standing that post.
I think we need to work on a plan for what we have in common... then present a spectrum of options for the areas in which we disagree. Then I think we should tap resources for further investigation at AWC, answer the call for papers at A3/SHA, show some things at NGB in DC... Let's get something together & ship it to some destinations where the masters can argue the points too. Then I can help you hook into some congressional sources that'd like to see how the conversation is going.
I don't know if we can predetermine a destination, but I think we can motivate some movement in the right direction.
Nice talking to yall by the way. John I'll be out your way this Spring. We might just test your ability to stay above the table. And Nick, I don't guess we can get you down here, but I'm really hoping we can get at least a couple folks out for CTEP this string to help w/ your IWCPA (or whatever the acro is on that). Again, outstanding!!!
Heated?
Passionate, maybe. But nobody got heated.
QuoteThe question is - what if the SAR mission was transferred from USAF to CG? What then?
I guess what I'm saying is that neither the CG or the CG Aux is set up to take on this mission and it would take major changes in both organizations it to be accomplished.
If I had to chose which military service would be the best home for CAP's SAR functions other than the Air Force it would be the Army. They are a ground-oriented service that uses aviation to support its ground operations. That is pretty much what CAP does in SAR. Our light aircraft are used to find a target that is then approached on the ground by a team either from CAP or another agency.
Sure, they don't have a real SAR mission, but while the CG does have one it is so focused on maritime ops that transferring it to inland SAR just isn't a good fit.
Would you guys want to collaborate on a paper?
And Dennis: Let me know when in the spring. I have a guest room, and I'm about 6 miles from the ocean.
Dang sorry I missed it! Thanks so far for the reports from those of you who attended.
I'd second the vote for a re-cast if possible.
Hey the ocean I got, oil spill last week & all. :D Sister's wedding in April, supposed to be leave right after... the orders say 28th at Benning for trans & airborne, get some break & then the Ruck for WOCS & start flyin, they're jackin w/ me about pushing the dates though so who freaking knows at this point. I'll be there though. No way in hell your butt is gettin off the stool w/o a couple rounds on my tab.
Yes on the paper.... how you feel about this:
Quote from: DNall on January 05, 2007, 02:49:44 AM
I think we need to work on a plan for what we have in common... then present a spectrum of options for the areas in which we disagree.
Then I think we should tap resources for further investigation at AWC, answer the call for papers at A3/SHA, show some things at NGB in DC... Let's get something together & ship it to some destinations where the masters can argue the points too. Then I can help you hook into some congressional sources that'd like to see how the conversation is going.
River down there... Army does disasters w/ NG resources; CG does coastal SaR/HLS/HLD; AF does inland SaR & air portin of Disaster/HLD... the national plan does the break down pretty well. To each their own & stick to your specialties. Can we change it? yeah, but why when it actually makes sense already?
I don't think so. Overall, I lean towards DNalls way of thinking as to where CAP should be structurally within the AF. I don't see us moving from the AF to another service or combining with CG Aux a paper would be way too speculative for me.
paper on the conf call topics. that's pretty standard to congeal a conversation into a concept area at least & put it out to people in other strategic thinkers for input. I imagine they'll overwhelm us, but that's fine. Two-way comms is a good thing. It's also responding to requests for such papers from parts of the AF who are trying to fig out what to do with us. I hope NB/BoG takes up the issue, but pressure from both sides & a the best idea we can come up with as a team is what we all want.
Gentlemen: I was online and on the phone for about 20 minutes: then, had to close out due to family stuff.
I would like to congratulate those who put the webinar together and who made the presentations. I was duly impressed with the thought that went into everything, the civility with which it was carried out and the great ideas presented. As some are prone to say: "y'all done good".
Now, my fondest hope is that someone from CAP-USAF or National or some Region CCs were listening and watching. I doubt that we will get much feedback from any of those levels, but lets hope that they took notes.
Can't wait to have another one: that I can attend for full length.
Thx on behalf... loved doing it.
The paper we produce will get full exposure... not overbearing force change kind of stuff, but a little "hey what if..." & " think about this right quick..." It'll get seen at high level sources, I promise you. Hell, i might see if we can run something into AF Times, maybe even Airman Mag how'd that be.
Direct paper collaberation to this specialized thread: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1312.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1312.0)
This might be a little involved for Airman, but right up the alley of Air Force, the AFA's journal. We might try a "Lite" version for Airman.
Webinar Report.
Thank to all who participated and attended. It was a very interesting conference. I apologize to ZigZab911 for my techo screw up that prohibited him from participating in the conference as presentor. That mistake cost us to miss out on a very well thought out and presented paper. While we went through it in his absence it did not do the paper justice. ZZ please consider posting it so we can carry on the discussion with the benefit of your comments.
After much discussion by the presentors and written comments by those in attendance, we came to consensus on the following:
1. CAP's organizational structure is flawed. The flaw manifests itself by creating a conflict conundrum between the National Command, the NEC and the NB which results in either controversy or complacency. Either severly limits the ability of a National Commander to be effective and efficient. A Task Force on Organizational Re-structure should be created by the highest appropriate authority within CAP. It should be populated by individuals from from within and without CAP who are from various disciplines and interest groups who are knowledgeable in corporate and governmental organizational structure. The Task Force should be charged with studying CAP's existing organizational structure, the organizational structure of similiar public and private organizations and make a recommendation as to an appropriate organizational structure for CAP.
2. CAP needs a strategic mission partner who will assist it in the effective and efficient performance of CAP's Title 10 and Title 36 mission. CAP enjoys a military based heritage rooted in the Army Air Corps and now the USAF. CAP also enjoys a Title 10 military and Title 36 state dual status structure which is symmetrical to the National Guard's dual Title 10 military and Title 32 state mission status. A strategic mission partner should share the same military-style cultural heritage and be a knowledgeable partner in performing both Title 10 and Title 36 missions. Of the various possibilities two emerge as credible partners: USAF and the Air National Guard. There was no consensus reached as to which of the two would be the better fit. CAP leadership should conduct a professional and objective re-evaluation of CAP's current relationship with USAF with a view to expanding the parameters of the relationship. However as a matter of due diligence other potential strategic mission partners should be identified and an objective assessment made as to their ability and suitability to assist CAP in discharging its Title 10 and Title 36 missions.
Comments anyone?
NICK CRITELLI
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 05, 2007, 05:21:41 AM
This might be a little involved for Airman, but right up the alley of Air Force, the AFA's journal. We might try a "Lite" version for Airman.
I was thinking "for public consumption" versions tailored to the more open sources like that, then a nice cross-ref'd academic piece with the deep thoughts moments for AWC (and ask for response papers), same w/ summary for Air Staff.
Nick:
My "Take" on the discussion was:
1. Yes, our current organization is broken.
2. What is needed is application of basic management principles in establishing a "Vertical" line of authority, versus the current "Circular" and sometimes "Orbital" patterns of management we have now.
3. Specifically this means that the following recomendations regarding "Echelons above reality" are appropriate:
a) The BoG should hire and fire the Natl. CC and Natl. CV as a minimum.
b) Consider giving the BoG authority to appoint and terminate all colonel-command positions.
c.) Either the NB or the NEC should go away. The NEC could be replaced by a "Command Committee" from the NB membership to advise the Natl. CC. But the two of them duplicate efforts, and unnecessarily complicate command of CAP.
d) If the NB goes away, some advisory body should replace it to provide the Natl. CC with input from the field.
4. With respect to operational control, there are three schools of thought:
a) CAP should be OPCON to 1st AF, responding under Title 10 to SAR, and federally-declared disasters. Each wing would be free to establish MOU with state agencies under Title 36 for local and state level disasters and emergencies. (Lt Col Nall's plan)
b) CAP should be OPCON to NGB, with wings OPCON to TAG. Essentially, CAP would be an element of the Air National Guard. As such, 1AF could task CAP via TAG's for title 10 missions, AFRCC could task for Title 10 SAR missions directly (not thru TAG), and TAG could call the CAP into state service on the order of the governor. State service would fall under Title 36, and be paid out of state funds. (Maj Kachenmeister's plan)
c) Make major modifications in the CAP command structure, but keep the OPCON under Air University. (ZigZag911's plan)
All of us agree on two peripheral issues:
1. Officer quality must by improved through a more demanding and comprehensive PD program.
2. Cadet recruitment age should be raised to 13 or 14.
Quote from: DNall on January 05, 2007, 06:44:43 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 05, 2007, 05:21:41 AM
This might be a little involved for Airman, but right up the alley of Air Force, the AFA's journal. We might try a "Lite" version for Airman.
I was thinking "for public consumption" versions tailored to the more open sources like that, then a nice cross-ref'd academic piece with the deep thoughts moments for AWC (and ask for response papers), same w/ summary for Air Staff.
Right. The "Target audience" is the key consideration. Remember... I'm a DINFOS "Trained killer!"
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on January 05, 2007, 06:04:37 AM
Webinar Report.
Thank to all who participated and attended. It was a very interesting conference. I apologize to ZigZab911 for my techo screw up that prohibited him from participating in the conference as presentor. That mistake cost us to miss out on a very well thought out and presented paper. While we went through it in his absence it did not do the paper justice. ZZ please consider posting it so we can carry on the discussion with the benefit of your comments.
After much discussion by the presentors and written comments by those in attendance, we came to consensus on the following:
1. CAP's organizational structure is flawed. The flaw manifests itself by creating a conflict conundrum between the National Command, the NEC and the NB which results in either controversy or complacency. Either severly limits the ability of a National Commander to be effective and efficient. A Task Force on Organizational Re-structure should be created by the highest appropriate authority within CAP. It should be populated by individuals from from within and without CAP who are from various disciplines and interest groups who are knowledgeable in corporate and governmental organizational structure. The Task Force should be charged with studying CAP's existing organizational structure, the organizational structure of similiar public and private organizations and make a recommendation as to an appropriate organizational structure for CAP.
2. CAP needs a strategic mission partner who will assist it in the effective and efficient performance of CAP's Title 10 and Title 36 mission. CAP enjoys a military based heritage rooted in the Army Air Corps and now the USAF. CAP also enjoys a Title 10 military and Title 36 state dual status structure which is symmetrical to the National Guard's dual Title 10 military and Title 32 state mission status. A strategic mission partner should share the same military-style cultural heritage and be a knowledgeable partner in performing both Title 10 and Title 36 missions. Of the various possibilities two emerge as credible partners: USAF and the Air National Guard. There was no consensus reached as to which of the two would be the better fit. CAP leadership should conduct a professional and objective re-evaluation of CAP's current relationship with USAF with a view to expanding the parameters of the relationship. However as a matter of due diligence other potential strategic mission partners should be identified and an objective assessment made as to their ability and suitability to assist CAP in discharging its Title 10 and Title 36 missions.
Comments anyone?
NICK CRITELLI
One of the wonders of technology is that sometimes you sit and wonder why it won't work!
Still, I appreciate the effort you made in putting this seminar together, as well as the contributions of the two gentlemen who presented.
I can see CAP staying with AETC, but I am equally persuaded by DNall's (Dennis?) view that 1AF would make a good parent organization for CAP within USAF.
I am not opposed to John's idea (supported, I believe, by Nick) that we operate under NGB.....but I'm not persuaded of the wisdom of each wing coming under OPCON of state TAG....might be a good idea, I need more convincing.....I think John's proposal was a bit complex, probably further discussion will clarify it.
It was frustrating to hear so much and get no chance to reply! I must say that I think too much time was devoted to the strategic partner issue....believe it or not, I really feel that is the leser concern....CAP's biggest problems now are internal.....and, while Nick is correct that any human institution will always have politics, I think our major hurdle right now is to develop checks and balances to minimize egregious politicking & cronyism, and to mitigate the damage it has done to CAP.
In brief, if we put our house in order, I believe we'll find out strategic partner/parent organization will be quite willing to work with us.
I am posting my original pre-seminar document here for folks to look through, looking forward to further exchanges about it....these are simply ideas, certainly in need of modification and improvement....and it is quite possible others have better ideas.....but perhaps this can help stir up discussion.
Have we asked for input from AF personnel?? Specifically those who work with/have worked with CAP...state directors, CAP RAP, and others? We need the benefit of their insights.
I can agree with most of that. I think AETC is an appropriate place to be in our day-to-day administration (ADCON). First cause that's along side JROTC, but also cause that's the home of officer taining & professional development that we're in desperate need of. I think we need to get real tight with them. They're best to deal with the CP & AE aspects of the org, & tyo fix our biggest problems. I don't think anyone cares which command deals with our contracting or which MAJCOM uniform board we have to work thru.
OPCON - the gaining command for missions - I think has to be 1AF. I have great respect for John & Nick's positions on the guard. I have nothing against the guard, I like them just fine, & I appreciate the opportunity to help the varrious states when they need it, but the feds don't pay 25mil a year for that to be our focus... meaning they won't continue paying that if we make it our focus. I really really have to emphasize also that while Guard sounds great & shorten the stack of paperwork for immediate disaster response (a position I still say we can duplicate w/ MOUs & maybe even streamline the process to come w/ fed funds also), it seems to me to lengthen the stack and/or cut off certain aspects of Homeland defense - the big picture big mission stuff we should be doing. Overall, I think you have to look at the points in these processes where federal commands take charge of varrious aspects (I posted a lil on that earlier). I think you have to understand that they'll use the stuff in their bag of tricks before they reach outside to state resources. I want to stay as centered to the action as possible... I don't have a problem though working closely w/ NGB & TAGs to set/meet/monitor training objectives & readiness/preparedness standards to be ready to go for them. I'd also make one little point in there that some states just don't need us. They already have a lot of the same capabilites in house w/ state police & guard for example.
Your last point is probably the principal weakness of my proposal, Dennis. Texas and Florida could probably use CAP resources a lot as an element of their Air National Guards, but Rhode Island and the National Capital might not even bother to put the wing king's number on their Rolodex.
I addressed the requirement for the wing commanders to make contact with TAG's in terms of training and operational deployments, but it would also serve to determine exactly what support, if any, that CAP can provide to the ANG.
Your plan would resolve that through the process of creating the MOU. I just think that establishing 52 MOU's is unnecessarily cumbersome.
ZZ:
After reading carefully your proposals, I wish we had not had a techno-failure last night.
Officer qualification and development is a sore point in CAP, and contributes substantially to the deterioration in our CAP-USAF relationship. When I first joined CAP, and through the 70's, most CAP officers came from the military. Even if they had been enlisted or NCO's, they had an appreciation for the military lifestyle and values, and could adapt to the CAP military culture. In the last 20 years, however, we have had a substantial shift in demographics, and the majority of CAP officers have no military background at all. If you don't believe me, check out the ribbon racks of CAP guys at the next semi-formal get-together, and se how few have the National Defense Service Medal or the Basic Training Ribbon.
For that reason, we need to improve officer accession training. Once that's done, we can look again at command requirements. Level 2 is good for now, but I would want to expand level 1 to include a lot of the elements of level 2.
DNall, you made a comment last night on the Webinar about our Wing Commander here in Texas. I believe you said he was a retired USAF Colonel and had served as an AF wing commander? Are we talking about Col. Eldridge? Or his replacement? From my understanding and from talking to Col. Eldridge he's a recently retired AF CMSgt not a Colonel and he's been in CAP a very long time, He was my Squadron Commander when I joined as a Cadet back in '83. I have to assume then you must be talking about his replacement?? Thanks for clarifying up any of my misunderstandings.
John, you are right. We do need to focus very heavily on improving officer accession training to include standards for even getting 2Lt. In my opinion we need to develop an OCS that is structured and comprehensive and we need some minimum standards for even getting into our OCS program.
Our Officer standard should not be: have a pulse, not a be a sex predador, do a short online course for an hour or two and wait 6 months. What kind of standard is that? you join because your kid joins and we make you a 2Lt in 6 months and maybe even a Squadron CC if no one else wants the job.
My last CC at my old Squadron joined because her son joined, she was a SM w/o grade and when we couldn't find a CC she volunteered to do the job, total time in CAP till she became a CC? around 2 months...maybe even less.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 05, 2007, 07:31:27 AM
I must say that I think too much time was devoted to the strategic partner issue....believe it or not, I really feel that is the leser concern....CAP's biggest problems now are internal.....and, while Nick is correct that any human institution will always have politics, I think our major hurdle right now is to develop checks and balances to minimize egregious politicking & cronyism, and to mitigate the damage it has done to CAP.
In brief, if we put our house in order, I believe we'll find out strategic partner/parent organization will be quite willing to work with us.
I agree 100%! I stated as much in a separate thread as well. There is plenty of opportunity for improvement within the organization. Before looking for other changes, let's get that in order.
I also fully concur with the need for a much higher standard to obtain the rank of 2d Lt.
Quote from: A.Member on January 05, 2007, 11:28:18 PM
I also fully concur with the need for a much higher standard to obtain the rank of 2d Lt.
What exactly would those standards be?
I would recomend that you guys look at what Iowa's Officer program is doing
Iowa has a comprehensive six month OTS. I am trying to work out a 3-month OTS here in FL.
We need to stop worrying about numbers and start worrying about quality. I am very familiar with the "Soccer Mom" member.
To me, I would like to approach this from two fronts:
1. Improve the quality of officer, and
2. Lighten the administrative burden on unit commanders.
I laugh when I hear about how "CAP has reduced paperwork." They haven't reduced anything. They just took all the paper and made them electronic filings. The admin. workload is still there.
To do this, I think we need to restructure the units. Having three types of "Generalist" units is a non-starter. All units actually do focus on one or two missions to the exclusions of others. I think we should structure our units based on the missions.
Try this:
1. Cadet Squadrons. Exclusive focus on the cadet program. No internal ES, AE is only that which is incorporated into the cadet program. Cadets with a few officers (or NCO's) serving as cadre and trainers.
2. Emergency Services Squadrons. This squadron is made up of all officers/NCO's with the duty to be the focus of ES operations. The unit will have the gear, tentage, field desks, grid maps, L-pers, radios, vans, etc. and will provide training and support to all other CAP personnel and units in their assigned area. Maintains all ES qualification records.
3. Aircraft Support Squadrons. Home for the pilots, IP's Check pilots, maintenance officers, and all pilot records for those who use the assigned airplane(s). Provides pilot training and checkout, provides O-flights on request, assigns a pilot to teach AE in cadet squadrons. All officers, no cadets assigned.
4. Educational Services Flights. All officers usually, but can also accept assignment of cadet officers. This unit will provide both the external AE mission, and will provide the "Schoolhouse" for OTS and advanced officer training (SLS and CLC).
The units will have to be mutually supporting, and organized under a group HQ, except for the very small wings. All support (Admin, PA, SJA, Chaplain, Finance, etc.) would be a function of Group.
Ideas? Comments? This paper is getting longer!
Dnall and others interested in 1AF control over CAP, have you looked at the MOU between CAP, CAP-USAF, and 1AF at http://level2.cap.gov/documents/CAP1AFMOUpdf.pdf (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/CAP1AFMOUpdf.pdf)? What you'd need to think about is how different the procedures would be if CAP was under 1AF full time. Note that AETC isn't even involved in this MOU at all and that 1AF is given tactical control over CAP forces for 1AF missions.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 12:25:45 AM
To do this, I think we need to restructure the units. Having three types of "Generalist" units is a non-starter. All units actually do focus on one or two missions to the exclusions of others. I think we should structure our units based on the missions.
Try this:
1. Cadet Squadrons. Exclusive focus on the cadet program. No internal ES, AE is only that which is incorporated into the cadet program. Cadets with a few officers (or NCO's) serving as cadre and trainers.
2. Emergency Services Squadrons. This squadron is made up of all officers/NCO's with the duty to be the focus of ES operations. The unit will have the gear, tentage, field desks, grid maps, L-pers, radios, vans, etc. and will provide training and support to all other CAP personnel and units in their assigned area. Maintains all ES qualification records.
3. Aircraft Support Squadrons. Home for the pilots, IP's Check pilots, maintenance officers, and all pilot records for those who use the assigned airplane(s). Provides pilot training and checkout, provides O-flights on request, assigns a pilot to teach AE in cadet squadrons. All officers, no cadets assigned.
4. Educational Services Flights. All officers usually, but can also accept assignment of cadet officers. This unit will provide both the external AE mission, and will provide the "Schoolhouse" for OTS and advanced officer training (SLS and CLC).
The units will have to be mutually supporting, and organized under a group HQ, except for the very small wings. All support (Admin, PA, SJA, Chaplain, Finance, etc.) would be a function of Group.
Ideas? Comments? This paper is getting longer!
Probably would work well in metropolitan areas and areas with lots of people and units. Get away from the cities and you'd have no units because there wouldn't be people to support three or four units or you'd have one doing everything - kind of like now.
As an aside, there was a proposal before the NB/NEC to reduce the unit level staff requirements due to the typical unit size, but CAP-USAF had serious reservations about it. So, the idea was dropped.
Can we try to keep the Structural Change threads within the existing topic please. There are presently three active threads with Structural Change in the topic title.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 05, 2007, 11:30:28 PM
Quote from: A.Member on January 05, 2007, 11:28:18 PM
I also fully concur with the need for a much higher standard to obtain the rank of 2d Lt.
What exactly would those standards be?
This is a portion of what I wrote in one of my posts in another thread:
"Unlike the "real military", rank is essentially awarded to anyone that completes the correct amount of paperwork. Instead, there should only be a certain number of positions available at any given rank - the paperwork should be the minimum requirement (BTW, AFAIDL 13 should be one of the minimum requirements to wear the butterbar and the course should be supplemented with formal classroom sessions - not to be waived unless a person has held a real Commission). Our cadets must go before promotion boards, why should the "officers" be any different? Still, the trouble with this is that unlike the "real military" there is no retirement - especially from the higher ranks. The organization ends up top heavy. Quite frankly, the attrition from the higher ranks is more likely to be the result of someone dying than it is stepping away from the organization. So, the trick is, how do you manage the ranks to get a proper system in order? I don't know the answer but if we could figure it out and get it implemented, I think the organization would benefit significantly. The idea of returning senior enlisted ranks is appealing but still does not solve the problem. Duties/responsibility perhaps should be commensurate, in some way, to rank. Regardless, rank must have some meaning. We do ourselves and the real services a disservice when it doesn't."
So, in addition to the current requirements, do the following:
1) Complete AFIADL 13 (after it's numerous errors are corrected, of course) as well as a corresponding classroom session(s) for the material - ie. OTS or similar - prior to obtaining 2d Lt.
2) Limit officer slots at all levels in some more meaningful way (not everyone can be king)
3) Require members to appear before an actual review board (group level?) for each promotion. This includes requiring the candidate to complete a promotion form similar to that of cadets.
4) Possibly a post-secondary/bachelor's degree requirement or some type of equivalent.
yeah, actually it might be best to lock some of these older threads. We've tried to progress it from a general discsssuon (this one) to prep for the call (read-ahead), & now working final input to collaborate on a paper or series of papers. They're all pretty well labeled, but yeah these older ones are obselete.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 05, 2007, 07:31:27 AM
It was frustrating to hear so much and get no chance to reply! I must say that I think too much time was devoted to the strategic partner issue....believe it or not, I really feel that is the leser concern....CAP's biggest problems now are internal.....and, while Nick is correct that any human institution will always have politics, I think our major hurdle right now is to develop checks and balances to minimize egregious politicking & cronyism, and to mitigate the damage it has done to CAP.
In brief, if we put our house in order, I believe we'll find out strategic partner/parent organization will be quite willing to work with us.
The more I think about it, the more I also am leaning this was. Seems to me that we have the foundation in place with a strategic partner and have for years. We just need to work harder and smarter at developing that relationship. Better CAP PD, ID leaders in the AF that will help CAP identify areas that we can really support the AF mission, get on board as a part of the team, drop the "corporation" mentality, if not literally, than at least in pratical application.
I heard once that it is easier to grow business with a customer you already have then to find new customers. Following that line of thinking, we keep the AF as our partner. Assemble a team of both Air Force leaders and CAP leaders that can work togather to identify how we can better integrate.
Organizationally, we are broke, I agree. We need to come to grips with that. There are a number of good ideas being voiced here.
Quote from: DNall on January 05, 2007, 08:13:08 AM
OPCON - I really really have to emphasize also that while Guard sounds great & shorten the stack of paperwork for immediate disaster response (a position I still say we can duplicate w/ MOUs & maybe even streamline the process to come w/ fed funds also)
I support Dnall on this...a national level MOU endorsed by 1AF, NGB, CAP & CAP-USAF can simplify the procedural aspects of disaster relief and other state-requested missions.....forming the positive working relatinship then remains the task of each wing.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 05, 2007, 03:06:01 PM
ZZ:
After reading carefully your proposals, I wish we had not had a techno-failure last night.
Officer qualification and development is a sore point in CAP, and contributes substantially to the deterioration in our CAP-USAF relationship. When I first joined CAP, and through the 70's, most CAP officers came from the military. Even if they had been enlisted or NCO's, they had an appreciation for the military lifestyle and values, and could adapt to the CAP military culture. In the last 20 years, however, we have had a substantial shift in demographics, and the majority of CAP officers have no military background at all. If you don't believe me, check out the ribbon racks of CAP guys at the next semi-formal get-together, and se how few have the National Defense Service Medal or the Basic Training Ribbon.
For that reason, we need to improve officer accession training. Once that's done, we can look again at command requirements. Level 2 is good for now, but I would want to expand level 1 to include a lot of the elements of level 2.
Thanks, John...I was a cadet in the early 70s, and recall well that many seniors had at least some military background....now we find ourselves in a very different world, and need to do a more thorough job orienting those new seniors lacking any prior military (or cadet/ROTC/JrROTC) experience.
Level 1 does indeed need to be expanded.....Iowa is on the right track, and you've mentioned some interesting things going on in your wing (FL, yes?)... the t
rick now is to identify the critical curriculum and content that needs to be standardized, while permitting some elements of method to remain open to local discretion.
Quote from: arajca on January 06, 2007, 02:08:33 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 12:25:45 AM
To do this, I think we need to restructure the units. Having three types of "Generalist" units is a non-starter. All units actually do focus on one or two missions to the exclusions of others. I think we should structure our units based on the missions.
Probably would work well in metropolitan areas and areas with lots of people and units. Get away from the cities and you'd have no units because there wouldn't be people to support three or four units or you'd have one doing everything - kind of like now.
As an aside, there was a proposal before the NB/NEC to reduce the unit level staff requirements due to the typical unit size, but CAP-USAF had serious reservations about it. So, the idea was dropped.
The answer here seems to have more flights (the unchartered type, with a squadron or group as the parent/sponsor)....even in the less populated areas, you could presumably have a small flight of a dozen or so people pursuing two missions (cadet program & ES, for instance) effectively because most of the admin is happening at the 'base' squadron some distance away.
The 'full squadron' would meet only periodically...details for testing would need to be resolved (but it is possible)
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 06, 2007, 05:33:42 AM
Quote from: arajca on January 06, 2007, 02:08:33 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 12:25:45 AM
To do this, I think we need to restructure the units. Having three types of "Generalist" units is a non-starter. All units actually do focus on one or two missions to the exclusions of others. I think we should structure our units based on the missions.
Probably would work well in metropolitan areas and areas with lots of people and units. Get away from the cities and you'd have no units because there wouldn't be people to support three or four units or you'd have one doing everything - kind of like now.
As an aside, there was a proposal before the NB/NEC to reduce the unit level staff requirements due to the typical unit size, but CAP-USAF had serious reservations about it. So, the idea was dropped.
The answer here seems to have more flights (the unchartered type, with a squadron or group as the parent/sponsor)....even in the less populated areas, you could presumably have a small flight of a dozen or so people pursuing two missions (cadet program & ES, for instance) effectively because most of the admin is happening at the 'base' squadron some distance away.
The 'full squadron' would meet only periodically...details for testing would need to be resolved (but it is possible)
I would tend to endorse something along those lines. Having understaffed units (aren't we all) trying to do the job of 50 is just crazy. I like the idea of mission dedicated flights. That doesn't mean though that your location of 30 might not have a cadet flight & an ES flight, & the aircrew flight the next town over & the two seperate cadet flights on the other side all grouped together as one Sq; draw a few members from each flight wear a second hat on the shared CAP Sq staff. Just be careful you don't push a wedge down between cadet programs & ES sides of CAP.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 06, 2007, 05:20:34 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 05, 2007, 08:13:08 AM
OPCON - I really really have to emphasize also that while Guard sounds great & shorten the stack of paperwork for immediate disaster response (a position I still say we can duplicate w/ MOUs & maybe even streamline the process to come w/ fed funds also)
I support Dnall on this...a national level MOU endorsed by 1AF, NGB, CAP & CAP-USAF can simplify the procedural aspects of disaster relief and other state-requested missions.....forming the positive working relatinship then remains the task of each wing.
I talked about a 50-meter bracket between my proposal and DNall's. ZZ, you may have come up with the direct hit.
The reason I proposed that CAP go under NGB was to smooth the trasition into the new mission areas and adopt any new NGB regulations that might be needed. Their supervision of NHQ could be accomplished in other ways, including by remaining under AETC/AU. I think, since we are talking using the ANG for the bulk of our Title 36 missions, that an NGB representative should also be on the BoG.
If I might clarify this vision...
Under Title 10 we are the Auxiliary of the US Air Force when working for any federal agency or department.
Under Title 36, as I propose it, we would be the "Auxiliary" of the Air National Guard when working for state agencies and NGO's.
This status would be independent of where our NHQ is and independent of what Air Force command it falls under.
If the goal can be achieved by a comprehensive MOU with NGB, I'm thinking that would be far less cumbersome than 52 state-level MOU's; or trying 51 more times to replicate Iowa's success in getting favorable state-level legislation.
Quote from: arajca on January 06, 2007, 02:08:33 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 12:25:45 AM
To do this, I think we need to restructure the units. Having three types of "Generalist" units is a non-starter. All units actually do focus on one or two missions to the exclusions of others. I think we should structure our units based on the missions.
Try this:
1. Cadet Squadrons. Exclusive focus on the cadet program. No internal ES, AE is only that which is incorporated into the cadet program. Cadets with a few officers (or NCO's) serving as cadre and trainers.
2. Emergency Services Squadrons. This squadron is made up of all officers/NCO's with the duty to be the focus of ES operations. The unit will have the gear, tentage, field desks, grid maps, L-pers, radios, vans, etc. and will provide training and support to all other CAP personnel and units in their assigned area. Maintains all ES qualification records.
3. Aircraft Support Squadrons. Home for the pilots, IP's Check pilots, maintenance officers, and all pilot records for those who use the assigned airplane(s). Provides pilot training and checkout, provides O-flights on request, assigns a pilot to teach AE in cadet squadrons. All officers, no cadets assigned.
4. Educational Services Flights. All officers usually, but can also accept assignment of cadet officers. This unit will provide both the external AE mission, and will provide the "Schoolhouse" for OTS and advanced officer training (SLS and CLC).
The units will have to be mutually supporting, and organized under a group HQ, except for the very small wings. All support (Admin, PA, SJA, Chaplain, Finance, etc.) would be a function of Group.
Ideas? Comments? This paper is getting longer!
Probably would work well in metropolitan areas and areas with lots of people and units. Get away from the cities and you'd have no units because there wouldn't be people to support three or four units or you'd have one doing everything - kind of like now.
As an aside, there was a proposal before the NB/NEC to reduce the unit level staff requirements due to the typical unit size, but CAP-USAF had serious reservations about it. So, the idea was dropped.
Andy:
I'm not sure why you think this wouldn't work in rural areas.
Let's say you are a cadet squadron commander. You run the cadet program. You block off time for ES and O-flights, For ES training, the ES unit sends a contact team to your unit to do the unit-level training for you. For O-flights, you coordinate with the Aircraft Support unit, who will send a plane and an O-flight pilot to you. You would be relieved of the duty to arrange this training yourself.
When you want to go on a field trip to an aviation museum, you coordinate a van and driver from the ES unit, who runs the motor pool. If you are an efficient commander, and you have CAP-licensed drivers in your unit, you simply arrange pickup of the van in time for your unit movement.
When there is a mission, we call up and utilize people as individuals. Unit integrity on missions isn't something that happens here. IF the Mission Commander wanted cadets, the ES unit would identify what cadets are qualified for the jobs needed (Flight line, ground team, etc.) and they would be called directly.
John, I am still having a very hard time understanding how putting CAP under the NG for state missions will help us as compared to the state emergency management agency which is with who CAP usually has the MOU that lets us do our missions now.
If a county sheriff needs help on a SAR he can call the state EMA for help and the EMA can call CAP OR the county sheriff can call AFRCC directly and they can call CAP. Inserting the NG seems to be adding another level of bureacracy to the system that will slow response time.
Right now there are almost no barriers from the Wing and potential "customers" in the state, but if we have to work through another state agency before doing anything it will hurt us.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 06, 2007, 03:09:37 PM
John, I am still having a very hard time understanding how putting CAP under the NG for state missions will help us as compared to the state emergency management agency which is with who CAP usually has the MOU that lets us do our missions now.
If a county sheriff needs help on a SAR he can call the state EMA for help and the EMA can call CAP OR the county sheriff can call AFRCC directly and they can call CAP. Inserting the NG seems to be adding another level of bureacracy to the system that will slow response time.
Right now there are almost no barriers from the Wing and potential "customers" in the state, but if we have to work through another state agency before doing anything it will hurt us.
I don't understand the National Guard thing either.
John
Florida has 21 vehicles assigned, that includes a pick-up truck that has been at MacDill AFB and not moved for years and a utility trailer. If you look at the locations of the vehicles, they are fairly evenly spread out around the Wing. But lets look at Group 2 of FLWG. There are two Senior Squadrons, one at Fernendia Beach the other at St. Augustine. Jacksonville Composite, Herlong, Lake City, Gainesville, Ocala and Live Oak are all cadet or Composite Squadrons. If you put the vans at the Senior Squadrons which you call ES Squadrons, you have moved them anywehere from 30 to 75 miles away from the units that normally use them.
There are not 19 Senior Squadrons (or proposed ES Squadrons) in the Wing, so you would have to have the vans assigned to Composite Squadrons. The Wing is to spread out to locate them in motor pools. The same applies to aircraft.
As to any National Guard/CAP operation, there are six Air National Guard facilities in the state. Two are fighter Squadrons, three are weather/construction units at Camp Blanding, two are located on Air Force Bases, and one in the Panhandle. How does this help CAP? It would be much better to have liaison with 1AF for disaster operations than the National Guard. And with the recent Base Closings, you'll notice that the majority of closings were AF Reserve and National Guard. An MOU nationally with NGB probably would be a good thing, but it leaves to many questions as to a chain of command for CAP/NG operations.
In Florida cadet encampments have been held at Camp Blanding, a National Guard training site. The cost to a cadet has been in the $150 range for a one week encampment. The Region Winter Encampment has been at Tyndall AFB or Fort Benning and the cost has been $75, half of what the National Guard charges for the use of their facilities. In the past CAP has requested buildings at Camp Blanding, which are vacant most of the year, and was turned down by TAG. The State of Florida has also asked for a building and turned down. So I don't see where, at least in Florida, any advantage comes from an MOU with National Guard.
River and Earhart:
I believe that culturally, we are a better fit with the National Guard. We have a tradition of military service, and they are also military. The state EMA is a civilian organization, and further civilianizing the CAP is not, in my opinion, in our long-term interest.
Further, there is a principle called "Unity of Command" that tells us that all forces dedicated to a mission should be under a single commander. Placing CAP as a military asset under the Adjutant General, who commands all military operations in a disaster is in keeping with that principle. Placing CAP under the state EMA violates the principle of Unity of Command, unless you accept that CAP has ceased to be a military asset.
Lastly, 90 percent of the air assets dedicated to alleviating a disater will be military air assets. Having us under the command of a single air asset commander, Army aviator officer, Air National Guard officer, or CAP officer, makes sense from the standpoint of coordination.
With proper coordination of the airspace, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft can operate together at different assigned altitudes on different assignments within the same mission. Common radio frequencies would be assigned, and EMA requests for air support could be asigned to whichever air asset was the most appropriate. Again, the issue is flexibility and agility, and air assets under a single military air boss provides that agility.
This is what we do over a battlefield, gentlemen. And EMA never sees battlefields. We know how to coordinate air support, and it isn't by placing some of your air assets under the control of a civilian.
Bill:
Your post assumes that the current "Senior Squadrons" would be the only ones with vans. The plan that I proposed (Which came off the top of my head, with little thought) would be a major re-working of the entire command structure. The placement of the vans and aircraft would be critical to the implementation of the plan, and group boundaries would have to be re-drawn.
The purpose is to divide up the administrative workload among units in a group. Cadet sqdns. could concentrate on cadet programs. The ES squadrons would provide ES training and logistic support to all units in the group. The Ed. Svcs. Flt. would handle AE and PD for the group. The group HQ would take care of most administrative tasks.
How that settles out geographically would be the work of the wing and group commanders, and that's why they make the "Big Bucks!" :D
The NG is an entity with a federal presence (the NGB folks who buy the gear, plus a central staff to standardize training and operations), but with local missions focused on helping the people in each state in time of emergency.
The big USAF has no such state level ties.
The NG can be involved in durned near any emergency, on the ground or in the air.
The big USAF primarily does federal stuff, and doesn't have a lot of involvement on the ground side (I'll be we've got a lot more ground pounders, percentage wise, than USAF)
The NG has a budget in each state that they could share with us if we worked with them (and provided a service worth the funds), plus federal funds.
Big USAF has only federal money.
USAF's primary missions occur overseas where we aren't
The NG's primary missions occur right here at home where we are.
Both are involved in HLS.
Both wear the USAF uniform.
Both are federally recognized.
Honestly, I don't know why USAF hasn't turned peacetime SAR over to the Guard - it's not like there are active duty units beyond AFRCC to do the work.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 04:59:39 PM
River and Earhart:
I believe that culturally, we are a better fit with the National Guard. We have a tradition of military service, and they are also military. The state EMA is a civilian organization, and further civilianizing the CAP is not, in my opinion, in our long-term interest.
For the military aspect of CAP probably. Also from the standpoint of the dual Federal/State missions. However, for local missions like missing persons searches and smaller disaster relief, the local EMA Directors, Police Chiefs and County Sherriffs are probably more used to working with the state EMA rep in their area. They might be less willing to get CAP involved if they have to go through the TAG. Just a thought.
Let's step back a minute and look at this. There are two areas of concern that most of us have. (1) Poor leadership and management of the organization and (2) mission tasking (or lack of same). Changes to the organizational structure, professional development, etc, would surely help number (1). Addressing number (2) may not neccessarily involve a whole sale change to where we report.
Restructuring the organization and changing the way we appoint/elect commanders, promote members, and develop leadership can surely make us more professional and gain some needed respect of the USAF, which will help us move closer to them as their auxiliary. Which would also have some effect on problem (2). Like I say about cadets. If they are "presentable" enough to be out at Group/Wing activities, they are much more likely to get to participate in SARX's and missions. The same could be said of CAP. If the USAF feels we are "presentable" enough not to embarrass them as their Auxiliary, they may be much more comfortable exercising us in that capacity.
Problem (2) could also be addressed by means other than whole sale change like moving us under the NGB. Most mission opportunities for CAP will be local in nature. Missing person searches, SDIS missions during tornadoes and floods, infrastructure monitoring, etc. Some of these missions will be large enough for NG callout, but many will only be worked at the local level. I think most of these types of things can be addressed simply by establishing better relationships with local officials and "selling" them on CAP's abilities. If we maintain a pool of resources trained to national standards (NIMS), and our squadron/group/wing leadership presents a well trained, well lead, well equipped, professional force, that will go a long way to getting more missions.
Don't get me wrong, I do think we need some organizational restructuring that will provide USAF pretty much total control over all CAP both ADCON and OPCON. I'm just not convinced that moving us to NGB is the only way to go. Granted, there are examples (Iowa), where CAP is teaming nicely with the NG, but that happened any way, even under the current structure. Do it on a Wing by Wing basis where it makes sense.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 05:22:49 PM
The NG is an entity with a federal presence (the NGB folks who buy the gear, plus a central staff to standardize training and operations), but with local missions focused on helping the people in each state in time of emergency.
The big USAF has no such state level ties.
The NG can be involved in durned near any emergency, on the ground or in the air.
The big USAF primarily does federal stuff, and doesn't have a lot of involvement on the ground side (I'll be we've got a lot more ground pounders, percentage wise, than USAF)
The NG has a budget in each state that they could share with us if we worked with them (and provided a service worth the funds), plus federal funds.
Big USAF has only federal money.
USAF's primary missions occur overseas where we aren't
The NG's primary missions occur right here at home where we are.
Both are involved in HLS.
Both wear the USAF uniform.
Both are federally recognized.
Honestly, I don't know why USAF hasn't turned peacetime SAR over to the Guard - it's not like there are active duty units beyond AFRCC to do the work.
I thought the reason for CAP was sothe Air Force didn't have to worry about non-combat operations here in the US. Am I wrong in that? If so, so are the other people who have told me so.
Well, Rogue, Yes and No
The CAP was placed under the USAF in 1948. The Congress, in the National Defense Act of 1948 gave responsibility for inland SAR to the Air Force. CAP was an existing unit with light planes and experience conducting SAR. Congress wrote Title 36 giving CAP broad authority to do any non-combat mission or program for the AF.
The AF was happy to take the cadet program, and happy that a community based, nationwide organization was at their disposal to educate Americans on the importance of Air Power.
The basis of this discussion is that missions that require light aircraft support have changed, and we are still operating in a late-40's early 50's Cold-War organizational structure. My question is: "Can we do what it is we do better by reorganizing?" I believe we can, since to place us under the Guard for our Title 36 missions and being still able to be tasked for Title 10 missions by 1AF and AFRCC puts is in position to be the most flexible and agile, and preserves the principle of Unity of Command to the TAG's.
Incidentally... Does anybody know where the law limits CAP to non-combat missions and programs in the United States?
Could CAP personnel, I'm thinking Chaplains here now, be assigned for short periods overseas?
Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 05:22:49 PM
Honestly, I don't know why USAF hasn't turned peacetime SAR over to the Guard - it's not like there are active duty units beyond AFRCC to do the work.
First, that's simply not true. Secondly, the Guard doesn't have the assests nation-wide,nor would enough assets be available for every state to have their own assets to support
civil SAR. The assets the Air Force
does have are primarily for CSAR, but support
civil SAR when they can. Even then, DoD isn't the lead SAR agency.
I've sat here and watched you guys banter about federal response to SAR. Let's get a few things straight. SAR within CONUS is the Preview of LOCAL authorities. The only times that Federal asset bypass local authorities in terms of SAR occur on Water ways (COAST GUARD) and on federal property (National Park Service, or military). Beyond that SAR is regulated by the states, and most states have delegated that authority to local jurisdictions (many cases county sheriff).
The National SAR plan was written to assist local authorities WHEN REQUESTED.
When AFRCC tasks CAP they do so within the guidance of an MOU with that particular state. If the state dictates that they want to turn off ELT's, then they do it. If the state wants the boy scouts to do it, then it is so.
AFRCC asks a lot of resources to assist with SAR. They are a gateway for federal support when requested.
I apologize for ranting, but in the end my point is this. All missions generate support to local authorities. No state, Federal, or other entity will ever take over operational control of any mission unless requested.
If you want to get missions, support your community, and actually do the things that this organization claims that it can do then you need to build relationships with the states, and below. Every year thousands of people go missing, hundreds of tornado's tear across the U.S., and uncountable other disasters take place. On a given year les than a thousand of these events actually receive federal support of any kind. Unless we are imbedded, and supporting the countless local missions that take place we will not be able to continue to justify the Search and Rescue, or disaster relief components of our ES mission.
My opinion.
John S. Halbrook
"ISUHawkeye"
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 06, 2007, 08:38:32 PM
I've sat here and watched you guys banter about federal response to SAR. Let's get a few things straight. SAR within CONUS is the Preview of LOCAL authorities. The only times that Federal asset bypass local authorities in terms of SAR occur on Water ways (COAST GUARD) and on federal property (National Park Service, or military). Beyond that SAR is regulated by the states, and most states have delegated that authority to local jurisdictions (many cases county sheriff).
The National SAR plan was written to assist local authorities WHEN REQUESTED.
When AFRCC tasks CAP they do so within the guidance of an MOU with that particular state. If the state dictates that they want to turn off ELT's, then they do it. If the state wants the boy scouts to do it, then it is so.
AFRCC asks a lot of resources to assist with SAR. They are a gateway for federal support when requested.
I apologize for ranting, but in the end my point is this. All missions generate support to local authorities. No state, Federal, or other entity will ever take over operational control of any mission unless requested.
If you want to get missions, support your community, and actually do the things that this organization claims that it can do then you need to build relationships with the states, and below. Every year thousands of people go missing, hundreds of tornado's tear across the U.S., and uncountable other disasters take place. On a given year les than a thousand of these events actually receive federal support of any kind. Unless we are imbedded, and supporting the countless local missions that take place we will not be able to continue to justify the Search and Rescue, or disaster relief components of our ES mission
John,
That's all true to an extent. The local community is still going to go to the feds to get our support, but building the relationship & having liaisons about is going to make more of those calls happen. In that manner, states get the support of federal assets on the federal dime in situations where it doesn't even approach being a state declared disaster. Be careful what statistics you use or you're going to mislead yourself.
For perspective though... CAP is not about doing missions. It's about serving the needs fo the AF & using our excess capactity to help a short list of others within the bounds of our AF-centric specialized training. I know you're in Iowa where maybe there isn't a mosque down the road with 10k members, a couple terrorist cells thought to be operational in town, a refinery or chemical plant on every corner, major ship channel, 4 pro stadiums & 3 big colleges, all of which at have events on the same night in a 15 mile radius. You want to load up the plane, radios, & vans Congress bought us w/ people that get at least some of their training covered (tho you'd never notice) by congress=, and you want to go find Sally missing in teh woods? Hey man, more power to ya. It feels good I know & it sure looks like you're doing some good. You know it's good to fight fires too, but they don't call me in to do that. If you swerve a little out of your lane here & there for the best then no big deal, but keep your eye on the centerline & know which lane you're supposed to be in. There's more important work for us to be doing as an org. I'm sure we can do both, but let's not get distracted by the little things.
QuoteSAR within CONUS is the Preview of LOCAL authorities. The only times that Federal asset bypass local authorities in terms of SAR occur on Water ways (COAST GUARD) and on federal property (National Park Service, or military). Beyond that SAR is regulated by the states, and most states have delegated that authority to local jurisdictions (many cases county sheriff).
Isn't the National SAR plan implementing an international treaty and don't such treaties have the force of federal law? I could be wrong in thinking it is a treaty, rather than some other sort of agreement though. Any lawyers out there care to comment?
Keep in mind that the AFRCC has agreements with states on how air searches are made. If your opinion is correct then a state could totally refuse to participate and could do anything they want in terms of air search. Hard to believe. Sure, the state can decide who they want to do the mission, but the AFRCC is still in charge.
No river actually he's right abou tthis. States hold the authority for inland SaR, not feds. AFRCC is a COORDINATING agency whose only job is to take the high tech sat feed & give it to the state. It's when the state isn't equipped to do the mission (just like when a flood overwhelms a community) that the state then tells AFRCC they need help. They can either say who they want it assigned to or AFRCC will pull up the most appropriate resources, be that CAP, DoD, state, local/mutual-aid, private SaR club down the street, whatever.
I'll give you an example how it works in my state... ELT goes off, AFRCC calls the DPS alert officer (used to wake up one specific guy, even catch him on vacation), if they have a confirmed crash & probably location then DPS is on the way & local fire/rescue is on standby... if it's an actual crash that requires search then they first check to see if DPS aircraft are close & crews are on duty, they'll also send cruisers around the area to take a look. After their hasty search, then CAP gets the call for a REDCAP. If it's just an ELT they figure it's BS & can't find it anyway so they tell them to just call CAP. We've had FAA call direct w/ a LKP, AFRCC starting a mission number, & CAP spinning up resources before AF told us to (but w/ that mission number), still can't go to DPS says so - they're in charge of aviation for the state. Other states vary. Some have an MOU that says call CAP direct, other do not allow CAP ops - Colorado for instance if I'm not mistaken doesn't allow CAP ground teams on SaR, even in the less mountainous parts, some state over in the dessert too I think. That's jsut the way it is. SaR is NOT an AF mission. What AFRCC does IS an AF mission, what CAP does is AF doing charity work for poor states that can't afford their own resources.
I propose throwing money at the problem.
If I were the National Commander this is what I would do, but no, don't appoint me, LOL.
1. Get every National Capital Squadron Congressman and Senator, in a meeting in Washington D.C.. Preferably a hotel conference room, focus on the numbers. The budget for CAP compared to the mission expansion and expectations is insane.
2. Present the real needs of CAP and a realistic Budget, not the Admin Budget we have now, with CAP on life support.
Questions to be asked like:
You want us to Educate with Aerospace ED, have a Cadet Program, you want Homeland Security, SAR, and Border Support, ON WHAT?
AIR and best WISHES?
Our members are supporting these missions with their wallets.
Send us some PORK! right now!
If you can find a more deserving organization that operates on the cheap besides the Marines, that handles multiple missions, with one hand behind the back, let me know.
We have overtly high expectations, high compliance requirements, and a lot of pressure on individual members. 100% membership turnover in 5 years, sends us a message.
3. Start with a budget that makes sense for the missions we perform. 75 Million for the 2007 Budget, with yearly 20% increases, so we can get to a sane level of funding.
The Air Force funds AFJROTC with 200 million per year, their only mission is to teach a class in school. Gee, wouldn't that be a nice budget to work with with all our missions we are tasked with.
Cadet and Seniors would Pay NO DUES, and get uniform support similar to AFJROTC.
CAP launches Federal and State Campaigns to intergrate the Cadet Program as a Middle School Elective. Everytime I explain the Cadet Program to people they want it in their schools. Its the money to fund it thats the stumbling block.
Federal Grants for Startup with State participation later.
Emergency Services: We are heavy in good Aircraft and some Ground equipment, but lack in support for members on the front lines of SAR and Homeland Security.
STOP the COME AND PAY and member BURN OUT.
End the Dues for Seniors too, pay Wing Commanders, and Region Commanders a full time Salary, but make them achieve specific goals, no more ticket punchers allowed.
The Middle School Program will have Salaried Instructors, just like JROTC.
CAP could become a National Guard type organization.
A National Commander that understands the above can get things done, but he would have to be able to explain to Congressman and Senators, the impossible tasking we have now under our existing budget.
Dnall, I understand how it works in practice here. I'm asking for an analysis of whether the international treaty/agreement governing air search and rescue may superceed the general principle of local control over these issues.
Quote from: shorning on January 06, 2007, 07:39:46 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 05:22:49 PM
Honestly, I don't know why USAF hasn't turned peacetime SAR over to the Guard - it's not like there are active duty units beyond AFRCC to do the work.
First, that's simply not true. Secondly, the Guard doesn't have the assests nation-wide,nor would enough assets be available for every state to have their own assets to support civil SAR. The assets the Air Force does have are primarily for CSAR, but support civil SAR when they can. Even then, DoD isn't the lead SAR agency.
I haven't seen much use of USAF active duty assets in Civil SAR, except when USAF lost that A-10 a bunch of years back in Colorado. I have seen NG folks mobilized a fair number of times to tromp through the woods or fly helicopters in support of state searches. Perhaps your experiences are different?
From what I've seen, combat and civil SAR are rather different skills sets (hard to fly grid searches while folks are shooting at you.)
Since CAP does 85% or so of the CONUS SAR USAF does, and since searches are normally confined to a state or two, AND since USAF doesn't uniform local presence in every state, giving the mission (and AFRCC) to the NGB would align stateside SAR closer to the local presence. And either way, it's CAP doing the work.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 06, 2007, 10:35:29 PM
1. Get every National Capital Squadron Congressman and Senator, in a meeting in Washington D.C.. Preferably a hotel conference room, focus on the numbers. The budget for CAP compared to the mission expansion and expectations is insane.
2. Present the real needs of CAP and a realistic Budget, not the Admin Budget we have now, with CAP on life support.
You do that & AF will slap you sideways. We take our NEEDS to the AF & try to explain how desperately we NEED them, then all the rest of the AF does the same thing, then the AF decides the priority order for the whole team to best serve the country that year & in the long term, they get a number of about where the budget is going to be & they make it fit. You CAN give CAP more money, if you take it away from combat training or something else in the AF. Do they have room maybe to make they happen, well possibly, but that would be their decisions wouldn't it, not CAP dictating to the AF what the priorities of the country are? The AETC commander jumped the process like that he'd end up retired at best & in prison at worst.
Also, you're overestimating what the Congressional Sq is. You're thinking those are CAP members in Congress, or devoted allies, and that's not the case. It's a cacus for anyone that's ever heard of CAP, and we toss out Col there is an honorary bribe to get them to sign the papers, but maybe 30 percent of them care remotely & that's not really even the total number that do care about CAP one way or another.
Plus, if you look at what we get now, and have gotten for 60 years, it is via the personal protection of thsoe people. They're trading bridges in their own districts to get your planes paid for. You want more? It has to be paying for something you can justify as a national priority commensurate with the AF needs.
Dragoon, AFRCC runs more than CONUS inalnd SAR, or which Inland AIR SaR is a smalller percentage. It also does the same function around the world in Combat zones or anywhere there are lots of military planes flying around - ie inappropriate to guard. They're also a reporting agency to the 1AF CAOC down at Tyndall. If a plane goes under radar on track to a target area for instance, 1AF wants to know from AFRCC if they're down or if they need to look for the hedge clipper packed w/ fertilizer. Back to Inland AIR SaR, that percentage we do is based on thousands of non-distress missions a year. With those drying up on the way to 2009 & on, that number is going to go WAY down. As I 'm sure you know, when it is a confirmed missing plane, lots of other resources show up also. When military assets (like AF helos or recon birds) are appropriate & able to get to the right place in a timely manner, then they get used over CAP. CAP is the garbage collector for Air SaR missions.
River, the treat specifies the rules under which the US will write the national SaR plan, the one is based off & compliant with the other. Nothing superceeds anything, and if it did the national SaR plan is the rule, the treaty is guidance for writing the rules.
The national SaR plan does now & always has specified STATES as the primary agency for SaR in their jurisdiction - I don't think you need the feds taking over the fire dept & responding to car wrecks. It's only when situations get beyond their capabilites that federal resources (CAP) are called in to help. Air Search, especially for a radio signal, is one of those things that tends to start beyond their capability.
Quote from: DNall on January 06, 2007, 09:44:16 PM
No river actually he's right abou tthis. States hold the authority for inland SaR, not feds. AFRCC is a COORDINATING agency whose only job is to take the high tech sat feed & give it to the state.
Air Force Rescue Coordination Center
As the United States' inland search and rescue coordinator, the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center serves as the single agency responsible for coordinating on-land federal SAR activities in the 48 contiguous United States, Mexico and Canada
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 10:11:02 PM
And they have no money, the money is in Congress. A Congressman that happens to be a CAP Colonel, is pure terror to an Air Force General and to a Secretary of the Air Force.
Who is that Congressman?
Quote from: Hammer on January 08, 2007, 04:10:31 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 10:11:02 PM
And they have no money, the money is in Congress. A Congressman that happens to be a CAP Colonel, is pure terror to an Air Force General and to a Secretary of the Air Force.
Who is that Congressman?
About half of them. Everybody in the Congressional Squadron is a colonel.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 08, 2007, 04:23:34 AM
Quote from: Hammer on January 08, 2007, 04:10:31 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 02, 2007, 10:11:02 PM
And they have no money, the money is in Congress. A Congressman that happens to be a CAP Colonel, is pure terror to an Air Force General and to a Secretary of the Air Force.
Who is that Congressman?
About half of them. Everybody in the Congressional Squadron is a colonel.
Dang, so can anyone join or only Congressman?
Only Congressmen. Get elected, make colonel. Just like shake-and-bake chicken.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 08, 2007, 02:18:40 PM
Only Congressmen. Get elected, make colonel. Just like shake-and-bake chicken.
So what is NHQ's reason for doing this?
Quote from: Hammer on January 08, 2007, 09:38:21 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 08, 2007, 02:18:40 PM
Only Congressmen. Get elected, make colonel. Just like shake-and-bake chicken.
So what is NHQ's reason for doing this?
butt kissing!
Quote from: DNall on January 06, 2007, 09:00:38 PM
For perspective though... CAP is not about doing missions. It's about serving the needs of the AF & using our excess capacity to help a short list of others within the bounds of our AF-centric specialized training. I know you're in Iowa where maybe there isn't a mosque down the road with 10k members, a couple terrorist cells thought to be operational in town, a refinery or chemical plant on every corner, major ship channel, 4 pro stadiums & 3 big colleges, all of which at have events on the same night in a 15 mile radius. You want to load up the plane, radios, & vans Congress bought us w/ people that get at least some of their training covered (tho you'd never notice) by congress=, and you want to go find Sally missing in the woods? Hey man, more power to ya. It feels good I know & it sure looks like you're doing some good. You know it's good to fight fires too, but they don't call me in to do that. If you swerve a little out of your lane here & there for the best then no big deal, but keep your eye on the centerline & know which lane you're supposed to be in. There's more important work for us to be doing as an org. I'm sure we can do both, but let's not get distracted by the little things.
D,
I know we're an AF asset and should be used as a force multiplier. I also agree that we should be looking into HLS, airborne rad/chem monitoring and the other things we have discussed here. However, as you pointed out, opportunities for missions do not exist in all areas of the country, and even where they do, they provide an opportunity for a relatively small number of people to participate. Aircrews mostly. I am a duel purpose ES guy, comfortable on both air and ground. But there are a lot of ground pounders out there that want to participate but see the opportunity for ground missions reducing. That is why we also need to remain involved in local ES, and expand our missions into missing person searches and other things that give our members an opportunity to contribute.
One of the frustrations I have witnessed with a lot of the ground team folks over the last four or five years is that they see CAP's focus more on things like SDIS and ARCHER where there are limited opportunities for them to be active. This has caused several very good and compatant people I know to drop out of the organization. Nobody wants to practice but never get into the game.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2007, 09:49:18 PM
Quote from: Hammer on January 08, 2007, 09:38:21 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 08, 2007, 02:18:40 PM
Only Congressmen. Get elected, make colonel. Just like shake-and-bake chicken.
So what is NHQ's reason for doing this?
butt kissing!
It wouldn;t suprise me. OTOH, what so they make Senators? A CAP Brig Gen or a CAP Maj Gen?
Quote from: Hammer on January 09, 2007, 01:07:53 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2007, 09:49:18 PM
Quote from: Hammer on January 08, 2007, 09:38:21 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 08, 2007, 02:18:40 PM
Only Congressmen. Get elected, make colonel. Just like shake-and-bake chicken.
So what is NHQ's reason for doing this?
butt kissing!
It wouldn;t suprise me. OTOH, what so they make Senators? A CAP Brig Gen or a CAP Maj Gen?
Colonels, too.
The Capitol Building has got more colonels than a KFC franchise.
Regular or Extra Crispy?
Everbody interested in this topic should read the thread "Post Winter Storm Patrols" in the Emergency Services section.
Colorado Wing is under the Adjutant General, and (According to their chart) co-equal with the army and air guard.
They operated seamlessly, starting out as a Title 36 mission, changing to a Title 10 mission, and returning to a Title 36 mission as the mission concentrated on locating livestock rather than people.
They directly coordinated, plane-to-plane with active duty and NG helicopters, set up a joint HQ with the state EMA, and communicated with local commercial stations to broadcast instructions to trapped motorists.
They had, but did not use, capability to communicate directly with law enforcement and military forces on the ground. Use of direct air to ground communications was limited in their operations order to emergencies only, due to existing traffic on those frequencies. Ground unit taskings were to go through EMA.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN
When I say placing CAP wings under NG command makes CAP a flexible and agile partner, and why CAP must hew close to its military roots.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 09, 2007, 07:08:47 AM
Everbody interested in this topic should read the thread "Post Winter Storm Patrols" in the Emergency Services section.
Colorado Wing is under the Adjutant General, and (According to their chart) co-equal with the army and air guard.
They operated seamlessly, starting out as a Title 36 mission, changing to a Title 10 mission, and returning to a Title 36 mission as the mission concentrated on locating livestock rather than people.
They directly coordinated, plane-to-plane with active duty and NG helicopters, set up a joint HQ with the state EMA, and communicated with local commercial stations to broadcast instructions to trapped motorists.
They had, but did not use, capability to communicate directly with law enforcement and military forces on the ground. Use of direct air to ground communications was limited in their operations order to emergencies only, due to existing traffic on those frequencies. Ground unit taskings were to go through EMA.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN
When I say placing CAP wings under NG command makes CAP a flexible and agile partner, and why CAP must hew close to its military roots.
Yup. That's where I want to be.
Hey, Dragoon:
I just posted a comment under yours in the "Uniform" part, in the thread about retirees wearing military uniforms.
I said I like your idea about FO grade for everybody in CAP.
If you would be so kind, could you develop this idea a little more, and post it under the Paper: Structual Change thread so that others can get a look at it? I believe your idea has merit.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 09, 2007, 02:32:11 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 09, 2007, 07:08:47 AM
Everbody interested in this topic should read the thread "Post Winter Storm Patrols" in the Emergency Services section.
Colorado Wing is under the Adjutant General, and (According to their chart) co-equal with the army and air guard.
They operated seamlessly, starting out as a Title 36 mission, changing to a Title 10 mission, and returning to a Title 36 mission as the mission concentrated on locating livestock rather than people.
They directly coordinated, plane-to-plane with active duty and NG helicopters, set up a joint HQ with the state EMA, and communicated with local commercial stations to broadcast instructions to trapped motorists.
They had, but did not use, capability to communicate directly with law enforcement and military forces on the ground. Use of direct air to ground communications was limited in their operations order to emergencies only, due to existing traffic on those frequencies. Ground unit taskings were to go through EMA.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN
When I say placing CAP wings under NG command makes CAP a flexible and agile partner, and why CAP must hew close to its military roots.
Yup. That's where I want to be.
Amen counr me in.
Quote from: DNall on January 07, 2007, 08:41:12 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 06, 2007, 10:35:29 PM
.
From DNall
You do that & AF will slap you sideways. We take our NEEDS to the AF & try to explain how desperately we NEED them, then all the rest of the AF does the same thing,
DNall, I propose nothing of the kind (asking the Air Force for money), and how will the Air Force slap us?
Take away Search and Rescue?
Asking the Air Force for more money out of their budget is stupid.
The Congress, has the purse strings.
The CAP Lobby would go direct to the money source, and explain to Congress, not the Air Force.
I was in the Air Force, I have been at Maxwell AFB, I know the politics, first hand.
The Air Force, feels about CAP, about the same way they feel about a competing service like the Army.
I think the concern was with this part.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 06, 2007, 10:35:29 PM
I propose throwing money at the problem.
If I were the National Commander this is what I would do, but no, don't appoint me, LOL.
1. Get every National Capital Squadron Congressman and Senator, in a meeting in Washington D.C.. Preferably a hotel conference room, focus on the numbers. The budget for CAP compared to the mission expansion and expectations is insane.
2. Present the real needs of CAP and a realistic Budget, not the Admin Budget we have now, with CAP on life support.
Which sounds like "screw USAF, let's go straight to Congress!"
Admittedly, we've done it before. And we can do it again. But it ain't gonna make USAF like us any more.
Imagine if Air Mobility Command went straight to Congress when they didn't like their USAF budget....someone would be looking for a new job.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 03:45:43 PM
I think the concern was with this part.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 06, 2007, 10:35:29 PM
I propose throwing money at the problem.
If I were the National Commander this is what I would do, but no, don't appoint me, LOL.
1. Get every National Capital Squadron Congressman and Senator, in a meeting in Washington D.C.. Preferably a hotel conference room, focus on the numbers. The budget for CAP compared to the mission expansion and expectations is insane.
2. Present the real needs of CAP and a realistic Budget, not the Admin Budget we have now, with CAP on life support.
Which sounds like "screw USAF, let's go straight to Congress!"
Admittedly, we've done it before. And we can do it again. But it ain't gonna make USAF like us any more.
Imagine if Air Mobility Command went straight to Congress when they didn't like their USAF budget....someone would be looking for a new job.
In the real world I am the business manager for a trauma emergency department. The 'staff' at times does not believe that I have to operate under hospital rules and have a set budget provided by the state. Frequently 'they' attempt to jump over me when I say 'no' (after outlining why I am saying no) and go to my boss hoping he will say yes.
It irks the crap out of me and leaves a real bad taste in my mouth. Especially when the answer continues to be 'no'. That is the way the AF will feel towards us. We want better relations with the AF, it doesn't happen this way.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 03:45:43 PM
I think the concern was with this part.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 06, 2007, 10:35:29 PM
I propose throwing money at the problem.
If I were the National Commander this is what I would do, but no, don't appoint me, LOL.
1. Get every National Capital Squadron Congressman and Senator, in a meeting in Washington D.C.. Preferably a hotel conference room, focus on the numbers. The budget for CAP compared to the mission expansion and expectations is insane.
2. Present the real needs of CAP and a realistic Budget, not the Admin Budget we have now, with CAP on life support.
Which sounds like "screw USAF, let's go straight to Congress!"
By going to Congress we are not "screwing" the Air Force, on the contrary, we are exposing our vision to people that can do something about it.
Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on January 11, 2007, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 03:45:43 PM
I think the concern was with this part.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 06, 2007, 10:35:29 PM
I propose throwing money at the problem.
If I were the National Commander this is what I would do, but no, don't appoint me, LOL.
1. Get every National Capital Squadron Congressman and Senator, in a meeting in Washington D.C.. Preferably a hotel conference room, focus on the numbers. The budget for CAP compared to the mission expansion and expectations is insane.
2. Present the real needs of CAP and a realistic Budget, not the Admin Budget we have now, with CAP on life support.
Which sounds like "screw USAF, let's go straight to Congress!"
Admittedly, we've done it before. And we can do it again. But it ain't gonna make USAF like us any more.
Imagine if Air Mobility Command went straight to Congress when they didn't like their USAF budget....someone would be looking for a new job.
It irks the crap out of me and leaves a real bad taste in my mouth. Especially when the answer continues to be 'no'. That is the way the AF will feel towards us. We want better relations with the AF, it doesn't happen this way.
Major, let me explain it to you.
We do our SAR hours for 75 to $100 per hour, and the next alternative to that is either Sheriff Aircraft or Air Force, with a range of $500 to $3000 per hour.
So, my thinking is we are way under the market cost for SAR.
Would your doctors and nurses work in a hospital that asked them to work at less than 10% of what others doing the same work are doing?
Because CAP is dumb, the Air Force will like us better if we stay dumb?
We should be at twice the hour rate we get now, that would cost us less in member turnover, and the usual operating out of membership wallets.
CAP cannot succeed by going to an Air Force General and asking for more money, it won't work. ATC tried to take 4 million to 6 million out of our budget last year.
So, no I don't care about Air Force relations right now, because its destroying our organization, little by little.
I could explain this to an Air Force General, and they would understand before I left the meeting why I have to go direct to Congress.
So you are willing to bite the hand that feeds you then? I happen to care very much about what the Air Force thinks and feels about us.
Congress doesn't set our budget, the Air Force does. They givith and they also taketh away. Congress mandates that AF supports us but they don't sit there and say AF give CAP XXX millions of dollars.
For all the nice talk about how much we can save Congress doesn't care about that. It is a nice selling techinique but with billions of dollars being dumped into overpriced pork barrel projects, we are nothing but a drop in the bucket.
I don't believe it is the AF that is destroying the relationship but CAP. I don't believe that CAP would survive as an entity without AF support. If the object is to turn us into some civilian SAR agency there are already enough of them out there. CAP would fold up and implode on itself from a undertrained membership that relies on a very small percentage to turn out for real world missions.
Way too often I've heard the tale of missions that couldn't be covered because no one wanted to come out on a rainy night. Pilots that only wanted to fly when it was nice and convienient, and ground teams that only showed up on training missions.
If we go the route you propose you'll also have to change the mentality of a large number of our members who train but don't come to play when the balloon goes up.
There would have to be a massive attitude change to justify more funds from Congress, especially after the AF said 'fine, you go your way but don't ask us for help."
Chuck:
AMEN!!!
Major Chuck if you are for the status quo,
Why waste time here, replying to my posts?
Sit back and do the same things we are doing, and nothing will change.
CAP will remain an organization that churns 100% of its strength every 6 years or so.
CAPs problems are not structural, its severe under funding and neglect, and fear of asking for what we need.
You make my point clearly, fear of what the Air Force will do, if we ask for more.
For what we do, CAP is under funded by about 200 million.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 11, 2007, 02:45:52 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 07, 2007, 08:41:12 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 06, 2007, 10:35:29 PM
.
From DNall
You do that & AF will slap you sideways. We take our NEEDS to the AF & try to explain how desperately we NEED them, then all the rest of the AF does the same thing,
DNall, I propose nothing of the kind (asking the Air Force for money), and how will the Air Force slap us?
Take away Search and Rescue?
Asking the Air Force for more money out of their budget is stupid.
The Congress, has the purse strings.
The CAP Lobby would go direct to the money source, and explain to Congress, not the Air Force.
I was in the Air Force, I have been at Maxwell AFB, I know the politics, first hand.
The Air Force, feels about CAP, about the same way they feel about a competing service like the Army.
Let me say this again. I work for Congress, or did till I left in June, & did so for several years. Every year CAPO submits a request for funding, AF reviews it as a part of their overall priorities, then THEY submit to Congress, President submits a seperate document, Congress creates a third argued in Cmte, altered on the floor, that's the appropriation process. CAP belongs to the AF in the federal budget.
IF you go to congress asking for money the AF refused to give... if it is given to you it will come from other AF priorities that AF has already said were more important, if it isn;t then you just jumped oyu chain of command like a mo-fo. Either way AF
will hold a gurdge!!! As will some in Congress.
Yes the Af does feel about CAP like they do a service like the Navy. They recognize them as necessary to the big picuture & respect that they must meet their overall funding goals, but not at the cost of AF priorities. That's why all service budget requests go thru the SecDef before Congress sees them, and don't think CAP isn't adjusted here or there as they see it necessary. Either this is service to the US govt, or this is mercenary. I got a big problem w/ one of those w/o seeing the 200k paycheck!!!
QuoteSomeone said:
Major, let me explain it to you.
We do our SAR hours for 75 to $100 per hour, and the next alternative to that is either Sheriff Aircraft or Air Force, with a range of $500 to $3000 per hour.
So, my thinking is we are way under the market cost for SAR.
Would your doctors and nurses work in a hospital that asked them to work at less than 10% of what others doing the same work are doing?
Because CAP is dumb, the Air Force will like us better if we stay dumb?
We should be at twice the hour rate we get now, that would cost us less in member turnover, and the usual operating out of membership wallets.
CAP cannot succeed by going to an Air Force General and asking for more money, it won't work. ATC tried to take 4 million to 6 million out of our budget last year.
So, no I don't care about Air Force relations right now, because its destroying our organization, little by little.
I could explain this to an Air Force General, and they would understand before I left the meeting why I have to go direct to Congress.
Actually, the mission belongs to Serriff's dept or state hwy patrol. The cost to AF on them taking it is zero. It's their mission & they are SUPPOSED to operate it at THEIR expense. That's the law. The AF is ALLOWED, but NOT required to ASSIST when state/local resouces physically cannot do the job to such an extent that it endangers life or property if the feds don't step in. Those are the conditions under which a CAP mission happens, bew that an ELT or disaster response like we did in Katrina. Furthermore, the cost of operating a Cessna, plus two paid troopers is FAR less than $500/hr. What cop do you know making $50/hr, nuch less $200/hr each.
I don't really care what you think. AF has bent over backwards to support us in tune with national priorities. We have a 100million dollar aircraft fleet paid for w/ not one dime of member money & every dime subtracted from things like another F22. Who knows in vans or radios, tens of millions. The AF has increased the part of the budget that reaches the field people like us & cut the part that deal with their reservists over us & the paid staff that are tehre to pick up the pieces scatered by inept part-time volunteers. They've done nothing but express faith & support to all of us. The things they've done to restrict us have been to keep us acting like the AF so that we can be funded thru the AF on AF missions. If we get too far out of that box then AF will not be able to defend our actions any longer. If you have complaints, you're very misinformed to direct them at the AF. We've had rocky times in our past where AF leaders were frustrated by CAP but ultimately stood by us. We waiver a bit today & approach new rocky times, but that's not because of anything on the AF side. You need to check your sources & look a littl deeper into things if you're not seeing that. I can direct you to people who'll be glad to straighten you out if your choose.
This is actually a neat conversation, because it shows us how a good CAPer can support not having close ties with USAF.
We like the idea of being part of the military, wearing green flight suits with military rank, having USAFAUX on our planes, etc.
But.....part of being "military" is obeying orders, and following the chain of command. Even when the chain says "I'm going to underfund you."
By going "corporate," we can shop around for missions and money. And we CAN go straight to Congress.
But... then we aren't Air Force anymore.
I think most CAP members want to be extremely close to the Air Force, but also have the Air Force treat us as an equal. Sadly, 60+ years of experience say this won't be the case. Not for any nefarious reason, but simply because we don't support the core missions of USAF - Air Superiority and putting bombs on target. We are a niche player.
It's a quandary, and is one explanation why we go design a non-USAF uniform that looks all military and a lot LIKE a USAF uniform. It's an example of those dual desires - to be just like USAF, but to not be constrained by USAF.
Tough one, ain't it?
As has been said MANY times...pissing off USAF is how we got maroon and then grey epaulets.
If we want more money and don't wanna piss off USAF, then we need to sell the value to USAF and convince them why we deserve more funding from them. Working WITH them and not AROUND them is how the relationship gets fixed and improved.
what are we going to do with more money. god knows it shouldnt wont go to the squadrons
CAP NHQ goes to Congress to get appropriations from Congress. They may pass it up through the AF side, but the money we get has specificly been earmarked for CAP in the appropriations legislation. The AF is the agency that Congress says to dish it out to us. The AF screwed up last year by not giving CAP it's money. They tried to illegaly hold money that the FEDS marked for us. CAP went to congress, becuase you realy can't go to AF when they were the ones who wronged you to begin with.
DNall, you worked for Congress, and you have a lot to offer us as far as information.
So, we get 100 Million in equipment, and how much funding to operate that equipment?
Our operating Budget is 30 million give or take.
What should our operating Budget be?
Quote from: LtCol White on January 12, 2007, 04:34:17 PM
As has been said MANY times...pissing off USAF is how we got maroon and then grey epaulets.
If we want more money and don't wanna piss off USAF, then we need to sell the value to USAF and convince them why we deserve more funding from them. Working WITH them and not AROUND them is how the relationship gets fixed and improved.
You cannot sell the Air Force, they want to decrease our funding.
I know when the Maroon Eps started, Seniors going to Maxwell, and extremely out of weight standards, in Air Force Uniform. Nothing can be done on that, Air Force retirees in their 50s, 60s are over weight too.
The Air Force by the way is not pissed at us, they would be silly to be pissed, they just do not want us to wake up to how we are being underfunded.
The Air Force, wants the status quo.
Right now they got a resouce in CAP, that cannot be replaced, we work so cheap, they hope we never wakeup and smell the coffee.
At our current level of funding, frankly I don't see us surviving, we will dwindle away and die.
I think that we will continue to chase our tail with this one until we decide what it is we want to do. Let's review our history.
• We started as an independent operation.
• When we proved our self we moved under (the historical equivilant)DOD
• At the time Army aviation was the most appropriate supporter
• Then after the air force was created they became our guardian. This move didn't take place until it was determined that they were the most appropriate agency to support our ever evolving mission.
• In the future our needs, and those of the air force might facilitate more changes
The key here is mission. In our history we as an organization have determined our role. It is neither our job to bully around the air force, nor is it to beg from them. I see a lot of talk about structure with out any talk regarding mission. Once we decide what our focus is to be our structure and funding will follow.
This discussion is very similar to the talks that are going on in other emergency services. Fire/EMS specifically. Funding is short. Staffing is minimal, and volunteers are passionate but sparse. Consistently the agencies who can develop a scope, and articulate those needs are the ones who can develop an organizational structure, and justify their funding.
Sometimes when you petition congress for money they say "no". Sometimes they say "yes". I'm more afraid of them saying yes frankly.
They money they allocate to CAP isn't coming from some big money bag they have at their feet with "miscelaneous expenses" written on it. Every penny is budgetized, so whose budget will pay for this? Well... the appropriations committee will say "these guys are the Air Force Auxiliary, so the Air Force should pay for this and we'll order them to" Great... the Air Force budget pays for all these increases!
Let's see... the Air Force has 4 major weapons systems projects... F-22, F-35, CV-22, and CH-46. The Raptor already got scaled down to the point where there aren't enough a/c being made to do the job. The JSF program's in a big fiscal crapper too and I suspect that with the newly proposed growth of the Army and Marine Corps, there will be more scaling down of the other 2 branches.
You see, the DoD budget is a fixed number. Sure, you can stretch some of it, but it's mostly a set figure. If you will be increasing the force strength, the money has to come from somewhere else. As in past, a large chunk of it will come from the Air Force and Navy budgets. We always do toot about being able to do with 1 man what we used to do with 10. So now skip a couple of years into the future and imagine 2 USAF officers looking over the budget and all the cuts to their manpower and weapons systems and they look at why and who...
... I would rather CAP didn't appear on that list.
I would rather CAP appeared on the "saving you more money than ever before" list.
Of course that's if you REALLY want to help the Air Force.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 12, 2007, 03:17:49 PM
I think most CAP members want to be extremely close to the Air Force, but also have the Air Force treat us as an equal. Sadly, 60+ years of experience say this won't be the case. Not for any nefarious reason, but simply because we don't support the core missions of USAF - Air Superiority and putting bombs on target. We are a niche player.
You've stated the simple truth....I think it may prove Kach's case, that we belong with the National Guard Bureau now....USAF sees our ES role as peripheral, and it has little relationship to their core mission (this has been a gap growing since 1947, if not since 1942 and ;strategic bombing' by USAAF)
USAF likes cadet programs as a recruiting tool....probably would prefer it was run entirely by retired AF personnel. I think they are neutral on AE, it can get them positive attention.
CAP does not fit with mainstream USAF anymore....at least in WWII it was recognized that we were freeing airmen for combat by doing necessary work on the homefront....it has been decades since CAP was anything more than a fringe ("niche") element in USAF....calling us the 'fourth component' makes a nice sound bite, but does not reflect the reality of the situation.
Understand, I'm not jumping all over USAF....the job Congress gave them took them along certain paths....in the course of which CAP became more of a distraction than anything else.
If we belong anywhere in USAF today, it might be 1stAF; as NORTHCOM's air component, their responsibilities intersect rather nicely with some of our capabilities.
If we were to be moved over there, we would still retain a relationship with AETC & AU (as all parts of USAF do) for training & professional development.
Quote• We started as an independent operation.
No, we started out as part of the Office of Civilian Defense.
river, thanks for the clarification.