Structural Change

[BillB]

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.

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[aveighter]

John,

Send me an email alert when the election is scheduled for Chief Wizard Whats In Charge.

You have my vote.

[Nick Critelli]

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. 

Tell us why you thing your suggestion best facilitates the Title 36 mission of CAP.

[arajca]

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).

NB/NEC sets policy, NHQ writes regs. minor point.

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.

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?

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.

SO the NOC goes away?

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.

Nice idea.

Some advantages:

1.  Posse Comitatus is a non-issue.  CAP would be National Guard troops.

OK. What about AF taskings?

2.  Use of state Armories would be as a matter of right, not hat-in-hand requests.

If there are any available.

3.  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.

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.

Not true in all states. The AG may command the National Guard forces, but has no control over non-NG forces - including AD forces.

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.

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)

(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.

[Nick Critelli]

Arajca

OK...now where's you proposal 

[Hawk200]

Arajca

OK...now where's you proposal 

I can already hear it.  "Whaddya mean: Proposal? I wasn't making a proposal!"

And yeah, I know what you mean...

[JohnKachenmeister]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

SO the NOC goes away?

Yes. 

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.

Nice idea.

Some 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.

2.  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.

3.  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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

(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.

(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.)

[Hawk200]

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.

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.

2.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Like I said above, don't make it operational control, make it tasking. Should smooth out that problem.

Some 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.

2.  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.

3.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

(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...

[Nick Critelli]

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.

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

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.

2.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Like I said above, don't make it operational control, make it tasking. Should smooth out that problem.

Some 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.

2.  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.

3.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

(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.)

[JohnKachenmeister]

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. 

[flyguy06]

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.

[BillB]

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.

[DeputyDog]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[RiverAux]

(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. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[DNall]

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.