Benefits and Allowances for a Better Brighter Air Force Auxiliary

[SAR-EMT1]

OK..one last topic before I head off to work - IN TWO PARTS- Please don't answer part one without some sort of answer for part 2...
PART 1:

ASIDE FROM JOB PROTECTION WHILE ON MISSIONS, WHAT 4 THINGS WOULD WE WANT TO SEE FROM THE CONGRESS /  AIR FORCE TO MAKE US A BETTER PART OF THE "TOTAL FORCE" ?   Strictly speaking in terms of administrative / personnel type items.

Thoughts?  Changes?  Discussion?

PART 2:
Your personal plan to get these items up and in place in the QUICKEST, MOST PAIN FREE AMOUNT OF TIME? -AE not decades from now.

Winner gets cookie.  LOL


Personally Id like to see:

1. Job Protection for missions
2. Annual uniform allowance / free uniform program for SENIORS identical to current program for new cadets
3. Better "more official Photo ID" - see earlier thread
4. Official Database to track CP and PD achievements
5. Published Vision Statement CO-AUTHORED BY CC/CAP AND CC/CAP-USAF


I'd implement by first establishing a Wing Review board, and work to promote a buzz in the state legislature through the Congressional Liason Officer, and State Director.  Once that is rolling begin full court press through State Director and Wing to Region.
Though- if there was any way to skip past Region and go directly to 'GO' (NHQ / AETC ) and collect my 200 dollar uniform allowance someone please clue me in.

[DNall]

Personally Id like to see:

1. Job Protection for missions
2. Annual uniform allowance / free uniform program for SENIORS identical to current program for new cadets
3. Better "more official Photo ID" - see earlier thread
4. Official Database to track CP and PD achievements
5. Published Vision Statement CO-AUTHORED BY CC/CAP AND CC/CAP-USAF

Something about your ID that keeps you from getting the job done or that would let you do it better? There's a lot of reasons I think it should be changed but it's not top fove critical

Unforms? Don't you have some? Are uniform costs preventing any significant number of people from participating? An active CAP member is spending between a few hundered & a few thousand dollars a year, verus uniforms that last a long time & don't cost all that much.

Database? Isn't eServices a database? It does track PD, you want cadet info on there too. That's just making it more complicated then it has to be, but okay.

Vision statement would be nice as the lead element of a new communications effort, but the comms are how they are on purpose. If the CC comes out & says how he's trying to change CAP over the objections of the NB & intends to replace anyone that gets in his way, well then half the people are going to freak. As it is he can keep you guessing & dodge massive problems by accepting lower ones. Far as getting the AF to be part of the process, they'd have to agree with where CAP leadership says we're going & that's not the case. Right now Air Staff is working on defining where they want CAP to go in the future, and if they ever figure it out they'll make us do it. In the meantime the powerless CAP leadership can make noise if it really wants to. Personally, I'd prefer to see CAP members add to the discussion.

Anyway... bad list! Want a better one (no particular order):

1) Job protection is big, look into GS9 per diem for deployment on AFAM over over 48hrs

2) IMMEDATELY adopt 2-year transition plan to NIMS-WSAR standards (typeIII = GMT3, II=2, I=1), work with NASAR on getting internal instructors, FEMA TTT, Adopt right now the FEMA UDF & Fixed-wing standards (upgrade gear to match - see below)

3) Get us some wide distribution advanced gear, like FLIR on every 182, twin running repeater & P25 comm support to put state/local back on teh air after disasters, CRBNE detection gear (check sandia)

4) address quality control & training... few threads on this.

5) With gear & quality force work range of missions critical to US interests. HLS, new AF mission types, meaningful stuff.

[RiverAux]

2) IMMEDATELY adopt 2-year transition plan to NIMS-WSAR standards (typeIII = GMT3, II=2, I=1), work with NASAR on getting internal instructors, FEMA TTT, Adopt right now the FEMA UDF & Fixed-wing standards (upgrade gear to match - see below)

How about we wait until these standards have actually been made official before we try to meet them? 

I think job protections are going to have be addrerssed at the state level though you never know -- it is possible that some national level protections could be adopted for emergency responders that could include us.  Better do it soon though before homeland secuirty goes the way of civil defense. 

[Earhart1971]

The answer is, CAP getting paid like the National Guard.

The pool of volunteers in is drying up, nobody can take time off work without being paid.

Squadrons need heavy local sponsorship or we need better Federal Funding.

[Earhart1971]

Dnall, in addition to your thoughts on Aircraft Equipment.

Don't we need to start getting paid more per hour of flying time?

And how about paid Training too?

I don't know  how CAP will be able to do all we are doing at the present state of funding.

The organization will collapse like this.

We are expected to execute our many missions like the Air National Guard with no funding.

Does the Air National Guard run a Cadet Program?

[DrJbdm]

Dennis, Where can I find the NINS standards that you've talked about?  also how would you transition CAP into those Standards?

I know the current ICS standards are pretty lax all the way around, I'll admit I don't know anything about the new NIN standards being proposed, but I would be interested in seeing the standards and how they differ from what we have now.

What's the latest info on those standards, are we as a nation any closer to them being implemented?

[arajca]

It's NIMS not NINS. National Incident Management System. Google "NIMS" abd you'll find alot of information. Or search these forums - we've discussed it at length a few times.

As for nationwide implementation, this year DHS/FEMA starts cutting off funds and reimbursements for state and local agencies who are not NIMS compliant. So FEMA may call your agency out, but if you're not NIMS compliant, you ain't getting paid. So most state and local agencies are either compliant, very close to compliant, or have decided they don't want FEMA's money.

CAP has fought this issue for years and finally realized there is no way CAP will win exemptions or special treatment in NIMS. The NB finally decided to comply with NIMS, although National hasn't put together a compliance plan, yet.

[DNall]

2) IMMEDIATELY adopt 2-year transition plan to NIMS-WSAR standards (typeIII = GMT3, II=2, I=1), work with NASAR on getting internal instructors, FEMA TTT, Adopt right now the FEMA UDF & Fixed-wing standards (upgrade gear to match - see below)

How about we wait until these standards have actually been made official before we try to meet them? 

WSAR is done & official. Team standards for UDF & fixed-wing pilot/aircrew have been out, the individual standards are in the upcoming section & I understand will also have a medical/PT requirement.
Links:
WSAR Team standards
WSAR individual training requirements
(more details on this topic in the ES section of the forum)

CAP compliance plan is in the works. Obviously is has to start w/ just getting the right level people thru the right ICS courses (IC100-800, see nice chart in one of the ES threads). That'll include the need for in-house trainers, so send lots of people to FEMA instructor course. The resource typing & credentialing is a bit more difficult. Ground Team turning into WSAR is big problem that'll take two years. UDF, Aircrew, etc is more just a pain to work out the details on.

[davedove]

I understand will also have a medical/PT requirement.

Looking through the standards, it seems many have the statement about these requirements being set by the Agency Having Jurisdiction.  That would tell me that if CAP is setting these standards for their own people, there may be no change to the current requirements, in other words, none.

Overall though, if we want to play in the game, we are going to have to follow the rules.

[DNall]

It specifies PFT requirements, CAP can't just say no. When the indiv standards come out for UDF I think it'll include some kind of PFT also, amd aircrew (scanner/observer) will have some kind of medical requirement in addition to some training. The big thing there is the aircraft gear for dif resource levels.

[RiverAux]

The SAR credentialling document is a draft.  The resource typing is official, but won't result in changing much in CAP though we will need to revise 60-3 to reflect terminology changes and will need to start tracking things differently. 

[DNall]

The SAR credentialling document is a draft.  The resource typing is official, but won't result in changing much in CAP though we will need to revise 60-3 to reflect terminology changes and will need to start tracking things differently. 

I understand how this can be confusing, but the document above is not a draft. NIC is currently in the process of developing credentialing standards for all 120 typed resources. The SaR grouping was the first to be tackled. It was published in November & is final. The other 9 sections are in development & will come out one at a time over this year. Drafts are only circulated inside the working group & to registered stakeholders. The individual qualification standards in that document are final & will have to be complied with, otherwise we will not be permitted in the operating area or on FOBs or other controlled facilities or allowed access to resources such as water & MREs. You have to meet their standards to be part of their team & that's all there is to it.

[RiverAux]

From the NIMS Alert Nov 21 2006 announcing the SAR credentials

NIMS Integration Center Releases Criteria for Credentialing Search and Rescue
(SAR) Personnel As part of our nation's efforts to strengthen catastrophic response capabilities in line with the National Incident Management System (NIMS), FEMA's NIMS Integration Center has released initial minimum criteria for SAR Personnel to be deployed using a national credentialing system.
The purpose of this release is to solicit comments and constructive feedback for an open period not to exceed 45 calendar days from the date stated in this NIMS Alert. Information on how to submit your comments via e-mail is located at the end of this Alert.......
The SAR Working Group will review all responses submitted and as appropriate make any needed revisions with a final NIMS release of the Criteria for credentialing SAR personnel.

If they were soliciting comments Nov 21 for 45 days that means the document is a DRAFT. 

[DNall]

Two things, that comment period is required, but the document has been thru the ringer for over a year with most of the industry involved in getting it hammered out. Secondly, that comment period is over Friday. As with all FEMA typing & credentialing documents, it's a living thing that can change over time, but this version is quite solid. CAP is not getting any kind of special treatment, we will comply with what they say & it will be what's in this document. IF, and I mean a great big fat IF anything at all is changed, it's going to be to add other equiv alternatives in some of the individual training requirements. You want to wait a week & see waht comes out, that's fine, but it's misleading to tell people who don't know what's going on that this isn't what's really going to be enforced, cause it is.

CAP GTMs will be required to pass one of the PFTs listed, they will be required to complete the related FEMA courses & get the outside certifications (SarTechII being the easiest & most like what we do now). None of this is unreasonable, but it does require much greater focus of your CAP time to that one thing, which is as it really should be.

[Major_Chuck]

1.  Operational Oversight moved from Air University and AETC to Air Force side of National Guard Bureau.

How to Achieve:  Air Force and NGB would have to bite off.  No easy way to do this however.

2.  National Commander appointed by one of three individuals depending upon how item #1 turns out.
Secretary of the Air Force, AF Chief of Staff, or Chief of the National Guard Bureau.  Appointee would not be sitting Region or Wing Commander.  Appointee would come from Board of Governors, not NEC or National Board.

How to achieve:  Again, not easy and would require massive overhaul of current system.

3.  Total elimination of the term 'senior member'.    Never refered to, never implied, never uttered.

How to achieve:  Easily adopted.  Can be stricken from electronic media/forms/etc.

4.  Standards.  Everyone held accountable to the established standards.

5.  Ditto on the Vision Statement.  Implement one that is not so vague as "Missions for America".  Define what our role is and what is expected of us.

[O-Rex]

(more details on this topic in the ES section of the forum)

Then let's beat them to death on that forum and move on . . . .

Back to the Subject at hand: 

1. Job Protection for missions - Love to see it-would require major legislation.  Until then, save up your vacation days.....

2. Annual uniform allowance / free uniform program for SENIORS identical to current program for new cadets - USAF enlisted get initial issue at no cost, then get an annual uniform allowance, USAF officers don't.  CAP cadets get a free uniform program - CAP seniors don't.  For those wanting a more "USAF officer-like" existence, there you have it: The cachè of being an "officer" with all the regalia (literally) comes at a price.

3. Better "more official Photo ID" - see earlier thread Don't need it to impress the ladies, I'm just happy to now have a card that I don't have to whip out in tandem with my driver's license.  Sooner or later, they'll come out with a v2.0, and clean the graphics up a bit.

4. Official Database to track CP and PD achievements: Member services could use some tweaking, but don't expect anything like your Mil. virtual OPMF: we don't have the administrative infrastructure to do that on a national level, and until they rehire the 30% of paid NHQ staff, don't expect it, either.

5. Published Vision Statement CO-AUTHORED BY CC/CAP AND CC/CAP-USAF

here it is, with USAF blessing:

Vision Statement: "America's Air Force Auxiliary, Civil Air Patrol, building the nation's finest force of citizen volunteers - performing Missions for America"

Mission Statement: "To serve America by performing Homeland Security and humanitarian missions for our communities, states, and nation; developing our country's youth; and educating our citizens on the importance of air and space power."

[afgeo4]

Job security while activated or on missions.
Meal allowances while activated or on missions.
Uniform allowance.
Records in DEERS allowing for AAFES.com shopping and unlimited BX priviledges including Class VI.
Issued pagers for ES alerts.
G10 vehicles for corporate use including region and wing cc's (frees up vans/pick-up for tactical use and allows commanders to travel around to units more).
National budget (separate) for recruiting including vinyl recruiting covers for corporate vehicles and national TV campaign.
CAC type ID
Allowances for telephone/computer (high bandwith) access to ALL units.

[CAP428]

I see no reason for job security while on missions.  It is a volunteer organization.  If you do not have the time to volunteer while simultaneously holding a job, then change to a job where you can, or don't volunteer.  You must pick and choose your battles.

As far as stuff like meal allowance, uniform allowance, free computers and stuff for units:  it is not feasible.

The whole point in having a civilian auxiliary for the Air Force is that it is volunteer, and thus frees the USAF from spending so much money on things that can be efficiently done by a civilian auxiliary and save them cash.  We may not like it, but it really does come down to money.


To answer the original question:
Part 1:
I would like to see a more official photo ID as well.  Someone asked why that would let us do our job better.  I don't know about you, but when I've shown my card to anyone, they laugh and say it looks like I made it on my computer.  It detracts from professionalism, and is not "official" enough looking to rid doubt in the minds of people in authority when necessary.  If we are trying to do a job and those in charge are constantly doubting whether we are official, it hinders progress.

Part 2:
Send it up the proper channels/chain of command.


Again, and I know I'll be jumped all over for this, but we are a civilian auxiliary of the Air Force.  We have a huge amount of potential to serve greatly and serve a real purpose to help the armed forces and America as a whole.  I think we can have a very close relationship with the Air Force, certainly one that is closer than what we have now.

But I think seeing us as a part of the total force, meaning on the same level as the active duty and reserve forces, etc, is delusional.  We will never be accepted as "equals" with the armed forces.  We can help, but we can't be the same.

Being idealistic is great when just thinking and getting ideas...but when it comes to carrying it out, you must be R E A L I S T I C.

[SAR-EMT1]

CAP428

If you look at the Coast Guard Auxiliary they are seen as part of the total force. Their IDs are better, they get more on-base privileges etc...and its because they are USED MORE by the USCG. (Heck, I know many Aux Officers who routinely are OOD or Comms Officer at CG stations.)
MY main goal is to get CAP up to that same level in regard to our relationship with the Air Force.

[ddelaney103]

CAP428

If you look at the Coast Guard Auxiliary they are seen as part of the total force. Their IDs are better, they get more on-base privileges etc...and its because they are USED MORE by the USCG. (Heck, I know many Aux Officers who routinely are OOD or Comms Officer at CG stations.)
MY main goal is to get CAP up to that same level in regard to our relationship with the Air Force.

Never.  Going.  To.  Happen.  (Period, STOP, check please)

Why?  Several reasons - the biggest being that the AF does not have as much use for us as the CG has for their AUX.  We can do a few missions the AF likes us to do, but almost none of the are AF Core missions.  We can't put angry iron on target, nor can we do anything in the overseas zones in which the AF works.

OTOH, CGAUX can work on almost any job the CG has.  Most of their AUX are in the same locations the CG is working - waterways and coastlines.  The AF may base B-2's in MO, but that's not because they expect to exercise sovereign options in the Mississippi River Valley.  Most of the CG work their AUX does is neither military nor armed.  They are an _operational_ force multiplier that we will never be.

Can we be closer to the AF?  Sure.  Can we be more useful to the AF?  Sure.  Will we ever get to the CGAUX level of connectedness with Big Blue?  No.

[fyrfitrmedic]

I see no reason for job security while on missions.  It is a volunteer organization.  If you do not have the time to volunteer while simultaneously holding a job, then change to a job where you can, or don't volunteer.  You must pick and choose your battles.

Obviously you've never been involved in the volunteer fire service or volunteer emergency medical services. There are reasons and for laws protecting the employment of such volunteers and ample precedents justifying same.

Now, tell me again why you see no reason for job security while responding as volunteers.

[O-Rex]

CAP428

If you look at the Coast Guard Auxiliary they are seen as part of the total force. Their IDs are better, they get more on-base privileges etc...and its because they are USED MORE by the USCG. (Heck, I know many Aux Officers who routinely are OOD or Comms Officer at CG stations.)
MY main goal is to get CAP up to that same level in regard to our relationship with the Air Force.

I hear a lot of "let's be more like the CG Aux" and it seems that a lot of folks don't understand the relationships and histories behind them. CAP and CGAUX might be "cousins," but culturally speaking, they are two different animals entirely.

The Coast Guard has a long history of being over-tasked and under-manned. Moreover, the lighthouse and rescue boat crews were pretty much volunteer (until they were integrated with the Revenue Cutter Service to form the Coast Guard) Revenue Cutter Service personnel would visit these boat units much like CAPRAP's do today. In fact, in the 19th Century, the RCS lacked the retirement benefits that the other services enjoyed, and many who were too old to continue active service became volunteers. As a result, differentiation between USCG and its volunteer components was not that pronounced, and the close relationship continues to this day. While it does perform some semi-independent CAP-like functions, the "Aux" also serves as augmentees, standing watches, serving on vessels, etc. because the Coast Guard is a very small service with a very big mission.

Yes, during WWII, CAP, like the CG Aux, also served as "augmentees," performing some of the more day-to-day tasks on the home-front to free up manpower for deployment. But since then, there hasn't been the need for civilians to man USAF billets (save for some Chaplains, but theirs is a special circumstance...)

Is the Air Force currently undermanned? Thousands of former Airmen and Officers who were "force-shaped" or "blue to greened" in the past couple of years would probably tell you "no."

CAP, Inc. grew out of the uncertainty of the massive post-WWII military drawdown. Remember that the services were all taking a big hit, and there was even nonsense-talk of disbanding the Marine Corps (no kidding!) Civil Defense, a close "sister" to CAP, was all but disbanded, but would re-emerge with the advent of the Nuclear Arms Race a few years later. Incorporation ensured that the organization would continue, in one form or another. It did, and was adopted by the newly-formed USAF.

Those I know who are concurrent CAP/USCGAUX members respect the distinctive "flavors" and differences between the two organizations, and I never heard them say that one should be more like the other, any more than a military service member would say that the Navy should be more like the Army. It's just different.

In my wing, we have a great relationship with the AUX, much if it promoted by these 'dual' members. Our biannual water-survival/water egress training is combined.

(Note: former CAP dirt-bags who get 2-B'd and then go to the CG Aux usually get 'found-out' there too!)

Can we enjoy a more 'GC Aux-type relationship' with USAF if we behave ourselves, shine our boots and eat all our vegetables? No: USAF doesn't need it, and CAP leadership doesn't want it.

Can we (CAP) nurture our relationship with USAF if we clearly understand the nature of our respective roles & missions, and can articulate them somewhat intelligently? Just maybe........

Also, USAF or any service "Total Force" means Regulars, Reservists, and ANG members who can take up arms and deploy. Use that vernacular to describe a CAP member-in the wrong company, and you'll get some real dirty looks.

[CAP428]

I see no reason for job security while on missions.  It is a volunteer organization.  If you do not have the time to volunteer while simultaneously holding a job, then change to a job where you can, or don't volunteer.  You must pick and choose your battles.

Obviously you've never been involved in the volunteer fire service or volunteer emergency medical services. There are reasons and for laws protecting the employment of such volunteers and ample precedents justifying same.

Now, tell me again why you see no reason for job security while responding as volunteers.

Because I see volunteer firefighting as a whole different thing.  Why?  Because generally volunteer firefighters are needed in smaller towns where there are not full-time firefighters and stations available.  CAP is not needed.  I know it hurts us to hear that, but it's true.  Are we helpful?  Definitely.  Do we serve a great purpose that would be more of a hassle to do/cost more without us?  Sure.  But it's kind of like driving a car with automatic transmission.  Is it needed in order to operate a car?  No, you can drive a stick.  But it sure as heck helps.

In other words, if CAP did not exist, there are plenty of government-related and privately owned SAR/ES type organizations that would do the job instead.  So, there is no need for job security when away on missions b/c you are not needed, you are merely an asset.

[DNall]

CAP428

If you look at the Coast Guard Auxiliary they are seen as part of the total force. Their IDs are better, they get more on-base privileges etc...and its because they are USED MORE by the USCG. (Heck, I know many Aux Officers who routinely are OOD or Comms Officer at CG stations.)
MY main goal is to get CAP up to that same level in regard to our relationship with the Air Force.

Never.  Going.  To.  Happen.  (Period, STOP, check please)

Why?  Several reasons - the biggest being that the AF does not have as much use for us as the CG has for their AUX.  We can do a few missions the AF likes us to do, but almost none of the are AF Core missions.  We can't put angry iron on target, nor can we do anything in the overseas zones in which the AF works.

OTOH, CGAUX can work on almost any job the CG has.  Most of their AUX are in the same locations the CG is working - waterways and coastlines.  The AF may base B-2's in MO, but that's not because they expect to exercise sovereign options in the Mississippi River Valley.  Most of the CG work their AUX does is neither military nor armed.  They are an _operational_ force multiplier that we will never be.

Can we be closer to the AF?  Sure.  Can we be more useful to the AF?  Sure.  Will we ever get to the CGAUX level of connectedness with Big Blue?  No.

You know... yes & no. I aso get annoyed when people talk about the CGAux w/o understanding teh dramatic differences that cannot be changed. There are some parallels that are interesting, even instructive, but then there are otheres where they are totally meaningless for comparison. For instance, the size of AF & scope of their mission is massive comapred to CG, which makes CAP a tiny blip at best.

The main point I'd make though is not to lock CAP down into such a small box. I'd go beyond "more useful" on up as far as critical to national security useful. CAP isn't going to have 500k members, and it isn't going to stand duty stations in Kuwait, however, we could easily step up to some prime time missions critically important to the country & deserving of respect for more than the fact that we do them out of charity. If those missions require high standards for membership & progression, if we're also taking lead roles in muli-agency ICS command & general staff levels... I think that's a reasonable route we'd all like to be part of & that would cause AF to see CAP in a whole different light. They have some legitimate complaints about us that need to be addressed & we need to step up to a whole new serious level of business or quit wasting the taxpayer's money.

[fyrfitrmedic]

I see no reason for job security while on missions.  It is a volunteer organization.  If you do not have the time to volunteer while simultaneously holding a job, then change to a job where you can, or don't volunteer.  You must pick and choose your battles.

Obviously you've never been involved in the volunteer fire service or volunteer emergency medical services. There are reasons and for laws protecting the employment of such volunteers and ample precedents justifying same.

Now, tell me again why you see no reason for job security while responding as volunteers.

Because I see volunteer firefighting as a whole different thing.  Why?  Because generally volunteer firefighters are needed in smaller towns where there are not full-time firefighters and stations available.  CAP is not needed.  I know it hurts us to hear that, but it's true.  Are we helpful?  Definitely.  Do we serve a great purpose that would be more of a hassle to do/cost more without us?  Sure.  But it's kind of like driving a car with automatic transmission.  Is it needed in order to operate a car?  No, you can drive a stick.  But it sure as heck helps.

In other words, if CAP did not exist, there are plenty of government-related and privately owned SAR/ES type organizations that would do the job instead.  So, there is no need for job security when away on missions b/c you are not needed, you are merely an asset.

  Such governmental and private entities don't exist everywhere, just like career fire and EMS departments don't exist everywhere. Unless and until such coverage is universal, CAP still retains a role in SAR activities and as such some form of job protection is warranted.

If I was to follow your train of thought, my volunteer EMS activities don't warrant any sort of protection either; after all, there are always hospital-based and private third-service entities to handle the workload - I'm sure their current state of overload can be added to a bit more, right? After all, my volunteer EMS squad is 'just an asset', it's not 'needed'. Tell that to my stakeholders.

[DNall]

If I can just help you out with that one right quick... The SaR standards we currently train to are okay, the ones it looks like FEMA is going to demand of us are pretty dang high. CAP isn't a very big organization. You're talking about maybe 12k active adults, maybe 8-10k on the way outside are even current much less active in ES, and that's for 52 wings & several million square miles. If you're busy at work & can't volunteer your time, exactly who is going to fill in behind you? Maybe if you're talking about a van load of cadets on a Saturday afternoon UDFing their way thru the local airport ramp, but when you need high trained & experienced operators to deploy for days at a time and/or across the country, getting fired is not an option. And switching jobs? Are you in junior high right now?

[SAR-EMT1]

I totally agree with fyrfitrmedic on this, and not just because I have the same job but because in my area the local ESDA/FEMA types are not the folks Id want to rely on if I was hurt in the woods; good as their intentions may be.

As far as CAP having a true support / augmentation role to the Air Force... Why not? 
Does anyone have any idea how many MILLIONS the DoD spends on civilian contractors every year?  I can think of hundreds of things CAP types can do on base. Remember this: The letter of the regs say that we may be tasked for ANY AND ALL non-combat duties as tasked by SECAF.
   ..This is pure dream here...but lets just say we can convince the AF to get rid of many of its contractors and bring in CAP members at a per diem. On base we could staff the AF Inn desks, assist at the gates (the CAP unit at Scott AFB have done this routinely in the past)  assist with admin/personnel flights. Assist with met officers, IT,  Chaplains, medical personnel, even with some of the less important / unclassified  comm work.  Even something as simple as cutting the grass.

Literally anything a contractor stateside can do, we could do. Its just a matter of seeing the forest for the trees.

[Dragoon]

b]Literally anything a contractor stateside can do, we could do.[/b] Its just a matter of seeing the forest for the trees.

I'm not sure it's that simple.  CAP isn't all that good at handling long term tasks, because most of our members have jobs.  We are better at "surging" for a few weeks at a time, or a day or so a week.

The volunteer fire departments of the country have largely admitted that getting a steady stream of trained volunteers to man the station during the day doesn't happen.  So the volunteers do nights and weekends, and paid guys are there during the work week.

Also remember the DoD has turned entire areas of operation over to contractors, things like network management, designing aircraft, writing doctrine.  I don't think CAP is the right answer to those kind of issues.  Unless they paid us.  And if they did that, we'd BE a contractor.

Sure they're are things we can do, but for example, how many CAP members would sign up to manning the AF Inn help desk for a few months?  It's not exactly a "fun" task like flying search missions.  Can we really generate enough dependable, trained manpower to make it worth anyone's while?

[RiverAux]

If you look at the Coast Guard Auxiliary they are seen as part of the total force. Their IDs are better,

This is extremely untrue.  The CG Aux id is a photo pasted on a card and laminated in some office somewhere.  It is no better than the old CAP photo id.  At least the current CAP credit card no photo id looks fairly professional. 

[MIKE]

If you look at the Coast Guard Auxiliary they are seen as part of the total force. Their IDs are better,

This is extremely untrue.  The CG Aux id is a photo pasted on a card and laminated in some office somewhere.  It is no better than the old CAP photo id.  At least the current CAP credit card no photo id looks fairly professional. 

Mine is printed right on the plastic card.  It's one of the new ones.

[RiverAux]

I haven't heard a thing about new cards.  Mine is only about 2 1/2 years old. 

[afgeo4]

Speaking of... can anyone scan in or give us a pic of the current (new) USCG Aux ID card so we know what y'all are talking about?

[MIKE]

No thanks, PERSEC. 

[afgeo4]

No thanks, PERSEC. 

lol I meant with blacked out picture and personal info

[fyrfitrmedic]

b]Literally anything a contractor stateside can do, we could do.[/b] Its just a matter of seeing the forest for the trees.

I'm not sure it's that simple.  CAP isn't all that good at handling long term tasks, because most of our members have jobs.  We are better at "surging" for a few weeks at a time, or a day or so a week.

The volunteer fire departments of the country have largely admitted that getting a steady stream of trained volunteers to man the station during the day doesn't happen.  So the volunteers do nights and weekends, and paid guys are there during the work week.

You're painting the volunteer fire service with an awfully wide brush. I can name far more 'pure volunteer' departments than 'combination' departments. you probably want to do a little bit more reasearch before making such statements in the future.

[Dragoon]

I'll stand by it until confronted with facts to the contrary (as I'm sure you'll stand by your assertion).

So we'll agree to disagree.

But to follow up - in your neck of the woods, how do the "pure" volunteer fire departments handle the 9-5 weekday workload?  Where do they get a crew full of firemen to hang around the station and not work for a living?

[ddelaney103]

I'll stand by it until confronted with facts to the contrary (as I'm sure you'll stand by your assertion).

So we'll agree to disagree.

But to follow up - in your neck of the woods, how do the "pure" volunteer fire departments handle the 9-5 weekday workload?  Where do they get a crew full of firemen to hang around the station and not work for a living?

Often they would accept degraded mission readiness.  When I was young the VFD in the town where I spent my summers would only have a couple of people in the station and an air raid siren.  When there was an event the siren went off and people ran out of their workplaces went to the fire.  That does mean the whole crew won't be there when the engine gets there.

It's a classic problem - having people sit "strip alert" means faster response time but is a real time waster.

[Dragoon]

I'll stand by it until confronted with facts to the contrary (as I'm sure you'll stand by your assertion).

So we'll agree to disagree.

But to follow up - in your neck of the woods, how do the "pure" volunteer fire departments handle the 9-5 weekday workload?  Where do they get a crew full of firemen to hang around the station and not work for a living?

Often they would accept degraded mission readiness.  When I was young the VFD in the town where I spent my summers would only have a couple of people in the station and an air raid siren.  When there was an event the siren went off and people ran out of their workplaces went to the fire.  That does mean the whole crew won't be there when the engine gets there.

It's a classic problem - having people sit "strip alert" means faster response time but is a real time waster.

Right - they couldn't get folks to actually do volunteer WORK from 9-5, so they just called them up when something happened.

As stated originally, CAP can do that.  We can "surge" for emergencies.  But I doubt we can provide a steady stream of qualified individuals willing to work 9-5 for no pay.

It takes a contractor to fill that job.

[mikeylikey]

Just tell the member that they can eat at the BX, but still can't shop there while they are sweating away for AF.  That should get CAP members to sign up!

[fyrfitrmedic]

I'll stand by it until confronted with facts to the contrary (as I'm sure you'll stand by your assertion).

So we'll agree to disagree.

But to follow up - in your neck of the woods, how do the "pure" volunteer fire departments handle the 9-5 weekday workload?  Where do they get a crew full of firemen to hang around the station and not work for a living?

The National Volunteer Fire Council [http://www.nvfc.org] and the US Fire Administration [http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/] both have oodles of stats to back up my assertion. See also the IAFC, Firehouse magazine, etc...

In my own neck of the woods, there are enough people who work varying hours at paying jobs in most local departments to adequately staff apparatus responding to emergencies. There are a few houses here and there that have been hit harder than others by the overall decline in volunteerism; that's currently the exception rather than the rule.

A mutual-aid system exists in both volunteer and career fire departments to provide coverage in events that require larger responses or in those infrequent instances that a company is out-of-service or short-staffed.

The initial response to any emergent incident is a 'surge' - that's the nature of the beast. Any responder agency, no matter the type or composition, has to 'shift gears' once the response extends beyond an initial operational period. Human and equipment assets all have their own needs.

[DNall]

Well yes we can surge people in an emergency, and then if ops need to be sustained then we can rotate people thru with a rather heavy logistics demand to keep it moving for a while. That obviously much more doable on Katrina in teh national spot light than for a flood the next state over that didn't make your local news. Hence job protection is highly necessary, both to get you out of work in teh first place & allow you to stay on as needed, within reason.

That's ES, and has nothing to do with augementation. You can indeed put trained & qualified CAP members in part time positions w/o pay. That's what SDFs & CGAux do right now, so obviously it can be done. If you add that job protection AND do the augmentation under a contract that allows them to be surged to full-time in an emergency for up to a couple weeks or whatever w/ some kind of pay so the house payment still gets made, then you're in business.

[SAR-EMT1]

I'll stand by it until confronted with facts to the contrary (as I'm sure you'll stand by your assertion).

So we'll agree to disagree.

But to follow up - in your neck of the woods, how do the "pure" volunteer fire departments handle the 9-5 weekday workload?  Where do they get a crew full of firemen to hang around the station and not work for a living?

In IL where Im from, VFDs get pager from the state. If someone calls 911 to report a fire the dispatcher trips the pagers and everyone leaves work and races to the station in their POV's and gumball lights. - VFDs / VEMS in IL get job protection to do this. The usual requirment is that you live / work within so many miles of the station.  It is possible to live in one town (and be on the fire roster for their night call list) and work in another and be on THEIR day call list.

I work EMS during the day, but I can respond to my local vollunteer unit at night and weekends.

As for ANYONE 'hanging around the station', there isnt anyone at the stations.  Not here or any place around here. -- Im sure in a city like Champaign or Springfield there are full time crews, but my bed is in a town of 3 grand.

[SAR-EMT1]

Sorry about the above, I wasnt trying to spur an argument, just saying how its done around here...

Back to topic.
The AF could theoretically pay us a low per-diem and still save money vs contractors. - Because the AF wouldnt be paying for Healthcare, dental, insurance etc.... And they can set all CAP augmentees at a low level.  Say GS  1-6   Doesnt have to be much of anything.

And the ability to eat at the BX...we musn't forget that 

[DNall]

I think GS9 is robably more appropriate since we're already tied to that for our other benefits. I think the key to per diem being workable is that it wouldn't be paid for day-to-day or standard missions. It would onlu kick in if you are called to duty for more than 48 hours or something along those lines. In otherwords, you should get per diem on Katrina for a week or two, you should not while turning off an ELT at your local airport at 3am. Now, the times when people deploy for over 48hrs is pretty small. The few redcaps that go that long we could just as easily rotate personnel in & out to keep fresh & manage the difference between a surge & a sustainable force.

[SAR-EMT1]

I actually wasnt even thinking of ES when I mentioned a per-diem. I was refering to augmenting. As far as ES is concerned, I totally agree. I cant see us getting anything for an ELT hunt. Katrina Yeah...

[ddelaney103]

Point of Information:

Per diem rates are determined by location and not by GS level.

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=17943&contentType=GSA_BASIC

[Dragoon]

I'll stand by it until confronted with facts to the contrary (as I'm sure you'll stand by your assertion).

So we'll agree to disagree.

But to follow up - in your neck of the woods, how do the "pure" volunteer fire departments handle the 9-5 weekday workload?  Where do they get a crew full of firemen to hang around the station and not work for a living?

The National Volunteer Fire Council [http://www.nvfc.org] and the US Fire Administration [http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/] both have oodles of stats to back up my assertion. See also the IAFC, Firehouse magazine, etc...

In my own neck of the woods, there are enough people who work varying hours at paying jobs in most local departments to adequately staff apparatus responding to emergencies. There are a few houses here and there that have been hit harder than others by the overall decline in volunteerism; that's currently the exception rather than the rule.

A mutual-aid system exists in both volunteer and career fire departments to provide coverage in events that require larger responses or in those infrequent instances that a company is out-of-service or short-staffed.

The initial response to any emergent incident is a 'surge' - that's the nature of the beast. Any responder agency, no matter the type or composition, has to 'shift gears' once the response extends beyond an initial operational period. Human and equipment assets all have their own needs.

Yup, found the quote.  You're right.  2/3's of all the FDs are fully volunteer.  My neck of the woods seems to be outside the norm.

Now, back to the issue of SURGE vs SUSTAIN - most USAF contractor jobs are SUSTAIN - they want the full crew every day, not just a few guys with the rest on pagers.  And truthfully, they don't want a cast of "guest stars" where every day it's different folks.  That's not how DoD operates.  IT may work for VFDs, but not for staff augmentees.

They want the same guys,every day, 9-5.  Unless the job is totally brainless, like lawn maintenance or KP.  It's just too much bother giving any responsbilities to a part timer that you may or may not ever see again.  Too much recurrent training.

So how can CAP address this problems?  My guess is we can't.  Best to use contractors.

But if there was some kind of SURGE function, like assisting units with deployment/redeployment, we may be of some value.

[DNall]

Point of Information:

Per diem rates are determined by location and not by GS level.

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=17943&contentType=GSA_BASIC

That's not what we're really talking about. We're really talking about a set national dollar figure as a percentage of daily salary of a GS level, and really we're talking about something in the range of $50-120, which is below the stated per diem rates. Remeber now, on AFAM a lot of things are reimbursable (food, lodging, gas, etc). This is not meant to replace that, but rather to cover incidental expenses & help defer some of the lost wages. And agian, this would only apply to deployment over 48hrs on issions.For augmentation, if there were to be per diem, it would be by the GSA scale & kick in under conditions of a contract.

Now, back to the issue of SURGE vs SUSTAIN - most USAF contractor jobs are SUSTAIN - they want the full crew every day, not just a few guys with the rest on pagers.  And truthfully, they don't want a cast of "guest stars" where every day it's different folks.  That's not how DoD operates.  IT may work for VFDs, but not for staff augmentees.

They want the same guys,every day, 9-5.  Unless the job is totally brainless, like lawn maintenance or KP.  It's just too much bother giving any responsbilities to a part timer that you may or may not ever see again.  Too much recurrent training.

So how can CAP address this problems?  My guess is we can't.  Best to use contractors.

But if there was some kind of SURGE function, like assisting units with deployment/redeployment, we may be of some value.

You thinking of the wrong positions. It may be that the night shift in operations is short handed on weekends. That's the kind of thing a couple CAP members can stand a station a weekend a month. If they train on their own time to pick up the AFSC & learn the job & cover one shift a month for free when that seat may otherwise have sit open or required someone to work overtime or another employee to be hired, then that's a perfect spot you can fill. You wouldn't be filling any 9-5 or any kind of full-time slots. You'd be putting qualified people in part-time volunteer slots.

Now that does two things. 1) It does act as a force multiplier that MAY allow you to cut back paid staff, more likely it gives you the chance to operate at full-capacity when you'd otherwise be short staffed & streched thin. So maybe it saves a little money maybe not, but what it really is directed at is imporoved performance by force multiplication. 2) Emergencies are going to come up & day-to-day staffs are going to be inadequate to the task. At that point you have a pool of people that have volunteered a day or two a month to help out & keep their skills sharp, and you can surge them to duty for a couple days or weeks by contract provision & with job protections. That becomes an even more meaningful asset that even transends money.

[SAR-EMT1]

-Appluads-   

Now the only question is: how soon can we begin to implement said program?

[Dragoon]

You thinking of the wrong positions. It may be that the night shift in operations is short handed on weekends. That's the kind of thing a couple CAP members can stand a station a weekend a month. If they train on their own time to pick up the AFSC & learn the job & cover one shift a month for free when that seat may otherwise have sit open or required someone to work overtime or another employee to be hired, then that's a perfect spot you can fill. You wouldn't be filling any 9-5 or any kind of full-time slots. You'd be putting qualified people in part-time volunteer slots.

Yup, I'd agree, and always have.  The last two pages of posts have been specifically around the issue of "anything a contractor can do, CAP can do" which I think we've now come to accept just ain't the case.

Yes, nights and weekend work are the kind of thing CAP could do.  Now, can anyone make a list of likely night and weekend USAF support jobs?

[DNall]

Yup, I'd agree, and always have.  The last two pages of posts have been specifically around the issue of "anything a contractor can do, CAP can do" which I think we've now come to accept just ain't the case.

Yes, nights and weekend work are the kind of thing CAP could do.  Now, can anyone make a list of likely night and weekend USAF support jobs?

I think they're referring more to KINDS of jobs, not how often they'd be filled. There would be a few limitations, but for the most part there are not many contractor or civilian employee jobs that a properly qual'd CAP member could help with on a limited time basis.

It's impossible to list the jobs, it's almost everything. All extra duty jobs just for starters. Probably 50% of AFSCs could theoretically be considered. Just about everything. I mean if you have a guy that retired from the AF a year ago & he's willing to come back & work a saturday or two a month & that makes things easier on the guys you got so they can keep up with their training or not have to stay late so often, well that's perfect. I think it's undefinable though. We can talk ideas & such, but honestly that's going to have to be an assessment by the AF down to the tactical level of where they most need the help, and then we're going to have to focus a bit. We can't do everything. It's going to be most workable if we partner with units for the bulk fo our work. They're doing that w/ combo guard/active units now. I thin that's probably a good example to follow.

[RiverAux]

I agree, it would have to be worked out on the individual unit basis since only they know where they've got gaps that need filling.  We can propose general ideas here, but thats about it. 

[Dragoon]

Yup, I'd agree, and always have.  The last two pages of posts have been specifically around the issue of "anything a contractor can do, CAP can do" which I think we've now come to accept just ain't the case.

Yes, nights and weekend work are the kind of thing CAP could do.  Now, can anyone make a list of likely night and weekend USAF support jobs?

I think they're referring more to KINDS of jobs, not how often they'd be filled. There would be a few limitations, but for the most part there are not many contractor or civilian employee jobs that a properly qual'd CAP member could help with on a limited time basis.

It's impossible to list the jobs, it's almost everything. All extra duty jobs just for starters. Probably 50% of AFSCs could theoretically be considered. Just about everything. I mean if you have a guy that retired from the AF a year ago & he's willing to come back & work a saturday or two a month & that makes things easier on the guys you got so they can keep up with their training or not have to stay late so often, well that's perfect. I think it's undefinable though. We can talk ideas & such, but honestly that's going to have to be an assessment by the AF down to the tactical level of where they most need the help, and then we're going to have to focus a bit. We can't do everything. It's going to be most workable if we partner with units for the bulk fo our work. They're doing that w/ combo guard/active units now. I thin that's probably a good example to follow.

If your goal is to put USAF retirees back to work, sure you could do almost anything.

But most CAP members don't have that background.

Please name the top 10 jobs you think CAP could actually fill to the satisfaction of USAF without the expenditure of additional USAF dollars (that would only come later, if we could show early successes).  Let's move this discussion out of the theorectical and into the practical.

[ddelaney103]

Please name the top 10 jobs you think CAP could actually fill to the satisfaction of USAF without the expenditure of additional USAF dollars (that would only come later, if we could show early successes).  Let's move this discussion out of the theorectical and into the practical.

Now, from the Home Office in Maxwell AFB, Alabama, the Top Ten List of CAP Augmentee positions.

Here we go....

#10 - Passing out towels/b-balls at the fitness center.

# 9 - Checking ID's at the Dining Facility

# 8 - Tool Crib Monitor

# 7 - Answering phones

# 6 - Night desk at the Air Force Lodge

# 5 - </David Letterman>Hmnn...would you believe the top _5_ jobs CAP can perform?

Sorry about that, Chief.</Maxwell Smart>

[Dragoon]

 

Seriously, does anyone have an ideas of things we could do on an Air Force base, given our limitations on training and availablity, that we could convince our members to actually DO in large enough numbers to make it count?

[DNall]

If your goal is to put USAF retirees back to work, sure you could do almost anything.

But most CAP members don't have that background.

Please name the top 10 jobs you think CAP could actually fill to the satisfaction of USAF without the expenditure of additional USAF dollars (that would only come later, if we could show early successes).  Let's move this discussion out of the theorectical and into the practical.

You're coming at this form an illogical direction. You cannot pick up a CAP member & toss them into a missile silo from scratch, no that's stupid.

Right now we do LOTs of things for the AF. You saw Kach talking about tour guides. You may have seen LtCol White around here talking about the EXTENSIVE assistance they've rendered their base. When I was at a guard base we did some beautification projects, aided in deployment prep for our host unit, lost & lots of stuff. Here locally a few years back we had a great relationship with the recruiting Squadron. We put people in the MEPS liaison office helping process applicants, did extensive work with recruiters, including going with them on school visits that benefitted us both.

All those things are already going on in CAP now, and have been going on over our entire history. The first step is accounting for what we do now, paired with pushing it up in scale & importance.

What we want to do is show that to the AF, then say we'd like to do more, look at these examples of augementation programs by SDFs & CGAux, look at these couple AWC papers that have been taken very seriously but CAP wasn't thought of as the resource to respond to these needs, look at these areas where we can make an impact w/ minimal investment which would be offset by savings, look at drawdown putting pressure on some commands & here's the opportunity to have extra labor in reserve to fill as needed so capability does suffer.

What comes out of that is the opportunity to get official training (much of which we can already do now), definition of the scope they want to use us in (that'll evolve with the program), and a coordination effort to select/train/place individuals.

Don't lump it all together & just say we can't stand watch in NORAD right now so it's not worth doing at all. It starts humble & builds up as we go.

[Dragoon]

If your goal is to put USAF retirees back to work, sure you could do almost anything.

But most CAP members don't have that background.

Please name the top 10 jobs you think CAP could actually fill to the satisfaction of USAF without the expenditure of additional USAF dollars (that would only come later, if we could show early successes).  Let's move this discussion out of the theorectical and into the practical.

You're coming at this form an illogical direction. You cannot pick up a CAP member & toss them into a missile silo from scratch, no that's stupid.

Nope, nothing stupid about it. You completely skipped the comment about "showing early successes."

Before we get anywhere CLOSE to that missle silo, you gotta show committment.  You won't get the dollars or support without it. 

So....you need low cost quick wins.

You need things we can do TODAY.  Without much extra money or training, to show we have the dedication and talent to warrant expanding the program.

Otherwise, you're just one of a million unfunded, untried bright ideas.

You make a lot of comments about all this high speed SDF augmentation that we should emulate - do you have any specific examples  of this? 

[DNall]

So....you need low cost quick wins.

You need things we can do TODAY.  Without much extra money or training, to show we have the dedication and talent to warrant expanding the program.

Otherwise, you're just one of a million unfunded, untried bright ideas.

You make a lot of comments about all this high speed SDF augmentation that we should emulate - do you have any specific examples  of this? 

Right now, and all along, we're doing thousands of hours a year spport to the AF, and that's not counting anything ES related.

I explained how this has to go, we have to get an accounting of that support, and we have to press units to push that kind of support up, particularly with recruiting service & base communities.

With that baseline showing a commitment w/o return, we can ask for more significnt responsibilities & explain the concept of a formal augmentation program. They're either going to buy that or they aren't. If they do then THEY will define the jobs & it will be small working up to large. CAP is totally powerless in this process. All we can do is get the ball rolling, after that everything is up to the AF.

SDFs vary widely &I'm talking about a good bit more highspeed than them as the objective here. However, I can give you some examples of what they do, though I only know about a couple states.
http://www.texasmedicalrangers.com/: These guys are basically a state controlled DMAT team. Va has the same thing & just a few month back deployed their med unit to Bosnia (voluntary) as I understand in support of their national guard units going over.

I've posted a bit about the TX Air Wing. They trained up SFs that guard ANG comm units & such - take correspondense work mentored by a retired SF, do OJT shadowing real SFs, do additional training, becoem rated in the AFSC & do the job. We won't be doing those kinds of LE roles, but I mention it because they train unpaid volunteers from scratch to AFSC rated & put them to work.

There's some units links around that'll show you aviation mechanics up to lawyers working wills, trusts, & family legal aid.

Here's some other random stuff:
http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/doings2.htm
http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/NTC1851.htm
http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/mpsalute.htm

The list is pretty endless, you just have to look around.

[fyrfitrmedic]

You're absolutely right - accounting is essential, particularly for man-hours unilized by personnel. This information should be available to both the organization and its stakeholders.

[SAR-EMT1]

^ Bump

[mikeylikey]

Bump it back to oblivion please!