Placing CAP under command of 1st Air Force

[RiverAux]

Every now and again we have a discussion about the proper administrative placement of CAP within the federal government.  Some favor keeping us right where we are underneath the Air University in the AF's Air Education and Training Command.  Others have advocated placing us under 1st Air Force since we have a strong "operational" component while others have talked about putting us under the National Guard Bureau or even transferring us to other federal agencies such as Homeland Security. 

Personally, I can understand why we're under AETC since one of our major missions is education, but considering that when we're "operational", we're working for the AFRCC, a 1st Air Force unit, during missions.  Would having CAP and CAP-USAF under 1st AF result in getting missions that we're not now?  Possibly. 

The opposite question also applies:  Do we really gain any signifcant benefits to our AE mission by being placed under AETC?  Not that I have seen.  I suspect that we would have just as much access to them if we were under 1st AF. 

I think in terms of visibility, we would be better off being a 1st AF unit.  After all, right now our 56K people are hidden down multiple layers below any "operational" decision makers.  While we have heard that CAP is getting mentioned regularly in 1st AF daily briefings, is that good enough? 

[Cecil DP]

 In my opinion CAP should have the same relationship to the Air Force as the CG Aux has with the Coast Guard. That is HQ USAF-CAP Commander reporting directly to the Air Staff, regarding CAP's capabilities, requirements, and abilities. Up until the early 60's CAP was a part of USAF Headquarters Command and had this relationship.

Of course we also had General Spaatz as the Chairman of the Board.

[IceNine]

That's a tuffy,
  2 of our chartered programs deal directly with education (CP and AE).  Only one of them has an operational component.  So to place us under another organization because we are operational seems a bit of a stretch.

[RiverAux]

As I'm fond of pointing out, these are the offiical purposes of the CAP:

1.  Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.
2.  Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
3.  To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
4.  To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
5.  To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
6.  To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.

Yes, quite a bit of what we do relates to education, but just what are we getting from AETC now that we wouldn't get were our organization somewhere else? 

[O-Rex]

Placing us under another command will not necessarily drive our operational capability: we have to gear-up for it. . .

History is in the making-what we do today drives where we are tomorrow.

[arajca]

The Air Staff reviewed this very topic a year or two ago. They determined CAP was appropriate were it is.

[RiverAux]

Perhaps they did, but since they didn't produce any sort of report on the issue available to us, theres no telling exactly how serious this "review" was.

Nevertheless, the AF isn't adverse to reversing their decisions on such things pretty quickly --- witness the AFRCC's short stay within Special Operations Command...

[Eagle400]

In my opinion CAP should have the same relationship to the Air Force as the CG Aux has with the Coast Guard. That is HQ USAF-CAP Commander reporting directly to the Air Staff, regarding CAP's capabilities, requirements, and abilities.

That would require Congressional action.  Congress is the only governing body that can approve of changes made to CAP's structure.

I'd like to see this happen as well as you do, but in order to do so you'd have to convince Congress that the corruption in CAP is actually worse than the corruption in Congress.  Not an easy thing to do.     

Up until the early 60's CAP was a part of USAF Headquarters Command and had this relationship.

Yes, and (unfortunately) I fear that the glory days of CAP are long gone and may never come back. 

[RiverAux]

No, not at all.  CAP and CAP-USAF have been moved around within the internal structure of the AF many, many times over its history.  No congressional action needed for that. 

[SAR-EMT1]

What visible changes would we see if we switch?

[JohnKachenmeister]

There WAS serious consideration given to placing CAP under the Air National Guard, but there were non-concurrences from the State AG's which centered on the fact that they did not want to be responsible for administering and supporting the cadet program.

[mikeylikey]

There WAS serious consideration given to placing CAP under the Air National Guard, but there were non-concurrences from the State AG's which centered on the fact that they did not want to be responsible for administering and supporting the cadet program.

HAHA......do they want FEDERAL $$....they will do what they are told.  I am shocked they were even given a say in the matter.  In fact, the NG should remove their "U S AIR FORCE", "U S ARMY", branch tapes.  They are not all federalized.  I say they should wear their state name in place on the branch tapes.

Where was this topic going......oh ya, move CAP?  YES......to the Coast Guard!

[ZigZag911]

I believe that we are under the "operational control" of 1stAF, but the administrative control of AU (or is it AETC again? I can't keep track!)

[RiverAux]

Basically that is correct.  The question before the group is whether it would benefit CAP and the AF to have CAP under administrative control of the 1st AF as well.

[SAR-EMT1]

I wouldnt want to see where NHQ would move. Nor do I want to lose the AFIADL courses.

[Eclipse]

There WAS serious consideration given to placing CAP under the Air National Guard, but there were non-concurrences from the State AG's which centered on the fact that they did not want to be responsible for administering and supporting the cadet program.

There was also an actual attempt (scuttle has it) to place us under HLS.  Assuming that's a good idea (which I don't' agree with), you still have issues with what to do with the cadets (who are a huge >asset<), and also funding.

Moving us anywhere else jeopardizes funding, especially with regards to the transition year and the losing and gaining agencies work out the changes to the budget legislation, etc.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Over the years there have been several attempts to move CAP.

In the 90's, when the FBI served search warrants at NHQ and some folks got into some trouble over re-selling military supplies, there was talk about transfering us to the USCG and consolidating all SAR/Drug Interdiction assets there.  The USCG was happy with that, since they would get our planes.  That didn't happen, though.

There was talk about transfering the CAP to the ANG, but the Air Staff bought into the non-concurrences of some state AG's.

There has been talk about transfering command and control to 1AF, but since we have an MOU with 1AF that accomplishes everything that operational control accomplishes, I don't think that talk is going anywhere.

I still like the Guard idea, but I'm kind of a lone voice in the wilderness on that issue. 

There has been talk, I don't know how serious, about making CAP a co-equal agency with the USCG in sort of an air arm of the Dept. of Homeland Security.  We would remain the "Auxiliary" of the USAF when tasked to perform a USAF mission, but any other federal mission would fall under DHS.  That (if you ask the grassy-knoll crowd) is why we have the new TPU uniform, to give us a military uniform separate from the USAF for when we become a separate service. 

You know, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."     

[ZigZag911]

What do they say about the grass always being greener elsewhere?

My vote is to leave well enough alone....I don't see any of the options mentioned benefitting us nationally....ANG connection could conceivably help some wings, while not others.

[mikeylikey]

There has been talk, I don't know how serious, about making CAP a co-equal agency with the USCG in sort of an air arm of the Dept. of Homeland Security.  We would remain the "Auxiliary" of the USAF when tasked to perform a USAF mission, but any other federal mission would fall under DHS.  That (if you ask the grassy-knoll crowd) is why we have the new TPU uniform, to give us a military uniform separate from the USAF for when we become a separate service. 

You know, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."     

I would support!  I think there would be many that would support it as well.  Hell....having a Federal Agency/ Department that gets the current funding we have now, and all of the personell are volunteers would be great!  It would also mean we could return the "US" to our lapels in place of the "CAP" cutouts on the TPU.

I would also support us loosing AF AUX status permanently if we became a separate agency!  We could still have a Cadet Program, but one that is geared more to Homeland Defense and Security.

I wish this were real.....as in......I hope there is a discussion about this going on somewhere.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I doubt that the USAF would give up the cadet program, nor should we abandon our traditions lightly. 

But... the USCG falls under the Navy Dept. when performing Navy missions, I see no reason why the  (US)CAP could not parallel the USCG... attached to the USAF for AF missions, and under DHS for all other purposes.

[CadetProgramGuy]

I doubt that the USAF would give up the cadet program, nor should we abandon our traditions lightly. 

But... the USCG falls under the Navy Dept. when performing Navy missions, I see no reason why the  (US)CAP could not parallel the USCG... attached to the USAF for AF missions, and under DHS for all other purposes.

Not exactly......The USCG is under the DOT, unless we are in a time of war, then they are under the Navy.

[Eagle400]

Not exactly......The USCG is under the DOT, unless we are in a time of war, then they are under the Navy.

Actually, the USCG is under DHS.  It was moved from DOT to DHS shortly after 9/11. 

[davedove]

Not exactly......The USCG is under the DOT, unless we are in a time of war, then they are under the Navy.

Actually, the USCG is under DHS.  It was moved from DOT to DHS shortly after 9/11. 

Correct, USCG is now under DHS, except when placed under the Navy in war.

By the way, this is one of the review questions for the AFIADL 13 that is now wrong, so if you're studying for this, remember the old relationship.

[JayT]

I doubt that the USAF would give up the cadet program, nor should we abandon our traditions lightly. 

But... the USCG falls under the Navy Dept. when performing Navy missions, I see no reason why the  (US)CAP could not parallel the USCG... attached to the USAF for AF missions, and under DHS for all other purposes.

The Air Force has another cadet program, don't forget.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Yes, I know.  That is the school-based JROTC program.

However, the CAP cadet program is far more successful.

[Falshrmjgr]

Yes, I know.  That is the school-based JROTC program.

However, the CAP cadet program is far more successful.

I remember my AFJROTC Squadron had 120 Cadets (CA-11), when my CAP Squadron (Marin Composite Squadron 4) had like 12.  More successful???  I think that really depends on when and where.

[JayT]

Yes, I know.  That is the school-based JROTC program.

However, the CAP cadet program is far more successful.

At what?

I've seen JROTC cadet units that would kick the average CAP unit up and down the block, but I haven't seen many CAP units who are even able to parade the entire squadron in the same uniform.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Anecdotally, yes.  There are some highly successful JROTC units and some poor CAP squadrons.

But overall, nationwide, CAP is more succesful than JROTC because of our more-flexible community base, and the more intense leadership training which is developed by placing cadets on actual missions and expecting them to perform.

[RiverAux]

But... the USCG falls under the Navy Dept. when performing Navy missions, I see no reason why the  (US)CAP could not parallel the USCG... attached to the USAF for AF missions, and under DHS for all other purposes.

Many problems with this idea...
1.  As you correctly pointed out, the cadet program would be a big issue.  There is no reason for DHS to fund a cadet program aimed at the AF.  However, the AF might not fight it since they've already got 3x as many kids in JROTC and they're been cutting AF size for years - and will continue to do so.

2.  DHS already has a military auxiliary in the CG Aux.  Granted, the CG Aux focuses almost all of its effort supporting the CG and aren't really used to supplement DHS in general.  However, they could always expand use of CG Aux if they needed more civilian volunteers and actually given the already authorized ability of the CG to turn Auxies into Temporary Reservists, the CG Aux is potentially more flexible in how it could be used by DHS. 

2A.  The CG Aux already has an aviation program, which while I think it is far inferior to CAP's capabilities is there.  Why would they want to take on CAP and pay for all our planes, etc?

3.  DHS already is forming Homeland Security Air Wings made up primarily of light aircraft supplemented with technology beyond what CAP has.  If anything these Air Wings will slowly be driving CAP out of the limited HLS missions we've got now except those directly related to AF activities. 

4.  I just don't think the Navy/CG relationship would be a good parallel for a DHS/CAP/AF relationship if CAP was administered by DHS, but used by the AF.  Right now almost all of our federal missions relate to AF missions.  So, why would DHS want to be involved.  This would be akin to DHS paying for the CG but hardly ever using it for DHS purposes.  If 95% of CG missions were being directed by the Navy, they would just transfer the whole CG over to the Navy. 

[JayT]

Anecdotally, yes.  There are some highly successful JROTC units and some poor CAP squadrons.

But overall, nationwide, CAP is more succesful than JROTC because of our more-flexible community base, and the more intense leadership training which is developed by placing cadets on actual missions and expecting them to perform.

What if I never want to do a single day of ES training through? Am I failing as a cadet?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Anecdotally, yes.  There are some highly successful JROTC units and some poor CAP squadrons.

But overall, nationwide, CAP is more succesful than JROTC because of our more-flexible community base, and the more intense leadership training which is developed by placing cadets on actual missions and expecting them to perform.

What if I never want to do a single day of ES training through? Am I failing as a cadet?

OK, you guys are right.  Our cadet program, is a failure.  We're lost.  Lets quit.

[SAR-EMT1]

Over the years there have been several attempts to move CAP.

In the 90's, when the FBI served search warrants at NHQ and some folks got into some trouble over re-selling military supplies, there was talk about transfering us to the USCG and consolidating all SAR/Drug Interdiction assets there.  The USCG was happy with that, since they would get our planes.  That didn't happen, though.

There was talk about transfering the CAP to the ANG, but the Air Staff bought into the non-concurrences of some state AG's.

There has been talk about transfering command and control to 1AF, but since we have an MOU with 1AF that accomplishes everything that operational control accomplishes, I don't think that talk is going anywhere.

I still like the Guard idea, but I'm kind of a lone voice in the wilderness on that issue. 

There has been talk, I don't know how serious, about making CAP a co-equal agency with the USCG in sort of an air arm of the Dept. of Homeland Security.  We would remain the "Auxiliary" of the USAF when tasked to perform a USAF mission, but any other federal mission would fall under DHS.  That (if you ask the grassy-knoll crowd) is why we have the new TPU uniform, to give us a military uniform separate from the USAF for when we become a separate service. 

You know, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."     

If this happens would we become in effect the "Eighth Uniformed Service"? Would we recieve Commissions or Appointments? Lose any of our three primary missions?
Be eligible for items such as the National Defense Medal?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Calen, your guesses are as valid as mine.  I would like to point out that this discussion is a lot more than wild conjecture.

We have moved all the way to uninformed speculation!

[JohnKachenmeister]

But... the USCG falls under the Navy Dept. when performing Navy missions, I see no reason why the  (US)CAP could not parallel the USCG... attached to the USAF for AF missions, and under DHS for all other purposes.

Many problems with this idea...
1.  As you correctly pointed out, the cadet program would be a big issue.  There is no reason for DHS to fund a cadet program aimed at the AF.  However, the AF might not fight it since they've already got 3x as many kids in JROTC and they're been cutting AF size for years - and will continue to do so.

2.  DHS already has a military auxiliary in the CG Aux.  Granted, the CG Aux focuses almost all of its effort supporting the CG and aren't really used to supplement DHS in general.  However, they could always expand use of CG Aux if they needed more civilian volunteers and actually given the already authorized ability of the CG to turn Auxies into Temporary Reservists, the CG Aux is potentially more flexible in how it could be used by DHS. 

2A.  The CG Aux already has an aviation program, which while I think it is far inferior to CAP's capabilities is there.  Why would they want to take on CAP and pay for all our planes, etc?

3.  DHS already is forming Homeland Security Air Wings made up primarily of light aircraft supplemented with technology beyond what CAP has.  If anything these Air Wings will slowly be driving CAP out of the limited HLS missions we've got now except those directly related to AF activities. 

4.  I just don't think the Navy/CG relationship would be a good parallel for a DHS/CAP/AF relationship if CAP was administered by DHS, but used by the AF.  Right now almost all of our federal missions relate to AF missions.  So, why would DHS want to be involved.  This would be akin to DHS paying for the CG but hardly ever using it for DHS purposes.  If 95% of CG missions were being directed by the Navy, they would just transfer the whole CG over to the Navy. 

Point #2 (and 2A):  No argument there.  But, since the change we are discussing would require Congressional action to change the charter and status of CAP, anything can happen.  CG Aux Air (at least from what my sources tell me) is increasingly dysfunctional.  The CG could transfer its AuxAir missions to a newly-reorganized CAP under DHS.  CG would not then be paying, but DHS would.

Point #3:  Or, CAP would be re-formed under DHS with a "Regular" component (The new DHS Air Wings) and an "Auxiliary" component (us, augmenting the "Regular" component with our light aircraft and with softer technology requiring less training)  See point #2 that all prior bets are off once Congress goes to work.

Point #4:  Any federal mission currently flown by CAP is flown as an auxiliary of the Air Force.  That is current law.  That doesn't mean the AF is paying.  DHS can pay for the mission, and the AF in turn, pays CAP.  The advantage (and as far as I can see the ONLY real advantage) is that if CAP were transfered to be a DHS asset, then the Posse Commitatus Act would not apply to us.  But, if the AF had an inland SAR mission, and Congress did not transfer inland SAR to DHS along with CAP, then CAP assets could be placed under AF control, just as CG assets are placed under Navy control to conduct Navy missions.

Don't read me as an advocate for this "CAP to DHS" plan.  I'm just making observations regarding its viability.  I still think CAP is a better fit under the ANG with cadet programs managed separate from the state chain of command directly from NHQ.

[Skyray]

CG Aux Air (at least from what my sources tell me) is increasingly dysfunctional.  The CG could transfer its AuxAir missions to a newly-reorganized CAP under DHS.  CG would not then be paying, but DHS would.

Although you might get that impression from on line discussions, I think it is only dysfunctional in one small area near you.  My personal opinion is that is because the District Staff Officer (Air) was pollinated with the Florida Wing paradigm by the Major General who-shall-not-be-named and the Air Wing in south Florida has never recovered.  New Jersey has a exemplary program as well as San Francisco and the Florida Panhandle/Mississippi-Alabama Gulf Coast.  Flip over to Military dot com and read some of the old posts by Flyandscuba about some of his missions.  There is an issue that some of the pilots were flying junk heaps, and they were actively resisting a safety program that would put the junk heaps in the barn.  The Coast Guard dictated maintenance to commercial standards about ten months ago, and hopefully the junk heap problem is solved.  Even south Florida has started to improve lately.

[RiverAux]

Any federal mission currently flown by CAP is flown as an auxiliary of the Air Force.

advantage (and as far as I can see the ONLY real advantage) is that if CAP were transfered to be a DHS asset, then the Posse Commitatus Act would not apply to us. 

Sorry, Kach, you can't have it both ways...If we were to transfer CAP to DHS we would have to change that little aspect of that law, otherwise it would mean that even while supporting DHS (our supposed parent agency), it would have to be done while working for the AF.  Wouldn't make much sense.  Also, this would have to be changed because if any federal mission still had to be done as an AFAM, then posse comitatus would still apply even though we were part of DHS. As long as we would be going in there to change the other laws, that would have to be changed too.   

I agree with skyray, that I don't think CG Aux Air is dysfunctional.  I think a lot of it is unnecessary and redundant.   For the sake of this argument I was just pointing out that DHS already has volunteer pilots that can do some of what CAP could do for them.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

River:

I did not make myself clear.

Yes, the LAW would have to be changed, since the law puts us under the USAF for all federal missions at this time.  We would require Congressional action and Presidential approval for a change.  But that which Congress created, Congress can modify.

I would see this as the likely outcome:

Missions flown as a DHS asset:

--  All Counterdrug.
--  All Disaster Relief
--  All Training, except for SAR-specific training
--  Border Patrol
--  Law Enforcement Support
--  Humanitarian missions, blood/organ runs, etc.

Missions flows as AF Aux:

--  Inland SAR, (If AF retains that mission)
--  Cadet orientation flights

[JohnKachenmeister]

So...

AF calls up CAP as an Auxiliary to search around a wilderness campground for a missing 8-year old.  (USAF Mission)

While we are up, a ransom note is recieved.  This mission now is a Law Enforcement mission, and the USAF (including us in the auxiliary) cannot do it.  We must land and abandon the mission.

But...

If CAP was under DHS, WE would continue the mission, but the AF would not.  We would revert to our "Default" status as DHS, and continue searching in support of the FBI.

My point is that we could also do this as a part of the Air National Guard, provided the governor wanted to fund the flight under his Title 36 authority.

[BillB]

Great, you move CAP under DHS. and your membership drops 45%. How you ask, DHS does not have a cadet program so all cadets would lose membership. (DHS through FEMA has a minimum age of 18) Eevryone seems to forget there are three missions of CAP, and all they look at is flying and who pays for it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I agree with you, Bill.

I do not like this proposal, I was only speculating on how it would work.

As far as the cadets are concerned, it wouldn't work at all.

And without our cadets, CAP's future officer corps won't exist.  Just check your own units and see how many of your officers started out as cadets.

I'm guessing about 60-70 percent.

[SarDragon]

I agree with you, Bill.

I do not like this proposal, I was only speculating on how it would work.

As far as the cadets are concerned, it wouldn't work at all.

And without our cadets, CAP's future officer corps won't exist.  Just check your own units and see how many of your officers started out as cadets.

I'm guessing about 60-70 percent.

That varies from unit to unit. In senior squadrons, you will probably have a lower percentage. I think we have about 15% former cadets in my unit. Cadet and composite squadrons are probably higher. I would debate 60-70%, though. Seems high.

[thefischNX01]

My unit, a composite squadron, has zero percent former cadets in it's senior pool.  Maybe that's over the top, but I too agree that 60-70% is a high estimation. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

It WAS a guess, and I did zero research before making that wild speculation.  So I can't go to the wall with it.  But I strongly suspect at least half of our officers have a cadet background.  In some cases you may have to ask them about it.  We have a few who had like a 30 year break between cadet and CAP officer.  Those 30 years are sometimes called their "Lives," and it is rumored that people not in CAP actually have such things.

[Skyray]

Around here, it seems like former cadets suddenly have an epiphany when they have kids of their own turning eleven or twelve.  Like Kach, my data is anecdotal, but I can point to eight or ten just in my small universe.  Must have been some really outstanding leadership around here say twenty or thirty years ago.

[Dragoon]

This is why I like the NG option.

The National Guard is like a microcosm of the military.  They do operations and training.  And they operate on a local, CONUS level, often coordinating with state governments and agencies.  But when needed, they do federal stuff.

Just like us.

[JohnKachenmeister]

That's why I think CAP is a better fit there.

Both CAP and the NG have a "Dual" mission.  The NG is authorized under title 32 to perform missions as the state's military force, and under title 10 as a federal force.

CAP is authorized under title 36 to serve as a state OR local air arm, but also serves as a federal asset under tiotle 10.