How Valuable is CAP to the Air Force?

[Eagle400]

Okay, so I was a cadet in CAP for 8 years... earned the Earhart... became a distinguished grad from COS... made lots of cool friends... and have a great resume because of my volunteer service.

But there is one question I never found the answer to, and that is: how valuable is CAP to the Air Force?

As a cadet, I never took the time to examine CAP's relationship with the Air Force; it was only after I got out that I began to form an interest in this.  I suppose this is because I was married to the mission and not the organization.

From what I have read online, the relationship between CAP and the Air Force was much better in years past (and by that, I mean years before I was even born).  I'm not sure exactly why, but some of the friction is due to issues that have already been discussed at length in other threads.     

But despite all that, how valuable is CAP to the Air Force?  Perhaps an even better question is, how can CAP become more valuable to the Air Force?           

[lordmonar]

Well operationally we save the USAF millions each year.

How can we be more valuable to the USAF....well that is up to the USAF to figure which missions we can help them with.

[Eagle400]

Well operationally we save the USAF millions each year.

That's all well and dandy, and I have no doubt that CAP is a cost-effective force multiplier for the Air Force.

However, given that CAP is so valuable as a cost-effective force multiplier, why would the Air Force not recognize CAP for sending members down to the Gulf Coast to provide disaster relief and humanitarian aid to the beleagured victims of Hurricane Katrina?

Seems like a slap in the face if you ask me. 

When I was in AFROTC, I went on a Summer PDT to Keesler and participated in humanitarian aid in Biloxi by helping a family rebuild their home, which the hurricane totally demolished the year prior to us coming (2006).  Before we even started on the project, the PR lady for Habitat for Humanity (the group we worked with) got our contact info so she could write an article for each of our local newspapers.

I spent about (if I remember correctly) between 3 and 5 hours helping put in a new floor, reframe a door, move tools and supplies, and do other building tasks.  After helping the family rebuild their home, we went back to Habitat for Humanity's HQ, took a group picture, and made statements to the PR lady to be included in each respective newspaper article.

When I got back home, I submitted the article and a photo of me working to go with it.  Not only did my county newspaper publish the story, but they published it throughout the entire county.  I was grateful, and did not expect the article to be published outside of my hometown.

So it is unfair and unjust that I was only doing humanitarian aid for 5 hours at the most, and still got more publicity than the hundreds of CAP volunteers who went down to the Gulf Coast and invested more time and energy in humanitarian aid and disaster relief. 

How can we be more valuable to the USAF....well that is up to the USAF to figure which missions we can help them with.

I agree.  Are there any suggestions on how to do this that the Air Force >might< consider?

[Short Field]

Lets see... as of 1 Apr, 1st AF has flown 48,688 sorties for a total of 183,214 flying hours.  CAP counted for 1,082 of these sorties.   That is is just 1st AF, not the whole USAF. 

I was briefed on CAP while in basic training.  Mainly what CAP was and that if you ever happened to see one in uniform wearing officer rank, you were suppose to salute them.  Other than that, I never heard or saw anything to do with CAP until after I retired from the AF and started looking for something interesting  to do.   

CAP performs great missions - but it is just a very small part of a big USAF that accomplishes great misisons every day.  There are lots of people serving in mission areas in the USAF that never get public recognition.  So what is the big deal - are you in it for the recognition or accomplishing the mission?

Check out 1st AF's web site and you will see CAP getting recognized.

[Eagle400]

Check out 1st AF's web site and you will see CAP getting recognized.

Check out the Air Force's historical study on Hurricane Katrina and you will find no mention of CAP.

For more info, click here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4101.0

[Cecil DP]

I think if it was up to the Air Force we would have a bar sinister on our crest.

[jpnelson82]

I'm not so sure what our value is to the AF, aside from helping recruit, many cadets do go on to join the real AF, don't they. They say 5% of a USAFA class were CAP cadets, and I'd bet about the same number of NCO's were. All other academies and NCO's probably total 5% The inland SAR stuff does some good for the real AF... but how much  I can't say. I've heard the real AF prefers to work with us because we are "their guys" in the event of an AF plane crashing. So... draw your own conclusions about our value. Just... don't let John McCain make us part of the DOT, that would break the CAP

[BillB]

My paper for Air War College in 1972 looked at this question. For SAR and ES operations, USAF relys heavily on CAP. For Recruiting, CAP is not that much value. Using the 1965 Florida Wing Encampments, I found that of the cadets that eneterd the military 55% went into the Army. Keep in mind this was during the Viet Nam war.  The reason most often given was the Army offered a way to fly without a college degree.  During this period USAF support of CAP was much greater with AD USAF personnel assigned to every Wing as USAF-CAP Liaison officers and NCO's. Airlift was available with little problem.
Both CAP and USAF have changed since this period. USAF due to downsizing, and CAP due to corporate styructure. And thus CAP has moved away from the full time USAF Auxiliary. CAP still has value to USAF, but not to the extent of previous years.

[DogCollar]

I mean absolutely no disrespect by what I am about to write...but, these discussions about our value to the Air Force, and why we aren't receiving the attention we think we deserve, is...well, unhealthy! 

Fact is, we HAVE an ongoing relationship with the USAF.  Sometimes it's really good, sometimes not so good.  They have given us our missions, our parameters, and much of the resources for carrying out those missions.  I say let's do them to the very best of our ability...be proud of what we do...and stop being so anxiety ridden as an organization.  My .02.

[DNall]

why would the Air Force not recognize CAP for sending members down to the Gulf Coast to provide disaster relief and humanitarian aid to the beleagured victims of Hurricane Katrina?

They didn't do that for the AF. The big mission we did was for the state of MS. The rest was a montage of corporate mission to make sure our own people were okay, non-distress ELTs, and a very little bit of photo recon well after the storm. In other words, we did very little & not significant in the big picture. No lives were saved by our being there.

When I was in AFROTC, I went on a Summer PDT to Keesler and participated in humanitarian aid in Biloxi by helping a family rebuild their home, which the hurricane totally demolished the year prior to us coming (2006).  Before we even started on the project, the PR lady for Habitat for Humanity (the group we worked with) got our contact info so she could write an article for each of our local newspapers.

I spent about (if I remember correctly) between 3 and 5 hours helping put in a new floor, reframe a door, move tools and supplies, and do other building tasks.  After helping the family rebuild their home, we went back to Habitat for Humanity's HQ, took a group picture, and made statements to the PR lady to be included in each respective newspaper article.

When I got back home, I submitted the article and a photo of me working to go with it.  Not only did my county newspaper publish the story, but they published it throughout the entire county.  I was grateful, and did not expect the article to be published outside of my hometown.

So it is unfair and unjust that I was only doing humanitarian aid for 5 hours at the most, and still got more publicity than the hundreds of CAP volunteers who went down to the Gulf Coast and invested more time and energy in humanitarian aid and disaster relief. 

You're talking about a good PR person versus the quality of PAOs across CAP. Is it unfair? Sure. Does that discrimination have anything to do with what the AF thinks of us or what anyone else thinks of what we do or who we are? Not at all. It's just good PAOs versus lazy ones.

How can we be more valuable to the USAF....well that is up to the USAF to figure which missions we can help them with.

While that is technically true, we shouldn't be waiting around for the AF to come to us with new ways to utilize CAP. That's jsut not going to happen. We're not on their radar of alternative resources. CAP has to be proactive in finding needs the AF is looking at & proposing ways in which CAP can be applied to help with those items. The new cyber command is one example I've talked about before. VSAF will eventually become a good spring board for many of these kinds of items.

[isuhawkeye]

I'm not so sure what our value is to the AF, aside from helping recruit, many cadets do go on to join the real AF, don't they. They say 5% of a USAFA class were CAP cadets

Basing a national organization on recruiting is dangerous.  If CAP accounts for only 5% of the academy class then that is a significant decrease.  We use to be in the teens (I don't have a site in front of me), and as I recall 5% has traditionally been the realm of the scouts.  If CAP's recruitment numbers have fallen to the same value as the scouts, CAP is in trouble. 

I use to work very closely with the military explorer program in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Indiana.  They built a program on recruitment.  After a few years the generals got together crunched the numbers and found that the "recruitment" effort was not cost affective, and the program devolved. 



When Col. Hodgkins came to Iowa he made it very clear that CAP was very valuable to the Air Force, and that value was Emergency Services.  Specifically ELT missions. 

[BillB]

The last figures I saw from NHQ was 10% of the USAFA cadets were former CAP Cadets.

[Smokey]

I think our value varies. It depends on who you talk to.  Yes the AF bean counters love us because we are a cheap way to handle ES missions and ELTs in particular. But a large portion of the Air Force  doesn't know we exist.  I'm surprised by the number of enlisted and officers I meet who have no idea what CAP is or that we are the AF Aux.

Part of it is our own fault for not promoting ourselves but we are also our worst enemy too.  By that I mean some of our members act less than professionally, do stooopid stuff, look like they just fell off the trash truck, and represent CAP and the AF in a less than desirable manner. When that happens, the AF rightfully wants to distance themselves from that person and the organization.  We fail to live up to their expectation as a member of the military family.  We embarrass them.

While this is not true of all members, it doesn't take more than one or two to make the AF think...what a group of Bozos.  The one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch axiom.  We have those members who think of CAP as a flying club, social club, etc. who do not care about appearance, their actions, etc.  The AF  rightfully wants to distance themselves from the organization when that happens.

We need collectively to get our act together.  Shape up not only our appearance, professionally speaking, but our actions.

Maybe we need to be more discerning in who we let join. In my almost 11 years in CAP, my squadron only rejected 3 applicants that I know of. But we accepted some real boffos. Some I'm sure the AF would be very embarrassed to know they were associated with.

If we want to be more valuable, we need to first look at what we are offering to the AF.

[tribalelder]

We have value to the USAF as long as inland SAR is on the USAF's 'plate'.  SAR, at least domestically, is not part of USAF's 'core business' and would divert manpower and equipment and setting up the USAF 'network' to do this task would mean a lot of folks in far flung locations waiting for something to happen (HIGH OVERHEAD).   USAF has pretty effectively 'subcontracted' the full job, from IC level down to CAP.  As long as there is SEARCH in the task, USAF needs us-we are cost-effective.

If FEMA was responsible for inland SAR, it would just 'subcontract' it to the state's SAR authority, who would pass it down, through mutual aid agreements, to local PD/FD's.  With 406 ELT's, a lot of the search will be gone.  If you KNOW the location with 100 yards, you don't need search, you need rescue, and local first responders are the logical choice. 

[capchiro]

I think in the overall scheme of things we are good for the Air Force for the recruiting end and USAFA part of it.  We do introduce young people into aviation and the military which is a good thing for the Air Force.  Air Force needs change and there is not the size of force now that there was.  There may be a need in the future and some of our cadets will fill that role.  We also play a bigger role than a lot of you know with counterdrug and with playing with the Air Force fighters in an intruder type of role.  The Air Force respects the heck out of us in these roles and the type of personnel participating are not your squadron flunkies.  They are highly trained professional personnel.  We do get the occasional less than highly desirable at the squadron level, but we are a volunteer organization and still need logistic officers (just to pick a slot, not demeaning to logistic officers, etc.) and others to attend meetings routinely and keep up the scud work.  We all work together and we are all higher on the Air Force respect list than we think, so let's all just keep on keeping on. 

[CAP Producer]

Very well put Col Siegrist.

[JoeTomasone]

I think our value varies. It depends on who you talk to.  Yes the AF bean counters love us because we are a cheap way to handle ES missions and ELTs in particular. But a large portion of the Air Force  doesn't know we exist.  I'm surprised by the number of enlisted and officers I meet who have no idea what CAP is or that we are the AF Aux.

Agreed.   We just finished up an airshow at an AFB and during the planning meetings and event we were thanked constantly by AF personnel - but to balance this, the Airman that I signed out radios from for our use - who had us down as "Civil Air Patrol" on his paperwork, and saw me in uniform multiple times - asked me what we were and what we do.  Now, I don't fault him for not knowing and commend him for inquiring - but it was kinda surreal all at the same time. 

I was briefed on CAP while in basic training.  Mainly what CAP was and that if you ever happened to see one in uniform wearing officer rank, you were suppose to salute them.

Interesting, since AD military personnel are NOT required to render customs and courtesies to CAP members - but can if they desire.   CAP members, however, are required to render to AD when grade-appropriate.

[DNall]

The last figures I saw from NHQ was 10% of the USAFA cadets were former CAP Cadets.

This is the number that's constantly quoted, though that's as accurate & up to date as 90% of inland SaR. The truth is I don't know what the current percentage trends look like. What I do know is that number includes all cadets that have EVER been part of CAP at any time, not ones coming direct from the program. If the kid was a CAP cadet for one year when they were 12, then never associated with it again, that counts in this number. The number quoted for other service acads is 5%.

As far as NCOs, it's not close to 5%. The quantity of NCOs out there versus the number of CAP cadets... it's not remotely possible.

If you take the number of cadets we have nationally & divide that up by year group so you can see a number graduating HS each year, it's not enough to be significant in any recruiting category. You need to increase the program size by 4-5 times at min to be even a minimal force.


As far as ES... if CAP didn't take ELT missions, the AF wouldn't launch sorties to find them. The mission belongs to the states. The AF is obligated to provide AFRCC & to facilitate federal assistance when states can't do it for themselves. That's why in most cases the state gets the call first & then refers it to CAP.

Certainly if you assumed the AF would fly all those hours with C130s then we're saving them millions upon millions, but I think we all know that would not be the case.

I'm not saying CAP is useless, it certainly is not, but what it contributes to the AF is small, and in the big picture of all the AF does it's very very small. If you want them running around kissing your butt for being a volunteer, you're way off base. If you want more public exposure, train & motivate quality PAOs.

[Flying Pig]

I have never understood the issue behind the "they didnt recognize us" argument.  Who cares.  They recognize us every year when they fund our training, our missions and buy us G-1000' and Airvans.  They recognize us by having us do what they do.  WADS mission, soon to be flying UAV escorts, CD, SAR, Disaster Response, all funded by the government.  But they don't appreciate us?  Some of you must be pretty high maintenance employees in your civilian jobs.

[Smithsonia]

Might I suggest that as far as the Air Force goes we have a limited future. As more and more gadgets, satellites, and communications roll out... a large force in unsustainable and unnecessary. The same is true in the military US/Air Force itself. More gadgets mean fewer people.

Because of this -- We should embrace Homeland Security and all of their various missions, even more. If you look at CAP in its historical perspective we didn't start as a US Air Force Aux... we started as planes and pilots in search of a mission. We got the SAR account after showing what we could do and how efficiently/cheaply we could do it. We bombed Subs, of course, but we also ran lunch counters at little airports, drove bomber crews to hotels, and acted as the Pony Express as the CAP Courier Service in WW2. Some of these missions had glory attached and some did not. SO, for our own future, we should be flexible, nimble, and adroitly helpful to the country's needs. We should:
1. Become more directly connected to all things Homeland Security wise.
2. Lobby for funds through HS. and support their funding requests.
3. Do what is needed for the Air Force, certainly -- even as their need of us dwindles.
4. Get better and more professional at everything we do.
5. Expand our tasking to include things we don't yet even think about.
6. Work to fill every void and hole in Homeland Security.
7. Help establish and expand our culture, with its rich history into HS which has little and varied cultures and history.

How to do this is already modeled by the Red Cross and Coast Guard both of which offer
lifesaving awards, for instance, to otherwise competing agencies. Offer assistance, schools, training, and certifications to organizations in an out-of-the-box way. No one thinks the Red Cross or Coast Guard are anachronisms. Each has rallied behind (for the most part) Homeland Security. Each is getting new and expanding mission horizons. Each is reformulating themselves to accommodate new "holes" and new needs. I'm just a minor player and newbie at CAP... but I've got experience at other agencies mentioned above. Give it some thought. Gill Robb Wilson was certainly a mission entrepreneur -- We should be too.
We may or not be valuable to the Air Force. We need to be very important to the country. 
With regards;
ED O'BRIEN

[Short Field]

[

I was briefed on CAP while in basic training.  Mainly what CAP was and that if you ever happened to see one in uniform wearing officer rank, you were suppose to salute them.

Interesting, since AD military personnel are NOT required to render customs and courtesies to CAP members - but can if they desire.   CAP members, however, are required to render to AD when grade-appropriate.

When your Training Instructor tells you something - you just take it for granted.  Something about a "slick-sleeve" vs Zebra Stripes.  Of course that was many years ago - I keep hearing that kids are different today.

[DNall]

^ kinda like missiles mean no more dogfighting huh?

SO, for our own future, we should be flexible, nimble, and adroitly helpful to the country's needs.

That's always true.

We should:
1. Become more directly connected to all things Homeland Security wise.
2. Lobby for funds through HS. and support their funding requests.
3. Do what is needed for the Air Force, certainly -- even as their need of us dwindles.
4. Get better and more professional at everything we do.
5. Expand our tasking to include things we don't yet even think about.
6. Work to fill every void and hole in Homeland Security.
7. Help establish and expand our culture, with its rich history into HS which has little and varied cultures and history.

Those items in & of themselves aren't bad, but the same mission dwindle you fear with AF would be even more pronounced with DHS. Plus, does already represent a threat to DHS funding of their own internal air resources. If anything, DHS would want the disassembly of CAP & redistribution of our resources to states. There's a plan for everything in the govt, and one does happen to exist to do just such a thing.

All I'm saying is certainly we can & should aid with the HLS mission to the extent we can without selling our soul, but there really is a much less there than most people seem to think. It's not the answer for the future of CAP.

As far as the dwindle of AF missions. Yes of course we adapt to other ways to serve that sponsor, we should be aggressively doing that already. But, if the time comes when we're no longer useful to them, then we need to accept that & shut the org down. The life & survival of CAP is not a mission. Accomplishing these AF objectives for the country is.

[Smithsonia]

DNall said:
"All I'm saying is certainly we can & should aid with the HLS mission to the extent we can without selling our soul, but there really is a much less there than most people seem to think. It's not the answer for the future of CAP"

Ed O'Brien says;
I've had many jobs in my career. So has CAP. Institutions do NOT have "souls". People do. Confusing the two is detrimental to both. I work for many institutions designed for preservation. Historical Societies are great. Here, in CAP, I was hoping to find a bit more progressive thinking. Gill Robb Wilson was very progressive. Gill Robb Wilson was a "sign up and I'll figure it out on the backside mission entrepreneur". I was hoping to find more GRW's and fewer uniform models. If CAP doesn't get the mission right and doesn't seek its "soul" by performing missions... then CAP will be archived and produce nothing more than items for veneration. Don't forget the US Marshals institutional lethargy created the FBI, who then missed the opportunity though institutional restriction put on by Congress post Watergate, missed the chance to become the DEA too --  Meaning, there will be more UAVs, CAVs, and UCAVs. There will be fewer AF pilots bailing out and fewer Civilian Pilots lost in a 20,000 sq. mile search grid. If that's all we do... we'll get bored and die. We can't expect the country to pay for a retired military pilots flying club.

CAP is CAP... we have been US AF Aux for about 60 of our 66 years. Once again we ARE planes and volunteer Pilots (ground teams too) in search of vital missions. As in; "America, what can we do for you? You name it, we'll try it." There is much work to do. I don't care for which Federal, State, or Local institution I work as long as the work I volunteer for is necessary to my country. I suggest CAP define itself through missions not heraldry. Otherwise I can join Four Mile Historical Park down the street... as a docent and save the 30 mile drive to the airport.

I imagine there are good people on both sides of this argument. I await their input respectfully. ED OBRIEN

[jimmydeanno]

You know, I never looked at what I do for CAP and wondered..."How valuable am I to the USAF?"  I always asked myself, "Is what I am doing valuable to my community?"

My answer to that is what directs my actions and course in CAP.

[JayT]

You know, I never looked at what I do for CAP and wondered..."How valuable am I to the USAF?"  I always asked myself, "Is what I am doing valuable to my community?"

My answer to that is what directs my actions and course in CAP.

I agree completely.

I think CAP should try and........orient itself more towards local and community operations.

Americas Hometown Air Force!

[DNall]

I've had many jobs in my career. So has CAP. Institutions do NOT have "souls". People do. Confusing the two is detrimental to both. I work for many institutions designed for preservation. Historical Societies are great. Here, in CAP, I was hoping to find a bit more progressive thinking. Gill Robb Wilson was very progressive. Gill Robb Wilson was a "sign up and I'll figure it out on the backside mission entrepreneur". I was hoping to find more GRW's and fewer uniform models. If CAP doesn't get the mission right and doesn't seek its "soul" by performing missions... then CAP will be archived and produce nothing more than items for veneration. Don't forget the US Marshals institutional lethargy created the FBI, who then missed the opportunity though institutional restriction put on by Congress post Watergate, missed the chance to become the DEA too --  Meaning, there will be more UAVs, CAVs, and UCAVs. There will be fewer AF pilots bailing out and fewer Civilian Pilots lost in a 20,000 sq. mile search grid. If that's all we do... we'll get bored and die. We can't expect the country to pay for a retired military pilots flying club.

CAP is CAP... we have been US AF Aux for about 60 of our 66 years. Once again we ARE planes and volunteer Pilots (ground teams too) in search of vital missions. As in; "America, what can we do for you? You name it, we'll try it." There is much work to do. I don't care for which Federal, State, or Local institution I work as long as the work I volunteer for is necessary to my country. I suggest CAP define itself through missions not heraldry. Otherwise I can join Four Mile Historical Park down the street... as a docent and save the 30 mile drive to the airport.

First of all, CAP has been the Auxiliary of the Air Force, and AAF before that for all but a few months of its existence, and it was Gen Hap Arnold that gave it meaning. Mayor La Guardia that gave it life.

CAP cannot be a gun for hire on any mission that has some remote debatable utility to some part of any community, state, agency, or other part of the country. This is not a private club doing volunteer work. It's a govt funded institution with the primary purpose of supporting the country thru service to the AF domestic mission set.

This isn't about history, it's about living within your lane.

There is a massive amount of space for adaptability within that umbrella. Moving too far beyond that umbrella is a serious threat to the continued existence of the org. Outside of that is out of our lane. It's a threat to the mission set of other agencies that fight hard for their piece of the pie, and cause trouble for our sponsor. You can't just skip thru the world grabbing whatever mission you think we can do.

By the way, can you define for me exactly what mission profiles within HLS you think there are out there that work with light observation aircraft? There's some, but it's very narrow.

The fact is that when the need for CAP as a federal resource justified thru the AF budget goes away, CAP will close up shop. If some private volunteer flying club rises up in the void to do missions for whomever, then so be it, but that won't be CAP. We can't exist just because there are things we might be able to do for someone somewhere, it's not worth the investment. You can't bite the hand that feeds you just cause you're bored.

[Smithsonia]

DNall;
Staying in your lane? The lane will get narrower and eventually disappear due to reasons I've already discussed. Add to this that we have Emergency Search and Rescue in every county in our state. So they can/do handle most of the stuff that was once assigned to CAP.

The Air Force (all the military for that matter) and Red Cross, Coast Guard, etc.
Have experimental programs that are Beta test-sites, syllabus makers, templates, and mission modifiers. Take the example of Iraq and the Army's General Officer's Staff College in Ft. Leavenworth changing the war from the Force on Force Fight to Counter-Insurgency and the Surge as a recent example. If the Army can change Field Doctrine in one year -- We can too. I don't know what's going on at Maxwell, I am assuming that the change is apparent to them. AND, I'm not talking about blowing off the Air Force. I'm thinking they don't need us all that much anymore... if not now... soon. Of course we pick-up community outreach AE, AF inservice, Drug Reduction, Chaplin duties, etc. BUT, we need a think tank, out of the box, real world, one-stop-shopping experience for the FEDs, State, local Officials and policy makers. SO I think --  A Think Tank, I suppose. Don't forget we have many sponsors and not just one father. We owe the state, civilian Feds, Homeland Security, and even local airports our help... Not just the AF. The Air Force appreciates this and supports us when we do good in their name. And now for a real world instance:

Colorado has a huge and I mean huge Bark Beetle Problem. Bark beetles are killing 100's of millions of trees that will eventually burn throughout the West. The impending fires in the West will be bigger than anything any of us have ever seen. It will overwhelm every asset currently in the field. In this I'm not over-stating the problem by an inch. USGS is looking for survey help and tying in money from Forrest Service and a few other agencies. They are going to buy aerial assets from commercial firms. I think our Gisland could help. I've expressed this to 2 different commanders from States other than Colorado. Neither seemed much interested. I was NOT told the reasons so I don't know their thinking and I'm not second guessing them. Perhaps satellites are cheaper. Perhaps the Gisland can't do the job... I don't know anything more than I've stated.

At this time, I'm not sure if anything has been done. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone just stating a real problem and the only response I was privy too.

I'm not for burying our past, blurring our mission, burning our uniforms, or turning our backs on SAR. I am for advancing our mission, providing services where we are ready, willing and able, training as a professional first class response team. In other words: America How can We Help? Homeland Security what do you need? How can I be of greater service to CAP? How can CAP be of greater service to You!

SO, are we advancing to fill the current voids? I don't know. I ask the question. I don't get many answers. This includes DNall's "stay in the lane" comment. Elbowing for funds is well understood inside every big Federal Agency. You make your case, stand your ground, and if you don't get the funding... then you know what the system thinks. We're getting cut back. What does the system think? What we should do about it -- How valuable are we to all of America --is the discussion. Although I'm not trying to hijack this thread... maybe I just did.
With Regards;
ED OBRIEN

[Short Field]

CAP cannot be a gun for hire on any mission that has some remote debatable utility to some part of any community, state, agency, or other part of the country. This is not a private club doing volunteer work. It's a govt funded institution with the primary purpose of supporting the country thru service to the AF domestic mission set.

So Red Cross blood missions need to go away?

Things change, and organizations that don't adapt to these changes go away.  The primary justification for creating the USAF as a separate service was Strategic Bombing.   The charter for Strategic Air Command was based on Strategic Bombing.  Missions and requirements changed and SAC went away.

As SAR missions decline, CAP needs to find other missions that support the country or we will go the way of SAC.  That doesn't mean we doesn't mean we stop doing our traditional missions.  But we do need to find missions to allow for operational flying that is not totally funded by a TRAINING budget.  As our worth to other agencies increases, so does our support when it comes to budget time.  

The DOD budget process has the USAF submitting their requirements to the SECDEF for inclusion in the President's budget request to Congress. Congress adds and subtracts money and earmarks to the DOD budget based on what CONGRESS feels supports the nation best.  How the folks back in the home districts feel about particular programs DOES impact how the voting and earmarks goes.  Politics plays a major role in the budget - the more agencies (Federal, State, and Local) that feel you support them, the more support you get.

[Smithsonia]

Not that this is a CAP history thread but the following is appropriate. CAP began as an Office of Civilian Defense Organization. (Which is now Homeland Security) We moved to USAF Aux after the War. SEE BELOW From Wikipedia:
December 1, 1941
Administrative Order No.9
Establishing Civil Air Patrol
By virtue of the authority vested in me through my appointment as United States Director of the Office of Civilian Defense, through the Executive Order of the President creating said Office, dated May 20, 1941. I have caused to be created and organized a branch of this Office of volunteers for the purpose of enlisting and training personnel to aid in the national defense of the United States, designated as the Civil Air Patrol.

In conformity with said organization, Major General John F. Curry, U.S.A. Air Corps has been assigned to this office by the U.S. Army and designated by me as its National Commander. Said organization shall be formed as outlined in the attached chart, which is made a part of this Order as if written herein in full. The Civil Air Patrol shall carry out such Orders and directives as are issued to it by the Director of Civilian Defense. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the National Commander to see that the objectives and purposes and orders issued in conformity with the policy of this office are carried out and that all activities are reported regularly to the Director through the Aviation Aide.
All enlistments and appointments in the Civil Air Patrol may be disapproved by the Director of the Office of Civilian Defense.
/s/. F. H. LaGuardia
F. H. LaGuardia
U.S. Director of
Civilian Defense

CAP didn't get the SAR Portfolio in it's first year. Although it did participate in many searches. CAP picked up the specific tasking in March of '43, if I remember right. My point being is Homeland Security/Civilian Defense is not against our original purpose, antithetical to our history, or out of bounds as to our future.
WIth regards;
ED OBRIEN

[DNall]

CAP cannot be a gun for hire on any mission that has some remote debatable utility to some part of any community, state, agency, or other part of the country. This is not a private club doing volunteer work. It's a govt funded institution with the primary purpose of supporting the country thru service to the AF domestic mission set.

So Red Cross blood missions need to go away?

Generally? Yeah I think so. Red Cross should be paying a contractor for that. I don't dislike the Red Cross, but I'm not a huge fan either. I give my blood to the mil blood program. I'm not sure how we got caught up in blood/organ transport, or if any of that is still going on to any extent these days, but I'm not sure it's really within our mission set. I understand if our folks need to fly prof then why not toss the stuff in 7 let them cover the expense. To that end, why not toss in some mail or commercial passengers? Aside from FAA rules, where's the line there?

Things change, and organizations that don't adapt to these changes go away.  The primary justification for creating the USAF as a separate service was Strategic Bombing.   The charter for Strategic Air Command was based on Strategic Bombing.  Missions and requirements changed and SAC went away.

EXACTLY. SAC successfully completed its mission & became obsolete. That's a success on SAC's part, not a failure. If the situation comes about that the same thing happens to CAP, then it should go away as well.

As SAR missions decline, CAP needs to find other missions that support the country or we will go the way of SAC.  That doesn't mean we doesn't mean we stop doing our traditional missions.  But we do need to find missions to allow for operational flying that is not totally funded by a TRAINING budget.  As our worth to other agencies increases, so does our support when it comes to budget time.

I'm really not saying the lane is SaR & SaR only. Of course we continue our traditional missions, and honestly there's room for expansion there, but yes there is some point in the future where UAVs will no doubt put light observation aircraft out of business. That is equally true within HLS.

I do believe we need to be innovative & aggressive in taking initiative to find new missions for the future. However, those may or may not involve flight hours. There is dramatic space for expansion of our mission set under the AF umbrella. There is not a whole lot we can do outside that which also keeps us alive.

The DOD budget process has the USAF submitting their requirements to the SECDEF for inclusion in the President's budget request to Congress. Congress adds and subtracts money and earmarks to the DOD budget based on what CONGRESS feels supports the nation best.  How the folks back in the home districts feel about particular programs DOES impact how the voting and earmarks goes.  Politics plays a major role in the budget - the more agencies (Federal, State, and Local) that feel you support them, the more support you get.

Seriously... having been a congressional staffer, I think I'm pretty familiar with how budget allocations work.

If you're invaluable to one agency, you'll get support from them. If you do a little job for a bunch of agencies, then you're off their radar. Even if DHS used CAP extensively, they would NOT support further budget allocation to CAP. They would support allocation to DHS for spending on missions that could utilize CAP. That's fine for a few flying hours, it does nothing to fund NHQ/Reg/Wgs or acquire planes/radios/vans/etc. It probably does very little to fund training.

Again, DHS doesn't want CAP. I'm not saying they wouldn't use us, and in a perfect world they'd make decent use of us, but that's not reality. What they want is a bunch more helicopters, PC12/twins, mid-range jets, & a few UAVs. All outfitted with a great deal of hi-tech gear, and all actively involved in law enforcement with their full-time LE crews operating them at their own beck & call. Anything that would give congress an alternative to giving them that funding is a threat.

[DNall]

Let me try to clarify a couple point briefly.

CAP is like SAC. The AF lives on, but when the SAC mission is no longer then SAC is no longer. The mission of CAP is not to stay alive at all costs doing whatever anyone needs as long as it's theoretically of service to someone.

CAP was crack pot idea when it was established. It would not have lasted a year if it were civilian volunteers/civil defense/etc. None of that was remotely legitimate or meaningful at that point or any other up to today. It was when the AF stepped in to assume control of that silly program & turn it to useful ends that CAP became a meaningful and lasting thing. It would perhaps be easier if it'd been the AF's idea in the first place, but it doesn't really matter in practical effect. From that day forward, CAP has always existed to serve the country thru the AF. That is our soul, and we cannot survive in any form w/o that remaining true.

If a point comes where CAP can no longer serve the AF, at least enough to justify the expenditure, then CAP can & should be dissolved. At that point the aircraft & other resources should be redistributed to states or other federal agencies that can make use of them. There will still be volunteer opportunities, but there need not be a CAP.

Now, while UAVs, Sats, and other technology certainly will at some stage put the manned light recon aircraft out of business, that really has nothing to do with service to the country thru the AF. That tech advance is just as true for SaR for the AF as it is of environmental survey or HLS missions. To be obsolete in one is also to be obsolete in the other.

In theory, CAP can at some future point move into that UAV world as well, though that seems unlikely at this point in history. And another option is CAP can move into other facets of service to the AF. Certainly both instances can be true.

Let me give you an example I've breezed by a couple times. The AF stood up 8AF I think it was last year. This is the new cyber command that seeks to defend infrastructure from cyber attack, to partake in the online intel world, etc. An AF study of the situation recommended a volunteer corps of IT folks based on the CAP model. My response being, why based on CAP instead of just being part of CAP.

VSAF is in its infancy right now, and focused on mil bases, but I think there's a serious opportunity there to expand our mission set. I don't mean passing out basketballs, but I do mean professionals telecommuting to work on AF projects.

A lot of states have SDFs (state defense forces - uniformed civilian volunteer portion of the national guard), and some are much better than others. They utilize a lot of retired vets that want to continue to serve. There's some of what they're doing for their parent guard commands that CAP can also do for the AF. The CGAux augmentation model is fairly similar.

Augmentation is one thing, it's not the only one.

Certainly we need to be more involved in disaster response, and that's both natural & man made. We have the capability to roll right behind a storm & survey damage from air/grd with feed direct to policy makers so resources can be deployed to the right places & recovery can get under way. We have the ability to run airborne P25 comms after emergency responder repeaters are off the air. There's quite a lot we can do in the field.

That does require getting fully up to speed with resource typing/credentialing, not just IS100-800. It's going to be a significant challenge & paradigm shift for our members to deal with being qualified at that level. Most are not going to be able to deal with it. We'll have to bring in a whole new batch of driven folks, which really shouldn't be hard once the mission is there.

None of that requires working for DHS though. In a disaster, DHS is not in charge of the airspace, the 1AF/CC is for all military AND civilian traffic. The AF has a significant stake/responsibilities in disaster response. That's where CAP needs to tailor our capabilities, and will most certainly be the path of least resistance with the highest payoff.

And there's more than disaster too. There's domestic airlift. As you probably know, there's been a constant squabble btwn AF & Army Aviation about control of fixed wing. The Army, particularly the Guard, has a moderate number of light fixed wing aircraft. There's some space there for CAP to pick up some mission. Overall control of air logistics is with the AF, and anything that keeps more fixed wing aviation w/ AF & away from Army is something the AF will gladly spend budget dollars on. Obviously there's a limit to what we can do, so Army aviation shouldn't feel too threatened, but there's some work there if we want to grab it.

I'm sure there are many other ideas too. What I'm saying is there is a lot of space to evolve within the AF & DoD. Where the alternatives outside DoD are caught between budget fights & threats to agency budgets, and they approach selling out for anything that produces flying hours. I'm all for flying, but it's just a tool to do a job, it's not THE job.

I said before, I think CAP needs to be aggressive & innovative in taking the initiative on these missions. To the extent CAP sees it's mission set drying up. It needs to first look at the qualifications/standards/training we're doing with our members; and beyond that it needs to seek out mission by taking idea to Air Staff & lobbying up, not by finding anyone willing to pay for a few flight hours.

[mikeylikey]

^ DNALL I have to disagree.  Times change, and CAP will change with them.  I have seen the founding documents, held them, read them, and must say you are just a little off base with your third paragraph. 

As far as CAP being valuable to the USAF, I would it is.  Is CAP relevant to the USAF's missions, I would say somewhat. 

Does CAP need to find other sources of missions.....yes.  IF we don't then when USAF changes its missions like it is doing with cybercommand (which I am on a working group to get based in Pennsylvania) then we will be left in the background. 

No one knows whats going to happen in the future, five years from now, there may not even be an AF.   

[Smithsonia]

The Civilian Pilot Training Program was founded the same time as CAP. It was a sister organization. We were often Co-located and shared aircraft, officers, and staff. CPT is gone. Where did they go? SEE HERE!
www.dossaviation.com  or http://dossifs.com/ Meaning when the AF got tired of CPT (no longer supported) it became a commercial enterprise. I realize there were interim steps... but that's the Cliff Notes Version. DNall -- If you're for letting CAP go the way of the Dodo Bird... How about the rest of us start an Academy for profit to teach for money what CAP used to teach for free? We could co-locate in Pueblo CO. right next to Doss Academy. That way, everything old is new again.

Nope, I'd like to save the Patrol... I'm kinda Old School. No matter where the school is located and who it's working for, even Homeland Security.

With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[mikeylikey]

^ Thats real interesting.  I did not know USAF outsourced pilot training.  Is that really tax payer friendly?  I wonder how much more they get to do what the USAF should be doing.  They are contractors, so you know they get 20 to 30 percent more than what it would cost the USAF to do it. 

Perhaps CAP should bring back the Aviation Cadet Program from the 1940's.  WE train them like that aviation school does, then they go become a pilot.  I would love to see that mission added to CAP. 

[Smithsonia]

I think that our Professional Development should be codified and professionally taught at a (CAP) Academy. Being that Colorado Springs/Pueblo Colorado area is the center for Space Command, Homeland Security Air Force Headquarters, Cheyenne Mountain, Air Force Academy, etc. Here is as good a place as any. BUT being that I'm a measly Lieutenant I'll have to turn that idea over to bigger brains and more braids than me and mine.

Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Sherriff Dept's., Local Cops, FBI, Search and Rescue Teams, all need the knowledge we (CAP) has. Don't forget CAP taught most of Rocky Mountain Rescue what they know and most of their highest ranking members were first in the CAP. SO -- The Training Cadre could be fielded from the retiring AF and local CAP SAR geniuses (AND I don't mean that in a snide way -- we did a lot of SAR around here and still do a bunch) We'd pay the trainers and create a center of gravity real deal Homeland Security Air Resources/CAP Service Academy. CAP Certification would be prescient and necessary for advancement in any inland air rescue service -- civilian or otherwise. To that point...

I used to work for the NRA and American Medical Assoc. Both of these groups set about (in the first half of the 20th Century) to pick off every mom and pop certification in the US - they could find. Such that eventually Medical Doctors decided who gets to be a Barber for instance, who gets to be a nurse and a cosmetologist, what hospital is certified, How health insurance is paid (to whom and how much). The NRA gets to decide who can shoot/carry a gun. The NRA certifies people, teachers, ranges, guns, dealers, ammunition, etc. This is a general template that should be considered as a survival strategy for CAP. Certification standards is a great source of income, sustainability, and professional pride and competence for each organization.

As I said, bigger brains with more braid now have the idea. The measly Lt. (me) retires from this discussion. Although I could sure be of service teaching history, creative writing, PAO, IO, and Public Relations skills... I've been doing that for 45 years. I'm retiring from those fields (media-side) in a year or so... so I'm available to CAP or Homeland Security.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[RiverAux]

A lot of states have SDFs (state defense forces - uniformed civilian volunteer portion of the national guard),

Correction--- SDFs are state military forces separate from the National Guard and are fully subject the military laws of that that state that are similar to the UCMJ.  They are not civilians. 

[JayT]

A lot of states have SDFs (state defense forces - uniformed civilian volunteer portion of the national guard),

Correction--- SDFs are state military forces separate from the National Guard and are fully subject the military laws of that that state that are similar to the UCMJ.  They are not civilians. 

I don't really think you can compare CAP to the 'SDFs.'

I've had some limited interaction with local SDF guys...........and I'm not exactly sure what they do.

[mikeylikey]

I've had some limited interaction with local SDF guys...........and I'm not exactly sure what they do.

That is their problem.....some don't even know what to do themselves. 

[RiverAux]

A lot of states have SDFs (state defense forces - uniformed civilian volunteer portion of the national guard),

Correction--- SDFs are state military forces separate from the National Guard and are fully subject the military laws of that that state that are similar to the UCMJ.  They are not civilians. 

I don't really think you can compare CAP to the 'SDFs.'

I've had some limited interaction with local SDF guys...........and I'm not exactly sure what they do.

Dnall was bringing it up in the context of SDFs that basically perform augmentation missions for their state's NG in the context of CAP performing similar missions for the AF (and CG Aux for CG).  This is a very fair comparison and happens to be one I've made myself.

[JayT]

A lot of states have SDFs (state defense forces - uniformed civilian volunteer portion of the national guard),

Correction--- SDFs are state military forces separate from the National Guard and are fully subject the military laws of that that state that are similar to the UCMJ.  They are not civilians. 

I don't really think you can compare CAP to the 'SDFs.'

I've had some limited interaction with local SDF guys...........and I'm not exactly sure what they do.

Dnall was bringing it up in the context of SDFs that basically perform augmentation missions for their state's NG in the context of CAP performing similar missions for the AF (and CG Aux for CG).  This is a very fair comparison and happens to be one I've made myself.

Again......I'm not sure.

A quick look at the New York Guard webpage makes it seem like that they do a lot of useful work, but it seems like there's a large number of 'Headquarters' units.

I also don't believe that, besides VSAF and a few local agreements, CAP augments the Air Force.

I've said it before. The greatest use for CAP will not come from 'augmenting' the Air Force. It will come from serving our local community with our Air and Ground assests. I'd much rather work for my local town then an Air Force unit.

[RiverAux]

You're missing the point -- he is promoting the idea that this is something that CAP should be doing more of not saying that it is currently a major CAP mission. 

[JayT]

You're missing the point -- he is promoting the idea that this is something that CAP should be doing more of not saying that it is currently a major CAP mission. 

I don't think we should be.

That's what I'm saying.

[DNall]

^ DNALL I have to disagree.  Times change, and CAP will change with them. 

As I said, I very much agree that we must evolve with the world around us. I believe man y of the problems CAP faces today are due to a lack of necessary change over the years, not because the need for it wasn't recognized, but because we doubted the ability of volunteers to adapt or were scared of running them off. I have no such fears.

My point is not about the need to evolve, it's the spectrum within which we need to evolve.

The situation is... Our traditional missions in support of the AF drying up as technology makes our skill set more & more obsolete. There are short & long-term ramifications to that. I agree with that understanding of the situation, the question is how to react to it.

There are people on one side th that advocate we market those same wares to other customers. I believe that's setting us up for failure, for four simple reasons:

1) The resources are increasingly obsolete, regardless of who the consumer is. If UAVs are in the long-term going to put CAP's air mission out of business, then they're also going to be utilized by forestry to scout envio/wildlife conditions, and any other mission you can think of. Obsolete is obsolete.

2) The skill set is different.

a) You can't just go from looking for downed planes to surveying forest conditions. The flying may be similar, but the rest of what's going on is not. Can we adapt to that? Yeah sure, but to what extent. We can train for one or two different types of missions, but we can't put competent people in the air for 80 different types. You need a couple specific mission types with standardized skill sets that generate a ton of hours in every part of the country. I don't see a lot of that out there.

b) Where's the GT mission in that? We got honestly a handful of mission pilots in the whole organization. They make up a very small percentage of members, and a small part of what we do in ES. We need to evolve to mission sets that can utilize our folks on the ground also. That doesn't work in HLS, that requires LE on the ground.

3) Moving off from the AF is bad. I'm not saying this cause the AF is great & we need to suck up to them, or out of tradition. The fact is it costs several tens of millions per year to operate CAP as an org, independent of what we do operationally. It's certainly true that our resources could be useful to other agencies (fed/state/local), and they may be willing to pay the hourly costs of those resources, but they aren't going to fund the root operation of the org to get that capability, especially if it lessens the resources they can get from congress or the legislature to do their primary jobs.

4) Where does the cadet program & AE fit into this? The fact is CAP ES has never by itself been worth the investment congress makes in it each year. A fleet of 500-odd airplanes, something like 60-70 million in comm gear, plus vans, plus program, administrative, and oversight costs. That's all incredibly expensive. Everything we've ever done in ES can't justify it. Only by adding the feel good connected to strategic objectives sold by the credibility of the Air Staff issues of cadet programs & AE do we stay in business. If you can't find a highly prominent place for those elements that an alternate sponsor would have a very important vested interest in, then you're out of business, no matter how significant the ES part of the equation may be.


I AM certainly advocating that we evolve. I'm saying that needs to be within the AF mission spectrum, not outside it. There are areas where we can make a significant impact on AF & DoD operations. It may not be anything like what we've done in the past. It may or may not involve lots of flying hours. What it does involve is keeping our sponsor intact so they keep supporting the org. As we make ourselves more & more invaluable to them, then we'll see better funding & wider missions.

I know that a lot of people are frustrated here after 9/11 that they can't make a bigger contribution to national security. That's valid, but you have to figure out what we can actually do, and that's very very little.

It's not a matter of our close-mindedness. It's a matter of our extremely limited capabilities. I'm very much in favor of expanding those capabilities, but then once you do that you become not obsolete to the AF mission set again. You strap a FLIR on there with satcom for real time transmission, and you're suddenly a very safe & cost-effective alternative to UAVs. The cost to deploy such technology is relatively low. That's the kind of stuff we need to be doing. When you're going obsolete because of technology, the first thing you do is look to better technology. When you're looking at less mission, you try to find more diverse ways to deploy that new technology for your sponsor.

And yes, ultimately if CAP loses usefulness to the AF then it should be dissolved. It would not then become a private company, for profit or otherwise. The numbers don't work. If they let us keep our resources, which is doubtful, we'd be selling off planes fast to keep us afloat & we'd end up crumbling from the inside out. What's more likely is they'll seek to reclaim those resources & redistribute them to states. States would then employ them through law enforcement, national guard, or state defense forces. There's not much place for CAP in that equation.

I'm for what's best for the country. If I can make CAP fit that bill thru the AF then by all means I'll seek to do that. If CAP can't get that done then there's other things that are better for the community, state, and nation then to let CAP continue.

[DNall]

A lot of states have SDFs (state defense forces - uniformed civilian volunteer portion of the national guard),

Correction--- SDFs are state military forces separate from the National Guard and are fully subject the military laws of that that state that are similar to the UCMJ.  They are not civilians. 

I don't really think you can compare CAP to the 'SDFs.'

I've had some limited interaction with local SDF guys...........and I'm not exactly sure what they do.

Dnall was bringing it up in the context of SDFs that basically perform augmentation missions for their state's NG in the context of CAP performing similar missions for the AF (and CG Aux for CG).  This is a very fair comparison and happens to be one I've made myself.

Again......I'm not sure.

A quick look at the New York Guard webpage makes it seem like that they do a lot of useful work, but it seems like there's a large number of 'Headquarters' units.

I also don't believe that, besides VSAF and a few local agreements, CAP augments the Air Force.

I've said it before. The greatest use for CAP will not come from 'augmenting' the Air Force. It will come from serving our local community with our Air and Ground assests. I'd much rather work for my local town then an Air Force unit.

Who pays the 40+ mil a year operating cost in that equation? Who funds all the training & currency flying? The fact is local communities & the large majority of states cannot begin to afford that luxury.

I'm not saying augmentation alone is the answer for the future, just that it is one more thing we can be doing on a much wider scale to make ourselves useful to the AF. I do agree that AFB communities & around ANG/AFRes units is going to make for a limited application of in-person augmentation. Obviously we should maximize that effort as much as reasonable, but it's always going to be limited. This is where I talked about tele-commuting & cyber-command. If CAP can knock out a few contractor jobs with specialized experts from the civilian community working to support the range of AF missions, that's a good thing, but of course not the whole thing.

I also mentioned several other things we can & should be doing. Don't just focus on the one.