Benefits of a USAF Officer CAP/CC

Started by PhoenixRisen, December 06, 2010, 12:27:32 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PhoenixRisen

If I recall correctly, the last Air Force officer to hold the position of CAP National Commander was in the mid-1970's.  Obviously, this was way before my time, so I cannot speak on the matter of what would be better for the organization: a USAF commander, or CAP commander.  Does anyone have any opinions on which was better for the organization?  I know it would definitely cut out the politics associated with the position, but I'm speaking beyond this issue.  Were there any benefits to having a USAF officer in direct command of CAP?

MSG Mac

The title of National Commander was changed to "Commander USAF-CAP, and the Chairman of the Board of CAP was given the additional title of "National Commander". This more properly gave  the responsibility for the everyday running of CAP to the CAP (Executive Director), rather than the Air Force which is charged with the support of CAP missions and not the everyday running of the various programs. 
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

JohnKachenmeister

The benefits were that an AF general commanded us, and we were looked upon as an integral part of the USAF.

I miss those days.

There were also NO uniform issues.  We changed when the AF changed.
Another former CAP officer

PhoenixRisen

What was the reason behind merging from direct-AF control to a CAP commander?

FW

#4
To answer your question; I don't think so.   The times before 1980 were quite different from today.  However, if you look at what we have now vs. then, we are better off as an organization with modern aircraft, a workable fleet of vehicles and, communications equipment second to none.

That being said, CAP was basically totally controlled by the Air Force until 1994 as, all employees at NHQ worked for the AF; even the executive director.  And, we all now understand the Liason system before the change, which was transitioned to the current program around 2000.  As I remember it, the change to a CAP volunteer commander had to do with politics.  All the other changes were due to Air Force budget shortfalls.

CAP missions are ever evolving and, have no real corelation to our governance. Oversight of our funding has not changed at all (except for the mechanics).   We don't have as many reserve man days available for reservists to help at encampments; nor do we have airlift.  This is because of the war time commitments more than a shift of governance.

The more I think of it, the more I think it is the ever improving professionalism of the membership that is more important and beneficial to CAP.

RADIOMAN015

Here's a pretty historic document about the changes that occurred in CAP
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00136.pdf
RM 

RiverAux

Whether their would be benefits to having AF officers in direct command of CAP either at the National, Regional, Wing, or Squadron levels is mostly irrelevant at a time when the AF is cutting officers from the service. 

If we're looking at more direct AF involvement at minimal cost, I would suggest that CAP-USAF State Directors be the final approving authority over all ES qualifications and that they would have the authority to yank qualifications if they felt it necessary.  This would be part of their duty of oversight of how CAP conducts AFAMs. 

SDs should also be the final approving authority for all adverse membership actions against CAP members (terminations, demotions, etc.).   This would address CAP's continual problems in this area. 

SDs should also have the authority to recommend CAP members to receive AF awards available to civilians when such an award would be appropriate and regardless of whether or not CAP has already recognized the action in question. 


FW

Unless the law is changed, SD's will stay out of member ops qualifications and member adverse actions.  Besides they are overworked as is. 

IMHO, there would be no benefit to the members if there were more direct Air Force governance (read command and control) of CAP.   Funding would not change, missions would not change, uniform controversy would not change, politics would not change (although emphasis may). 

The one major change I see is increased discussion on CT relating to our "big brother"  >:D

RiverAux

Oh, I don't know about that.  The CG basically has total control over CG Aux and most recently the Aux leadership only even tried to make 4 changes to Aux regulations and the CG squashed several of them.  CAP makes that many changes before the first snack break at the NB.  More AF control would most likely slow down and probably eliminate a bunch of minor changes that probably weren't worth making in the first place. 

FYI, I assume that for the purposes of this thread we are assuming that current federal law regarding CAP governance would change to allow more AF control. 

PA Guy

#9
For all of its warts the current structure/manning of CAP is much better than the old USAF run CAP.

Under the AF a large portion of the AF staff, including the National Commander, at NHQ were there on a sunset tour and were ROAD.  They were often less than responsive to the needs of the CAP members.  I mean what were we, CAP, going to do to them.  This was also true for many of the Wing LOs

Most of the corporate vehicles were junk.  They were screened from DRMO so the military had already trashed them when we got them.  Individual units were responsible for all maint and insurance costs.

Communications equipment was screened from DRMO, once again junk for the most part, or was privately purchased

When I first joined, early 60's, we were still flying fabric covered L-16s, PA-18s that were declared surplus from the AF and Army  We later got the O-1s and T-34 that had been declared surplus so many of them were pretty tired also with little to no help from NHQ for maint.

So, when all things are considered I prefer the current arrangement

FW

In a "perfect" CAP, the Board of Governors would be giving more direct guidelines for CAP's volunteer leadersip to work with. Maybe there will be some changes after the board meets on Weds.

Many of our regulations are still dated from the 1990's or earlier.
After 10 years, we still have no idea about the relationship between the National Commander, National Vice Commander and the BoG or, with each other.   The relationship between the Executive Director and the National Commander needs clarification.
The MARB's authority is in question.
The relationship of the National Board in the leadership structure is in question.

These governance issues however, IMHO, are not effecting us in any significant way. We will still do what is asked; no matter how CAP is structured at the "National Level".   

And, FYI, we can forget about any change of statute for a while.  We are very small potatoes in the scheme of things.  Congress, in giving CAP a Board of Governors, has spoken.  We, as is, must figure things out for our own mutual benefit; with the resources at hand.

BillB

PA Guy.  My experiences with te Commanders of CAP-USAF were just the reverse. ALL were interested in the membership and the needs of CAP. Sure CAP was flying L-16's T-34, but USAF did most of the maintenance on CAP aircraft, at least in Florida at Holmstead AFB,Tyndall AFB and MacDill AFB. And your comment that CAP now does the maintenance, where do you think the money comes from? Your dues! Granted most of the vehicles were DRMO surplus, but many of the vehilces were in good shape. The local Squadron got a 2 1/2 ton Comm truck (4x6) in great shape when the AF Reserve unit was disbanded. Many of the buses were in fair shape. And don't forget that USAF supplied airlift for cadets to many activities. When was the last time a cadet in New York, Texas or Georgia visited the Air Force Museum? In the 60's airlift was available for such tours. Florida scheduled two per year theough the Wing CAP-USAF Liaison Officer.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

flyboy53

I was a member then and if I remember correctly, the change was because the CAP leader at the time wanted the title of National Commander and also to be a two-star general officer. It's not who you think and that national commander is now dead, so why muddy his name.

The change was dramatic even though it happened progressively over time. The CAP before the change was more an integral part of the Air Force. Afterward, we started using terms such as clients and we searched for missions.

One thing, though, the commander of CAP-USAF is still the ranking officer. From the Air Force perspective, his other title is Program Manger. What would be great is if he were a general officer again.

PA Guy

Quote from: BillB on December 06, 2010, 01:30:57 PM
PA Guy.  My experiences with te Commanders of CAP-USAF were just the reverse. ALL were interested in the membership and the needs of CAP. Sure CAP was flying L-16's T-34, but USAF did most of the maintenance on CAP aircraft, at least in Florida at Holmstead AFB,Tyndall AFB and MacDill AFB. And your comment that CAP now does the maintenance, where do you think the money comes from? Your dues! Granted most of the vehicles were DRMO surplus, but many of the vehilces were in good shape. The local Squadron got a 2 1/2 ton Comm truck (4x6) in great shape when the AF Reserve unit was disbanded. Many of the buses were in fair shape. And don't forget that USAF supplied airlift for cadets to many activities. When was the last time a cadet in New York, Texas or Georgia visited the Air Force Museum? In the 60's airlift was available for such tours. Florida scheduled two per year theough the Wing CAP-USAF Liaison Officer.

FLWG was fortunate then.  During this period I was a member of 3 different wings in 3 different regions and didn't see it.  For most of that period I was in a wing that had 8 Air Force bases back then.  I don't remember any of them doing maint. on corp. A/C.  That wing received a small appropriation from the state that was earmarked for A/C maint. only.  It doesn't bother me that part of my dues goes for A/C maint.  I see that as a positive thing.

I still stand by my statement that most of the vehicles sub standard.  Through the efforts of the members and their money most of them far exceeded their service life.

As for airlift, that had more to do with availability than anything else.  Back then their were large AFRES units with old C-119s, C123s and C124s looking for missions to justify their existence.  And it was much the same with on-base facilities .  There were more bases and many still had WW II barracks available and other facilities that were available to CAP.  All of this was more a function of availability than anything NHQ or the wing L/O did.

Just goes to show that even back then the CAP "experience" could vary widely from wing to wing and region to region.   :)

flyboy53

Actually, having the Air Force due the aircraft maintenance is a little older. It was a time when CAP actually flew Air Force-marked aircraft.

As far as more Air Force support, I'm not sure if a lot of the current state of Air Force support doesn't have more to do with the most recent federal legislation. I think the real solution here is to lobby our federal representatives and have that legislation re-visited and/or amended. Perhaps it also would be appropriate to have an Air Force officer returned to the organization's helm.

PhoenixRisen

Thanks for the insight, everyone -- much appreciated!

The CyBorg is destroyed

I came into CAP around the time that a lot of the disconnect from the AF was happening (1993).

CAP was in "thank you sir may I have another?" mode with the AF following the shenanigans of a few bad actors, and they know who they are/were.

I remember during my Level I six months initiation education as a nonentity SMWOG being told repeatedly about not being entitled to salutes and not to expect them...which wasn't an issue for me anyway.

My colleagues at that time lamented the loss of things like being overseen by a USAF officer, being an integral part of the AF and of friendly relations with AF personnel on base.  At that time, my experience with the AF ranged from indifference, to a friendly greeting, to an occasional salute, to overhearing grumbling about "those CAP wannabes playing officer."

And, of course, there were uniforms.  We'd just got the awful berry boards but we still had some blue CAP epaulettes and hard rank in squadron stores...most of those became collectors' items.

I remember having one LO and LSNCO before the SD thing kicked in.

Of course, we almost augered in at the hands of John McCain in 1995.

During the years I have been in CAP, it seems that we have become more and more "corporate," thanks in part to AF manpower cuts but also through the influence of people at the top levels of CAP who wanted to have their cake and eat it too: do whatever we want, get away from the AF uniforms but still be on the AF gravy train for reimbursement of their flying club socialising flying hours.

I for one would like to see CAP moved from AETC/AU to AFRC, given that the Deputy AF Secretary for Reserve Affairs already has a connection with us (as stated in Radioman's document link).

I would like to see the CAP CC be a USAF Reserve MGen, with a CAP BGen as deputy, and the return of AFRC/ANG LO's/LSNCO's, who, as RiverAux stated, would have approval/recommending authority for personnel actions.

However, pigs might fly out of...
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Major Carrales

A USAF controlled Civil Air Patrol in modern times presents certain challenges from the top down.  It has been pointed out at various places here at CAPTALK that service in the USAF is vastly different that than in the Civil Air Patrol and that command styles, expectations and motivational techniques are radically different.  This matter comes up anytime professional development reform is mentioned and has one rationale that rings true.  Commanders in CAP have to understand its structures, cultures and limitations when exercising command.

Thus, some General from the USAF, who learned about CAP in a multi-media presentation years ago who is assigned to National Command my have a built in disconnect (unless this person was or had been at some time an active CAP member)

Also, solving the matter of USAF control in the Wings, Groups and Squadrons in a new USAF structure would present a logistical matter to be solved.  From where would be get the manpower to insure unit visits?  Some Wings struggle to get their units inspected yet alone field L/O personnel to administer USAF policy at any respectable level.  If they require, as a mitigating factor, CAP "Self-evaluation" how does that differ from what we do now?

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

PHall

Quote from: CyBorg on December 07, 2010, 06:21:23 AMI for one would like to see CAP moved from AETC/AU to AFRC, given that the Deputy AF Secretary for Reserve Affairs already has a connection with us (as stated in Radioman's document link).

We would a much better fit being under the National Guard Bureau. Since we do have a "Federal" (Air Force) and a "State" (Corperate) mission.

But like you said, when pigs fly....

RiverAux

Quote from: PHall on December 07, 2010, 07:26:37 AM
Since we do have a "Federal" (Air Force) and a "State" (Corperate) mission.
State does not equal Corporate.