Change to Title 10 For CAP

[RiverAux]

I really think it's going to take some changes in legislation to get us better prepared to offer ourselves up to handle some of the roles currently done by the AF. Things like job protections, mandatory leave, a per diem for  deployments of more then a day or two. Possibly a change in language in Title 10. But we are going to need to make major changes to take on the new and changing roles we are capable of.

Nope, no changes in legislation necessary. The CG Aux has been augmenting the CG in all sorts of "real" jobs for years and they have basically the same laws autorizing their use in noncombat roles. 

The stuff you're talking about would be nice, but isn't a pre-condition.  If we wait for all that stuff to come through it will never happen as no one is going to want to make all those changes for an idea that hasn't been proven to work in practice in the AF yet. 

What would need to be changed are some AF and CAP regulations that would make it easier for CAP members to be used in this manner.  Right now the hoops that an AF commander would have to jump through, according to AF regs, to have one CAP guy come in and answer phones for the afternoon make it not worth their while.  On the CAP side there would need to be some sort of regulation written covering this activity as it doesn't fall into any of our normal categories.   For example, would this be an AFAM?  I would hope so, but it isn't a "mission" like our other missions and couldn't be handled the same way. 

[aveighter]

I suggest that NOTHING should be off the table when it comes to supporting your country in war.  That being said, we also have to guard against the enemy (or the New York Times) characterizing our efforts as an indication that America is so desperate that we are throwing in the "Old men and the Hitler Youth."

And I would rather hang around with the guys who say "Put me in, Coach!" than the guys who say "It won't work, so let's not even try."  I have been told that my attitude is the result of having spent too much time in close proximity to United States Marines, and I am dumb enough to take that as a compliment!

John, it is encourgaging to read your words of strength and honor at a time when we seem to be inundated with weakness and timidity.  I am sure that when Arnold said "arm the little planes" there were those who lept to their feet with cries of "we are too old, too inexperienced as aviators, aren't real military, don't have the right equipment, the situation isn't the same...." .  Pick your favorite excuse. 

Fortunately they did not prevail and as Reagan would say, they have been swept into the dustbin of history and today, nobody knows their names. 

[afgeo4]

I agree with Capt Harris on his assessment of UAVs being able to put our current flyers out of business. However, I hope CAP will have enough wisdom to move into the 21st century with the Air Force and gain UAVs of their own.  Cheaper, smaller UAVs that their pilots and cadets may operate to perform missions for America. I know it's sort of a far-fetched concept, but I know of at least one CAP unit in New York that is working on this and is so far quite successful. Why would the Air Force want to do this? Well, no matter how many UAVs you have, you still need operators for them and those operators will be overtasked with other (combat and non-combat) missions to search for a missing hiker/aircraft/elt signal. CAP would be able to do it locally, cheaply and safely with our own fleet of UAVs. These vehicles can also be used for Aerospace Education with equal efficiency. Don't forget, it's also a good training and accession platform for the future cyberpilots of the USAF (CAP Cadets).

Do not confuse the concept of USAF UAVs for combat missions with their use in non-combat missions.   UAVs are appealling to USAF because of the limitations of manned combat aircraft and as a manner of risk management. 

Non-combat, particularly as it relates to our mission, is quite different.  UAVs, while less expensive than say an F-22 or even an F-16, are not less expensive than a Cessna 172/182 equipped with volunteers.  Just obtaining the comparable imaging technology that would be required in such a UAV for effective SAR or reconnaissance would eclipse our costs several fold (take a look at ARCHER's costs for just a small indication). 

I'm not confusing missions.  I think you're confusing a/c platforms. I'm not talking about CAP using existing military UAVs which cost tremendous amounts of money to operate. I'm talking about development of our own UAVs.  Basically radio controlled aircraft with a say... 3 foot wingspan with a couple of cameras on it. One forward looking (for operation), one down looking (for observation). Controls could be hooked into two PC stations using a joystick and simple software. The images would be separated between controller/pilot station and observation/scanner station. Such aircraft could cost just a few thousands of dollars and cost probably around $20 an hour to operate with no danger to aircrew (less insurance). Such aircraft could also be launched in remote areas while operated from field command stations like CAP vans or even by ground teams. Small sized, inexpensive to operate UAVs such as are being fielded by the military squad sized units as we speak and much simplified versions of them would be quite useful to us. The only obstacle is the one being tackled currently in the military now... control and deconfliction of airspace while operating UAVs.

[afgeo4]

I really think it's going to take some changes in legislation to get us better prepared to offer ourselves up to handle some of the roles currently done by the AF. Things like job protections, mandatory leave, a per diem for  deployments of more then a day or two. Possibly a change in language in Title 10. But we are going to need to make major changes to take on the new and changing roles we are capable of.

Nope, no changes in legislation necessary. The CG Aux has been augmenting the CG in all sorts of "real" jobs for years and they have basically the same laws autorizing their use in noncombat roles. 

The stuff you're talking about would be nice, but isn't a pre-condition.  If we wait for all that stuff to come through it will never happen as no one is going to want to make all those changes for an idea that hasn't been proven to work in practice in the AF yet. 

What would need to be changed are some AF and CAP regulations that would make it easier for CAP members to be used in this manner.  Right now the hoops that an AF commander would have to jump through, according to AF regs, to have one CAP guy come in and answer phones for the afternoon make it not worth their while.  On the CAP side there would need to be some sort of regulation written covering this activity as it doesn't fall into any of our normal categories.   For example, would this be an AFAM?  I would hope so, but it isn't a "mission" like our other missions and couldn't be handled the same way. 

One MAJOR problem...

The Coast Guard Auxiliary is a direct reporting unit of the US Coast Guard, which is under the Department of Homeland Security which I believe isn't restricted by Title 10.

The Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit corporation chartered by the US Senate and isn't under any department of the US Government. Yes, we're partnered up with the US Air Force, which is under the Department of Defense (restricted by Title 10), but we're a corporation. The CG Aux is NOT.

[afgeo4]

There are tons of civilians employeed by DoD on duty around the world.  Personally, I see no difference between a paid civilian worker and a volunteer from CAP in terms of whether or not they should be in a combat zone.  If both meet the criteria to do the job, then they should both be able to be used. 

It will be interesting to see how the views on the military towadrs us change as a result of the outsourcing of a lot of former "military" jobs to civilians.  Will the upcoming generation of AF officers be more open-minded about using CAP to augment their units back in the US?  After all, if they're used to seeing civilians running a McDonalds in the green zone, maybe they won't mind a CAP person helping out in their office. 

Umm ok, DoD Civillians are fully employed, insured and trained members of the department. CAP volunteers are neither employed nor insured and we're rarely trained for the job. Combat? Just forget the word combat. We are expressly denied that duty. In terms of being used by the Air Force...  I think there are some jobs that we could do, but... since we aren't paid, we don't have to show up. We're volunteers, remember?  We cannot guarantee manning for anything.  As much as we'd like to, we cannot in good faith do that because we may one day face the fact that our members aren't trained, aren't interested, or just plain don't want to do it anymore and any military branch cannot deal with that.  They need assurances. The Air Force doesn't stop because some volunteers decided they wanna stay home and drink hot chocolate one day.

Having said that, individual units have had limited success augmenting (not replacing) ANG slots.  I know that units in Central NY have augmented the men and women of the 174th Fighter Wing, NYANG on numerous occasions. Positions augmented have been in the Security Forces (traffic and pedestrian flow control, not gate guard duty), Services (food preparation, service, and clean-up), and I believe Public Affairs fields. These have been short term specific requests from the ANG Wing CC directly to the CAP Group CC and both parties ended up happy, so there's something to the idea.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Yes, under the current title 10, we are expressly limited to "Non-combat" missions and programs of the USAF.  The purpose of the thread was to discuss the pros and cons of changing title 10 to free up USAF pilots by replacing them at the controls of UAV's with CAP pilots.

During World War II CAP volunteers filled the gap by patrolling the coast and attacking enemy submarines, and by patrolling the Pacific Northwest against Japanese "Balloon bombs."  They didn't decide to stay home and drink hot chocolate, and neither will we.  To suggest that the current CAP members will let the Air Force down on a mission like this is to say that we are not worthy of our battle heritage.

[RiverAux]

The Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit corporation chartered by the US Senate and isn't under any department of the US Government. Yes, we're partnered up with the US Air Force, which is under the Department of Defense (restricted by Title 10), but we're a corporation. The CG Aux is NOT.

You're missing the point...federal law ALREADY allows the use of CAP for any non-combat missions of the AF just like federal law says the same thing about CG Aux.  So, if the AF wanted to use CAP in pretty much any manner here in the US they have the legal authority to do so.  Yes, some changes in AF and CAP regs would be necessary to make it work well, but nothing more needs to go to Congress.

CAP volunteers are neither employed nor insured

When on AFAMs we are more or less employed by the AF and insured as well.  The only difference is that we don't get paid.  My comparison was aimed more at distinctions between what is a "military" vs what is a "civilian" job. 

[Dragoon]

The issue of "sustained ops" is an important one.  As a few have pointed out, if I've got a guy working for me doing important work, I want the SAME guy every time, not a new volunteer every day.

Now, if it's not really critical work, I don't care if it's a rotating cast of thousands. 

So how many of our volunteers are available fill this kind of request should USAF ask (hint - it's about the same as our number of retired members minus those with disability issues )

I used to wonder how the heck CAP ran 24/7 sub patrols in WWII.  Then a former sub chaser spoke at our Wing conference.  The answer suprised me...


........flying sub patrol was a full time, paid job!

The speaker said that the money was actually pretty good. 

In other words, sure they "volunteered" to serve, but they weren't volunteers in the modern CAP sense - they were working for the Army full time.  And getting paid to do it!

I would love to see us do more USAF support.  But we have to find some way to supply them with trained people, willing to work many days a week, and possible deploy for weeks or months at a time, WITHOUT PAY.

Because if pay is involved, they can just use the Guard, USAF civlians, or contractors.

[JohnKachenmeister]

CAP members on submarine patrol were paid a per diem allowance to cover living expenses.  On the base, they would pool their money and buy food, and creature comforts.  They had some left over, but I've never heard it described as "Pretty good money" before. 

First we get the law changed.  Then we convince the USAF that we CAN do it.  After that, we discuss the bill.

[Dragoon]

Not being QUITE old enough to have flown sub patrols myself, I have to go on what he said.  He was very happy with the pay, and did the job for almost the entire period that CAP was in the sub business.  Not a part time, take a few days off from work endeavor.

Do you think it's likely that we could get the law changed without first convincing someone in DoD that it was both feasible and economically viable?  After all, why waste time fighting Capitol Hill on an potentially unworkable deal?

Of course, if someone has a powerful Democratic Senator as a brother in law, we can probably get anything we want!   

[afgeo4]

I think in the gov't it works like this: First we show them that they can afford it if we can do it. Second we prove to them that we can do it if they change the law. Third we ask them to change the law if they can afford it.

[DNall]

CAP members on submarine patrol were paid a per diem allowance to cover living expenses.  On the base, they would pool their money and buy food, and creature comforts.  They had some left over, but I've never heard it described as "Pretty good money" before. 

First we get the law changed.  Then we convince the USAF that we CAN do it.  After that, we discuss the bill.

I certainly WANT some changes to Title 10 & 36, but I don't NEED any. I don't see the law as the thing keeping us down. I think it's our personnel... so let me reverse your statement. I think we need to convince the AF we CAN do it, then ask them to change the law to reflect the level of confidence we've EARNED. '

The way I think it should be done is to present 3 things to AF. One is an ultimate vision of where we can be with all the required changes in place. Two is the goal point we need to get to in order to get the changes made; and, three is the plan to get from where we are to that goal point. Beside that lay down another document. This one can contain everything from uniform items to legislative changes (which might include employment protections & deployed/sustainement per diem). That's a list of things we want but don't deserve. Ask them  to give us those items as they think we've earned them. Then get moving.

It's true the AF doesn't know what to do with CAP. There are people thinking about cutting it all the way up to the kinds of conversations we're having about strategic employment & heavey duty noble eagle/war on terror missions. So why wait for them? We have the latitude of corporate missions, and even some training money. There are a lot of missions we can demonstrate w/ current gear & personnel. Run a test demonstration, turn in staff study after staff study pushing AF's limits on how to use us. They don't have ideas? Why aren't we flooding them in a pool to pick from? There ain't no money for specialized gear in a cut AF budget? Well there sure as hell is in DHS for 1AF-AMs.

My point is I don't think there's anything hardly at all that we're talking about that can't be done under the currently leagal structure. It's clunky, but workable. I'd LIKE some changes also, but I think we can step up first & show AF the terms they need to be thinking in about us.

[JohnKachenmeister]

There's one other important point.

We NEED to improve our officer personnel.

Making some cadet's mom a second lieutenant after taking an on-line reading assignment and test does NOT cut it.  Iowa has a good idea, a 6-month OTS.  I'm trying to get a 3-month OTS through here in FL, but I'm meeting with either resistance or lethargy, I'm not sure which.

No matter which reorganization/legal change/whatever we do, it wioll not work without officers who understand what is represented by their rank, and accept the traditions and values of military service.

Most of us had to go through a unique and life-changing experience to earn the rank of Second Lieutenant. 

[RiverAux]

The issue of "sustained ops" is an important one.  As a few have pointed out, if I've got a guy working for me doing important work, I want the SAME guy every time, not a new volunteer every day.

Shouldn't be a problem.  The CG Aux has had people working at some CG Stations so long that they have trained most of the staff (primarily in radio watchstanding).  
I don't see why it would be any different for CAP.  Sure, not every CAP member is going to be willing to make that committment, but some will.

By the way, whenever augmentation is brought up people start saying CAP members will just be cleaning toilets or mowing the lawns.  Well take a look at the augmentation that the CA State Military Reserve does for their National Guard (this is the 40th Aviation Brigade Support Battalion):

To augment unit administrative capabilities in the areas of personnel and administrative services, operations and training, logistics, civil affairs, communications, medical, chaplain and legal support services. Support is also provided to the 1106th Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot.

Over with the Air NG, the CA SMR augments the 146th Airlift Wing.  One of the members serves as the Air Ops Officer for the NGs Joint Operations Center.  Another person is the Quality Assurance Technician.  They are recruiting folks for admin, personnel, medical, transportation, aircraft and vehicle maintenance, airlift operations, weather, security, engineer, and chaplains augmentation positions.

By the way, the CA SMR also has a unit that augments the Air NG's 129th Rescue Wing, but I don't have any info on specific duties.  

The people in the CA SMR are not very different from CAP members (well, they don't have the older folks (can only enlist from 18-63).  The people that join are not sent off to any special Army schools to learn the augmentation tasks they're doing.  Its all OJT. There may be an occasional vet doing the same job they did while in the NG or AD.  They drill 8 hours a month and have a 200 hour a year minimum committment (including drills).  

If they can find people willing to volunteer to do these sorts of duties for the NG, CAP could do the same for the AF.

[afgeo4]

The augmentation done by the NY Guard (NY State Military) to the Army and Air National Guard isn't anywhere the same.  These men and women are enlisted as members of the military with state funding for their training, logistical support, uniforms, and pay when on active duty. They are trained by the Nat Guard folk to perform these duties and are obliged to perform them by law as enlisted and commissioned members of the state military. 

CAP volunteers are still members of a benevolent, non-profit corporation, not the US military.  Could our members do the job?  Sure they could!  With their eyes closed!  Should they?  NO!  That's what the State Guard is for.  We have a different job to do and I think we ought to talk about that job more often than we talk about what we could do if we were the military or in the military or with the military.  Once we get that down packed, maybe we can talk about moving on to bigger, better things.

I'm sorry if that offends some of you folks, but my background is of enlisted USAF Res and seeing how most CAP units operate at present time... I'm not comfortable with tasking this organization with things the military has to depend on. It's a cold, cold truth and I wish it wasn't so.  Perhaps soon it won't be so, but I feel today it is. So let's all start talking about how we can do our current jobs better and stop talking about what jobs we could do so it'd be easier for us to look more proffessional.  We don't choose our duty, our duty chooses us!

[Dragoon]

Shouldn't be a problem.  The CG Aux has had people working at some CG Stations so long that they have trained most of the staff (primarily in radio watchstanding).  
I don't see why it would be any different for CAP.  Sure, not every CAP member is going to be willing to make that committment, but some will.

I think stateside watch station (or EOC or whatever you want to call it) duty is something CAP members could certainly do well.  The duty schedule is known way in advance, the training required is low, the total number of personel needed is small.  We can handle that.  And since every USAF post has a 24/7 command center that needs mannting, the only problem I see with us doing it is having the appropriate clearances)

But other kinds of surges are tougher.   Ever seen how hard it is to get aircrew or Ground Teams on the third week of a protracted search?  That kind of duty (schedule = unknown, training required = high, number of personnel = large) is a much tougher nut to crack.

I'd liken flying UAVs in support of combat ops to be a lot more like that than like watch station duty.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The augmentation done by the NY Guard (NY State Military) to the Army and Air National Guard isn't anywhere the same.  These men and women are enlisted as members of the military with state funding for their training, logistical support, uniforms, and pay when on active duty. They are trained by the Nat Guard folk to perform these duties and are obliged to perform them by law as enlisted and commissioned members of the state military. 

CAP volunteers are still members of a benevolent, non-profit corporation, not the US military.  Could our members do the job?  Sure they could!  With their eyes closed!  Should they?  NO!  That's what the State Guard is for.  We have a different job to do and I think we ought to talk about that job more often than we talk about what we could do if we were the military or in the military or with the military.  Once we get that down packed, maybe we can talk about moving on to bigger, better things.

I'm sorry if that offends some of you folks, but my background is of enlisted USAF Res and seeing how most CAP units operate at present time... I'm not comfortable with tasking this organization with things the military has to depend on. It's a cold, cold truth and I wish it wasn't so.  Perhaps soon it won't be so, but I feel today it is. So let's all start talking about how we can do our current jobs better and stop talking about what jobs we could do so it'd be easier for us to look more proffessional.  We don't choose our duty, our duty chooses us!

Actually, George, that is NOT the State Guard's job.  The SDF's exist to provide the Governor a military force that he can use in riots and disasters when the National Guard has been called into federal service.  Anything that SDF's do when the NG is still within the state is "Training and readiness."  Their only mission is to respond to emergencies in the absence of the NG.

Personally, I see the mission of providing UAV pilots (Remote as it might be) as the natural extension of our historical development.  We began service filling in for pilot and aircraft shortages in World War II, and freed up AAF pilots to fly the fast airplanes by flying not only coastal, forest, and border patrols, but the "Ash and trash" missions.  Replacing qualified pilots at the controls of a UAV, so that the AF pilot can do what he is trained to do, is keeping as close to our historical roots as one can get, considering the changes in technology in the past 65 years.

[DNall]

CAP volunteers are still members of a benevolent, non-profit corporation, not the US military.  Could our members do the job?  Sure they could!  With their eyes closed!  Should they?  NO!  That's what the State Guard is for.  We have a different job to do and I think we ought to talk about that job more often than we talk about what we could do if we were the military or in the military or with the military.  Once we get that down packed, maybe we can talk about moving on to bigger, better things.

I'm sorry if that offends some of you folks, but my background is of enlisted USAF Res and seeing how most CAP units operate at present time... I'm not comfortable with tasking this organization with things the military has to depend on. It's a cold, cold truth and I wish it wasn't so.  Perhaps soon it won't be so, but I feel today it is. So let's all start talking about how we can do our current jobs better and stop talking about what jobs we could do so it'd be easier for us to look more proffessional.  We don't choose our duty, our duty chooses us!

I feel your pain, and it doesn't offend me. I tell ya I don't want to lut my life up on a foundation formed from the quality of CAP personnel judged by real military standards or the organizational & mgmt strength of CAP, or the strength of our senior leaders & the pool from which they're drawn. I want to though, lets build this team from teh inside out & make that happen. I mean truth is I do put my life on the line trusting other CAP members not to get me killed, and it's more dangerous than it should be cause of the above factors. I'm not talking about managing maint records on a Cessna though, I'm talking about wanting the AF's trust in us to be the front line nuke/red/chem/bio detection & deterrance capability... would you trust CAP to defend the country to that extent? I wouldn't either right now, which is why the money for the gear is avail from DHS & we can't have it - by the way looks like more money for detection on today's announcement... that and lack of strong oversight mechanisms & authority. Right? So, let's fix it.

And we are at very least "with" the military. We are by international law on AFAM considered combatants. The line in title 10 is instructions to the AF not to use us in combat, but that doesn't mean bad guys w/ rule books can't or won't shoot back. In WWII we were bound by UCMJ... It's a complex subject, and yeah I think we'd all like to clean it up, but I got better things to do than sell my soul to get in Congress right now.

[RiverAux]

CAP volunteers are still members of a benevolent, non-profit corporation, not the US military.  Could our members do the job?  Sure they could!  With their eyes closed!  Should they?  NO!  That's what the State Guard is for. 

We're talking about CAP augmenting the Air Force (or maybe Air Force Reserve) and not the National Guard, though I wouldn't be adverse to CAP people doing this for Air National Guards in states lacking SDFs (only half have them only a tiny handful of those do anything with the Air NG).  My point was that if the NG can train SDF members to do these jobs using not much more than on-the-job training, then the AF could certainly train CAP members to help them out (for some positions). 

Actually, George, that is NOT the State Guard's job.  The SDF's exist to provide the Governor a military force that he can use in riots and disasters when the National Guard has been called into federal service.  Anything that SDF's do when the NG is still within the state is "Training and readiness."  Their only mission is to respond to emergencies in the absence of the NG.

No, you're thinking of what SDFs were doing in the past, just hanging around waiting for the NG to leave.  Governors and TAGs have the authority to use SDFs in any way they want and several have started using them to augment their NG units.  In fact, in California that is really the only mission of the SDF and they have pretty much dropped worrying about replacing the NG, since the need for that service is very unlikely. 

[sandman]

Actually, George, that is NOT the State Guard's job.  The SDF's exist to provide the Governor a military force that he can use in riots and disasters when the National Guard has been called into federal service.  Anything that SDF's do when the NG is still within the state is "Training and readiness."  Their only mission is to respond to emergencies in the absence of the NG.

Personally, I see the mission of providing UAV pilots (Remote as it might be) as the natural extension of our historical development.  We began service filling in for pilot and aircraft shortages in World War II, and freed up AAF pilots to fly the fast airplanes by flying not only coastal, forest, and border patrols, but the "Ash and trash" missions.  Replacing qualified pilots at the controls of a UAV, so that the AF pilot can do what he is trained to do, is keeping as close to our historical roots as one can get, considering the changes in technology in the past 65 years.

I agree with you John, for example take a look at the Alaska SDF. They actually have commissions as State Troopers (MP units) and wear a (stinkin') badge when called up.

The UAV angle is a facinating one and I think in line with what CAP should pursue.