Long Term Decline

[BillB]

We constintly see figures on the decline of cadet membership. But what are the causes? On one hand we hear cadets want a more military program. On the other, what the cadets want violates CPPT. Is there a middle ground? It's often said the cadet program is designed and/or implimented by senior members with no concept of what cadets want, or even the history of the cadet program.  Or Senior members look at procedures or actions as hazing even though they have been used in the cadet program for many years, probably started before the Senior Member was even born. Granted many regulations that involve the cadet program are designed to protect the corporation from law suits. And it appears the implementing such polices coinsides with the start of the membership decline. A coincidence?
(excuse any spelling errors. trying to do a spell check get error messages)

[jimmydeanno]

In my opinion, the cadet regulations provide plenty of leniency to provide a great program.  What happens (in my opinion) is that we have a lack of quality leadership at the squadron level, or more simply put, a lack of people who "get it."

You can't say that we have a steady decline in membership when you have squadrons that have over 100 cadets or many squadron with 50+ cadets and growing. 

Having strong local leadership is what makes squadrons "good" and allows them to grow and prosper, drawing cadet membership. 

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the regulations and rules, but those we put "in charge" locally.

[Eclipse]

The issues with retention are more about the number of things vying for young people's attention, the misunderstanding of our program by school administrators, and poor marketing which goes back to the early days of the program (i.e. the best kept secret, etc.), then anything specific in our program.

I did a presentation this morning for a local Exchange Club, and most in the room had never heard of CAP.  This is nothing new, when I was a Boy Scout, during a time when the program had significantly more members and units, the sole marketing I ever saw was a small ad in the Boy's Life each month.

Its a complicated challenge without an easy fix, but I wouldn't cite issues of hazing or being either too gung-ho (or not enough) as being part of it.

[GoofyOne]

In my opinion, the cadet regulations provide plenty of leniency to provide a great program.  What happens (in my opinion) is that we have a lack of quality leadership at the squadron level, or more simply put, a lack of people who "get it."

You can't say that we have a steady decline in membership when you have squadrons that have over 100 cadets or many squadron with 50+ cadets and growing. 

Having strong local leadership is what makes squadrons "good" and allows them to grow and prosper, drawing cadet membership. 

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the regulations and rules, but those we put "in charge" locally.

Ditto! :clap: :clap:

[dwb]

Well, it's hard to blame the decline in CAP membership solely on CAP itself.  Pretty much every service organization has seen a decline in participation from the good ol' days of the 1950s-1970s.

Ask the Shriner's, or heck, the Boy Scouts, what their numbers look like today versus 1975.

I wasn't in CAP in the 1960s and 1970s, so I can't speak to what the "feel" of the program was in those early Jack Sorensen days.  I strongly suspect it was nothing like Full Metal Jacket, and that the "faux militarism" that CPPT helps prevent was never really that effective or widespread to begin with.

That being said, I do think we need to demand a certain level of quality in our CP-oriented senior members.  To NHQ's credit, I think they've really been trying to remedy that for the last five years, with all of the new curriculum resources.

I think the program today allows enough flexibility for the really high-performing squadrons, and recent CP curriculum developments are working towards raising the lower-performing ones.

Moreover, today's CP offers a lot more opportunities than yesteryear, at least in terms of national-level activities and scholarships.  We just need to work on bringing all squadrons up to a respectable level of quality (a.k.a. The Hard Part).

[Spike]

CAP had a major influx in the months following September 11, 2001.  We even had a massive billboard campaign in 2002-03. 

We lost our advertising and those we recruited after 9/11 are now off to college. 

[BillB]

those we recruited after 9/11 are now off to college

And what are Wings doing to retain these cadets. Florida Wing at one time had the Headquarters Cadet Squadron at the University of Florida. It produced more Spaatz cadets in one year than the rest of the region combined. (including cadets from other regions)

Pretty much every service organization has seen a decline in participation from the good ol' days of the 1950s-1970s.

Tell that to the Marines, the Young Marines that is, their numbers are growing.

today's CP offers a lot more opportunities than yesteryear, at least in terms of national-level activities and scholarships.

Basically there are the same number of scholarships today as there was 20 years ago. And while there are added National activities, the Region level activities has all but disappeared. Southeast Region used to have two exchange programs. Based on the IACE concept. Cadets from various Wingswould gather and visit other Wings, aerospace, aviation, military facilities. Of course that was possible when USAF airlift was available. Or Regions had USAF aircraft assigned.
It's the Region and Squadron level of activities that has declined. This is not true for many Squadrons, but in general is a valid statement.

In 1972, a survey was made of cadets that had attended a 1965 Summer Encampment. (Survey is available from Air War College) It found that 45% of the cadets at that encampment were still in CAP as Senior Members. It also found that the majority of cadets that went into the military, went into the Army Aviation, not Air Force.  Of the 350 cadets that attnded the encampment 55% earned the Earhart. Can any of these percentages be found today?

[USADOD]

My theory is marketing is terrible, we present Civil Air Patrol itself and not the benefits like our engineering program and IACE. Poor Adult Leadership is a ingredient to this decline as well, most Squadron Commander are not familiar with the ideal of a functioning squadron, and in the instance that they are its a molded squadron that existed back in the 60's in which the same interest does not exist today; hence, many find it hard to adapt to modern times.

[RiverAux]

CAP as an organization may just be trying to do too much by having a cadet program and a ES-based senior program.  The other programs are entirely focused on the kids while I think that in many cases in CAP they are an afterthought.  That does show. 

I know (yes, personal experience) that in my Wing cadet programs don't get 20% of the attention from the Wing Commander and his senior staff that air ops and ES gets.  Except for those few dedicated seniors at the squadron level that go above and beyond to keep their programs, it is just not a priority. 

And yes, this is coming from a guy who is primarily ES oriented now, but I was a cadet in my youth.  And no, I haven't really put my money where my mouth is by helping out on the cadet side of the house to any great extent.  I'm a good example of what I'm complaining about.

I am absolutely convinced that if it was a priority we could probably double or triple our cadet numbers.  What would it take?  A focus on recruiting seniors to work with cadets rather than pilots.   

[wingnut55]

I  think you are right, I am a former Cadet from the 1770s and CAP has not changed much except for one very import MAJOR SCREW UP.

CAP NHQ has alienated the General Aviation community in many ways. CAP discourages Member owned aircraft participation in the selfish interest of having the Uncle Sam pay for a fleet of 500 Aircraft. So because we have 500 planes we lost the participation of thousands of pilots with their Airplanes.

This also included all of those people who have children that could have participated as Cadets. What a colosal blunder and a huge fraud and abuse of funds. for example: What could we have done with 16 million dollars for flight training and keeping pilots trained in ES flying, cadets getting soloed, etc, etc.

Instead someone convinced congress to buy 16 out dated Archers. This is but one problem, 10 member owned aircraft with air crews are much more useful than 1 Air Force paid for airplane and if you are lucky 4 aircrews in the entire squadron.

General Aviation is a family affair, CAP and Aviation use to be part of the Family. Not a local Airport Militia

[BillB]

I started this thread to open discussion from the experienced CAP members of CAP Talk. It appears that much of the marketing of CAP has been towards the senior programs and ES.
Perhaps the National Commander needs to appoint a committee of just plain members, not Corporate Officers or Corporate Staff to come up with a marketing plan for the cadet program. And at the same time look at the member owned aircraft use or the general aviation field.
It also looks like the Corporate Officers are getting the wrong information from the lower levels of the organization. Meaning the poor local leadership positions.
Much to often the ideas that come from cadets are ignored at all levels of CAP, including the National Cadet Advisory Council. Is this because the CAC is "appointed" by the local Commander rather than "elected" by the cadets when 52-16 was rewritten? (look at the old 50-16 to see the differences)
Overall the cadet program offers a valuable experience to cadets. But there are problems that need to be addressed. And NHQ doesn't look like it's aware of any probelsm in cadet programs.
Lets keep up the discussion, and see what any problems are and what may resolve them, if any exist outside of local level problems.

[capchiro]

So far, some of the discussion is good.  I don't think overall that the SM in leadership positions in the squadrons are very much to blame.  The program is a different beast than it used to be.  When we used member owned A/C, it was easier to schedule cadet O flights.  As a youngster, my first flight was a "penny-a-pound" flight out of the local airport with a CAP member and in his A/C.  I joined CAP after that.  In 1963-64 WIWAC I was with a squadron that met on an Air Force base (Truax Field) at Madison Wisconsin.  We wore only Khaki's, no fatigues.  We did some PT, but not a lot.  We did not do any ES.  We did Air Force training and interesting Air Force stuff.  When I went to encampment at Chanute Air Force Base, we were flown there and back in C-119's by the Air Force.  We stayed in barracks and ate at mess halls just like we were in the Air Force.  We attended classes on engine maintenence, weather, and aviation oriented training.  We got an orientation ride in a C-47 and we all got to fly it for a few minutes.  We went to the base theater and watched Air Force recruiting type films.  We didn't have to buy a bunch of ES stuff and BDU's, boots, etc.  We were treated like Air Force Cadets and expected to act like same.  As mentioned above, a lot of us went into Army Aviation later, only becaue we didn't have the college degree to fly for the Air Force.  The Air Force strongly supported CAP and it was a big recruiting tool.  Somehow, to mention that CAP is now a recruiting tool is politically incorrect.  What a shame.  There are a few cadets that are hard core young marine and/or ES material, but I suspect that our program would grow if we would get back to our roots of avaition and get the support of the Air Force behind us again.  Many of my cadets will never step on an Air Force base during their career.  Our encampments are almost always at an Army Base.  Running around in BDU's, eating MRE's and doing PT are not as much Air Force as one might think.  Let's try to get back to our Air Force roots and see what happens.  Let's have encampments at Air Bases and let's get orientation flights on refueling flights, etc.. as usual, jmho..     

[heliodoc]

Wait til DHS gets us under their wing.

There will requirements to meet for those loose 500 airplanes and MAYBE 1AF will transfer the assets AWAY from the AF to a civilian organization such as DHS.  Then the only thing different will be dispatching the system and people and aircraft thru AFRCC and then the onus is on DHS / FEMA for dispatch.  The AFRCC will be responsible for tracking 406 and 121.5 only

how about that to chew on for awhile.  CAP'ers want MORE DHS involvement??  Hereeee's away to satisfy that growing need to be more viable

Ya it's a stretch, but funnier things have happened.

[dwb]

I am a former Cadet from the 1770s

Wow, you're old. 

[BrandonKea]

I  think you are right, I am a former Cadet from the 1770s and CAP has not changed much except for one very import MAJOR SCREW UP.

Holy Crap man! 


I got in just as the cadet program was in it's last phase before it was watered down completely. The AE program now, while getting more attention as a whole, has been "dumbed down" to an elementary level. I don't feel like the cadets have even a quarter of the knowledge they did WIWAC. I can't speak for the leadership portion of the program, since I've been focusing on ES. I can say that in my unit, I see a lot of cadets who are very interested and are excelling, and some who haven't promoted once since I went on hiatus 2 years ago. The NCSA's appear to be much more diverse in offerings, but, the diversifaction may have watered down the attention each gets from NHQ. Some of these newer NCSAs seem like something that doesn't really go with the Cadet Program, but, I'm sure I'll get someone telling me why their pet program is awesome. Fine.


I LOVE the idea of getting back on Air Force bases to do encampments. I never had an encampment on an Air Force Base, but if we could do what capchiro touched on, this program would be amazing. Now there's so much that stands in the way, and the focus from NHQ HAS gone away from CP in my opinion.

This change starts at the bottom though, we have the framework in place. Expand on the AE program, get MORE cadets involved in the workings of the squadron, it's not good enough for them to show up for 2 years and not promote. Seniors need to mentor cadets, not just leaving it to the Cadet Officers (who get negelected all to often as well). I would love to let my ES program be run 90% by cadets.

I'm rambling, but I do feel really strongly on the subject. The program will continue to eat itself to death, or we can bolster it from the roots and really step it up a notch! Don't worry about bringing more people in, keep retention rates high, and the newbies will come. Nobody wants to join a program where nobody knows what the heck is going on.

[PlaneFlyr]

Retention is one of our biggest issues.  We're currently turning over around 50% of our membership each year.  That means we're recruiting 50% annually, so our meager recruiting efforts are somewhat working.  However, that leaves us with a loss of corporate knowledge.

One thing that helps retention at a local level, is to put the members to good use.  I've seen both senior and cadet programs stagnate when only a small core group teaches and runs everything, while the rest of the members just sit in the audience.  Eventually, they realize that the group doesn't need them and they go elsewhere.  Part of our leadership training should be putting the members into functional roles as soon as they're ready. This gives them a stake in the program.  It's also important to recognize those who are helping out (at a minimum, make sure to thank them). 

My first squadron in Ohio (Sqdn 704, 1982-90) had a self-sufficient cadet program.  DCC would supervise and steer, but mostly let the cadets lead themselves. The older cadets (typically several spaatzen) would plan/organize/delegate, to the younger officers/NCOs, who each had a job function to perform.  Chain of command was followed.  As cadets progressed, they would move up in responsibility.  Classes were usually taught by older cadets.  This developed leadership in all involved, and made everyone feel needed.  Retention was excellent.

I've also seen other units where the DCC would stand in front and teach everything.  Cadets would just sit in the classroom, or occasionally take tests.  They typically got more than enough of that at school, and felt like they were just taking up space at CAP... and went away.  Retention was horrible.

Think about why you are in CAP, and what you want from it.  Respect?  Feel needed?  A chance to progress?  Your fellow members feel those same needs.

[RedFox24]

When I was DCP for the Wing I kept track of cadet numbers by units and by groups, in and out each month.  Units that did more O flights or unit activities outside the regular meeting had higher recruiting and retention rates.  That was not really all that earth shattering.

What was earth shattering was that cadets 16yrs and older dropped out of the program on a pretty consistent basis.  When polled they quoted, almost universally,  "they would have renewed if they had been reminded".  It appears that when they turned 16 they got jobs or had other high school activities or went away to college, away from their unit, that conflicted with their attending regular squadron meetings.  The local squadron did not keep in contact with them, reminding them about meetings or such, and even didn't remind them that they needed to renew.  Cadet who did stay in, who also had the same problems attending meetings as those that dropped stated they stayed in because the squadron commander or DCC called or kept in contact with them and reminded them they needed to renew.

Yes there were instances where some commanders terminated the cadet for not attending meetings.............pretty stupid IMO in these circumstances.  These are units who, by looking at the data, are on their way to extinction.  Their numbers were on a steady decline.  They were also units only focused on one part of the program.

A simple phone call or email kept cadets in the program.  I wrote up a 5 page report to the CC and command staff on this, with the numbers and graphs, it went no where. 

[Eclipse]

^ Any cadet or senior that is so inactive that they have to be reminded to renew isn't much value to the organization beyond just maintaining artificial numbers.

[RedFox24]

The ones that did get reminded continued in the program and became seniors...............so it wasn't artificial at all.  A very small percentage who didn't get reminded became seniors at some point. 

[Eclipse]

The ones that did get reminded continued in the program and became seniors...............so it wasn't artificial at all.  A very small percentage who didn't get reminded became seniors at some point.

By "artificial", I mean did they actually do anything, or do they just continue to write a check each year?  Its not unusual to have to remind busy people they are expiring - but that's generally an administrative issue, not a functional one (i.e. they are active and just forgot).

Having to prod people to renew who never show up is a waste of time - 9 times out of 10 even if you can guilt them into a few meetings their interest goes right back to zero in a short time.  Either you catch them and keep them in the first year or you probably lose them forever, cadets and seniors alike.

I just looked and our wing has ~85 members in 000 alone - if I did the math right that's about 5% of membership confirmed inactive, and I'd be willing to be that if we really scraped out the bottom of all the units it would be more like 2-3 times that number.

What's the point of that beyond the pure financial motive of keeping them on the roster?  Drop them to some national patron holding squadron and stop over-reporting readiness and membership.

Fixing the problems has to start with acknowledging them first - our leaders seeing the real numbers of active participants would be a real eye opener.

I'm in a couple of advocacy groups who's main purpose is to grow to a large enough number that our "voice" appears louder then the rest of the background, and to have a self-sustaining revenue stream - the vast majority of members consider their annual dues "their part", and that's the sum total of expectation. 

Think, AMA, AOPA, etc.

That's not what CAP is about.  Either you're a doer and an active participant, or there's not much point.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about people who are active and then life gets in the way for a while, I'm talking about members with CAPID's that start with 1XXXXX and 2XXXXX, who never made it past SM and haven't been to a meeting in 10 years.  Makes no sense to me.)

[BrandonKea]

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about people who are active and then life gets in the way for a while, I'm talking about members with CAPID's that start with 1XXXXX and 2XXXXX, who never made it past SM and haven't been to a meeting in 10 years.  Makes no sense to me.)

I'm one of those 29*** CAPID's for which I was inactive for about 2 years. I had a job that the hours and demands stopped me from being useful. In the 2 years, I wasn't really "in the loop" about anything that went on, but the squadron knew why I was gone. Now, I'm back and plan on never leaving again.

On the other hand, there are SM's who joined 3 or 4 years ago, who I still have NO idea who they are. I think they maintain their membership just to say they have it.

[Eclipse]

I'm one of those 29*** CAPID's for which I was inactive for about 2 years. I had a job that the hours and demands stopped me from being useful. In the 2 years, I wasn't really "in the loop" about anything that went on, but the squadron knew why I was gone. Now, I'm back and plan on never leaving again.

What real purpose was served by having you remain a "real" member for either side?

You had little or no grade to maintain, your quals would be expired when you came back, and anything else you did could be restored upon return, yet someone still had to maintain a jacket for you, make excuses for anything compliance related you weren't completing, and at higher HQ's you counted as a "tick" in terms of overall numbers.

And that conversation goes two ways -

Good - "Look how many people we have!"

Bad - "How can we have this many people and not be able to accomplish our missions?"

[BrandonKea]

I'm one of those 29*** CAPID's for which I was inactive for about 2 years. I had a job that the hours and demands stopped me from being useful. In the 2 years, I wasn't really "in the loop" about anything that went on, but the squadron knew why I was gone. Now, I'm back and plan on never leaving again.

What real purpose was served by having you remain a "real" member for either side?

You had little or no grade to maintain, your quals would be expired when you came back, and anything else you did could be restored upon return, yet someone still had to maintain a jacket for you, make excuses for anything compliance related you weren't completing, and at higher HQ's you counted as a "tick" in terms of overall numbers.

And that conversation goes two ways -

Good - "Look how many people we have!"

Bad - "How can we have this many people and not be able to accomplish our missions?"

Aside from me being on the roster, the purpose of me staying on was my job continued to promise me the ability to work CAP back into my schedule. The problem occurred when layoffs occurred, increasing my workload, and then realignment occurred, forcing me to work a shift that wasn't CAP-friendly.

Aside from that, my quals were maintained, I'm still a GTM-3, and I'm re-familliarizing myself with what's changed in 2 years. I had SLS done, Yeager done, OPSEC done, two tech ratings done, so there was nobody making excuses for why I wasn't doing anything as far as that goes. My jacket sat, where it's been sitting for 9 years, and nobody worried much about it. I paid my dues, hoping I could eventually return, and I did.

[Eclipse]

Aside from that, my quals were maintained, I'm still a GTM-3, and I'm re-familliarizing myself with what's changed in 2 years. I had SLS done, Yeager done, OPSEC done, two tech ratings done, so there was nobody making excuses for why I wasn't doing anything as far as that goes. My jacket sat, where it's been sitting for 9 years, and nobody worried much about it. I paid my dues, hoping I could eventually return, and I did.

Few will be giving CC's grief about Yeager and SLS, however if you were still doing things like OPSEC, then you're not in the club I'm referring to.

There's also the issue of once-a-year members who have some specific activity that is primarily self-serving (i.e. "fun"), and they maintain their membership just for that, ignoring everything else the rest of the year to the headache of their CC's.

[BrandonKea]

Aside from that, my quals were maintained, I'm still a GTM-3, and I'm re-familliarizing myself with what's changed in 2 years. I had SLS done, Yeager done, OPSEC done, two tech ratings done, so there was nobody making excuses for why I wasn't doing anything as far as that goes. My jacket sat, where it's been sitting for 9 years, and nobody worried much about it. I paid my dues, hoping I could eventually return, and I did.

Few will be giving CC's grief about Yeager and SLS, however if you were still doing things like OPSEC, then you're not in the club I'm referring to.

There's also the issue of once-a-year members who have some specific activity that is primarily self-serving (i.e. "fun"), and they maintain their membership just for that, ignoring everything else the rest of the year to the headache of their CC's.

I think we have 1 senior in our squadron who doesn't have CPPT. It was a cadet who turned 21 and hasn't been active for awhile, but isn't coming back. Our commander still hates that we hover at 98% for that. All new SM's in our unit are encouraged to complete the Yeager ASAP, which I think is great, as it's a good intro into AE for new members.

I might not have been "active," but I was up to date where I needed to be.

[Eclipse]

I think we have 1 senior in our squadron who doesn't have CPPT. It was a cadet who turned 21 and hasn't been active for awhile, but isn't coming back. Our commander still hates that we hover at 98% for that.

Easily fixed with a couple of clicks.  I have no idea why CC's are reluctant to do that, especially when they know they aren't coming back and are causing issues with compliance mandates.

[MIKE]

Topic?

[PlaneFlyr]

What was earth shattering was that cadets 16yrs and older dropped out of the program on a pretty consistent basis.  When polled they quoted, almost universally,  "they would have renewed if they had been reminded".  It appears that when they turned 16 they got jobs or had other high school activities or went away to college, away from their unit, that conflicted with their attending regular squadron meetings.  The local squadron did not keep in contact with them, reminding them about meetings or such, and even didn't remind them that they needed to renew.  Cadet who did stay in, who also had the same problems attending meetings as those that dropped stated they stayed in because the squadron commander or DCC called or kept in contact with them and reminded them they needed to renew.

Yes there were instances where some commanders terminated the cadet for not attending meetings.............pretty stupid IMO in these circumstances.  These are units who, by looking at the data, are on their way to extinction.  Their numbers were on a steady decline.  They were also units only focused on one part of the program.

A simple phone call or email kept cadets in the program.  I wrote up a 5 page report to the CC and command staff on this, with the numbers and graphs, it went no where.

Good point.  I've seen some units in mild decline turn it around by instituting a call-down list, and using it regularly.  Each person only has to call a couple below them on the list, so it's not a hardship for any of them.  And the reminder of upcoming events kept people showing up (at least better than before).

As for terminating members for lack of attendence... I'm not a big fan.  I know the regs allow it, but there are often better ways.  At the very least, the commander should call the person and find out why they haven't been around first.  If they're just busy with school/work/etc they'll appreciate CAP's patience with them.  If they aren't interested anymore, they can just roll off the membership list naturally.  Only if someone is a relatively bad apple to begin with would I consider it.  (yes... I've done all this for various members in the past)

[Rotorhead]

CAP NHQ has alienated the General Aviation community in many ways. CAP discourages Member owned aircraft participation in the selfish interest of having the Uncle Sam pay for a fleet of 500 Aircraft. So because we have 500 planes we lost the participation of thousands of pilots with their Airplanes.

What's the problem here?

No one is trying to keep you from flying your own airplane on your own time.

How does having to fly CAP aircraft on CAP missions alienate or keep someone who owns an airplane from participating?

If their attitude is, "I fly my own airplane or forget it," then maybe that's not the kind of person we need in the first place.

[Eclipse]

CAP NHQ has alienated the General Aviation community in many ways. CAP discourages Member owned aircraft participation in the selfish interest of having the Uncle Sam pay for a fleet of 500 Aircraft. So because we have 500 planes we lost the participation of thousands of pilots with their Airplanes.

"Alienated the GA community?  How, by committing hundreds of volunteer hours and thousands of volunteer dollars to protecting them?

By spending millions each year providing new and nearly new aircraft that can be flown by members
in support of the above for 1/2 what the average rentals charge, or better for "free" when you follow the program?

Most of the pilots I know of who think we've "alienated" the GA community are GOB's who think anything beyond their PPL and a glance at the airplane is "killing the organization with too many rules..."

And as an aircrew guy, completely dependent on the maintenance and attention to detail of the owner of the airplane, I'd much rather the Yugo with the door stapled to the roof is maintained with the "overly-conservative" attitude of the USAF and CAP, then depending on someone's personal risk tolerance.

80+% of the planes in my wing were acquired or zeroed within my 10-years as a member, most are a lot newer.  When I get into one of CAP's planes, I am reasonably certain its had all the required maintenance, and was repaired some place that has the name on their door.

I would not be excited to fly in the crates of a lot of our esteemed pilots who think its too much effort to wear a uniform properly, let alone maintain their aircraft.

And everyone knows that in an Armageddon scenario there is plenty of allowance for use of member-owned aircraft.

[Capt Rivera]

I wrote up a 5 page report to the CC and command staff on this, with the numbers and graphs, it went no where.

Do you still have the report? Can you post it? - Thanks