CAP aircraft markings

[Major Carrales]

... With U.S. AIR FORCE markings of course... none of this CAP nonsense. 

Will the USAF own the aircraft?  or will the Civil Air Patrol?  The difference is a big one.

Civil Air Patrol won't exist.

MIKE, have you gone meshuggeneh?  Still, I wonder what would happen if the USAF ever absorbed CAP and had direct control.

[Tubacap]

This may seem like a strange question, but who does "own" our aircraft?  Is it the corporation or is it the USAF?  How about ground vehicles?  Are these vehicles considered "government" as they are paid for primarily through appropriated funds?

Does this affect the markings?

BTY I like the CAP insignia, it is a great balance for the civilian aux to the USAF

[FW]

^Actually, Will, it's a good question.    CAP aircraft air "owned" by CAP however, the title is held by the USAF.  Sort of like the bank holding title to your car if it's financed. It's why the AF must insure we take proper care of the aircraft and we must get approval to modify them over contracted specs. 

CAP decides the paint scheme and decals BUT, the "USAF AUX" bears certain restrictions which would impede us from certain missions; at this time.  I hope this answers the question.

[RiverAux]

CAP aircraft air "owned" by CAP however, the title is held by the USAF. 

You've asserted that in several places lately.  Can you point to something that backs this up?

[SarDragon]

According to the FAA registration database, the owner is CAP, the corporation.

N4646H, a CAWG asset:

Registered Owner

Name           CIVIL AIR PATROL INC
Street       105 SOUTH HANSELL ST
City       MAXWELL AFB    State    ALABAMA         Zip Code        36112-6332
County       MONTGOMERY
Country       UNITED STATES

IIRC, the recent sale of various aircraft was done by the wings, not USAF, and the proceeds went to the corporation.

[FW]

CAP aircraft air "owned" by CAP however, the title is held by the USAF. 

You've asserted that in several places lately.  Can you point to something that backs this up?

I can only point to some"one".  The titles to the aircraft are held by the CAP-USAF/CC.  It's a technical point, since they're only a few feet from the CAP side of the building however, they are in the control of the AF.  Also, every time I ask about it, that's the answer I get.

[SAR-EMT1]

and the coast guard aux doesn't use the star and bar

They don't have airplanes.

Um... yeah they do.
Examples: P-3 Orion, C-130

[Tubacap]

I am pretty sure you're thinking USCG not USCG/AUX.

[Eclipse]

CAP decides the paint scheme and decals BUT, the "USAF AUX" bears certain restrictions which would impede us from certain missions; at this time.  I hope this answers the question.

I'm sorry, I have to take issue to that.  This is another misguided leftover from the HWSRN.

The markings on the plane do not change our status with regards to Posse Comitatus in either direction, same for the vehicles.

[SAR-EMT1]

I am pretty sure you're thinking USCG not USCG/AUX.

DOH! ...yeah

[Eclipse]

and the coast guard aux doesn't use the star and bar

They don't have airplanes.

Um... yeah they do.
Examples: P-3 Orion, C-130

All aircraft flown by CG Aux'ers are member-owned. 

[stratoflyer]

CAP decides the paint scheme and decals BUT, the "USAF AUX" bears certain restrictions which would impede us from certain missions; at this time.  I hope this answers the question.

I'm sorry, I have to take issue to that.  This is another misguided leftover from the HWSRN.

The markings on the plane do not change our status with regards to Posse Comitatus in either direction, same for the vehicles.

^Could you explain that?

And what does "HWSRN" mean?

[Eclipse]

He Who Shall Remain Nameless, our former national commander.

The issues regarding whether CAP is bound by Posse Comm as an auxiliary of a military service, and in turn our ability to support LEA's in enforcement activities are complicated and contentious.  One argument says that unless we are on an AFAM we are a private corporation, not bound by PC, however the counter to that is where most of the money and resources come from.

There are buckets of 1's and 0's on this topic here and other forums.

However whether or not it says "USAF Aux" on the tail of an airplane isn't going to change our legal status in that regard, nor get us more missions.

We are what we are, for all its worth, and until it changes at the charter level, or the Supremes rule on POTUS' assertion that Posse Comm can be "relaxed" in times of national emergencies, we'll not likely see much in terms of LEA enforcement missions.

[stratoflyer]

As I recall it, the Posse law prohibits military from performing law enforcement. What happened in New Orleans sometime after Katrina and the Guard stepped in?

[Eclipse]

As I recall it, the Posse law prohibits military from performing law enforcement. What happened in New Orleans sometime after Katrina and the Guard stepped in?

The National Guard is the answer to Posse Comm.  Guard units are "recognized" by the federal government, but are state-controlled assets, therefore generally exempt from Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385 when acting domestically.

Posse Comm is specifically applicable to the military services when federalized, however the US Coast Guard, for example, is specifically exempted.

I am vastly simplifying the situation.

[stratoflyer]

Oh, and who decides what CAP's status is? The Congressional charter? Who hires us? How does this work? And what does this have to do with aircraft markings? I'm very curious at all of this.

[SarDragon]

and the coast guard aux doesn't use the star and bar

They don't have airplanes.

Um... yeah they do.
Examples: P-3 Orion, C-130

When did the CG get P-3s? Pic? Linky?

[FW]

CAP decides the paint scheme and decals BUT, the "USAF AUX" bears certain restrictions which would impede us from certain missions; at this time.  I hope this answers the question.

The markings on the plane do not change our status with regards to Posse Comitatus in either direction, same for the vehicles.

You're absolutely right.  However, (sorry folks, I'm only the messenger) it's the AF's opinion we can't use the "Aux" markings if we perform missions which pass their comfort level.  

[jimmydeanno]

As I recall it, the Posse law prohibits military from performing law enforcement.

The key to understanding the differences between military responses to domestic crises and the anti-drug effort is simple. The military can successfully operate in crisis environments under the current PCA restrictions. Military personnel involved in these operations do not possess the need to search, seize, or arrest civilians to accomplish their mission. Should trouble arise, military forces can detain civilians and promptly turn them over to the appropriate civilian authority. This is not the case in the anti-drug effort. The military must become equal partners with its civilian law enforcement counterparts. Therefore, the military needs the statutory authority to search, seize, and arrest civilians while conducting counterdrug missions. The current PCA restrictions severely hamper the military's ability to successfully prosecute the war on illegal drugs by using two sets of rules, one for domestic operations and another for international missions. Additionally, without the ability to search, seize, and arrest, the military cannot operate independently of civilian law enforcement personnel.

The gradual buildup to fight the emerging drug problem in the early 1980's gave rise to the first piece of major legislation aimed at reducing PCA limitations and thereby expanding military involvement in domestic affairs. In 1982, the Defense Authorization Act ushered in several new changes to the Act. It codified these changes in Title 10, United States Code, Sections 371-382.14 These sweeping changes can be summarized as follows. The Department of Defense could share equipment and facilities, train civilian law enforcement personnel on specialty equipment, maintain and operate surveillance, reconnaissance, and communications equipment along air, sea, and surface areas.15 This provision also provided for the continued monitoring to 25 miles inside United States borders if the monitoring began outside. The military could share information with civilian law enforcement officials, but the prohibition still remained for active searches, seizures, and arrests by military personnel within the United States.16 However, the military retained the right to detain civilians in order to turn them over to the appropriate civilian law enforcement agency.

BTW, the exerp above is part of a larger (very interesting) paper - I enjoyed reading it, and I assume you would too.

[Major Carrales]

and the coast guard aux doesn't use the star and bar

They don't have airplanes.

Um... yeah they do.
Examples: P-3 Orion, C-130

When did the CG get P-3s? Pic? Linky?

The Coast Guard has these aircraft, the Auxiliary does not.  The Auxiliary flies member own aircraft.

The only USCGAux aircraft I have seen with large marking is this one owned by a prominent member of Flotilla 71 out of Corpus Christi...