I have observed in recent threads that we are dropping the US from US Civil Air Patrol. In one thread from the NEC a regional commander stated that National Legal says in it not approperate for us to use U. S. Air Force Auxiliary in the signature of correspondences. Are we the U. S. Air Force Auxiliary or not. Congress and public law says we are, Our Constitution says we are. Who says we are not. Did we gets TP(ed) royal by he who will remain nameless.
We have not been the full-time AFAux for some time now, before he who shall not be named. As far as dropping the U.S. from U.S. CAP, it never should've been put on there to begin with so that's just fixing a problem. I personally would like to see us move towards a closer relationship with the Air Force, but who knows when that will happen. And even if it does, it will likely last for only a short time as our relationship with the Air Force seems to be cyclic.
No, we are the US Air Force auxiliary. We're only the US Air Force Auxiliary when performing AFAM. Perhaps you missed the memo? Happened in 2000 and been discussed here several times.
Yes moving closer to the Air Force should be our major goal, But first we need to become more professional in how we conduct our activities.
And, I don't think we were EVER authorized to put "USAF Aux." in our signature blocks. It has been "CAP" since I was a cadet.
And I was DRO at the Last Supper!
Quote from: USCAP_truth on November 08, 2007, 05:45:09 PM
Congress and public law says we are, Our Constitution says we are. Who says we are not.
Congress and public law do not say that we are the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary as a "blanket" title for our organization. Federal law says our name is "Civil Air Patrol." Civil Air Patrol acts as the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary only when on an Air Force Assigned Mission (AFAM). This was changed in the USC Titles which apply to us in 2000 and has nothing to do with our former National Commander.
Our organization is "Civil Air Patrol". Our legal and incorporated name is "Civil Air Patrol, Inc." We are not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" nor are we even "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary" all the time.
The memo was trying to stem the tide of people who put things like "John Doe, Major, USAF Aux." in their signature lines or people who put "USAF Aux" or "USAFA" on their leather flight badges, etc. The memo was clarifying that those practices are wrong.
We're the United States Air Force Auxiliary when it's convenient to the Air Force! It's convenient to the Air Force when we work for free and save them ton's of money. If there is a choice of spending $10,000 to send a helicopter and crew to search for a missing aircraft (which is an Air Force mission) or $30/hr for a CAP aircraft. We're the Air Force Auxiliary. If we need anything-we're the Civil Air Patrol, which the Air Force is authorized to support-if it doesn't inconvenience them or cost money.
Quote from: Cecil DP on November 08, 2007, 08:13:16 PM
If there is a choice of spending $10,000 to send a helicopter and crew to search for a missing aircraft (which is an Air Force mission) or $30/hr for a CAP aircraft.
Around here it seems to be the "knee jerk" reaction to bring in National Guard members and resources... including several helicopters - usually UH-60s - on a search. This isn't the ES section, so I won't go into that any further.
Why does the USAF continue to help us with non-AFAM things like cadet encampments on a base, orientation rides, and various uniform programs? If they don't have to, why should they bother? We certainly want to be associated with the USAF, and USAF active duty and reservists that I meat are generally impressed with our people and program, and enjoy working along side us when the opportunity arises.
I guess I'm not really making a point yet, but I'm trying to ask WHO exactly is the hold up in strengthening and expanding our relationship with our (supposedly) parent organization?
Remember the "Big Threat" over a decade ago to move CAP into the Dept of Transportation? It was more than just Gov McCaine's idea. Perhaps we are on the track to become even more of a private, corprate entity like the American Red Cross or Salvation Army. If that happened, I'm afraid I'd have to let my membership lapse...
-Ace
Minnesota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY!
Quotebut I'm trying to ask WHO exactly is the hold up in strengthening and expanding our relationship with who is/was our parent organization?
I don't think anyone is the hold up, it is just neither the AF or CAP leadership beleives that this is a priority issue. Sure, the AF will do its oversight through CAP-USAF and occassionally some big AF guy will visit a CAP unit and say how great we are, but its not as if there is an active program to get CAP more involved in day-to-day AF activities and the AF is too busy worrying about other priorities to do it themselves.
The first FUBAR was getting rid of the CAP-RAP and Liaison programs.
And who has heard mention of that one program - I even forget the name of it - where CAP officers could be assigned various administrative duties on a base, like Chaplian or Administration? You know, it was the "catchy term" used when we started wearing the U.S. cut-outs on the service coat... dang, brain fart.
This disfunctional relationship we seem to be heading into fast will be a great place for Gen Courter to shine, should she be given the time and opportunity to do so!
-Ace
Uh CAP-RAP and liasion programs are still alive and kicking. Only difference is the downsizing (elimination of the CAP-USAF NCO slot) and the switch to making the state director a civilian position.
Quote from: alamrcn on November 09, 2007, 04:38:42 PM
And who has heard mention of that one program - I even forget the name of it - where CAP officers could be assigned various administrative duties on a base, like Chaplian or Administration? You know, it was the "catchy term" used when we started wearing the U.S. cut-outs on the service coat... dang, brain fart.
This disfunctional relationship we seem to be heading into fast will be a great place for Gen Courter to shine, should she be given the time and opportunity to do so!
-Ace
Augmentation.
Other than our uniforms, where do we see a separation from the AF. In the last 10 years, the number of things that the AF supports/pays for has only increased.
They now pay for:
1) Proficiency training
2) Cadet Uniforms
3) Cadet Manuals (both enlisted and officer)
4) O-Flights
5) State-Directors
6) Planes + maintenance
7) Vans + maintenance
8) CAP-RAP
etc, etc, etc. 10 years ago, not all of those things were on their list. Seems to me that "big blue" is more supportive than it has ever been.
Which of those are you saying are new?
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 09, 2007, 06:11:13 PM
1) Proficiency training
2) Cadet Uniforms
3) Cadet Manuals (both enlisted and officer)
5) State-Directors
6) Plane maintenance
7) Van maintenance
When I joined we didn't have the FCUP, cadet membership dues were more the first year to pay for the books. When you earned your mitchell you had to shell out $30 for new books (Phase III & IV).
The last few years we've obtained full-time paid assistants for every wing.
Plane maintenance programs have been modified greatly over the last 10 years. Vans also now have a maintenance program that is partially funded by the AF (major maintenance).
Proficiency flights can now be an AFAM from the training money we now recieve...
CAP corporate pays for the assistants not the AF. Perhaps the AF is subsidizing that in particular, but its hard to say. The "state directors" are CAP-USAF employees and have been for a very long time.
The state directors are paid by CAPNHQ so their checks don't say "DFAS...." but the funding comes from the AF's allotment to CAP each year... before they added that amount into the budget they gave us we didn't have them. Some wings got state appropriations to pay for one prior to AF funding...
State Directors are CAP-USAF employees, not employees of the Civil Air Patrol. You are confusing the paid wing administrators positions, which are CAP corporate employees (which are new in many wings) with the AF employee.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2007, 08:02:50 PM
State Directors are CAP-USAF employees, not employees of the Civil Air Patrol. You are confusing the paid wing administrators positions, which are CAP corporate employees (which are new in many wings) with the AF employee.
Yes, that is what I meant. Wing Administrators, budget graciously provided by USAF.
Quote from: Cecil DP on November 08, 2007, 08:13:16 PM
We're the United States Air Force Auxiliary when it's convenient to the Air Force! It's convenient to the Air Force when we work for free and save them ton's of money. If there is a choice of spending $10,000 to send a helicopter and crew to search for a missing aircraft (which is an Air Force mission) or $30/hr for a CAP aircraft. We're the Air Force Auxiliary. If we need anything-we're the Civil Air Patrol, which the Air Force is authorized to support-if it doesn't inconvenience them or cost money.
In large part, we're called a particular name for insurance purposes.
On AFAM, we're the USAFX, and are covered under one insurance plan. Under non-AFAM, but still "official" missions, we're covered under a different plan, and are operating as CAP, rather than USAFX.
Level I stuff, folks.
It is NOT for insurance purposes.
Insurance for business is tailored to the specifics of the business.
The insurance is different because of the 'Aux on', 'Aux off' nature of our missions. The insurance is made to fit our circumstance, not the other way around.
Quote from: RplnXbrnt on November 09, 2007, 09:25:56 PM
Quote from: Cecil DP on November 08, 2007, 08:13:16 PM
We're the United States Air Force Auxiliary when it's convenient to the Air Force! It's convenient to the Air Force when we work for free and save them ton's of money. If there is a choice of spending $10,000 to send a helicopter and crew to search for a missing aircraft (which is an Air Force mission) or $30/hr for a CAP aircraft. We're the Air Force Auxiliary. If we need anything-we're the Civil Air Patrol, which the Air Force is authorized to support-if it doesn't inconvenience them or cost money.
In large part, we're called a particular name for insurance purposes.
On AFAM, we're the USAFX, and are covered under one insurance plan. Under non-AFAM, but still "official" missions, we're covered under a different plan, and are operating as CAP, rather than USAFX.
Level I stuff, folks.
I wouldn't agree. I think that we have to change our insurance coverage after the fact, to cover our needs. We are aux-on when the AF needs us to do a job, or train to do a job for them. We are aux-off to conduct our business as a corporation for pretty much everything else.
Quotethe number of things that the AF supports/pays for has only increased..... "big blue" is more supportive than it has ever been.
It feels a lot like "child support" to me. A check thrown at us every once in awhile is nice, but a
parent organization that's more involved in our everyday lives would be MUCH better! Also if we could acknowledge that bond by sharing their name.
Maybe we could always have: Auxiliary of the United States Air Force
*We've become the Civil Litigation Patrol - always on the look out for the next mishap or scandal that's going to shut us down. I know that complaining about how insurance companies and legal beagles are verging on ruining anything that is good in life is fruitless... but my wife is tired of me ranting to her so I'm barking to you guys! heh
-Ace
*some limitations may apply, see your commander for details
Sorry Guys
But when I am flying along and I know that an f-16 is on our 6 and he is looking but can't see us yet, well I DO FEEL LIKE I AM PART OF THE AIR FORCE TEAM.
I can tell you that when my dad flew for CAP in the 1960s, he carried several forms of CAP ID, one said that while he was flying a misiion for the United State Air Force he was to be considered a member of the United States Air Force, signed by the CC of the USAF. I swear I will find that ID and post it.
Hey guys... There is always the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.
Quote from: alamrcn on November 09, 2007, 10:47:27 PM
Quotethe number of things that the AF supports/pays for has only increased..... "big blue" is more supportive than it has ever been.
It feels a lot like "child support" to me. A check thrown at us every once in awhile is nice, but a parent organization that's more involved in our everyday lives would be MUCH better! Also if we could acknowledge that bond by sharing their name.
Maybe we could always have: Auxiliary of the United States Air Force*
We've become the Civil Litigation Patrol - always on the look out for the next mishap or scandal that's going to shut us down. I know that complaining about how insurance companies and legal beagles are verging on ruining anything that is good in life is fruitless... but my wife is tired of me ranting to her so I'm barking to you guys! heh
-Ace
*some limitations may apply, see your commander for details
It sounds like you want to create a relationship thats not really there buy changing our name........
If we get called the Air Force Auxiliary, we're not going to automatically be closer to the Air Force.
very very true. Even when we were the AFAux all the time, we didn't have that close of a relationship with them. It isn't the name that makes the CG Aux close with the CG, it is the the fact that the CG regularly uses the Aux and the Aux is there primarily to support the CG in any way it can.
This seems like it is going in circles. Why not merely work to the best of our abilities, be more proud of what we are than ashamed of what we are not and start making CAP the sort of household name that other organizations, like the Boy Scouts and Red Cross have?
USAF AUX seems to be more of a "sub-title," as many have said here we have been Civil Air Patrol since the 1940s. We have a place on the Air Force Team, its just not the quarterback. Ours is to do our missions well and accept/execute other missions as they are given to us by the USAF.
I have to say that our relationship with the USAF is a whole lot stronger than many people would have us believe. We have this tendency to think opposite because they are not educating USAF Airman about CAP and that "we are not on their minds as much as they are on ours," but, then again, they are executing missions of War in Conflicts the world over and we are implementing a smaller domestic policy...and on a voluntary part time basis.
I think that our goals should be to take CAP to the public, the USAF is already sold on CAP...if not it would have ended in 1947.
Food for thought!
^ Right on!
What I find interesting is the AF expects us to perform to their level in most every area---as if we were doing this full time. We get audited, inspected, evaluated, etc by the Air Force constantly. And it is the AF that provides most of our funding, yet we are only part of the family when they see fit. Could it be that too often we have acted in interests contrary to the best interests of the AF or done something to embarrass our parent?? That's why they prefer us to only be associated on a part time basis. (Not withstanding the change in the law)
Also, I've found thatless than half of the AF folks I talk to have ever heard of CAP and even less know we are the AF Aux. I guess we are not worth mentioning to the airmen.
Quote from: Smokey on November 12, 2007, 12:34:37 AM
What I find interesting is the AF expects us to perform to their level in most every area---as if we were doing this full time. We get audited, inspected, evaluated, etc by the Air Force constantly. And it is the AF that provides most of our funding, yet we are only part of the family when they see fit. Could it be that too often we have acted in interests contrary to the best interests of the AF or done something to embarrass our parent?? That's why they prefer us to only be associated on a part time basis. (Not withstanding the change in the law)
Also, I've found thatless than half of the AF folks I talk to have ever heard of CAP and even less know we are the AF Aux. I guess we are not worth mentioning to the airmen.
We're really not.
I'm sure if you prefer, the Air Force would be happy to withdraw te bulk of its funding.
Quote from: Smokey on November 12, 2007, 12:34:37 AM
What I find interesting is the AF expects us to perform to their level in most every area---as if we were doing this full time. We get audited, inspected, evaluated, etc by the Air Force constantly. And it is the AF that provides most of our funding, yet we are only part of the family when they see fit. Could it be that too often we have acted in interests contrary to the best interests of the AF or done something to embarrass our parent?? That's why they prefer us to only be associated on a part time basis. (Not withstanding the change in the law)
Also, I've found thatless than half of the AF folks I talk to have ever heard of CAP and even less know we are the AF Aux. I guess we are not worth mentioning to the airmen.
My friend, unless USAF leadership comes out and says this officially, I am inclined to believe it is nothing more than speculation. I, on the otherhand, have spoken with several USAF-CAP types that maintain the contrary.
The USAF audits us because they are hit hard by accountability standards from places like the General Accounting Office. CAP is a place small enough (fiscally) to get a grip on since it is millions (like three million) while other projects are in the billions.
Get real. The AF sends out their reservists and state directors to look at units, but it is hardly as if they're asking us to meet any sort of AF standard. Half of them have no clue to what they're supposed to be looking for in a CAP unit anyway. They've all been great guys, but it takes them years to figure out what is going on.
The Air Force has nothing against us. People need to get that straight and stop creating a problem that doesn't exist.
The Air Force is not allowed to participate in certain activities. Its a part of that whole US Constitution thing and something about using the military against citizens...
The dual status that CAP has is beneficial because it enables us to perform missions for the US that we would otherwise be unable to do.
If the AF didn't like us, or didn't want us as their Aux, it would have been remidied long ago. The 'other' missions we perform, they are fine with - to the point they let us use the assets they paid/are paying for.
The AF doesn't hate CAP. So stop putting words in their mouths.
EDIT: And please stop confusing the subtitle of our name with the status we presume acting as an agent of the AF...
I have been reading the documents from The Government Accounting Office, and the US Air Force office of the Inspector general on the relationship between CAP and the US Air Force. I firmly believe that if the general membership had access to these documentS AND after reading them they will realize that many of the problems between CAP an the USAF is between the people at National HQ, we will revolt. Honestly In my heart there is a senior management problem in CAP and we are not JUST members BUT SHOULD BE TREATED AS 'Stock Holders WHO are being misled by the Corporate officers who are operating under their own agendas. We are being treated (The General Membership) like school children who are incapable of running our own CAP world, yet it is up to us to get the job done.
I AM CALLING FOR GREATER TRANPARENCY, MORE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT BY THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP, THESE MANY USAF AND government ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTS TO CONGRESS SHOULD BE OPEN SOURCE DOCUMENTS KEPT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL on OUR WEB SITE; FOR THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP TO READ
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AT THE NATIONAL AND WING LEVELS BEG FOR A CHANGE, IF NOT WE WILL BE HAVING A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF CAP AND IT WILL BE AN EMBARASSMENT TO ALL OF US!!
These documents are pretty old now and not generally relevant to the current situation. Probably every individual involved on both sides of the house has moved on. They are interesting from a historical point of view, but thats about it. Should they also post the GAO study on CO Wing morale from the 1970s in a place of prominence on the NHQ site?
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 12, 2007, 03:12:41 AM
T
The Air Force is not allowed to participate in certain activities. Its a part of that whole US Constitution thing and something about using the military against citizens...
Just a point of order...it was the Posse Comitatus Act that precluded the military from acting within the US borders, especially for law enforcement, NOT the Constitution. An act that I, for one, think is past being revoked but that is for another discussion.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on November 12, 2007, 03:49:58 PM
Just a point of order...it was the Posse Comitatus Act that precluded the military from acting within the US borders, especially for law enforcement, NOT the Constitution. An act that I, for one, think is past being revoked but that is for another discussion.
Sorry, I mis-spoke, the US Constitution doesn't specifically state this. But because the US Constitution does not express the federal government as the law enforcement entity, the power for law enforcement is granted to the states by default:
Quote
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which makes "law-enforcement" the responsibility of the respective state, not federal. The US Military, being a federal entity has no business in law enforcement - as shown (or not shown) in the Constitution.
The Posse Comitatus act only clarifies this.
Hmm, not exactly. The feds have all sorts of law enforcement authority. Deciding which agencies do the enforcing is what congress does.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 12, 2007, 04:26:50 PM
The feds have all sorts of law enforcement authority.
...when enforcing federal law...you won't find an FBI agent pulling over people for traffic violations. This could be an extremely long debate, and probably not one that is appropriate for this thread or forum.
However, my original point is that our dual status enables us to do things that we would otherwise be prohibited from doing if we were always acting as an agent of the AF.
The Air Force and CAP recognized this and through a decision enabled CAP to fall under the AF when appropriate. It is not a matter of convenience for the AF, or "only when they want us around" thing.
If the AF didn't want us or need us they would have abandoned us a long time ago. However, we have proven to be a valuable asset and have proven ourselves worthy of maintaining our title "Civil Air Patrol, the official Auxiliary of the United States Air Force."
The members of CAP are our own worst enemy - their own mis-interpretations of the relationship between the AF and CAP create rumors/myths can
can cause a rift between the two organizations.
Quote from: JThemann on November 12, 2007, 01:12:13 AM
Quote from: Smokey on November 12, 2007, 12:34:37 AM
What I find interesting is the AF expects us to perform to their level in most every area---as if we were doing this full time. We get audited, inspected, evaluated, etc by the Air Force constantly. And it is the AF that provides most of our funding, yet we are only part of the family when they see fit. Could it be that too often we have acted in interests contrary to the best interests of the AF or done something to embarrass our parent?? That's why they prefer us to only be associated on a part time basis. (Not withstanding the change in the law)
Also, I've found thatless than half of the AF folks I talk to have ever heard of CAP and even less know we are the AF Aux. I guess we are not worth mentioning to the airmen.
We're really not.
I'm sure if you prefer, the Air Force would be happy to withdraw te bulk of its funding.
You got a source for that fact, or is that simply another personal opinion?
Quote from: RiverAux on November 12, 2007, 03:42:22 AM
These documents are pretty old now and not generally relevant to the current situation. Probably every individual involved on both sides of the house has moved on. They are interesting from a historical point of view, but thats about it. Should they also post the GAO study on CO Wing morale from the 1970s in a place of prominence on the NHQ site?
Excuse me but a GAO report from 2000 is very relevent to CAP of today, many of the current guidelines from the Air Force used these documents as a basis for the current CAP-USAF relationship. The audits Of Aircraft usage, Wing finance irregularities are all part of the current oversight. History is not to be overlooked. On the contrary as an Adult, CAP members should understand the Air Forces ethos for being such a watchdog. Much of our problems are not new news, some of these issues have "festered" like a rotten wound.
Quote from: wingnut on November 10, 2007, 06:37:11 AM
Sorry Guys
But when I am flying along and I know that an f-16 is on our 6 and he is looking but can't see us yet, well I DO FEEL LIKE I AM PART OF THE AIR FORCE TEAM.
I can tell you that when my dad flew for CAP in the 1960s, he carried several forms of CAP ID, one said that while he was flying a misiion for the United State Air Force he was to be considered a member of the United States Air Force, signed by the CC of the USAF. I swear I will find that ID and post it.
I wish they still gave us those. Could come in very handy considering some stories Ive heard dealing with 3am ELT hunts. Older CAP membership cards asked folks to help us on missions, now we have a mission statment... >:(
QuoteExcuse me but a GAO report from 2000 is very relevent to CAP of today
Not when they made major changes to the entire governing structure of CAP including changes to federal laws to address the primary concerns in the report. There is some unfinished business in it, but not much.
What they need is for the GAO to see if the changes that were made were effective in solving some of these issues.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on November 13, 2007, 08:02:40 PM
Quote from: wingnut on November 10, 2007, 06:37:11 AM
Sorry Guys
But when I am flying along and I know that an f-16 is on our 6 and he is looking but can't see us yet, well I DO FEEL LIKE I AM PART OF THE AIR FORCE TEAM.
I can tell you that when my dad flew for CAP in the 1960s, he carried several forms of CAP ID, one said that while he was flying a misiion for the United State Air Force he was to be considered a member of the United States Air Force, signed by the CC of the USAF. I swear I will find that ID and post it.
I wish they still gave us those. Could come in very handy considering some stories Ive heard dealing with 3am ELT hunts. Older CAP membership cards asked folks to help us on missions, now we have a mission statment... >:(
Just curious
What good would it do for you?
If we're not 'members of the USAF' while on missions, then what good would it do?
Quote from: JThemann on November 14, 2007, 03:24:08 AM
If we're not 'members of the USAF' while on missions, then what good would it do?
Depends on the mission. The only legitimate ELT hunts are gonna be AFRCC ones, which are going to be Federal missions. In such a case, showing an ID card with request for assistance from proper authorities shows that the person is doing Federal work.
Your local Sherriff's office isn't going to be able to activate you for one. They've got to go through AFRCC like everyone else.
Quote from: JThemann on November 10, 2007, 09:34:41 PM
It sounds like you want to create a relationship thats not really there buy changing our name........
If we get called the Air Force Auxiliary, we're not going to automatically be closer to the Air Force.
Wasn't talking about
changing any names in my post, just keeping the one we already have had for decades - call it a tag line or whatever you want, we still reamin Civil Air Patrol, United States Air Force Auxiliary for now.
But Ok... what's in a name anyway? So when we stop wearing the Air Force uniform, it won't matter because our relationship with them will not have changed. The uniform is just an "illusion" of the relationship we want to have - right? As long as their check keeps coming in, who cares! [/sarcasm, obviously]
-Ace
Quote from: alamrcn on November 14, 2007, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: JThemann on November 10, 2007, 09:34:41 PM
It sounds like you want to create a relationship thats not really there buy changing our name........
If we get called the Air Force Auxiliary, we're not going to automatically be closer to the Air Force.
Wasn't talking about changing any names in my post, just keeping the one we already have had for decades - call it a tag line or whatever you want, we still reamin Civil Air Patrol, United States Air Force Auxiliary for now.
But Ok... what's in a name anyway? So when we stop wearing the Air Force uniform, it won't matter because our relationship with them will not have changed. The uniform is just an "illusion" of the relationship we want to have - right? As long as their check keeps coming in, who cares! [/sarcasm, obviously]
-Ace
Yeah pretty much, thats what it is, an illusion.
QuoteHowever, my original point is that our dual status enables us to do things that we would otherwise be prohibited from doing if we were always acting as an agent of the AF.
I dont think thats exactly it, its more about the cost effectiveness of those mission being performed. Though CD is a big time aircrew mission, I dont think that our entire status with the AF is dependent on those missions and concerns that there might be a posse commitus violation. We are still not performing "police" duties. Its still an observation and reporting type of thing, kind of like neighborhood watch. (ie being part of the local crime watch doesn not make you a officer in your local PD/SD)
Its what like $60 an hour for CAP vs how much for a helo (or fixed wing aircraft if the Air Force had them) or how much to pay Border Patrol or Customs agents to fly their fixed wing stuff for CN.
The AF has plenty of people to augment their hometown roles the way the CG Aux does with the USCG. As much as many woudl like to be more a brother than a distant cousin it doesnt really help the AF out much, so why should they incurr the extra headache of time, money, effort, personnel etc to keep us in check 100% of the time when they only have to worry about it when and if they need it?
I admit it I like being part of the AF, but thats what I am in the Reserves for, sure it might be worth cool points to say im a Captain in the AF aux, but what exactly is it that proponents expect out of a full time aux status that we dont get now...both directions...to ours or the AF benefit?
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on November 15, 2007, 09:14:51 PM
QuoteHowever, my original point is that our dual status enables us to do things that we would otherwise be prohibited from doing if we were always acting as an agent of the AF.
I dont think thats exactly it, its more about the cost effectiveness of those mission being performed. Though CD is a big time aircrew mission, I dont think that our entire status with the AF is dependent on those missions and concerns that there might be a posse commitus violation. We are still not performing "police" duties. Its still an observation and reporting type of thing, kind of like neighborhood watch. (ie being part of the local crime watch doesn not make you a officer in your local PD/SD)
Its what like $60 an hour for CAP vs how much for a helo (or fixed wing aircraft if the Air Force had them) or how much to pay Border Patrol or Customs agents to fly their fixed wing stuff for CN.
The AF has plenty of people to augment their hometown roles the way the CG Aux does with the USCG. As much as many woudl like to be more a brother than a distant cousin it doesnt really help the AF out much, so why should they incurr the extra headache of time, money, effort, personnel etc to keep us in check 100% of the time when they only have to worry about it when and if they need it?
I admit it I like being part of the AF, but thats what I am in the Reserves for, sure it might be worth cool points to say im a Captain in the AF aux, but what exactly is it that proponents expect out of a full time aux status that we dont get now...both directions...to ours or the AF benefit?
mk
First off I think "FULL TIME AUX" is a bit of a misnomer. - Seeing as we arent in uniform 24/7, 40 hours a week. - But I understand and agree with the concept of the intent and language.
One might expect a higher level of professionalism, in all its aspects: dress, integrity, attitude, organizational knowledge etc... (though that might take some work on our part first)
Then again, [OFF TOPIC] to be considered Officers or to even have the military rank that we use, I still consider it imporant [ if only for propriety] that we as Senior Members have a Commission or Warrant from the USAF. - As it is the only validity for our shoulderboards is our membership card, but the membership card that has 2nd lt in front of our name didnt "make us" Officers now did it?
Let me flip the bit:
Should the USAF or the American people in general expect anything more of us that we dont already have at the table?
YMMV
USAF sends us on missions. We help with their training. They tell us what to do, and what we can wear. So shouldn't be recognized as their aux.
Quote from: thp on November 22, 2007, 08:02:49 PM
USAF sends us on missions. We help with their training. They tell us what to do, and what we can wear. So shouldn't be recognized as their aux.
First off, we are recognized as the Air Force Auxiliary, under certain circumstances.
There's really is no difference between being the Full Time Aux and what we are now, beyond the egos of some members and their desire to put 'USAFAux' in their sig files.
I wouldn't even say the Air Force 'Tells us what to do' or 'Sends us on Missions' or 'Tells us what we can wear.'
If an Air Force Colonel told me to do something I didn't want to do, I could quite legally say 'No' to him. If I get a call at Three AM calling me up for a mission, I can again, say 'No Thanks.' There might be consequences on that end, but still.
Also, I'm free to never wear an Air Force uniform in my life.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on November 20, 2007, 06:01:56 AM
[I still consider it imporant [ if only for propriety] that we as Senior Members have a Commission or Warrant from the USAF. - As it is the only validity for our shoulderboards is our membership card, but the membership card that has 2nd lt in front of our name didnt "make us" Officers now did it?
They gave me my commission when I was appointed a 2Lt, I framed it, and it either hung from the wall in my house or was in a storage box for the rest of my career. The only thing I ever showed to validate my rank was my ID card. The commission was only a nice piece of paper. What made me an Officer was the Authority and Responsibility that came with it. What Authority and Responsibility do you expect a CAP commission to bring you? And keep in mind that if Commissioned Officers fails in their responsibilities, they could face a court-martial.
An officer derives his authority from several sources. the Commission and Oath are only two. But thats not my point, nor is a hunt for additional responsibility or getting saluted.
The original question was: what might come out of full time Aux status either to the benifit of CAP or the USAF. I replied that to get that back would require we put more behind our being officers: better attention to uniforms, self disipline, integrity, professional knowledge etc.
If we are officially Officers it might help in our bid for federally recognized job protection / job protection in every state, easier access to reimbusment for AFAMs and better support from local authorities during missions. (though putting the request for help onto the ID card again might help too)
The talk about the Commission or Warrant stems from my answer to the original question: By having a Warrant or Commission a SM might be better reminded of his responsibility to act professional, look professional, and so on. Likewise, dangling a Warrant as a carrott, might encourage that SM to pay more attention to his uniform, progress in education and training and act more professional.
The court martial bit only applies if we are under the UCMJ, which doesnt need to happen.
Actually, I'm more open to having us under UCMJ than getting any kind of federal commission. To be completely honest, the SECAF &/or President could issue a federal "Commission in the Auxiliary of the Air Force of the United States" and it what would that mean? You'd still be a CAP officer with the same (none) authority over mil personnel (based on your grade anyway). If you want to change it so our grade does cause them to be required to obey orders from CAP officers (that's a bit crazy to most people), then you have to significantly change our system to make our officers deserving & trained for that role, and add some alternative such as an enlisted corps.
I meant they tell CAP what to do as a whole.