Are we or are we not the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary

[cnitas]

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.

[jb512]

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.

[alamrcn]

the 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

[wingnut]

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.

[MIKE]

Hey guys... There is always the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.

[JayT]

the 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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Major Carrales]

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!

[mikeylikey]

^ Right on!

[Smokey]

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.

[JayT]

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.

[Major Carrales]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[jimmydeanno]

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...

[wingnut]

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!!

[RiverAux]

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?

[LittleIronPilot]

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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:

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.

[RiverAux]

Hmm, not exactly.  The feds have all sorts of law enforcement authority.  Deciding which agencies do the enforcing is what congress does. 

[jimmydeanno]

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.