Corporate vs. Aux

[Smokey]

A number of discussions have revolved around what seems to be a shift towards a corporate CAP vs. being the USAF Aux.  These include the move towards a non-military scary triangle thingy, uniforms (here you go RM!), corporate flying missions (tracking animals, etc).

I'd like to hear from those who advocating towards moving away from the AF Aux towards a more corporate CAP (yes I know we are a corporation).  Why is  it  you don't care for the USAF Aux?  Is it a loathing of the military? Is it too much regulation and you would rather be a flying club? Are you scared of uniforms?

If you don't like the USAF Aux side, why did you join knowing CAP was the Air Force Aux?  Were you misinformed during your first squadron meetings?  Did someone recruit you by telling you it was a type of flying club?

I'm curious as to the reasons for wanting to move away from the Air Force?

Now I know this mostly covers the ES side as compared to the cadet side of the organization.

Discus....

[Eclipse]

Now I know this mostly covers the ES side as compared to the cadet side of the organization.

It actually doesn't - there are far too many leaders on the cadet side who run their units as rec centers and would be just as happy if they
could turn CAP into the Cavaliers without any need or expectation of performance by the adults involved.

[RiverAux]

Is it too much regulation and you would rather be a flying club?

I don't think "regulations" would be significantly reduced if CAP had no affiliation with the AF.  There would still need to be accounting for money, property, equipment, etc. which account for most of the burdensome regulations. 

Frankly, I don't think there are actually many who want to actually move away from the AF.  Even the polo shirt crowd probably likes the AF affiliation. 

And those that really don't care for the AF probably don't actually care enough about CAP to be on CAPTalk anyway.

[NCRblues]

We do get a lot of anti-Aux. talk here on captalk, but its just that, talk.

CAP would fail if we ever went away from the AF. Logistically, financially ... anyway you slice it we would not make it.

I always like to scare our flying club members...wait i mean pilots when they talk about how they dislike the AUX thing and the uniforms. I say to them "yes, but without the AF funding, who is going to pay for your cheap flying"... They give me the look of "i might not be in hell, but I sure can see if from here"

I think the only 2 people on here who really want us moved away from the AF are RADIOMAN and HARDSHELL CLAM. 

[coudano]

I'd like to hear from those who advocating towards moving away from the AF Aux towards a more corporate CAP (yes I know we are a corporation).

You asked for it, you got it (Toyota!)

Smokey, how long have you been around?

You do understand that we are only "an" Auxiliary of the USAF when we are in a USAF mission status?
So the rest of the time we have to be "something else" when we are in some other status.

You do understand that our "Air Force" mission set has, is, and will continue to shrink? (leaving us largely high and dry?) (regardless of our 'aux on' or 'aux off' status?)

You do understand that when we were in auxiliary status 100% of the time, we had to pass on viable missions, that we were well suited for and WANTED to do, BECAUSE of our Aux status?

You do understand that CAP existed before the USAF, and before it was made the Auxiliary of the USAF, right?
And that it operated autonomously then, as well?

Why is  it  you don't care for the USAF Aux?  Is it a loathing of the military?

Again, it's "a" USAF Aux, not "the" USAF Aux.

I fully support the dual status.  It's not a loathing of the military (I am _IN_ the military).
The dual status CAP is modelled roughly similarly to the national guard which operates either in a federal or state status.
The rules and funds change as the national guard changes its status/hat.

CAP operates in a federal or corporate status.
And likewise, the rules and funds change somewhat when CAP changes its status/hat.

In select cases, CAP can even act in a sort of quasi-"state" status (which is really just a corporate status, but with a State MOU and state legal protections.

This provides us the best flexibility to meet the needs of most customers, which is ultimately in the best interest of USAF, as we are more relevant, better trained, and experienced based on opstempo that USAF can't and won't provide to us alone.  It's a win-win for CAP and the USAF (and our external customers).  The increased opstempo keeps our people happier as well.  If you joined just to do AFAMs you are going to be pretty bored.

Is it too much regulation and you would rather be a flying club?

I'm not a pilot lately, so no I wouldn't rather just be a flying club.  I fly the cadet program, and some portions of ES.
Do I need to be in a military style uniform to run a rockin local cadet program?
Apparently not...

And CAP's "too much regulation" syndrome doesn't come from its association with USAF,
that's just pure and straight CAP internal corporate stupidity.

A wickedly brutal AFSO21-ing of CAP by a usaf lean team would do us a whole lot of good (if we actually listened to it and implemented the process improvement recommendations)

Are you scared of uniforms?

Nope, I like my uniforms.
Infact, I happen to be wearing my grey pants and golf shirt combo right now (just got home from a CAP thing)
The other senior members at that thing were wearing the same thing,
That's a funny little concept, you know, a UNI form.  That means One Form.  Not thirty-six depending on your personal taste, and weight and grooming status.

Just last night, I was wearing the aviator combo at my squadron's cadet meeting.
And so were the other senior members there too.
All lined up together and wearing the aviator combo right, we looked pretty sharp...

I only wear corporates to CAP these days.  I (might) get up into BDU's for a ground team or a flight suit for an aircrew sortie.
(then again, I might just wear the golf shirt)

When I go play military, I wear my military uniforms, and I wear them with excellence and pride.

I am inside weight and grooming for both, all the time.

If you don't like the USAF Aux side, why did you join knowing CAP was the Air Force Aux?  Were you misinformed during your first squadron meetings?  Did someone recruit you by telling you it was a type of flying club?

N/A, for me, anyway.

I'm curious as to the reasons for wanting to move away from the Air Force?

Like I said, above.  It's mutually beneficial to both us and the USAF.
You can fight that tide if you want, but it's a little foolish.

Now I know this mostly covers the ES side as compared to the cadet side of the organization.

Aren't you forgetting the aerospace side of the organization?
That's an equilateral portion of our foundation and mission.
Is that getting "de-militarized" too?

[NCRblues]

CAP operates in a federal or corporate status.
And likewise, the rules and funds change somewhat when CAP changes its status/hat.

Really? I seem to recall that when the AF recently withheld funding from CAP, that even CORPORATE missions where placed on hold.

According to your world, we should have shruged and just "changed hats" and went about on our other non-AF missions.

So, where do these "funds" come from when we change hats?

[coudano]

CAP isn't written in stone.  We aren't the ten commandments that never change.
It is constantly in flux, and in process, and in progress.

Really? I seem to recall that when the AF recently withheld funding from CAP, that even CORPORATE missions where placed on hold

CAP's ridiculous and ill-advised knee-jerk over-reactions to the drama of the week from mother blue notwithstanding,

There are a lot of things, like maintenance, that touch appropriated funds in some way.
So when appropriated funds freeze, so do those functions that touch them.

That said, our leadership would be smart to figure out ways to cover situations like that, and I truly believe that they are working on that RIGHT NOW, specifically after this past month's situation.

According to your world, we should have shruged and just "changed hats" and went about on our other non-AF missions.

Yes. (EDIT: and that is to say that we are "by default" in non-aux status what 99% of the time...  we only go aux on for specific situations and only temporarily, )

So, where do these "funds" come from when we change hats?

Paying customers including but not limited to corporate funded operations, and member funded operations.

[RADIOMAN015]

We do get a lot of anti-Aux. talk here on captalk, but its just that, talk.


I think the only 2 people on here who really want us moved away from the AF are RADIOMAN and HARDSHELL CLAM. 

I don't think CAP would EVER be successful IF they lost AF funding completely.  My only issue from a public relations standpoint is one standard field uniform that everyone can wear and allows very strong identification as the members of CIVIL AIR PATROL.   The current batch of various military utility uniforms do not adequately accomplish this.   HOWEVER, since a fair number of the membership is "hung up on" playing military dress up, it's unlikely we will see only one CAP field uniform

BTW my understanding is CAP actually asked for the capability to be AF AUX Off, because it gives us a chance to perform more (reimbursable) missions than what we could do under the AF AUX On all the time status.

I really don't see much of this changing in the future, so I'll do my best at the squadron level and press on doing what I enjoy volunteering my time for.
RM     

[RiverAux]

You do understand that when we were in auxiliary status 100% of the time, we had to pass on viable missions, that we were well suited for and WANTED to do, BECAUSE of our Aux status?

Please provide examples....

CAP has been doing missions for other local and state agencies in our corporate status for as long as we've been around.  The Aux On/Aux Off stuff didn't result in any real changes in our operations since the only thing it really makes a difference in is who pays when a CAP member gets hurt or causes an accident.  Even before the changes in federal law that created the so-called AuxOn/AuxOff status the same issues were handled the same way -- if you were on an AFAM the AF paid, if not, then corporate.  The legal change just clarified it a bit. 

The only thing about our status that supposedly caused any issues with doing things for others was the USAF Aux painted on our airplanes that supposedly caused problems with doing CD missions (even though having US Army painted on NG helicopters wasn't a problem).  So, we took that off.  But that had nothing to do with our actual legal status, just appearances.  We were always doing those missions under the federal law that specifically allowed the military to do some CD work so our AuxOn status was never in doubt. 

And, the AuxOn/AuxOff stuff actually doesn't apply to the organization, just individual members.  CAP always has at least one open AFAM so as an organization we are in AuxOn status all the time, but only the individuals participating in that mission are actually being "covered" by that status.  There is a thread I started on this issue, so I won't go in depth on that. 

[flyboy53]

We live in a society these days where volunteer fire departments and groups like the Red Cross are all scrambling for members but there are fewer and fewer takers or people who have an interest to get involved. A lot of that, of course, is because we as a society have families that require multiple sources of income to maintain the standard of living that we set for ourselves. Even more, however, is a trend where many people are not interested in devoting their spare time to outside causes.

One of the drawing cards of this organization has always been it's Air Force Auxiliary status. It has been one of the recruiting points that peaked the interest in new members. Yet there seems to be a trend that once those individuls get more entenched into this organization, they like the rank and the status that it brings, but lack the personal responsibility to conform to various personal or mission-related standards that are required of us as volunteers doing missions for the Air Force...and you end up with the back story, especially the loss of equipment or funding, that resulted in the Congressional Legislation that formally specified the Aux On/Aux Off status.

Without that formal Auxiliary status, we become nothing more than another aviation related not-for-profit that in the grand scheme of things would be too expensive to function or carry any type of official status; which means what would you do with us then. Without the Air Force funding, it would be too expensive to maintain the level of personnel and equipment and if that cost was futher born on the membership, the organization would probably fold.

It would probably also absolutely trash the cadet program because there would no reason to join. There are already other means for teens to pursue their military or aviation interests. Between National Guard youth programs and Scouts, you can't tell me that many CAP cadets would then jump ship and persue something else more meaningful to their goals and objectives.

Even the Boy Scouts are talking about brining back the Explorer Program -- which I'm an alumni of.

I really think what needs to happen with this organization is a bottom up reoriganization where the corporate side is severed, so to say, from the organization side to co-exist as the fundraising foundation. The organization side could be geared as military-like as you lke and the foundation would then function as the corporate business foundation entity.

You could actually have a whole new class of members on the foundation side who are supporters but not required to participate. That's the way a volunteer fire department or rescue squad is set up. That's the way the Coast Guard Auxiliary is set up. Why aren't we.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Corporate of Aux?  What I really dislike is the lack of which direction the CAP Leadership is willing to go.  The appearance of just floating along with the breeze and tide does not instill cofidence in either camp.

What would I like?  First, Flying regulations:  While CAPR 60-1 is fairly good there are still too many areas in which it could be improved.  I would like to see CAPR 60-1 be rewiten to be more in line with AFMAN 34-232, and even the Army AR215-1 appendix dealing with flying activities.

If CAP is to be a quasi-military organization, then LETS DO IT and get away from the good-ol-boy crap.   Way too may squadrons are run by committeee rather than by a commander.   It does no good to try to instill military bearing and discipline on a group of cadets when they can see a senior member 2LT and LTC walking around outside without headgear and maybe even holding hands.  We have to have a "One Size Fits All" series or regulations and procedures.

A Question:  Are unit commanders the best qualified for the job or are they selected by being the slowest person to clear the room when a vacancy opens up?

Develop unit training programs and training schedules and expect them to be followed  (Of course trying to get a bunch of senior members to commit to training is sometimes only a bit more difficult than herding cats).  A pilot is taking a plane out for proficiency flying,   List the proficency flight profile number and on the next CAPF5/91 check ride emphasize those maneuvers.

I was a CAP Cadet in the early 1960's, and then in the mid 60's a Senior member in squadrons in Birmingham, Al., and Atlanta, Ga.  Later in Texas, in the mid 1980's I rejoined and assisited in organizing a Squadron in Central Texas.  In the early 1990's I again rejoined CAP and it took the good ol boys there about 3 meetings to run me off.  In 2009 I again rejoined, only because my grandson expressed an interest.  However, now I am back in (my grandson decided CAP was not for him). 

What do I see different between now and then?  The biggest is the lack of loyality.  Loyality to the organization, the unit, and the commander either for the most part is lacking or is flawed.  Way to much what's in it for me and not enough of what can I do to make it better.

Ask youself the question What have I done to make CAP a better organization?  (attending meetings and warming a seat does not count.
How many training classes have you organized and taught?
How Many Cadet Activiteis have you helped organize and conduct?
How many internal Squadron Administrative Tasks have you done just because they needed to be done?

How many hours have you spent [censored]in about everything that is wrnog with the organization but not done anything to right those wrongs.

On the otherhand, if CAP wants to go corporate, then dump all the regulations, manuals, forms, uniforms, etc., and just get a couple of flying club guides from the AOPA and then go there.

[MIKE]

You could actually have a whole new class of members on the foundation side who are supporters but not required to participate. That's the way a volunteer fire department or rescue squad is set up.  That's the way the Coast Guard Auxiliary is set up. Why aren't we.

Not quite.  I dunno how many people would just pay $25 or $50 to CGAuxA versus paying for membership in the Auxiliary.  I have members of my own flotilla who just pay their $30 every year.  Odds are that the individuals who would give money to CGAuxA are also dues paying members.

[ZigZag911]

Given the tarnished reputation of Corporate America these days, my personal preference is to emphasize the Auxiliary aspects, leave corporate for behind the scenes legal and financial practical matters.

[Eclipse]

You could actually have a whole new class of members on the foundation side who are supporters but not required to participate. That's the way a volunteer fire department or rescue squad is set up. That's the way the Coast Guard Auxiliary is set up. Why aren't we.

We already have those, they are called "Patrons".

That supposed to be the only reason that class of membership exists.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I also do not like the way CAP tries to ride the fence on "are we corporate or are we a military auxiliary."

When I joined, it was all Auxiliary, all the time.

My first squadron (1993-99) wore the blue uniform and BDU's almost exclusively, and we wore them correctly, bog-awful berry boards notwithstanding.  If you didn't wear it correctly, you got one warning, and after that you got sent home.  However, one member persisted with a dirty uniform, so the then-CC disallowed him from wearing anything but the smurf suit.

Coudano, I would have put us in our blues looking just as sharp as your unit in G/W any day of the week.

We were about 50/50 prior/non-prior service, and we produced a Spaatz cadet.

I never would have dreamed we would not be the Auxiliary of the Air Force.  OK, kids, I know about the "an Auxiliary" phrase, but what other Auxiliary has there ever been, or to ever be?  There is MARS, but the AF could save a lot of money by folding that into CAP.

Radioman, I don't hear anyone but you griping about our field uniforms.  We are never going to look like the Red Cross or Salvation Army, no matter how much you may wish it.

A big problem is looking at the people we help as "customers."  The Air Force is not our "customer," it is our parent military service.  The AF "chops" us to other agencies as needed, just as the AG of a State "chops" the ARNG/ANG to assist State and local law enforcement/emergency services agencies as needed.

If the Air Force Auxiliary side of us were ever completely removed, and I know there are CAP members who would like that, for us to just be flying SAR/DR, all the time, I think a lot of people would leave.

[flyboy53]

Every time this stuff starts up again, it's because we have weak leadership and there is a scorned part of the membership who think that they have enough of a following to either force things their way of split up the organization to start their own thing. So goes the way of the US Ranger Corps, which in a very real way is everything that the Aux Off contenders want to be...playing...and it is led by a disgraced former commander who lied and was corrupt.

I wish we had a membership that ascribed themselves to voluntarily accept the standards placed before them so that we can work to reverse that legislation and then commit ourselves to perform the duties before us in the most devoted manner. So what if the membership shrinks. To get the very best precious metal, you have to endure the fire that burns off the slag.

We, as an organization, should commit ourselves to being our very best to show the Air Force and the federal leadership that we are worthy of being called the Air Force's auxiliary and not a bunch of wannabes who immediately chirp "I'm a civilian," and go home every time the rubber hits the road.

[PHall]

We, as an organization, should commit ourselves to being our very best to show the Air Force and the federal leadership that we are worthy of being called the Air Force's auxiliary and not a bunch of wannabes who immediately chirp "I'm a civilian volunteer," and go home every time the rubber hits the road.

Fixed that for ya!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So goes the way of the US Ranger Corps, which in a very real way is everything that the Aux Off contenders want to be...playing

What bothers me about that segment of the membership is the element who don't want "Ma Blue telling them what to do," who don't like the so-called "Air Force wannabes," who don't want CAP wearing the AF uniform because they don't want to wear it...but yet don't at all mind getting flying hours in on the Air Force's nickel.

[Hardshell Clam]

I think the only 2 people on here who really want us moved away from the AF are RADIOMAN and HARDSHELL CLAM. 

Just a cheap shot, but then you can't help yourself so please countinue...

[jimmydeanno]

I am a huge supporter of CAP, and have been for 15 years now.  I see distinct advantages to having our corporate side, but I don't think we take advantage of them enough.  I also think that there are distinct advantages to being the Air Force Auxiliary.  It's a symbiotic relationship, and they can't be mutually exclusive of one another.

Our membership should be in CAP because they care about the missions we perform, not because of who we are associated with.  If you don't believe in the mission, but want to be in the AF Auxiliary, it's the wrong mindset.  Our missions, what we do and who we help, should be our primary focus.  If we lost the association, I can't say that I'd quit because I believe that what we do needs to be done and I would want to continue doing it.

To me, we don't act like a corporation enough.  This doesn't mean that I support ditching our uniforms and biting my thumb at the Air Force.  What it means is that we need to leverage the advantages of being a 501(c)(3) corporation to continue expanding and performing our Congressionaly mandated mission.  This means fundraising, building an endowment fund, advertising, partnerships, streamlining our cost structures and procedures to match those of the most successful non-profits, instead of creating an environment that is designed around the most inefficient, bureaucratic, bloated organization on the planet (DoD).

I believe that we've leaned too heavily on the Air Force to "fix" our problems.  We need money, so we ask the tax payers.  Well, now we see what happens when the taxpayers don't want to pay our bills - we can't get our mission done.  Had we done our fiduciary responsibility, we would have a cash reserve that we could draw from to bridge the gaps.  Appropriated funds are nice to have, but as a responsible corporation, we can't rely solely on them to keep us afloat or we'll be gone any year that we don't get funding.

We need to behave like a corporation, yet leverage the relationship between us and the Air Force.