What type of military status is cap?
Official Auxiliary of the United States Air Force=NO military status.
You could be deployed at any moment to any number of unspecified locations. But youll have to pay your own way and all of your expenses.
Robert
Very Funny, I think we should put that on the ID card !!
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 14, 2009, 09:03:48 PM
You could be deployed at any moment to any number of unspecified locations. But youll have to pay your own way and all of your expenses.
But it is always
your choice to go...
Quote from: Cecil DP on January 14, 2009, 08:44:22 PM
Official Auxiliary of the United States Air Force=NO military status.
^civilian
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 14, 2009, 09:03:48 PM
You could be deployed at any moment to any number of unspecified locations. But youll have to pay your own way and all of your expenses.
Can I wear a boonie hat to my undisclosed location? ;D
If you're asking whether CAP falls under the category of Active, Guard, or Reserve, the answer is: none. It's a non-profit private corporation that is also an auxiliary of the USAF.
Quote from: dwb on January 15, 2009, 01:28:31 AM
...It's a non-profit private corporation that is also an auxiliary of the USAF.....
only while performing an Air Force Assigned Mission or Working for a Federal Agency.......right?!?!
Quote from: Timbo on January 15, 2009, 01:41:03 AM
only while performing an Air Force Assigned Mission or Working for a Federal Agency.......right?!?!
It's a "little 'a', big 'a'" issue. We're
an auxiliary of the Air Force all the time, in the sense of the definition of the word "auxiliary" (functioning in a supporting capacity of something), but we're only the
United States Air Force Auxiliary while acting under the conditions you described in your post (...whereas, for example, the USCG Aux is full-time the US Coast Guard Auxiliary - they don't have a "little 'a', big 'a'" issue).
Our military status is unique. We cannot be compared to anything else.
We serve as a functional part of the Air Force when and to the extent that the Air Force needs us. We can, as a functional part of the Air Force, carry out an Air Force mission or serve as the Air Force's contribution to the missions of other Federal agencies.
As such, we are entitled to wear the Air Force uniform, with certain restrictions and with distinctive insignia.
Although we are a functional part of the Air Force, we are not subject to the UCMJ, are not paid, and our officers have no command authority over Air Force personnel.
We also have the legal power, as a federally-chartered corporation, to offer services to state and local governments and to non-governmental agencies. Prior to certain laws passed in 2000, we performed these local serves as the auxiliary of the Air Force. As of 2000, we perform them strictly as a federally-chartered corporation. The implications of this 2000 law, which was passed in response to some misconduct by some senior CAP officers, is still being worked out.
As I said... unique.
And don't forget that our members gain no military status by virtue of being in CAP. CAP members are civilians (unless of course they also happen to be a member of one of the Armed Forces). Being in CAP doesn't mean you're in the military. ;)
Quote from: Pylon on January 15, 2009, 04:47:33 AM
Being in CAP doesn't mean you're in the military. ;)
Yes, but CAP members have access to many military unique opportunities that average citizens don't.
Also....The USAF counts us as total force when reporting on stateside activities. That equates us to being considered part of their team. Their team does not equate us to military status as Mike pointed out!!!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 15, 2009, 04:39:11 AM
Our military status is unique. We cannot be compared to anything else.
We serve as a functional part of the Air Force when and to the extent that the Air Force needs us. We can, as a functional part of the Air Force, carry out an Air Force mission or serve as the Air Force's contribution to the missions of other Federal agencies.
As such, we are entitled to wear the Air Force uniform, with certain restrictions and with distinctive insignia.
Although we are a functional part of the Air Force, we are not subject to the UCMJ, are not paid, and our officers have no command authority over Air Force personnel.
We also have the legal power, as a federally-chartered corporation, to offer services to state and local governments and to non-governmental agencies. Prior to certain laws passed in 2000, we performed these local serves as the auxiliary of the Air Force. As of 2000, we perform them strictly as a federally-chartered corporation. The implications of this 2000 law, which was passed in response to some misconduct by some senior CAP officers, is still being worked out.
As I said... unique.
Very well said. :clap:
Out of morbid curiosity, What misconduct do you speak of that prompted the passing of those itchy laws?
Poor cadet Williams head must be spinning by now.
Quote from: dwb on January 15, 2009, 01:28:31 AM
If you're asking whether CAP falls under the category of Active, Guard, or Reserve, the answer is: none. It's a non-profit private corporation that is also an auxiliary of the USAF.
From the former B-1 pilot who was giving a lecture at NESA:"The Air Force has four components: Active Duty, Reserve, Air National Guard and Auxiliary."
Quote from: stratoflyer on January 15, 2009, 07:42:57 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 15, 2009, 04:39:11 AM
Our military status is unique. We cannot be compared to anything else.
We serve as a functional part of the Air Force when and to the extent that the Air Force needs us. We can, as a functional part of the Air Force, carry out an Air Force mission or serve as the Air Force's contribution to the missions of other Federal agencies.
As such, we are entitled to wear the Air Force uniform, with certain restrictions and with distinctive insignia.
Although we are a functional part of the Air Force, we are not subject to the UCMJ, are not paid, and our officers have no command authority over Air Force personnel.
We also have the legal power, as a federally-chartered corporation, to offer services to state and local governments and to non-governmental agencies. Prior to certain laws passed in 2000, we performed these local serves as the auxiliary of the Air Force. As of 2000, we perform them strictly as a federally-chartered corporation. The implications of this 2000 law, which was passed in response to some misconduct by some senior CAP officers, is still being worked out.
As I said... unique.
Very well said. :clap:
Out of morbid curiosity, What misconduct do you speak of that prompted the passing of those itchy laws?
PM sent.
Quote from: stratoflyer on January 15, 2009, 07:42:57 AM
Out of morbid curiosity, What misconduct do you speak of that prompted the passing of those itchy laws?
It all started in 1998..... ended in Feb 2000 with new legislation and new CAP structure. What happened in between would kill enough trees to destroy a forrest. I'm still figuring it all out.
On one level we could be considered military....or at least "legal combatants".
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict we do fit the defintion of legal combatants and could then be targeted by enemy forces and entitled to POW status if captured.
Also...in the event of war the UCMJ could be applied to us.
As theses situations will never likely ever happen it is just an academic discussion. But legally speaking we could be considered "military" in the eyes of international law.
As for federal status....we are not members of the "uniformed services" as defined by most federal laws.
As pointed out we have no authority over AD/NG/RES military personnel and do not fall under them in the normal sense. In that context we are NOT military.
Clear as mud... ;D
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 05:11:34 PM
-snip-
As pointed out we have no authority over AD/NG/RES military personnel and do not fall under them in the normal sense. In that context we are NOT military.
Clear as mud... ;D
Now to make it even muddier:
There are some times when CAP does have authority over NG personnel, and possibly some AD/Reserve folks as well. Heresy you say! Burn the witch! Follow me here...
In situations where CAP is designated the lead agency for a SAR and AD/NG components are tasked to participate, the CAP IC then does have authority over and responsibility for those elements.
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 15, 2009, 05:22:11 PM
In situations where CAP is designated the lead agency for a SAR and AD/NG components are tasked to participate, the CAP IC then does have authority over and responsibility for those elements.
I was thinking the same thing, and its actually happened locally not so long ago, however that's more a civilian line of authority than a military one as the IC could just as easily be a Fire Chief or other civilian ES asset, etc.
That said, seldom will CAP be the lead agency for an incident. The most frequent exception to this is, of course, aeronautical search and rescue. I differentiate aeronautical SAR from the missing person incident as, most often, this responsibility belongs with law enforcement.
Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
www.CAP-ES.net
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 05:11:34 PM
On one level we could be considered military....or at least "legal combatants".
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict we do fit the defintion of legal combatants and could then be targeted by enemy forces and entitled to POW status if captured.
Be specific: How is this possible?
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 15, 2009, 10:25:39 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 05:11:34 PM
On one level we could be considered military....or at least "legal combatants".
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict we do fit the defintion of legal combatants and could then be targeted by enemy forces and entitled to POW status if captured.
Be specific: How is this possible?
With magic fairy dust.
Quote from: D2SK on January 15, 2009, 10:34:23 PM
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 15, 2009, 10:25:39 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 05:11:34 PM
On one level we could be considered military....or at least "legal combatants".
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict we do fit the defintion of legal combatants and could then be targeted by enemy forces and entitled to POW status if captured.
Be specific: How is this possible?
With magic fairy dust.
Actually all it takes is a Geneva conventions accepted ID Card. You bet if something did happen and we CAP'ers did perform missions for the AF, we would get the appropriate credentials. PLUS we wear a military uniform (too the chagrin of many, I know) and would be afforded certain rights.
No fairy dust, no wishes. Honestly, when your Cessna goes down and the whatever group of bad guys comes to get you, are you really going to try the "I am not military, I am a civilian flying planes against you" line? They would shoot you as a spy. They might shoot you right there, and be allowed under the rules of war.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 15, 2009, 10:25:39 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 05:11:34 PM
On one level we could be considered military....or at least "legal combatants".
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict we do fit the defintion of legal combatants and could then be targeted by enemy forces and entitled to POW status if captured.
Be specific: How is this possible?
Under the Law of Armed Conflict...the definition of a "legal combatant" is:
Quote from: FM27-10 para 61 a. (2)Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by aperson responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
We as the USAF auxillar are "volunteer corps". We have a command structure, We have fixed distinctive signs. We carry our arms openly (our airplanes are considered weapons systems). And finally we condcut our operations in accordances with the laws and customs of war.
And for the UCMJ
Quote from: USC 10, Subpart A, Part II, Chap 47, Subchapter 1, 802(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(13) Lawful enemy combatants (as that term is defined in section 948a (2) of this title) who violate the law of war.
So...if we were assiting the USAF during a war...and we "in the field" we could be subject to the UCMJ.
Quote from: Timbo on January 15, 2009, 11:11:10 PMNo fairy dust, no wishes. Honestly, when your Cessna goes down and the whatever group of bad guys comes to get you, are you really going to try the "I am not military, I am a civilian flying planes against you" line? They would shoot you as a spy. They might shoot you right there, and be allowed under the rules of war.
I fly civilian SAR within the boundaries of the USA, not combat missions "against" enemy combatants. I'd leave CAP if that changed; we aren't properly prepared nor equipped for a combat-related mission.
I get nervous when people start trying to suggest we're "part" of the USAF in statements like yours. If I wanted to be a part of combat operations, I'd be in the RM.
It's almost as if you have visions of being shot at and, as Monar said, being taken POW. Exciting fantsies but it isn't what we're about.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:13:23 PM
Under the Law of Armed Conflict...the definition of a "legal combatant" is:
Quote from: FM27-10 para 61 a. (2)Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by aperson responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Civil Air Patrol does not meet criteria "c" and "d."
An unarmed light aircraft sold on the civillian market is not a "weapons system."
And the last ground team search I was on had nothing to do with the "laws and customs of war."
Therefore, we do not meet the definition.
Again, if you want to be a hero in wartime, join the active-duty miltary.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:13:23 PM
Under the Law of Armed Conflict...the definition of a "legal combatant" is:
Quote from: FM27-10 para 61 a. (2)Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by aperson responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Civil Air Patrol does not meet criteria "c" and "d."
An unarmed light aircraft sold on the civillian market is not a "weapons system."
And the last ground team search I was on had nothing to do with the "laws and customs of war."
Therefore, we do not meet the definition.
Again, if you want to be a hero in wartime, join the active-duty miltary.
Quote from: Cecil DP on January 14, 2009, 08:44:22 PM
Official Civilian Auxiliary of the United States Air Force = NO military status.
THAT is the correct answer for the cadet who asked.
Timbo,
No ID card required.
Rotohead....
Our cessnas are no different then the one the Iraqi Air Force and many other Air Forces are flying right now.
And we conduct our operations within the context of U.S. law which is within the laws and customs of warfare.
This has nothing to do with wanting to be a war hero.....it is just a barracks lawyer version of the LOAC and UCMJ.
If Mexico were ever to invade......an we were captured, we could be held as POWs. Our aircraft, facilities and personnel could be targeted as legal military targets. And finally if we were operating with the military in the field (such as operating out of an air base) we could be subject to the UCMJ.
Now....we will never be invaded...and if we were we would probably never be called to assist the USAF so 90% of this is just an academic argument. But.........the laws and rules do allow for us to benefit from the Geneva Conventions and do allow the military to place us under military discipline.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:48:35 PM
Our cessnas are no different then the one the Iraqi Air Force and many other Air Forces are flying right now.
So what makes them "weapons systems" if they are unarmed?
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 15, 2009, 11:51:17 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:48:35 PM
Our cessnas are no different then the one the Iraqi Air Force and many other Air Forces are flying right now.
So what makes them "weapons systems" if they are unarmed?
Does not have to be armed to be a "weapon system". C-130s are not armed and they are a weapon system.
CAP is a force multiplyer in military jargon. We free up other weapon systems from doing liason, SAR, DR, CD work.
I am a comm guy by training....and our communications network was also classifed as a weapon system.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:55:08 PM
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 15, 2009, 11:51:17 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:48:35 PM
Our cessnas are no different then the one the Iraqi Air Force and many other Air Forces are flying right now.
So what makes them "weapons systems" if they are unarmed?
Does not have to be armed to be a "weapon system". C-130s are not armed and they are a weapon system.
CAP is a force multiplyer in military jargon. We free up other weapon systems from doing liason, SAR, DR, CD work.
I am a comm guy by training....and our communications network was also classifed as a weapon system.
Then so is a 1998 CAP minivan.
I think what you're saying is a load of peanut butter.
I also believe that if what you said was true, we'd have a much smaller membership. (Heck, I'd leave.)
Bye, Scott. It was nice knowing you.
What he is saying is absolutely true.
We fall under the GC provisions for "Irregular Forces." We are considered, for purposes of the Conventions, to be members of the armed forces of a belligerent power. Unless we are out there committing acts of atrocities against civilians, we are probably conducting our operations within the Law of Armed Conflict.
Assume Mexico invaded the southwestern United States as a part of "La Reconquista." What you have just told me is that you would refuse to search for an A-10 driver who bailed out after being hit by ground fire.
So, have a nice life. I'm sure "Pilots for Jesus" can use your skill to fly Bibles to natives in obscure rainforest villages.
I posted the LAW and the Army Field Manual....I'm not making this stuff up.
There is a reason my CGAux ID card has Geneva Convention Category IV on the back. Maybe CAP needs to do the same?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2009, 12:42:49 AM
I posted the LAW and the Army Field Manual....I'm not making this stuff up.
And I was a general staff officer who participated in writing the Army's SOP for prisoner-of-war operations, which included knowing enough about the Protocols for Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Captives to be able to make intelligent decisions on classification.
A lot of misinformed folks think that just because Congress says we carry of "Non-combat missions and programs" for the USAF, then we are "Non-combatants" under the Geneva Conventions. Such is not the case.
To be considered a "Non-Combatant" under the Geneva Conventions, we would have to be EXCLUSIVELY involved in medical support and evacuation, and mark our planes, vehicles, and personnel with the red cross flag.
Once we used a plane for moving a repair part for the USAF, or ferryed a commander to a base, or did an air recon for a convoy movement, we would have to remove the red cross. We would then become legitimate targets, and (Dare I say the word?)... combatants.
Quote from: MIKE on January 16, 2009, 12:47:11 AM
There is a reason my CGAux ID card has Geneva Convention Category IV on the back. Maybe CAP needs to do the same?
Nice to have, but not a need to have. The Conventions are silent on documents, but the International Commission of the Red Cross recommends them
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 05:11:34 PM
On one level we could be considered military....or at least "legal combatants".
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict we do fit the defintion of legal combatants and could then be targeted by enemy forces and entitled to POW status if captured.
Also...in the event of war the UCMJ could be applied to us.
I know that you are only talking theory here... but... I have four words for this...
No Way in Hades for any of these points!
Even if we are physically invaded by billion soldier strong force from Communist China in a blitzkrieg like maneuver and everyone is pressed into a force like the Volksturm to defend our very lives, the CAP would not be organized as a combatant unit.
I can hear it now!
"Now scramble Cadet Cessna Sqn 1, there is an imbound flight of Chinese J-10 fighers inbound. ETA 10 Mikes..." (just kidding here) But seriously, would you launch even a SAR sortie with a Cessna in a combat zone?
I suspect Maj. K will agree with me on how wonderful it was that the fellows sitting around the aerodrome drinking coffee on December 6th, 1941 were something other than a bunch of Styrofoam spined ninnies.
Can you imagine the howl and wail coming from this bunch of weak sisters if Hap Arnold suggested they strap a bomb to the bottom of a wheezing wood and fabric airplane and fly out to sea with it and be (say it with vigor) aggressive?
Amusing but sad.
Quote from: PaulR on January 16, 2009, 01:02:05 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 05:11:34 PM
But seriously, would you launch even a SAR sortie with a Cessna in a combat zone?
Depends upon the threat! The O-1 Birddog (Army L-19) was of Cessna vintage, with similar performance to that our beloved 172s and 182s. And they flew a LOT of SAR, FAC, and other missions over the skies of Vietnam.
Would I send a _CAP_ aircraft in combat? I can scarcely envision a scenario outside of "Red Dawn" (see other thread) that would lead to such a necessity.
Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
www.CAP-ES.net
Quote from: aveighter on January 16, 2009, 01:25:10 AM
I suspect Maj. K will agree with me on how wonderful it was that the fellows sitting around the aerodrome drinking coffee on December 6th, 1941 were something other than a bunch of Styrofoam spined ninnies.
Ditto (I think)
Today we're non-combatants, tomorrow that could change.
It would also be interesting to see which way the chest-thumpers run vs. those who say
today they would quit.
I suspect things would change significantly if we were under a real invasion threat.
For me, if I'm going to be seen in a military-style uniform, I'd rather have combatant status and protection vs. being treated as a spy or an insurgent.
Quote from: PaulR on January 16, 2009, 01:02:05 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 05:11:34 PM
On one level we could be considered military....or at least "legal combatants".
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict we do fit the defintion of legal combatants and could then be targeted by enemy forces and entitled to POW status if captured.
Also...in the event of war the UCMJ could be applied to us.
I know that you are only talking theory here... but... I have four words for this...
No Way in Hades for any of these points!
Even if we are physically invaded by billion soldier strong force from Communist China in a blitzkrieg like maneuver and everyone is pressed into a force like the Volksturm to defend our very lives, the CAP would not be organized as a combatant unit.
I can hear it now!
"Now scramble Cadet Cessna Sqn 1, there is an imbound flight of Chinese J-10 fighers inbound. ETA 10 Mikes..." (just kidding here) But seriously, would you launch even a SAR sortie with a Cessna in a combat zone?
Why not a SAR sortie? In Vietnam we used O-2 Cessna Skymasters with no more guns than our Skyhawks.
Why not use our 500+ planes for light airlift of spare parts?
Why not use our 500+ light planes to recon supply convoy routes in the rear?
I think the old OPLAN 100 has been overcome by events since 911, but anyone who read it knows CAP has a combat support role in major conflicts, whether or not the conflict intrudes into the United States.
Hey... we had "Aerial Radiological Monitors" long before the first nuclear power plant was built. They were to fly after the US got nuked by the Russians.
You ain't in the Peace Corps, pal. You're in the US Air Force Auxiliary.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 01:44:55 AM
You ain't in the Peace Corps, pal. You're in the US Air Force Auxiliary.
(http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1233_hand_clapping.gif)
QuoteI think the old OPLAN 100 has been overcome by events since 911, but anyone who read it knows CAP has a combat support role in major conflicts, whether or not the conflict intrudes into the United States.
I would love to read this but have googled to no avail, any suggestions?
OPLAN 1000.
My mistake. My fingers are getting weak and don't do repetitive key strikes so good anymore!
hmm.... me, I would take the protections afforded me by the GC. I hate to say it but, Airplanes, even unarmed airplanes are weapons. Did you miss the month of September, 2001?
You never know what is going to happen in the future. CAP was combatant, it is a force multiplier, it can be made combatant again. Those of you that say you would leave......I doubt it. Citizens (American Citizens) will pull together and do extraordinary things when their nation calls them to. Look at what happened Early 2002. More Americans, of all ages volunteered to enlist in the Military Services, join red cross chapters, setup volunteer groups etc. You would stay.
However, Timbo, I hasten to point out that in the entire history of the Geneva Convention, no force opposing the United States has ever entirely followed its provisions.
The Germans came close, but there were still violations and mass prisoner executions, notably the Malmedy Massacre during the Battle of the Bulge.
The Japanese, North Koreans, and Vietnamese were particularly nasty to prisoners. Scott Spieker may or may not still be alive from the Gulf War.
The Iranians cannot even abide by the Law of Nations that hold foreign embassies inviolate, a rule that dates back to the Pharohs.
In theory, CAP members should be treated in accordance with the Conventions, and given humane treatment, the right to retain their rank and insignia, the right to correspond, the right of notification of capture, and, as officers, the right not to be forced into labor. Thankfully the chances of combat are remote to the point of being theoretical, since I don't think any American can expect such considerations if captured by the savage enemies we face.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 04:36:36 AM
Thankfully the chances of combat are remote to the point of being theoretical, since I don't think any American can expect such considerations if captured by the savage enemies we face.
How true that is!
Quote from: Timbo on January 15, 2009, 05:35:26 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 15, 2009, 04:47:33 AM
Being in CAP doesn't mean you're in the military. ;)
Yes, but CAP members have access to many military unique opportunities that average citizens don't.
Also....The USAF counts us as total force when reporting on stateside activities. That equates us to being considered part of their team. Their team does not equate us to military status as Mike pointed out!!!
We are considered "trusted agents" to the USAF..
The CAP is the CAP 100% of the time it is the Auxiliary of the USAF when acting as an agent of the USAF only when workmans comp, Federal torts and claims and use of medical facilities are approved. we are not subjet to the UCMJ we do not carry a Geneva Convention number for POW status and most of all we have no authority over ANY MILITARY MEMBER.
sorry folks your not a military member but you are a trusted agent (title also given to civilian employees)
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 04:36:36 AM
Thankfully the chances of combat are remote to the point of being theoretical, since I don't think any American can expect such considerations if captured by the savage enemies we face.
And that's the real truth of the matter. Since all the work we do is stateside, we will not be involved short of an invasion.
Now, I wonder how many think that if an invasion actually occurred, we would remain "non-combatant."? If a real invasion occurred, all it would take is a simple vote and we would be armed. Heck, if it were bad enough they might not even take the time to vote. "Here's your rifle, and that's your post. Man it!"
The AF would probably take our aircraft leaving us in the dust and then those poor UAV pilots in waiting could have all the the fine G1000 technology to learn while waiting
I would suspect all Kombat Air Patrol are waiting to get your zoom bags on and chase AQ all arounsd the US
Risk Averse CAP in combat ?? I bet there are some outhouse lawyers finding all that 501c3 data trying to get us out of future combat or writing laws on how to do it can you imagine all the hangar rash occuring while CAP pilots getting animated over emergencies?? Col Leeter at CAP Safety would be watching this WITH interest.... All the CAP klaxon horns going off "XYZ Sqdn you have 5 mins to man your planes!!!!"
All the CAP lights and sireeeens would be blaring. Wow you guys.. ::) ::) ::)
I retired from RM and if pressed I go back.. CAPers standby man yours posts or go RM
WOW this forum is interesting.... CAP in combat??? maybe MAY be we'll be chasing high tech subs all over again MAYBE guaranteeing another 60 years..
Sorry CAPers you are not the military....... I do believe trusted agents might fit
Thanks for the positive comments...
Poitive or not Eclipse,
OPLAN 1000 and SCATANA will be our drivers on this deal UNLESS some other "Above our Paygrades" get involved
If CAP can not get its basic requirements for NIMS and DHS done and get on those roles as directed thebn how is the US military going to use us??
It WILL be like herding cats. Positive or not reality bites and if CAP does not believe in the future and where the money comes from and the training required as dictated and can not get along with OTHERS in the REAL community and sits as an island just because of our past, then we will be passed up...
There's a reason for all what's going on and handing CAP rifles, is probably doubtful unless "above our Paygrades say so
Our 501c3 and chartering have PROBABLY alot to do with our "so called" combat or non combat status
We can doooo alll the dreamin we want but when we are forced to the MEPS stations as 50 60 and 70 yr olds .......then we will be facing reality...... Think CAP is ready for war??? I doubt it
There are factors that will considered... how's that for positive??? Sounds like CAP has all its MOLLE and LBE ready for action., eh??
Again I refer some CAP members who like to chirp about the DHS and NIMS reqs Grants maybe buying CAP combat gear, huh? This voluntary NIMS and " other stuff" will have some far reaching implications and CAP can not afoorsd to sit by and be an island of its own....
I do not expect any CAP activity to involve combat ever again, but lets be clear in terms of the Geneva Convention and the law.
Congress says we can perform any non-combat mission of the Air Force. "Non-combat" in that sense is not the same as "Non-combat" under the Geneva Convention.
Non-combat missions as defined by Congress include combat support missions such as light airlift and aerial recon. Performance of these missions bring us under the definition of "Combatant" under the Geneva Convention.
I think a few of you guys are reacting on an emotional level to a basic "Apples and Oranges" comparison. The definition of "Non-combat" in our law is different than the definition under the Geneva Convention.
Incidentally, "Non-combatant personnel" under the Geneva Convention are not classed as prisoners of war. Medics and clergymen are considered "Retained Persons." They have different rights and rules for repatriation.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 12:30:52 AM
Assume Mexico invaded the southwestern United States as a part of "La Reconquista." What you have just told me is that you would refuse to search for an A-10 driver who bailed out after being hit by ground fire.
I don't think it would make any sense at all for unarmed light civilian aircraft to be used for that mission.
We already have SAR units in the RM that are prepared to deal with the fact that enemy combatants don't hesitate to fire on rescuers. They can fire back, for starters.
We're not prepared in any way for that mission.
Your scenario is very romantic--CAP volunteers to the rescue!--- but you can't rescue anyone if you get killed on the way to the scene.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 16, 2009, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 12:30:52 AM
Assume Mexico invaded the southwestern United States as a part of "La Reconquista." What you have just told me is that you would refuse to search for an A-10 driver who bailed out after being hit by ground fire.
I don't think it would make any sense at all for unarmed light civilian aircraft to be used for that mission.
We already have SAR units in the RM that are prepared to deal with the fact that enemy combatants don't hesitate to fire on rescuers. They can fire back, for starters.
We're not prepared in any way for that mission.
Your scenario is very romantic--CAP volunteers to the rescue!--- but you can't rescue anyone if you get killed on the way to the scene.
I think we would be fighting the PJ's for that mission. And I dont think we would win.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 16, 2009, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 16, 2009, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 12:30:52 AM
Assume Mexico invaded the southwestern United States as a part of "La Reconquista." What you have just told me is that you would refuse to search for an A-10 driver who bailed out after being hit by ground fire.
I don't think it would make any sense at all for unarmed light civilian aircraft to be used for that mission.
We already have SAR units in the RM that are prepared to deal with the fact that enemy combatants don't hesitate to fire on rescuers. They can fire back, for starters.
We're not prepared in any way for that mission.
Your scenario is very romantic--CAP volunteers to the rescue!--- but you can't rescue anyone if you get killed on the way to the scene.
I think we would be fighting the PJ's for that mission. And I dont think we would win.
Precisely. They're trained and equipped to be the heroes who search for downed A-10 drivers.
We are not.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 16, 2009, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 12:30:52 AM
Assume Mexico invaded the southwestern United States as a part of "La Reconquista." What you have just told me is that you would refuse to search for an A-10 driver who bailed out after being hit by ground fire.
I don't think it would make any sense at all for unarmed light civilian aircraft to be used for that mission.
We already have SAR units in the RM that are prepared to deal with the fact that enemy combatants don't hesitate to fire on rescuers. They can fire back, for starters.
We're not prepared in any way for that mission.
Your scenario is very romantic--CAP volunteers to the rescue!--- but you can't rescue anyone if you get killed on the way to the scene.
Obviously, you were not in the Vietnam War.
O-2 Cessna Skymasters, or similar unarmed light civilian aircraft were used for Combat SAR and FAC throughout the war. Tactics were developed to protect the SAR/FAC aircraft which, when properly applied, discouraged the enemy from firing on them.
I do not agree with the statement that "We are not prepared in any way" for such a mission. Actually, most of the training needed for CSAR and FAC has already been accomplished. All that would be needed is to brief MP's on specific evasive tactics and to train MO's on establishment of a 400-meter bracket with field artillery and adjusting fire from that reference. Calling in TAC Air would require some additional training with respect to target identification and location. This is nothing our aircrews could not handle. With the right assets this training would take from 2 days to maybe a week for really high proficiency.
Not gonna happen, but for you to make such perjorative statements without the required knowledge is rather offensive to me.
Anyway, what are you worried about? You will be back delivering Bibles to the loincloth-clad natives in the Amazon.
Yes they did. But they dont do that anymore. Those tactics were still being developed and are no longer used. They were discouraged from firing on the observations planes because they knew what was coming behind them. Until we get a Forward Air Controller/Artillery Specialty Track. John....Are you really hinting that CAP aircrews could be trained to call in indirect fire and Air? Having been a Forward Observer, and having had the experience (training) in calling in Close Air Support and Artillery, I can ASSURE you it takes a lot longer than 2 days to a week to learn.
Exactly what training have we already accomplished to prepare us for FAC and CAS??? As an 8 year Infantryman/Instructor, Im not seeing it.
Thanks for your service, John
But aircrewmember in helos which is different and I do know some O-2/ 337 drivers...
Where is this training "gonna" happen?/ Hell its Guard AVN units 3 to 6 months to get in the frame of mind for the sandbox...
Let me assure you it'll be at least 4 to 6 month for CAPer pilots to "get in the frame of mind"
Where's the CAP training POI for scenarios such as these?? We would just better off doing what we do best instead of dreamin of John Wayne ing it with our "percieved capabilities"
Quote from: heliodoc on January 16, 2009, 03:57:29 PM
Where is this training "gonna" happen?/ Hell its Guard AVN units 3 to 6 months to get in the frame of mind for the sandbox...
Let me assure you it'll be at least 4 to 6 month for CAPer pilots to "get in the frame of mind"
Do you know how long it took to build the Pentagon?
I ask because it's a very large building that was built in very little time. The reason it was built so quickly was because there was a real threat of being conquered during WWII and we needed it. If America were invaded by Mexico, or worse yet Canada, do you really think that we'd be sitting around waiting for things to happen. Every training cycle in existence would be sped up to get as many people ready to fight, even if it was only enough training to get everyone to fire there gun in the same direction.
jeders
With all that reasoning... CAP should be preparing NOW not waiting for a crisis management situation >:D >:D >:D >:D
Thanks for commenting on this.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 03:41:18 PM
Not gonna happen, but for you to make such perjorative statements without the required knowledge is rather offensive to me.
Anyway, what are you worried about? You will be back delivering Bibles to the loincloth-clad natives in the Amazon.
And your solution to being offended is to insult me?
In OCS we had 2 days to learn how to call for and adjust artillery, and one day for testing. This is in the days before GPS and computers. Map, binoculars, and compass. The standard was to establish a 50-meter bracket within 5 marking rounds, with the initial correction within 10 seconds of the initial impact.
Our crews can already read maps and take data from a map and relay its location on the ground.
No, I'm not suggesting that we do this, and I am not suggesting that we train for this very unlikely mission.
I AM suggesting, however, that this constant whining of losers that "We're not competent... we can't do this... we're no good... etc." self-disparaging blather is both stupidly uninformed and non-productive. The idea that we are too lame to learn really irritates me.
We are as good as we want to be, and we can learn any task that is necessary. Frankly, we are already better that Scott Orr thinks we are.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 04:32:19 PM
In OCS we had 2 days to learn how to call for and adjust artillery, and one day for testing. This is in the days before GPS and computers. Map, binoculars, and compass. The standard was to establish a 50-meter bracket within 5 marking rounds, with the initial correction within 10 seconds of the initial impact.
Our crews can already read maps and take data from a map and relay its location on the ground.
No, I'm not suggesting that we do this, and I am not suggesting that we train for this very unlikely mission.
I AM suggesting, however, that this constant whining of losers that "We're not competent... we can't do this... we're no good... etc." self-disparaging blather is both stupidly uninformed and non-productive. The idea that we are too lame to learn really irritates me.
We are as good as we want to be, and we can learn any task that is necessary. Frankly, we are already better that Scott Orr thinks we are.
Nice of you to single me out. I'm glad to see that my opinion is supported by others here, however.
This is a
civilian SAR organization supported by the USAF. Period.
We are very good at
that mission.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 16, 2009, 04:29:07 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2009, 03:41:18 PM
Not gonna happen, but for you to make such perjorative statements without the required knowledge is rather offensive to me.
Anyway, what are you worried about? You will be back delivering Bibles to the loincloth-clad natives in the Amazon.
And your solution to being offended is to insult me?
Nope. Merely to remind you that you said that you would leave CAP if it were true that CAP's status under the Geneva Convention was that of a "Combatant." It IS true, and there are lots of natives out there who need the Word.
Remember to pull your flaps up fast after touchdown, those little dirt runways are short.
Senior Members and Cadets from Fresno Composite Sq. 112 find cover behind a rock while qualifying for their Technician badge in the Forward Observer Specialty Track. This final test culminates the end of a grueling 8 hour on line correspondence course and an on line exam followed by hands on practical application in the Sierra Mountains. "Nobody really knows why we are doing this but heck..its in our tool bag." said Lt. Robert Steht, the unit commander. Cadet Jones, who was bleeding from the ears but still excited stated, "Holy S###, can I do it again!?
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 16, 2009, 04:37:09 PM
Senior Members and Cadets from Fresno Composite Sq. 112 find cover behind a rock while qualifying for their Technician badge in the Forward Observer Specialty Track. This final test culminates the end of a grueling 8 hour on line correspondence course and an on line exam followed by hands on practical application in the Sierra Mountains. "Nobody really knows why we are doing this but heck..its in our tool bag." said Lt. Robert Steht, the unit commander. Cadet Jones, who was bleeding from the ears but still excited stated, "Holy S###, can I do it again!?
..and then they all went home and watched "Red Dawn" again on DVD.
Many of the earlier posts have not taken in to account some laws still on the books that cover non military organizations. ie the Militia Acts. Many define the Militia into 3 parts- The National Guard and SD F's are the first two and considered to be the Organized Militia and then the Unorganized Militia, which consists of "all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45.
In the event of an invasion of the continental USA many state governors will call up their respective militias we might get rolled up in the call up. not as CAP.
Granted we can learn any tasks, etc.......
But its "gonna" require training plans , training areas, fuel support, etc
We as CAP can not just go to PAPA 1 AF and say "we are ready, lets go shoot and take over say, a training are such as Nellis.
Where is the training program?? Is the training going to be over the skies of Maxwell AFB with C182's screeching aaaalll over the skies as Generals watch our dodging missles and our dodging of threats
Just because one is XYZ Wing and we fly over our 200 hours a yr and we have the best CAP training program.... the reality IS we are a civilian organization and not EVERY Wing is equal in training and CAP really lacks TRUE Standardization, but I know alot will argue that point, and our dreams of Kombat Air Patrol with C182's is silly, John
Stick with SAR and hauling 'stuff" with our current argument of full tanks of fuel and 3 large members tooling around in near gross C182 G1000's how can we really asssist in combat other than general hauling of equipment???
Also take it easy on Orr, he has valid points as well as others here
Some of you guys seriously need a realilty check.
I'm sorry I stirred up such a hornet's nest.
Bottom line.
It will never happen....CAP is not the military.
I vote lock.
What??? You mean no Forward Observer Specialty Track??? Ahhhh shucks
I think this should go into the hall of fame as the most far fetched CAPTalk topic ever!
Major K, you are corresponding with people who cannot read with comprehension. Hence, all the hysterics over your comments despite your very clear assertions to the contrary. Foolish notions of 182s dodging missiles and cadets training as forward observers and other dimwit comments.
Many commenting have grown up in the fuzzy soft security of an overprotective nanny-state. The hard and dangerous work of providing this security blanket is performed by people far away, out of sight and for the most part, out of mind. Being raised on a diet of sugar, fast food, network television, Oprah and animal planet they simply can't comprehend the reality that much of the rest of the world (despite the natural beauty therein) is a rat-hole populated by savages. Nothing could ever happen here that could possibly keep them from the next half-caff mocha latte or make them late for the latest intellect-sucking offering from the networks.
Their understanding of history is virtually non-existent so they don't know where or from what stock they came. They crow about CAP having been made for people who couldn't qualify for military service in WWII, civilians only good for lesser tasks. In this they fail to comprehend that it was these very civilians, the lame, the halt, the glasses wearing gray hairs that were told to strap bombs to little airplanes, fly out to sea and try to attack a foreign military power! And they did! Because their nation was in a tight spot and it needed them. Imagine those fellows reaction to the carping and whining and monumental negativity one reads in so many of these posts.
Another thing these over fed soft-backs fail to understand is that a significant percentage of the CAP population, unlike our founding members, have a background (sometimes a lifetime) experience in the defending and maintenance of a nation. They wear the uniform of the United States we have been given with honor and pride, not embarrassment and constant minimization. No poseurs.
And so when someone such as the good Major suggests that we are capable of, or worse, desiring to, perform such tasks as the nation may require (even those out of the "comfort zone") the derisive howls and wails are deafening. The very notion is as foreign to them as actual personal sacrifice.
So, is CAP the military? No. Is that relevant? Not one bit.
I agree with Major Harris. Lock the thread. The soft underbelly has been exposed. Ugly.
CAP is not the military but a civilian force multiplier, much like the CG AUX is not the military but a civilian force multiplier. I think anyone that tries to insinuate otherwise needs to take a good look at what they are with CAP for. We are head to do inland civilian SAR and cadet training. CAP is not a CSAR organization! I think some people here did back to back viewings of seasons 1 and 2 of "Jericho" and then topped it off with "Red Dawn".
Quote from: PORed on January 16, 2009, 11:43:37 PM
CAP is not the military but a civilian force multiplier, much like the CG AUX is not the military but a civilian force multiplier. I think anyone that tries to insinuate otherwise needs to take a good look at what they are with CAP for.
Agreed.
Those who are not happy with the civilian mission of this organization as stated in the charter, but hope for a day when they can once again prove themselves with a role in combat through the CAP, need to stop daydreaming and understand that the current mission of this organization is not what they want it to be.
WOW aveighter
You think we folks who have already served in the military wouldn't do it again?? Do I Have to stay in the RM and grow old in it?
Do you think the rotorheads and other folks are just waiting our turns to go out in our C182 for glory, again??
Are we 35 to 60 yr olds all soft?? I commend my compadres in far away lands doing the WORK that CAP members all dream of doing with all their 24 and 72 hr gear to take on ALL the insurgents of the world...
It was pretty glorious in the day when a liitle yellow CAP bird took on a sub...YOU think NOC and 1AF would let us do that now??? RIIIIIGHT
Mine and others military service may not rate up there with MR K's but I assure you YOU are out of line to be accusatory to the rest of us who are currently working the wildland fire, ICS, Emergency Service / LE PD / Fire
We folks serving in these capacities see stuff and practice stuff the average CAP'er can still attain thru study and application
We have just had more of a dose of reality CONTINUING AFTER military service. To think that we have not served because we don't drink ALL the CAP Kombat Kool aid is pretty silly in my book.... Get on over to your Congressman and tell him you want CAP at the next rotation of troops in and out of theater.
I fully realize that Mr K is a Viet nam vet..... why is not still in the military?? Is the only sourcee this forum has for all things RM?? Don't think so.
I am sure that the most of us in the REAL EM world live outside of comfort zone every day EVEN after real military service
Gee, all this hoopla over some comments that there are some practical potential uses of CAP by the AF in a potential scenario that isn't at all likely to happen.
overfed soft back...reporting for forward observer school....SIR>:D
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 17, 2009, 01:30:35 AM
overfed soft back...reporting for forward observer school....SIR>:D
lol :D
Somewhere in the bowels of 105 Hansell St. is a USAF letter outlining the "Wartime Missions for Civil Air Patrol". I read it a few years ago, but honestly I don't remember much. I di remember that none of the missions might be considered combat missions. More like the original missions for CAP during WW II, courier service, forstry patrol whatever.
In one post a writer said that the WWII Cadet program was to interest youths into aviation. Bull-oney. You're forgetting that every able male was drafted into the military. The Cadet program was designed to lead the 17 and 18 year old into the USAAC. Look at the study materials for that period. Do you see any mention of commercial aviation? No, the cadet program was a pre-primary Air Corp training program. A recruiting tool if you must. And until the 1990's the CAP cadet program was still a USAF recruiting tool.
Quote from: BillB on January 17, 2009, 03:11:05 AM
Somewhere in the bowels of 105 Hansell St. is a USAF letter outlining the "Wartime Missions for Civil Air Patrol". I read it a few years ago, but honestly I don't remember much. I di remember that none of the missions might be considered combat missions. More like the original missions for CAP during WW II, courier service, forstry patrol whatever.
What, they didn't plan to have us dropping bombs on nuclear submarines from C182's ?
We'll come in low out of the rising sun and about a mile out we'll put on the music.
Music?
Yeah! We play Wagner. It scares the [heck] out [them].......
Well, if you are all done having fun making absurd comments...
CAP, even according to our Charter, is not and has never been a "Civilian SAR organization." The SAR we perform is that SAR which the Air Force is directed by Congress to perform. The Air Force, realizing the cost vs. benefit of maintaining an inland SAR force, has determined that its Auxiliary is the best asset to use in carrying out this mission.
Then, in accordance with our Charter, the Air Force directed CAP to perform inland SAR as one of the "Non-combat missions and programs" of the Air Force that Congress chartered us to perform.
"Non-combat missions and programs," as written by Congress and as carried out by the Secretary of the Air Force, includes combat support tasks. Our wartime support missions include (as I have listed) light airlift, personnel movement, aerial recon for movement of military convoys, and communications support. We have accepted recently some other combat support tasks as a result of the VSAF program.
Because we DO perform combat support tasks for the Air Force, we cannot be considered to be "Non-Combatants" under the Geneva Convention. In this sense, since the definitions of "Non-combat" in our Charter are different than as defined in the Conventions, making any comparison between the two is "Apples and oranges" arguement.
As I stated (even though such statements are ignored in the zeal to appear witty with "Combat Skyhawk" comments) the chances of CAP being transformed into a combat asset are so rare as to be theoretical. It would only happen as a result of an invasion of the United States by a foreign power, or an action equally catastrophic.
But, as a uniformed force that performs missions for the Air Force, to include combat support missions, we are not purely "Civilian." Nor are we "Military."
That then, brings me back to the orignal comment I posted in this thread, that CAP is a unique blend of civilian and military that cannot be compared to any other force in any country that I am aware of. To define us as "Civilian" is inaccurate, and it is clear that we do not meet the customary definition of "Military."
And, thank you aveighter, for a reasoned pause in the hilarity of ignoring a reasoned, if theoretical, debate.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2009, 07:42:47 PM
And, thank you aveighter, for a reasoned pause in the hilarity of ignoring a reasoned, if theoretical, debate.
Was that "reasoned" part the part where he called anyone who dares to disagree with you (and him) "overfed soft backs"?
Or was the "reasoned" part the part where he concluded that if we didn't agree our "understanding of history [was] virtually non-existent "?
Or maybe it was where he suggested that not seeing thing your way meant that we felt "embarrassment and constant minimization" toward wearing a uniform?
"Reasoned"? No. Emotional? Absolutely.
No more so then your reasoned response that we are some sort of hero wanna-be's because we happen to have an academic discussion about our status in they eyes of the UCMJ and International Laws.
We are civilians in uniform doing combat support missions. That makes us combantants....subject to the Laws of Armed Conflict. In the event of WAR or CONTIGENCY operations we could come under the UCMJ if we accompany military forces in the field.
I don't want that to happen. I don't think it will ever happen. But the laws of our land and international protocols have anticipated that it could happen and therefore we do have a certain military status......IN THAT CONTEXT.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2009, 07:42:47 PM
But, as a uniformed force that performs missions for the Air Force, to include combat support missions, we are not purely "Civilian." Nor are we "Military."
That then, brings me back to the orignal comment I posted in this thread, that CAP is a unique blend of civilian and military that cannot be compared to any other force in any country that I am aware of. To define us as "Civilian" is inaccurate, and it is clear that we do not meet the customary definition of "Military."
John
Every one of your points throughout this discussion have been on the mark. Those who don't understand LOLW won't understand the nuances of them. You are correct - if the US were invaded and were were fighting on the borders, CAP would be there flying support missions. Probably not the WW2 types, but those that would be needed to free up our limited combat assets. If we were shot down by bad guys in friendly territory, we would be combatants (of course, they wouldn't follow the LOLW - they'd just shoot us).
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2009, 01:29:58 AM
[
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
I'm disturbed by the idea that there are people in this organization who contemplate a time when CAP could achieve glory in battle.
The organization I joined doesn't include that kind of philosophy in its charter. I joined to promote the goals listed therein.
Just because I don't agree with the arguments made in this thread does not diminish my ability to help Civil Air Patrol meet those goals.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 18, 2009, 06:28:08 AM
I'm disturbed by the idea that there are people in this organization who contemplate a time when CAP could achieve glory in battle.
Up-armor our fleet of 15-pax vans, tear off the rear doors and mount M249s there, and you'd have a sweet set-up - at least in my opinion. Then there's that 'stinger on the Cessna' idea....
We'd be our own self-sufficient fighting force. Think about it: We've got our mech infantry (vans), we've got our aviation... Now all we need is a Naval element (despite our name / mission being the "air" -- just to be "complete"). We could even see the return of the CAP Airborne Rangers:
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/8175/capairbornerangerpatchdg4.png)
Now, lets wait and see who the first person to think I'm actually serious and criticize me about this.
Why does everyone keep ignoring the wording of our charter and trying to make us into something else? We are the "civilian auxiliary to the USAF" - not the USAF Auxiliary. There is a difference.
Don't get hung up on being able to wear a uniform that looks similar to what the RM wears. When I was deployed to the sandbox, the GTE civilians wore BDUs without service identifiers or rank. Just their name. They were GTE employees - pure 100% civilians with no relationship to the military outside of working on the phone lines.
Quote from: Short Field on January 18, 2009, 06:50:02 AM
Why does everyone keep ignoring the wording of our charter and trying to make us into something else? We are the "civilian auxiliary to the USAF" - not the USAF Auxiliary. There is a difference.
Don't get hung up on being able to wear a uniform that looks similar to what the RM wears. When I was deployed to the sandbox, the GTE civilians wore BDUs without service identifiers or rank. Just their name. They were GTE employees - pure 100% civilians with no relationship to the military outside of working on the phone lines.
Many militias in the middle 1700's were Auxiliaries of the British Army. They went from an Auxiliary into regulars very quickly during the French and Indian War. Before the war, the most they did was carrier duty (carrying messages) between the Colonial Governors and other Nations or Colonies. George Washington stated out in the Virginia Militia as a Major carrying such correspondence as an Officer of the Auxiliary.
Don't construe the wording of "noncombatant" to mean completely out of harms way, or safe from danger.
The United States Air Force Auxiliary flew the first aerial reconnaissance over the site in New York after 11 September. Technically that was a combat area.
During the late 1950's and early 1960's Florida CAP planes flew over-water patrols checking for Cuban traffic. When Cuba decided to accept support from the USSR, those planes could have been intercepted if the Russians or Cubans wanted to.
We walk around the issues here. We are operating under the illusion that we will not put our members at risk, hence the "noncombatant" mission status. In reality, every time a CAP plane ferries AF generals, material and equipment, we are supporting the defense of the United States. No.....we don't have guns, and we don't go hunting bad guys, but we operate to defend our Country.
All it takes to go from one status (noncombatant) to another status (combatant) is an emergency declaration, either by way of an executive order, or a congressional vote. Honestly, if we were to start combatant missions, they would be very similar to what we already do. Reconnaissance, radio communications, ferrying and administrative duties (like VSAF). I would image the Cadet Program may morph into what it was during the 1940's also.
The days of strapping bombs to the underside of a single engine are long gone. We would be used as a technical, logistical and personnel relief force for the AF, or what ever agency we would be ordered to support.
As for those that say "I would leave....", well what are you doing here to begin with? You may not be performing combat duties, but by way of your service, you are most likely freeing up a military member to perform those duties. We search for missing aircraft/ people when someone calls the Air Force to do it, so the Air Force can go fight our wars. Every one of us (CAP Members) that are now serving since 9/11 are serving in an organization that flies aerial reconnaissance of our nations ports/ railways /highways and airspace in search of bad guys. Today those bad guys are terrorists, tomorrow they may be Chinese. You are supporting combat and defense missions,
EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT
I'm purely shocked this discussion hasn't been shut down. :o
I don't know about cadet Williams but I'm so dizzy my head is spinning.
I think I heard this in a song once. >:D
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 18, 2009, 06:28:08 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2009, 01:29:58 AM
[
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
I'm disturbed by the idea that there are people in this organization who contemplate a time when CAP could achieve glory in battle.
The organization I joined doesn't include that kind of philosophy in its charter. I joined to promote the goals listed therein.
Just because I don't agree with the arguments made in this thread does not diminish my ability to help Civil Air Patrol meet those goals.
Rather than contemplating the possibility of CAP earning further glory in battle, most of the comments I read discussed the intricacies of international law that could be applied to us
no matter what our own laws say. While the possibility is remote in the extreme, insisting the truth isn't the truth doesn't make it so.
By no stretch of the imagination do I suspect we would be armed and sent out to visit violence upon others. I don't expect it to happen and I don't want it to happen.
No need to lock the thread so long as an academic discussion can be had without throwing stones. My 2 cents worth.
If there is ever a time of need (major earthquake, wildfires, Cylon attack, whatever) I certainly hope all of us, not just CAP members, would rise to the occasion and volunteer to the best of
our abilities. We don't need to become something we aren't, just do something to contribute to the cause instead of sitting on our duffs and waiting for someone else to make it all better.
Kind of like the movie Independence Day (1996)? No doubt in my mind America, as a whole, would stand up and fight.
Quote from: Short Field on January 18, 2009, 06:50:02 AM
Why does everyone keep ignoring the wording of our charter and trying to make us into something else? We are the "civilian auxiliary to the USAF" - not the USAF Auxiliary. There is a difference.
Don't get hung up on being able to wear a uniform that looks similar to what the RM wears. When I was deployed to the sandbox, the GTE civilians wore BDUs without service identifiers or rank. Just their name. They were GTE employees - pure 100% civilians with no relationship to the military outside of working on the phone lines.
No relationship to the military?
They are civilians accompanying an armed force in the field. They are subject to the UCMJ. They are considered to be legitimate targets by the Geneva Convention, and they are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war if captured.
So... how do you get "No relation?"
QuoteIf there is ever a time of need (major earthquake, wildfires, Cylon attack, whatever)
According to the BG season premier, we're actually all Cylons anyway....
Quote from: Stonewall on January 18, 2009, 02:26:10 PM
Kind of like the movie Independence Day (1996)? No doubt in my mind America, as a whole, would stand up and fight.
Sure. Unless it was more like the Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man." ;-) Then we'd all stand up for our "O-Flights" not knowing they weren't quite what we thought.
Let the debate continue! In the meantime, keep volunteering and preparing for the missions we are likely to be called for. Be darn good at it. There is enough honor in that to go around.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 18, 2009, 06:28:08 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2009, 01:29:58 AM
[
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
I'm disturbed by the idea that there are people in this organization who contemplate a time when CAP could achieve glory in battle.
The organization I joined doesn't include that kind of philosophy in its charter. I joined to promote the goals listed therein.
Just because I don't agree with the arguments made in this thread does not diminish my ability to help Civil Air Patrol meet those goals.
What "Arguments" have been going on? All I have done is point out facts. The fact is that we are not a "Civilian SAR organization." We were organized in 1941 to support the war effort of the United States. We were re-established in 1948 to support the "Non-combat missions and programs of the Air Force." SAR isn't mentioned anywhere. SAR is one of several missions currently given to CAP by the USAF. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. We can and do perform various combat support tasks for the Air Force. Again, this is not an opinion, this is a fact.
If you choose not to recognize these facts, and insist in believing a fantasy that we are some sort of flying humanitarian organization that is, in your words, "Supported by the Air Force," then such fantasies are beyond my capability to address. The fact is that WE support the Air Force, not vice-versa. They equip and fund us to perform THEIR missions. They AUTHORIZE us to use the equipment is support of state and local governments only to the extent that it does not impact on their missions.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 03:19:10 PM
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 18, 2009, 06:28:08 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2009, 01:29:58 AM
[
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
I'm disturbed by the idea that there are people in this organization who contemplate a time when CAP could achieve glory in battle.
The organization I joined doesn't include that kind of philosophy in its charter. I joined to promote the goals listed therein.
Just because I don't agree with the arguments made in this thread does not diminish my ability to help Civil Air Patrol meet those goals.
What "Arguments" have been going on? All I have done is point out facts. The fact is that we are not a "Civilian SAR organization." We were organized in 1941 to support the war effort of the United States. We were re-established in 1948 to support the "Non-combat missions and programs of the Air Force." SAR isn't mentioned anywhere. SAR is one of several missions currently given to CAP by the USAF. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. We can and do perform various combat support tasks for the Air Force. Again, this is not an opinion, this is a fact.
If you choose not to recognize these facts, and insist in believing a fantasy that we are some sort of flying humanitarian organization that is, in your words, "Supported by the Air Force," then such fantasies are beyond my capability to address. The fact is that WE support the Air Force, not vice-versa. They equip and fund us to perform THEIR missions. They AUTHORIZE us to use the equipment is support of state and local governments only to the extent that it does not impact on their missions.
Id say believing that CAP is ANYTHING like what we were in 1941 is believing in fantasy. Those days are long over. It doesnt matter what some paper says in the basement of CAP NHQ. Its gone. We are a civilian SAR organization. You can bark all you want that we wont be able to find that in Print, but all I have to do is look at the CAWG 2009 activities calendar to tell you we are now a civilian SAR organization.
I guess current fedeal law doesn't count? I'm with Kach on this one. SAR isn't specifically mentioned in any of the official purposes of our organization and is only a subcategory of one of our named purposes and only because the AF funds us to do this mission for them. If the AF decided that the SAR tasks assigned to them could be done better in a different way, we'd be mostly out of business as we would only get the SAR missions that local and state agencies are willing to pay our gas bills for -- which aren't many.
Heck, in many states I'lll bet that you find that we fly many more hours of law enforcement support in the form of CD missions than we do on actual SAR missions. I know thats the case in my state.
And like it or not, CAP has continued to perform direct support of training and other missions for the AF (other than SAR) for the entire history of our organization. Granted, they've not been the major part of our program, but they're there. This doesn't make us a law enforcement organization any more than helping the AF train for combat makes us a combat organization. We're a very strange hybrid that is a little bit of everything.
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2009, 01:29:58 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2009, 07:42:47 PM
But, as a uniformed force that performs missions for the Air Force, to include combat support missions, we are not purely "Civilian." Nor are we "Military."
That then, brings me back to the orignal comment I posted in this thread, that CAP is a unique blend of civilian and military that cannot be compared to any other force in any country that I am aware of. To define us as "Civilian" is inaccurate, and it is clear that we do not meet the customary definition of "Military."
John
Every one of your points throughout this discussion have been on the mark. Those who don't understand LOLW won't understand the nuances of them. You are correct - if the US were invaded and were were fighting on the borders, CAP would be there flying support missions. Probably not the WW2 types, but those that would be needed to free up our limited combat assets. If we were shot down by bad guys in friendly territory, we would be combatants (of course, they wouldn't follow the LOLW - they'd just shoot us).
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
I wouldnt
QUIT..Id quit CAP and go where they hand out guns. I think its funny that we are actually insulting members who would chose not to "go to war with CAP". Would we be like the Thunderbirds where all of our red white and blue aircraft would be painted a dull grey and redeployed within 72 hours?
Second....I cant believe I dont have anything else better to do right now?
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Id say believing that CAP is ANYTHING like what we were in 1941 is believing in fantasy. Those days are long over. It doesnt matter what some paper says in the basement of CAP NHQ. Its gone. We are a civilian SAR organization. You can bark all you want that we wont be able to find that in Print, but all I have to do is look at the CAWG 2009 activities calendar to tell you we are now a civilian SAR organization.
No offense, but I'd say that you need to venture out of CAWG for a bit. There are some wings that may only have three Wing-level SAREXs a year and may only have three real world SAR-anything a year (NEWG is/was a prime example). The fact of the matter is that if the AF decided tomorrow to cut our SAR mission out, they could and would.
Our primary mission is to do what the AF tells us to do.
I am not speaking, Robert, of the missions of any particular Wing. I am speaking of CAP generally. IF you accept the misconception that CAP is a civilian SAR organization, then how to you reconcile that identity with the VSAF program, with ferrying repair parts for the USAF, with our chaplains providing service to the USAF, and all the other things CAP does that have nothing to do with SAR?
So, lets follow logically to identify exactly what status CAP finds itself in.
Scenario: A USAF C-17 is carrying Army troops to Afghanistan. A fault indicator on the panel causes the pilot to make a precautionary landing at Atlantic City, NJ. An inspection indicates a cracked left veebilfitzer actuator link. The nearest replacement veebilfitzer actuator link is located at Dover AFB, Del. A CAP plane is dispatched to fly the part up to ACY so that the C-17 can continue its mission. The AF directs the CAP to fly this, pays the gas, and the mission is listed in WMIRS as "Other AF Mission." Within a matter of hours the part is delivered, changed, and the flight proceeds to Kabul without further incident.
Now, lets ask ourselves some questions:
1. Is this a possible CAP mission? YES.
2. Does this mission have anything at all to do with SAR? NO
3. Is this a combat mission? NO
4. Even though this is not combat, does accomplishing this mission further the war effort of the United States? YES
5. Does this mission allow a CAP member to achieve some sort of battlefield glory? MAYBE, DEPENDING UPON HIS PERSPECTIVE
6. Does this mission mean that CAP is fighting the war in Afghanistan? YES, INDIRECTLY.
7. Does this mission mean CAP is a "Combatant" under the Geneva Convention? YES
I have said that CAP is neither a purely civilian SAR organization, like Equisearch, and that CAP is not purely military, but is rather a unique blend of both that defies comparison to other groups.
QuoteI'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
To be fair, the original comment was that we don't have the training to do some of the tasks that had been suggested and that they would quit without that. Thats actually a sensible opinion as to do anything without the proper training isn't very bright. However, I think they were wrong in to assume that CAP wouldn't get that training if the AF decided to assign us those tasks. I'm sure it would be a package deal.
QuoteId say believing that CAP is ANYTHING like what we were in 1941 is believing in fantasy. Those days are long over.
Actually, there is very little difference between the CAP of WWII and today. Most CAP members in WWII were either in the cadet program or performing the exact type of disaster relief and SAR missions we do today. While we're no longer carrying bombs, we're still occassionally providing aerial targets for air defense systems, patrolling along the southern border, participating in military training exercises, and carrying around military equipment.
Maybe some of you should venture to CAWG instead of me coming to you where it seems I might be doing a lot of sitting around.
But you have to admit, our primary mission right now is SAR. To bad other wings do get to do much. But at least in CAWG, its SAR and CD. I think as of right now, we have a number of SAREX's and 3 Mountain search courses planned already.
Go to www.cawg.cap.gov You could literally be busy every weekend. I know many of our cities have more people than some states, but I cant help that. I would think if there were other states the same size as CA their calendars would look similar to ours.
I am glad to see we got away from this argument about calling for close air support on the Mexican Border because that talk was pretty juvenile.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2009, 01:29:58 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2009, 07:42:47 PM
But, as a uniformed force that performs missions for the Air Force, to include combat support missions, we are not purely "Civilian." Nor are we "Military."
That then, brings me back to the orignal comment I posted in this thread, that CAP is a unique blend of civilian and military that cannot be compared to any other force in any country that I am aware of. To define us as "Civilian" is inaccurate, and it is clear that we do not meet the customary definition of "Military."
John
Every one of your points throughout this discussion have been on the mark. Those who don't understand LOLW won't understand the nuances of them. You are correct - if the US were invaded and were were fighting on the borders, CAP would be there flying support missions. Probably not the WW2 types, but those that would be needed to free up our limited combat assets. If we were shot down by bad guys in friendly territory, we would be combatants (of course, they wouldn't follow the LOLW - they'd just shoot us).
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
I wouldnt QUIT..Id quit CAP and go where they hand out guns. I think its funny that we are actually insulting members who would chose not to "go to war with CAP". Would we be like the Thunderbirds where all of our red white and blue aircraft would be painted a dull grey and redeployed within 72 hours?
Second....I cant believe I dont have anything else better to do right now?
After 9/11, there WAS a discussion that CAP be armed, and assume the duties of securing general aviation airports. This discussion never got past the talking stage, because the costs of training, equipping, and deploying CAP officers on that mission over the thousands of airports nationwide was deemed to be far out of proportion to the threat.
That is the closest we have come to being an armed combat asset since 1945.
It is noteworthy only because the decision was based on a cost-benefit analysis, not on the fact that some members of CAP consider themselves to be the aviation equivalent of Mother Teresa, and may be averse to combat and the bearing of arms under our flag.
Quotethe duties of securing general aviation airports
another thing we did at some airports during WWII. (on a very short-term and apparently local basis, at least from the info I've got).
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 04:45:24 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2009, 01:29:58 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2009, 07:42:47 PM
But, as a uniformed force that performs missions for the Air Force, to include combat support missions, we are not purely "Civilian." Nor are we "Military."
That then, brings me back to the orignal comment I posted in this thread, that CAP is a unique blend of civilian and military that cannot be compared to any other force in any country that I am aware of. To define us as "Civilian" is inaccurate, and it is clear that we do not meet the customary definition of "Military."
John
Every one of your points throughout this discussion have been on the mark. Those who don't understand LOLW won't understand the nuances of them. You are correct - if the US were invaded and were were fighting on the borders, CAP would be there flying support missions. Probably not the WW2 types, but those that would be needed to free up our limited combat assets. If we were shot down by bad guys in friendly territory, we would be combatants (of course, they wouldn't follow the LOLW - they'd just shoot us).
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
I wouldnt QUIT..Id quit CAP and go where they hand out guns. I think its funny that we are actually insulting members who would chose not to "go to war with CAP". Would we be like the Thunderbirds where all of our red white and blue aircraft would be painted a dull grey and redeployed within 72 hours?
Second....I cant believe I dont have anything else better to do right now?
After 9/11, there WAS a discussion that CAP be armed, and assume the duties of securing general aviation airports. This discussion never got past the talking stage, because the costs of training, equipping, and deploying CAP officers on that mission over the thousands of airports nationwide was deemed to be far out of proportion to the threat.
That is the closest we have come to being an armed combat asset since 1945.
It is noteworthy only because the decision was based on a cost-benefit analysis, not on the fact that some members of CAP consider themselves to be the aviation equivalent of Mother Teresa, and may be averse to combat and the bearing of arms under our flag.
;D ;D ;DYeah right. Please....tell me where that discussion happened? Between a couple of Senior Members at a local airport restaurant? C'mon Jack....you know that was pure fantasy on the part of the genius who brought that up.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:44:47 PM
Maybe some of you should venture to CAWG instead of me coming to you where it seems I might be doing a lot of sitting around.
But you have to admit, our primary mission right now is SAR. To bad other wings do get to do much. But at least in CAWG, its SAR and CD. I think as of right now, we have a number of SAREX's and 3 Mountain search courses planned already.
Go to www.cawg.cap.gov You could literally be busy every weekend. I know many of our cities have more people than some states, but I cant help that. I would think if there were other states the same size as CA their calendars would look similar to ours.
I am glad to see we got away from this argument about calling for close air support on the Mexican Border because that talk was pretty juvenile.
Yes, I will grant you that SAR is a principal mission and that most of our training is oriented to SAR. But saying that such a situation makes us a "Civilian SAR agency" is like saying the the Marines are a "Ceremonial guard organization" for the Navy and State Department.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:44:47 PM
Maybe some of you should venture to CAWG instead of me coming to you where it seems I might be doing a lot of sitting around.
But you have to admit, our primary mission right now is SAR. To bad other wings do get to do much. But at least in CAWG, its SAR and CD. I think as of right now, we have a number of SAREX's and 3 Mountain search courses planned already.
There are other things to do in CAP other than SAR...Cadet Programs, AE 8), Comm (which doesn't exist just for SAR), aerial recon, and CD (props to you for mentioning it). We are a very well rounded organization and do a lot of good. Some of our missions are more popular in other areas. If you are just focused on SAR you need to try some of the other CAP missions on for size. You may be surprised at how much they effect the community, state, and nation.
Edit: I just noticed you were a pilot...them pilots are all the same. Fly, Fly, Fly. >:D :P >:D Just kidding! ;)
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:48:11 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 04:45:24 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2009, 01:29:58 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2009, 07:42:47 PM
But, as a uniformed force that performs missions for the Air Force, to include combat support missions, we are not purely "Civilian." Nor are we "Military."
That then, brings me back to the orignal comment I posted in this thread, that CAP is a unique blend of civilian and military that cannot be compared to any other force in any country that I am aware of. To define us as "Civilian" is inaccurate, and it is clear that we do not meet the customary definition of "Military."
John
Every one of your points throughout this discussion have been on the mark. Those who don't understand LOLW won't understand the nuances of them. You are correct - if the US were invaded and were were fighting on the borders, CAP would be there flying support missions. Probably not the WW2 types, but those that would be needed to free up our limited combat assets. If we were shot down by bad guys in friendly territory, we would be combatants (of course, they wouldn't follow the LOLW - they'd just shoot us).
I'm disturbed by those who say if called upon, they'd quit. Those folks need to find another organization that wears their golf shirts once a week. Disturbing at best.
Gunner
I wouldnt QUIT..Id quit CAP and go where they hand out guns. I think its funny that we are actually insulting members who would chose not to "go to war with CAP". Would we be like the Thunderbirds where all of our red white and blue aircraft would be painted a dull grey and redeployed within 72 hours?
Second....I cant believe I dont have anything else better to do right now?
After 9/11, there WAS a discussion that CAP be armed, and assume the duties of securing general aviation airports. This discussion never got past the talking stage, because the costs of training, equipping, and deploying CAP officers on that mission over the thousands of airports nationwide was deemed to be far out of proportion to the threat.
That is the closest we have come to being an armed combat asset since 1945.
It is noteworthy only because the decision was based on a cost-benefit analysis, not on the fact that some members of CAP consider themselves to be the aviation equivalent of Mother Teresa, and may be averse to combat and the bearing of arms under our flag.
;D ;D ;DYeah right. Please....tell me where that discussion happened? Between a couple of Senior Members at a local airport restaurant? C'mon Jack....you know that was pure fantasy on the part of the genius who brought that up.
Well, if it was a discussion between "A couple of senior members" one of them was a Wing Commander, and the discussion took place at NHQ. I was told that they went as far as running the training and associated personnel costs, and reporting those costs through CAP-USAF to the Pentagon. The costs were enormous, and DID involve per diem for members, both in training and while deployed.
Quote from: alwaysreadyneverhere on January 18, 2009, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:44:47 PM
Maybe some of you should venture to CAWG instead of me coming to you where it seems I might be doing a lot of sitting around.
But you have to admit, our primary mission right now is SAR. To bad other wings do get to do much. But at least in CAWG, its SAR and CD. I think as of right now, we have a number of SAREX's and 3 Mountain search courses planned already.
There are other things to do in CAP other than SAR...Cadet Programs, AE 8), Comm (which doesn't exist just for SAR), aerial recon, and CD (props to you for mentioning it). We are a very well rounded organization and do a lot of good. Some of our missions are more popular in other areas. If you are just focused on SAR you need to try some of the other CAP missions on for size. You may be surprised at how much they effect the community, state, and nation.
Edit: I just noticed you were a pilot...them pilots are all the same. Fly, Fly, Fly. >:D :P >:D Just kidding! ;)
Oh really? Maybe you'll also notice that I am a Sq. Commander with one of the largest cadet programs in the group, and for central California. We also have one of the largest gatherings of new Seniors. I was a cadet from age 12-18, then later came back and served as DCC for 5 years before taking on this role as Sq. Commander. I have been in CAP for 20 years and have been a pilot for all of about 2 of those years in CAP. I have been to NCC 3 times as well as just about every other cadet activity in the Wing. So lets stop with the stereotypes because they get old. Trust me, I know what CAP does.
As for the armed CAP issue. Just what I thought....a couple of Senior Members with delusions of grandure. Jack, by chance were any of them even cops or even possess a security background? There we go....let me volunteer to be the local armed CAP volunteer security guard at the grass strip.
Dang, Robert... Do you even READ any of these posts?
You lit that last fellow up like the Las Vegas strip and he said "Just kidding" and put a bunch of little devils on there!
You concluded that the discussion of CAP armed defense of airfields was informal, when I indicated that it was not.
No, I don't know if anyone involved in the discussion was a cop, but I do know that training costs were part of the cost package figured into the estimate. I think we can presume that the training involved more than a famfire on the range. As I said, the costs were deemed to be too high when compared to the relatively low threat.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 03:01:06 PM
They are civilians accompanying an armed force in the field. They are subject to the UCMJ. They are considered to be legitimate targets by the Geneva Convention, and they are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war if captured.
No, they were not covered by the UCMJ. They were civilians hired by GTE to maintain the phone/data network in a county other than the USA. By your defininitoin, Blackwater and the other private security companies in Iraq are subject the UCMJ, are legitmate targets by the Geneva Convention, and are entitiled to treatment as prisoners of war.
Quote from: JohnRamboKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 04:45:24 PM
After 9/11, there WAS a discussion that CAP be armed, and assume the duties of securing general aviation airports. This discussion never got past the talking stage, because the costs of training, equipping, and deploying CAP officers on that mission over the thousands of airports nationwide was deemed to be far out of proportion to the threat.
There was this one time, at band camp...Assuming this happened outside of your own basement, it never got past the TALKING stage because it's absurd.
Quote from: JohnRamboKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 04:45:24 PM
That is the closest we have come to being an armed combat asset since 1945.
Maybe we will hit the trifecta again!
Quote from: D2SK on January 18, 2009, 08:15:18 PM
Quote from: JohnRamboKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 04:45:24 PM
After 9/11, there WAS a discussion that CAP be armed, and assume the duties of securing general aviation airports. This discussion never got past the talking stage, because the costs of training, equipping, and deploying CAP officers on that mission over the thousands of airports nationwide was deemed to be far out of proportion to the threat.
There was this one time, at band camp...Assuming this happened outside of your own basement, it never got past the TALKING stage because it's absurd.
Quote from: JohnRamboKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 04:45:24 PM
That is the closest we have come to being an armed combat asset since 1945.
Maybe we will hit the trifecta again!
I said it never got past the talking stage. Whether you choose to believe that the idea itself was absurd or believe the explanation that was given to me is up to you.
Since this is a mission we performed in World War II, I can understand how it may have come up in discussion. I don't understand why it would be a viable mission in WWII but "Absurd" now, but in any case the concept was rejected. The reasons explained to me was that the costs of such a plan were too high in comparison to the benefit.
I remember that when it was told to me (after the consideration and rejection) I was happy that it had been dismissed, because I did not think that we could perform that mission as volunteers, even with per diem. We all have families, civilian jobs, and serious time constraints. To add the mission of securing all GA airports, in addition to our current missions, is simply beyond the capability of our current force, even if you limit it to those airports with paved runways of more than 5000 feet. If that is what you mean by "Absurd," I agree with you.
CAP until recently, very post 911 had been subject to pose commutates status.. no guns, no surveillance, no police authority
Quote from: major pain on January 18, 2009, 10:21:08 PM
CAP until recently, very post 911 had been subject to pose commutates status.. no guns, no surveillance, no police authority
The Posse Comitatus Act only pertains to the military. Some posters insist CAP is a civilian organization. How do you reconcile Posse Comitatus Act restrictions on a "Civilian SAR organization?"
Quote from: major pain on January 18, 2009, 10:21:08 PM
CAP until recently, very post 911 had been subject to pose commutates status.. no guns, no surveillance, no police authority
Nothing has changed in regards to restriction on the use of CAP due to the the posse comitatus law. To my knowledge there hasn't been any change in this as affects us since they allowed some use of the military for counterdrug efforts in the 1980s (leading to our current CD program).
Quote from: RiverAux on January 18, 2009, 11:27:55 PM
Quote from: major pain on January 18, 2009, 10:21:08 PM
CAP until recently, very post 911 had been subject to pose commutates status.. no guns, no surveillance, no police authority
Nothing has changed in regards to restriction on the use of CAP due to the the posse comitatus law. To my knowledge there hasn't been any change in this as affects us since they allowed some use of the military for counterdrug efforts in the 1980s (leading to our current CD program).
Nothing has changed since 9/11, true, but...
The 2000 law re-creating CAP as a part-time element of the Air Force may have changed our Posse Comitatus status with regard to missions NOT flown at the request of federal agencies. I say "May" have changed, since our regulations still are written as though we would be under PCA at all times. I don't think the issue of providing air support to state and local law enforcement agencies has been thought through yet at echelons above reality.
Instead of asking, "what military status is CAP," perhaps a more appropriate question for the real world is, "is CAP a Federal, State, or Local resource?" If the answer changes with the circumstances, as it invariably will, then can we clearly delineate when each set of rules will apply? This problem definitely rears its head when we work for any customer other than AFRCC.
Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
www.CAP-ES.net
Another reason why we are unique. We have the capability and legal authority to serve all three levels of government.
So true, but when you've got the State Department of Agriculture saying they can't use you once a fire goes Federal because of the Stafford act, how should we respond?
I hate to say it, but I need a lawyer! :)
I used to think CAP could not get worse when it was run by lawyers. Now that I'm an IC I have discovered that the lawyers have been replaced by computer geeks, and yes, it got worse!
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:26:01 PMI wouldnt QUIT..Id quit CAP and go where they hand out guns. I think its funny that we are actually insulting members who would chose not to "go to war with CAP". Would we be like the Thunderbirds where all of our red white and blue aircraft would be painted a dull grey and redeployed within 72 hours?
Exactly.
John, your line about conisdering arming CAP, etc., after 9/11 would be more a lot believeavble if it didn't come with the standard "I was told" disclaimer.
QuoteThe 2000 law re-creating CAP as a part-time element of the Air Force may have changed our Posse Comitatus status with regard to missions NOT flown at the request of federal agencies. I say "May" have changed, since our regulations still are written as though we would be under PCA at all times.
I don't think that change is relevant since what is important is when an individual member is being used by the AF, which has for a very long time only been the case when we are on an AFAM. And as I argued in another thread, some part of CAP is always in AFAM status due to some mission or another so in effect we are always the serving as the AF Auxiliary, its just that not all members are doing so at once.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 19, 2009, 01:32:04 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
I wouldnt QUIT..Id quit CAP and go where they hand out guns. I think its funny that we are actually insulting members who would chose not to "go to war with CAP". Would we be like the Thunderbirds where all of our red white and blue aircraft would be painted a dull grey and redeployed within 72 hours?
Exactly.
John, your line about conisdering arming CAP, etc., after 9/11 would be more a lot believeavble if it didn't come with the standard "I was told" disclaimer.
Well, the fact is I was NOT there for the discussion, but it was told to me after the fact. I cannot change that, and I will not deceive anyone by implying that I was privy to a discussion. I was also surprised to hear that it had been discussed, even briefly.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 01:39:22 AM
QuoteThe 2000 law re-creating CAP as a part-time element of the Air Force may have changed our Posse Comitatus status with regard to missions NOT flown at the request of federal agencies. I say "May" have changed, since our regulations still are written as though we would be under PCA at all times.
I don't think that change is relevant since what is important is when an individual member is being used by the AF, which has for a very long time only been the case when we are on an AFAM. And as I argued in another thread, some part of CAP is always in AFAM status due to some mission or another so in effect we are always the serving as the AF Auxiliary, its just that not all members are doing so at once.
You are correct that the change is not relevant to the discussion on this thread. I want to point it out only as an instructional point for those who wish to claim that CAP is a purely-civilian entity. A "Civilian SAR agency" to be exact.
Equisearch IS a civilian search agency. There is no law that prevents a sheriff from deputizing the searchers. CAP is an Air Force asset, and the PCA prevents its use in civil law enforcement. The PCA is a law that only affects the military.
So the statements: "CAP is a civilian SAR agency," and "CAP is subject to the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act" are logically inconsistent.
And lieutenants who find it amusing to call me "Rambo" cannot alter this logical inconsistency with silly personal attacks.
Is all this really necessary? The best we could ever hope to do in the ways of small airport security would be an augmented "Airport Watch." No CAP officers would be armed...unless you count being armed with a radio/cell phone or camera.
Ideas and pilot programs might be discussed and even implemented, however, the "elite" rifle toting CAP is far from ever becoming a reality system wide.
I find it odd that some of you here would get so emotional over the matter.
I will tell you this, if it ever reached the point where CAP needed to be armed, we would likely be facing the waning days of the United States...to which a squadron of armed CAP officers would not make a difference...in fact, I would recommend you protect your home instead. However, that too is a flight of fancy that is the stuff of Fiction. And bad fiction at that.
Quote from: Short Field on January 18, 2009, 07:35:26 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2009, 03:01:06 PM
They are civilians accompanying an armed force in the field. They are subject to the UCMJ. They are considered to be legitimate targets by the Geneva Convention, and they are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war if captured.
No, they were not covered by the UCMJ. They were civilians hired by GTE to maintain the phone/data network in a county other than the USA. By your defininitoin, Blackwater and the other private security companies in Iraq are subject the UCMJ, are legitmate targets by the Geneva Convention, and are entitiled to treatment as prisoners of war.
The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field." That's the law, not an opinion. If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered. If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.
Blackwater private guards may or may not be covered under the Geneva Conventions as POW's. They wear uniforms, bear arms openly, and are organized under a chain of command. If they conduct their own operations under the LOLW, then they meet the definition of "Lawful combatant" and would be entitled to POW status.
Good luck with that, by the way. POW status simply means they have to use a sharp knife to saw your head off with.
If CAP is acting as a state or local agency, then Posse Comitatus might not apply. Truth is we've painted ourselves into a corner by trying to play both sides of the fence (those sides being: "we're an auxiliary of the air force" and "we're a civilian corporation"). The bottom line is that WE need to pick our poison and go with it...
Quote from: es_g0d on January 19, 2009, 03:20:38 AM
If CAP is acting as a state or local agency, then Posse Comitatus might not apply. Truth is we've painted ourselves into a corner by trying to play both sides of the fence (those sides being: "we're an auxiliary of the air force" and "we're a civilian corporation"). The bottom line is that WE need to pick our poison and go with it...
CORRECTION: The Air Force has put us in this situation since they are the ones that insisted on the split status. We're just living within the results of that decision on their part.
Actually, you are right. At least in my opinion, anyway.
Prior to 2000, we were ALWAYS the USAF auxiliary. When they changed the law in 2000, we are NOT acting as an AF Aux. when acting under contract with subordinate levels of govt. as a 501(c)3 corporation.
That means that, legally, we could accept taskings that were law enforcement related when acting under the provisions of an MOU, but not when acting as an AF asset, except drug interdictions, which is a narrowly-carved exception to the PCA.
Our regulations, however, have not been changed. 60-1 still says support to LE is a bad thing.
The troubles I've run into are those that are more humanitarian and public need; my example with wildland fire is real. If we're not a Federal Agency when we're not the Air Force Auxiliary (Aux OFF), then we need to use that to our advantage.
Furthermore, I'd say that when we ARE acting as the Air Force Auxiliary, then our airplanes fall under public use. But that's another fight, for another day.
CAP, with the current "Aux On/Aux Off" situation is in the same boat as the Guard.
The PCA applies to the Guard when they are performing their FEDERAL mission, but it does not apply when they are performing their STATE mission.
It's pretty much the same way with CAP.
If we're performing an Air Force mission or a mission for the Federal Government, then the PCA applies. If we're doing a non-Air Force mission (corporate, state or local) then the PCA does not apply since we're not in "FEDERAL" status.
QuoteThat means that, legally, we could accept taskings that were law enforcement related when acting under the provisions of an MOU, but not when acting as an AF asset, except drug interdictions, which is a narrowly-carved exception to the PCA.
Personally, I've always agreed with the legal opinion noted in one of the national board minutes a few years ago that PCA NEVER applies to CAP since none of us are in the military at any time so it doesn't matter who pays the gas or bought the airplane.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 04:17:16 AM
QuoteThat means that, legally, we could accept taskings that were law enforcement related when acting under the provisions of an MOU, but not when acting as an AF asset, except drug interdictions, which is a narrowly-carved exception to the PCA.
Personally, I've always agreed with the legal opinion noted in one of the national board minutes a few years ago that PCA NEVER applies to CAP since none of us are in the military at any time so it doesn't matter who pays the gas or bought the airplane.
I'm not sure what legal opinion says that. CAP's regulatory structure was written to comply with the PCA, and in the definition of "Military" in the PCA itself there is a specific reference to "Auxiliaries." If you have a source of that legal opinion, I would like it. I actually read stuff like that!
Quote from: PHall on January 19, 2009, 04:06:30 AM
CAP, with the current "Aux On/Aux Off" situation is in the same boat as the Guard.
The PCA applies to the Guard when they are performing their FEDERAL mission, but it does not apply when they are performing their STATE mission.
It's pretty much the same way with CAP.
If we're performing an Air Force mission or a mission for the Federal Government, then the PCA applies. If we're doing a non-Air Force mission (corporate, state or local) then the PCA does not apply since we're not in "FEDERAL" status.
I think you are correct in your legal analysis, but our regulations still prohibit us from accepting taskings to fly missions for local law enforcement.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2009, 03:13:36 AM
The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field." That's the law, not an opinion. If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered. If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.
Again - the GTE employees were not covered by the UCMJ and were not in Iraq. They did wear BDUs without rank or insignia. Fact.
Quote from: Short Field on January 19, 2009, 05:14:53 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2009, 03:13:36 AM
The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field." That's the law, not an opinion. If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered. If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.
Again - the GTE employees were not covered by the UCMJ and were not in Iraq. They did wear BDUs without rank or insignia. Fact.
I guess if they were not accompanying the armed force, they would have the same status in BDU's as duck hunters. If they were not in Iraq, then they must not have been accompanying an armed force in the field.
Quote from: Short Field on January 19, 2009, 05:14:53 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2009, 03:13:36 AM
The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field." That's the law, not an opinion. If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered. If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.
Again - the GTE employees were not covered by the UCMJ and were not in Iraq. They did wear BDUs without rank or insignia. Fact.
Fact before the new SOFA went into effect. Under the SOFA, they now come under Iraqi Law. (
Thank you Blackwater...)
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:04:08 PMWe are a civilian SAR organization. You can bark all you want that we wont be able to find that in Print, but all I have to do is look at the CAWG 2009 activities calendar to tell you we are now a civilian SAR organization.
C'mon now Robert. You know that isn't true.
Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.
Really. Just look at the numbers.
Sure, some of you guys do a fair amount of SAR, but it is clearly misleading to call us a civilian SAR organization when that only represents a minority of our time and effort.
Just saying . . . .
Ned Lee
CP Entusiast
The PCA is a law that only affects the military
I think you have misread 18 USC 1385 Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
QuoteWhoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Since CAP is 'part' of the USAF, it cannot be used as a posse comitatus. And that ban does not make or imply that CAP is miitary, quasi-military or para-military. The ban applies to the civilian employees of the USAF just as much as it does to the civilian volunteeers (CAP).
Quote from: Short Field on January 19, 2009, 05:14:53 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2009, 03:13:36 AM
The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field." That's the law, not an opinion. If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered. If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.
Again - the GTE employees were not covered by the UCMJ and were not in Iraq. They did wear BDUs without rank or insignia. Fact.
I remember while living at Ramstein AB, Germany seeing civilians (whether they were contractor, GS, or whatever I don't know) coming back and going to CENTCOM AOR wearing DCUs and latter ACUs. IIRC they wore name tapes, US Army tapes, and for grade insignia they wore a triangle metal pin. I'll see if I can't dig up a picture of one of them.
Edit: I found in the Army Uniform Manual (AR 670-1) the information regarding civilian wear of uniforms.
Quote30–10. Wear of uniforms by U.S. civilians
a. Authorized U.S. civilian personnel attached to, or authorized to accompany forces of the United States, including DA civilians, are authorized to wear utility uniforms only when required in the performance of their duties, and when authorized by the MACOM commander. The procedures for purchasing uniforms, footwear, and insignia are contained in AR 700–84, chapter 3. Only the insignia described below is authorized for wear on these uniforms.
b. Insignia for civilians.
(1) Description. The woodland subdued insignia is a black equilateral triangle, 11⁄4 inches long per side, with theletters "U.S." in olive-drab color, 1⁄4 inch wide and 1⁄2 inch high. The triangle is printed on an olive-green colored cloth background, 3 inches long and 2–1⁄2 inches wide. If applicable, the insignia also indicates the designated assignment in black letters, 1⁄4 inch high. The desert subdued insignia is the same size, with khaki or tan letters on a black cloth triangle. The triangle is printed on a khaki or tan cloth background.
(2) The authorized designations are as follows.
(a) Scientific consultant.
(b) Operations analyst.
(c) War correspondent.
(d) Technical observer.
(e) Ordnance technician.
(f) Chauffeur.
(g) Messenger.
(h) Logistics specialist.
(i) Safety.
(j) Ammunition surveillance.
(3) Insignia for civilians performing duties not listed above, or when specific designations are not required, will
conform to previously described insignia, except the insignia will not denote duty assignment (see fig 30–2).
And a pic of the insignia:
(http://www.1starmy.com/uploadimages/Product_6093_det.JPG)
This is what they are testing to be the civilian utility uniform in combat zones:
(http://www.army.mil/-images/2008/07/03/18487/army.mil-2008-07-03-123141.jpg)
Here's the article on it:
http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/07/03/10586-amc-civilians-to-test-new-uniforms-in-combat-zones/index.html (http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/07/03/10586-amc-civilians-to-test-new-uniforms-in-combat-zones/index.html)
Now can we drop the uniform subject? ;)
QuoteSince CAP is 'part' of the USAF, it cannot be used as a posse comitatus.
CAP is NOT part of the Air Force. CAP-USAF is part of the AF. We are just partially funded by the Air Force.
QuoteI'm not sure what legal opinion says that.
I believe it was some DoD legal office.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 02:01:01 PM
QuoteSince CAP is 'part' of the USAF, it cannot be used as a posse comitatus.
CAP is NOT part of the Air Force. CAP-USAF is part of the AF. We are just partially funded by the Air Force.
QuoteI'm not sure what legal opinion says that.
I believe it was some DoD legal office.
RRLE and River:
I did not misread the PCA, I was, however, sloppy in summarizing its provisions in a single sentence. And, as I have said, CAP is not "Military." But CAP, while not "Military," is also not clearly and purely "Civilian."
USAF civilian workers do not have to wear uniforms (unless, of course, they are Guard technicians, who ARE required to wear uniforms) and are not given titles of military rank. We are. We are unique and we resist attempts to compare us to anything else.
To say we are in the military is inaccurate, but so is saying we are purely civilians. Assertive statements that "We are civilians, period," as some have made here as just as inaccurate as saying that we are we are members of the armed forces.
And can we get a little more precise on this legal opinion that CAP is not bound at any time by the PCA? I have never heard such a statement, and as much of a law geek as I am, I think I would have picked up on it somewhere.
Quote from: Ned on January 19, 2009, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:04:08 PMWe are a civilian SAR organization. You can bark all you want that we wont be able to find that in Print, but all I have to do is look at the CAWG 2009 activities calendar to tell you we are now a civilian SAR organization.
C'mon now Robert. You know that isn't true.
Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.
Really. Just look at the numbers.
Sure, some of you guys do a fair amount of SAR, but it is clearly misleading to call us a civilian SAR organization when that only represents a minority of our time and effort.
Just saying . . . .
Ned Lee
CP Entusiast
You're not accouting for senior squadrons.
SAR is our primary activity. We do virtually nothing (save some O-flights) with cadets.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 19, 2009, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 19, 2009, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 18, 2009, 04:04:08 PMWe are a civilian SAR organization. You can bark all you want that we wont be able to find that in Print, but all I have to do is look at the CAWG 2009 activities calendar to tell you we are now a civilian SAR organization.
C'mon now Robert. You know that isn't true.
Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.
Really. Just look at the numbers.
Sure, some of you guys do a fair amount of SAR, but it is clearly misleading to call us a civilian SAR organization when that only represents a minority of our time and effort.
Just saying . . . .
Ned Lee
CP Entusiast
You're not accouting for senior squadrons.
SAR is our primary activity. We do virtually nothing (save some O-flights) with cadets.
What about Senior squadrons that don't do ES...you know the type? Lots of time for flying until someone calls for an ELT mission or needs volunteers for more than a few hours or the day.
Suddenly no one can help the "Little Red Hen" (save for when its time to eat the "corn bread") Then the local composite squadron down the road gets to go out on the search with cadets making up a good part of the UDF/Ground team.
Sorry, when you join CAP you join all of it. You have to be prepared to do what has to be done. We have three missions, not just one.
Insure that the above example never happens in CAP, and I will grant you your premise.
Quote from: Ned on January 19, 2009, 07:06:16 AM
Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.
I believe this is wildly inaccurate though impossible to determine specifically.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 03:49:37 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 19, 2009, 07:06:16 AM
Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.
I believe this is wildly inaccurate though impossible to determine specifically.
Well, when it comes down to it, Search and Rescue is just part of one of our three missions.
Actually, it is just a sub-part of one of our 5 missions.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 03:49:37 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 19, 2009, 07:06:16 AM
Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.
I believe this is wildly inaccurate though impossible to determine specifically.
Why can't you guys just accept that both are part of the program? I have always believed that the strength of the program comes from its diversity. We have a Cadet Program which attracts the attentions and dollars of certain people who would never give Inland SAR a cent or even second look. We have an ES program that attracts the attention and funding of another set of folks that desire what we have to offer; basically "minutemen" in support of the community. These folks, while valuing cadets, go with the more pragmatic. All the folsk mentioned above are legislators, State/local government and our benefactors.
Once you guys understand that, you will see just how ridiculous this "rivalry" between CP and ES is.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 03:54:30 PM
Actually, it is just a sub-part of one of our 5 missions.
5 missions? Did I miss the memo? I thought it was just AE, CP, & ES. What are the other ones?
(I really need to start keeping up with all these "changes" ;) )
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 19, 2009, 03:55:51 PM
Once you guys understand that, you will see just how ridiculous this "rivalry" between CP and ES is.
I don't see a rivalry at all. No one is suggesting that cadet programs are not valuable (they are) or a waste (they aren't). I've been a member of a composite squardon, so I know the value of CP.
On the other hand, I don't see anyone on this thread advocating for Aerospace Education, which is one of the Big Three, and thus, as important as either ES or CP.
People tend to emphasize the reasons
they joined when they talk about CAP's purpose.
Quote from: alwaysreadyneverhere on January 19, 2009, 03:59:39 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 03:54:30 PM
Actually, it is just a sub-part of one of our 5 missions.
5 missions? Did I miss the memo? I thought it was just AE, CP, & ES. What are the other ones?
(I really need to start keeping up with all these "changes" ;) )
You'll find these in various CAP regulations as well as federal law, but we chose to forget about severa of them:
The purposes of CAP:
Quote
(1) To provide an organization to—
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.
QuoteWhy can't you guys just accept that both are part of the program?
No rivalry at all. I was a cadet and though it isn't my main focus, have spent quite a bit of my senior time on cadet issues.
However, it is a plain fact that by any metric you want to use, the cadet program is not the primary focus of CAP. By saying that, it doesn't mean I dislike the cadet program or want it eliminated or want all the money to go towards the ES program. That would be like claiming I hated the color red because I recognize that the sky is blue.
I like it all. Flying, CD, SAR, Cadet Programs. In fact in about a year, there will be a 3rd generation cadet joining. So making sure that a solid CP at my squadron takes on a selfish tone. When my son comes in I look forward to being a fixture in the cadet programs in my Wing. Its just hard right now to justify spending encampments and weekend activities with other peoples kids while mine sit at home alone. Aftet mine grow out of the cadet programs and move on, Ill see what happens with my CAP career. but at least for now....that gives me a good 6-7 years at the least.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 03:49:37 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 19, 2009, 07:06:16 AM
Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.
I believe this is wildly inaccurate though impossible to determine specifically.
It's not that hard really.
Using the numbers from the 2007 Report to Congress (http://www.cap.gov/documents/2007_ARC_.pdf) (which are obviously at least a year old, but easy to get), lets start with the numbers.
There are about 22,000 cadets and 34,000 seniors currently.
We can safely assume that all of the cadets spend all or most of their time participating in the cadet program. (Some do ES, including cadet MPs and GTLs, but the majority of their time is still spent doing CP stuff.)
We can also safely assume that a significant percentage of the seniors spend most of their time supporting the cadet program. Eg., all of the seniors assigned to cadet units, at least some of the seniors assigned in composite units, and the cadet program staff officers on group, wing, region, and national staff.
Here, the numbers get admittedly a little fuzzy, but let's conservatively estimate the number of seniors that support the CP most of the time at, say 15%. (My WAG is that it is more like 25%, but I can't back that up with hard numbers.)
So, if we subtract the 15% of the seniors who primarily support CP from the total of seniors and add them to the cadet side of the equation, it looks like this.
15% of 34,000 is 5,100.
Addiing those folks to the cadet side yields a figure of 27,100; similarly subtracting it from the senior total leaves 28,900 potential SAR supporters on the senior side.
We need to remember that there are a whole lot of seniors that do not actively participate in SAR or spend the majority of their time supporting it. There are no shortage of staffers who do things like AE, CD, etc., or folks who do administrative stuff that supports both CP and SAR -- folks like PAOs, HSOs, personnel, awards, professional development, etc., etc., etc.
We need to subtract them from our pool of senior SAR doers and supporters. Again, there aren't hard numbers here, so let's guess conservatively that another 15% of seniors do not primarily engage in SAR or spend the majority of their time supporting that one function.
Subtracting another 5,100 from our running subtotal of "seniors who are potential SAR doers and supporters" takes that total down to (28,900 - 5,100 = 23,800). (This time, though, we don't add those folks to the CP side of the ledger.)
So without going any further we are at CP folks = 27,100 and potential SAR folks= 23,800.
Remember, we are only talking SAR here - not the members who spend most of their time supporting CD, border missions, or other AF-directed projects, so the "SAR folks" number is obviously inflated, and should be lower -- but again, I don't have the numbers handy. For the sake of argument, let's be generous and use the inflated figure for the SAR side.
And we can make a pretty good argument that the average CP person puts in more CAP hours each year than the average SAR doer and supporter. Although I suspect that the average senior attends fewer meetings than the average cadet each year, let's call the weekly meeting thing a wash.
But cadets (and seniors supporting them) have required and optional training that adds a lot of mandays. Things like encampments. (Over 35 last year, averaging a week long.) And NCSAs (over 31 last year involving over 1,200 cadets and another 250 seniors - again, averaging over a week long.)
SAR folks absolutely do mandatory and optional weekend trainings. A few even go to things like NESA where they can spend a week or more. And, most importantly they risk their lives and give of their precious time on actual search missions. The 80 saves in 2007 is a tremendous tribute to their efforts and courage.
But the bottom line is that most folks in the corporation spend most of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program.
Like I said.
Others have correctly pointed out that one of the strengths of this organization is the diversity of our missions. And that is absolutely true, and I wouldn't have it any other way. The ability to train for, and on occasion actively particiapte in ES missions (including SAR) is a signifcant factor in our cadet recruiting and retention.
In my post, I was kidding Robert since I know that in addition to being a tremendous human being that risks his life every day at work, he is also an active and consistent supporter of the cadet program in CAWG. He has made a tremendous impact and touched cadets' lives by his actions and example.
But sometimes his enthusiasm for things aviation and SAR leads him to forget his cadet roots. It is simply inaccurate to describe CAP as a SAR organization.
It would also be inaccurate to call it a "Cadet Program with ES and AE stuff added on".
But it is closer to the truth . . . . . ;)
I wouldn't disagree with a 15% of seniors supporting the cadet program figure. That would be within my ball park. But unless you want to start arguing about who "active members" are, I certainly wouldn't buy that there are 15% of senior members out there not doing SAR or the cadet programs. There certainly aren't 15% of seniors doing nothing but AE.You're also conveniently forgetting that cadets and many seniors supporting cadets are ES assets as well. Sure, there are cadet units that do no ES, but there are also many that do. There is no easy way to factor that in, but I'd say it would swing the balance over to 50+% of members being involved in ES activities.
But, lets look at other metrics:
Flying Time-- unquestionably the overwhelming majority of flying time is going towards ES-related activities rather than supporting the cadet program.
Budget - The ES budget is almost 4 times the cadet budget at the national level. I bet if you look at the wing level that ratio is even higher.
Use of vehicles - Hard to say, but very possible that most ground vehicle use is for cadet rather than ES purposes. Probably varies a bit.
Senior member PD-- look at the ratio of seniors with CP track ratings. In my wing there are more seniors with ES specialty tracks than CP. There is someoverlap, but they're ahead. Would be interesting to see how that plays out nationwide.
Member Time: Without a doubt the seniors involved in cadet progams devote more total time to CAP than anyone else. However, as they only make up a minority of senior members, that is probably more than balanced out by all the activity done by the others.
Membership trends: CAP cadet membership been declining at twice the rate of senior members since 2003. Heck, last year senior membership was up by 3% while cadet membership dropped by 2.5%.
And to bring it back to the purpose of this thread - our status....What percentage of AFAM sorties are for cadet purposes vs ES?
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2009, 07:17:58 PM
I wouldn't disagree with a 15% of seniors supporting the cadet program figure. That would be within my ball park. But unless you want to start arguing about who "active members" are, I certainly wouldn't buy that there are 15% of senior members out there not doing SAR or the cadet programs. There certainly aren't 15% of seniors doing nothing but AE.You're also conveniently forgetting that cadets and many seniors supporting cadets are ES assets as well. Sure, there are cadet units that do no ES, but there are also many that do. There is no easy way to factor that in, but I'd say it would swing the balance over to 50+% of members being involved in ES activities.
Remember, my comments were plainly directed at where folks spend "most" of their time. While I agree that there probably aren't 15% of the seniors doing mostly AE, I do think there are far more than 15% who spend less than 50% of their time specifically on SAR (as distinguished from ES).
Which was the whole point.
QuoteBut, lets look at other metrics:
Flying Time-- unquestionably the overwhelming majority of flying time is going towards ES-related activities rather than supporting the cadet program.
True enough. We logged a little over 110,000 flying hours in 2007 per the RtC. Of that, a little over 10% were for cadet o-rides. Undoubtedly there are a lot of AFROTC o-rides and a lot of ferrying time in the mix somewhere as well. I'm sure someone must have a breakdown, but if we looked not at ES as a whole, but specfically just SAR I'd wager an adult beverage at the NB that the total for SAR is less than 50% of our total flying hours when you back out CD, border missions, and other miscellaneous AF missions like route surveillance and interdiction training.
QuoteBudget - The ES budget is almost 4 times the cadet budget at the national level. I bet if you look at the wing level that ratio is even higher.
Absolutely true. We've discussed before how the entire corporate funding for CP does not even equal the amount of dues that cadets actually pay. In some sense, the cadets are underwriting senior programs when it should be the other way around.
QuoteUse of vehicles - Hard to say, but very possible that most ground vehicle use is for cadet rather than ES purposes. Probably varies a bit.
I agree it is hard to say one way or another. CP sure does rack up van time.
QuoteSenior member PD-- look at the ratio of seniors with CP track ratings. In my wing there are more seniors with ES specialty tracks than CP. There is someoverlap, but they're ahead. Would be interesting to see how that plays out nationwide.
But if you add in the 22,000 cadets who essentiall do CP full time instead of just looking at the seniors, the numbers go the other way.
QuoteMember Time: Without a doubt the seniors involved in cadet progams devote more total time to CAP than anyone else. However, as they only make up a minority of senior members, that is probably more than balanced out by all the activity done by the others.
News flash: Cadets are just as much members of CAP as you and me. Their considerable time and effort count.
QuoteMembership trends: CAP cadet membership been declining at twice the rate of senior members since 2003. Heck, last year senior membership was up by 3% while cadet membership dropped by 2.5%.
True enough. Membership trends have gone up and down for both seniors and cadets over the last 60 years or so; and will undoubtedly do the same in the future.
But I can only agree that we should have far more cadets than we do. Perhaps if CP was funded at the same pro-rata rate as the senior programs, it would be a good start.
QuoteAnd to bring it back to the purpose of this thread - our status....What percentage of AFAM sorties are for cadet purposes vs ES?
Depending on the definitions, probably few to none. But the requirement for a cadet program is clearly recognized in the AFI and the Statement of Work by our USAF partners.
Not to mention federal law.
So I'm not seeing AFAM mission definitions as very helpful either way.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 19, 2009, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 19, 2009, 03:55:51 PM
Once you guys understand that, you will see just how ridiculous this "rivalry" between CP and ES is.
I don't see a rivalry at all. No one is suggesting that cadet programs are not valuable (they are) or a waste (they aren't). I've been a member of a composite squardon, so I know the value of CP.
On the other hand, I don't see anyone on this thread advocating for Aerospace Education, which is one of the Big Three, and thus, as important as either ES or CP.
People tend to emphasize the reasons they joined when they talk about CAP's purpose.
I joined the Civil Air Patrol because I wanted to serve the Civil Air Patrol, not because I wanted to fly or even work with cadets. I saw it as a "whole" not a part. The Whole CAP approach, I do for the cadets when they need it, for AE when people need someone to advocate it, for the Ground team when they need a hand and in the Air (but there are few shortages of Scanners, Observers and I am not a Pilot.)
As for AE, I'll advocate for it...is manifested in the Cadet O-Filght, presentations to school and so forth. This means that you advocate for it as well in your O-Flights.
Quotewho spend less than 50% of their time specifically on SAR (as distinguished from ES).
I mis-spoke. I wouldn't argue that SAR is the primary focus of CAP. It is primarily focused on ES in a broader sense and is probably less focused on the SAR part of ES than it used to be.
Ok, now this one has drifted enough.