Senator John McCain claims CAP is Pork Barrel Spending (Again)

[FW]

^Sure guys, sure... :angel:

[JeffDG]

I can say as a wing DC, if the feds put a $ into buying something, or hell, if you cannot substantiate how CAP acquired an item (Found-on-Base equipment), it all goes back to the feds when we're done with it, via DRMO.

[JeffDG]

Reference:

CAPR 174-1
2-29 (a)

Any property received from GSA, DRMO or any DoD or other Federal government
agency including National Guard or Reserves, is to be treated as Federal excess property and
disposed through a DRMO. Found on base (FoB) property is to be disposed in the same manner.

[RiverAux]

No, that says if we get fed stuff it goes back to the feds.  Doesn't say anything at all about things we buy with federal money.  Big difference.

Now, I in my real life I actually buy a lot of stuff with federal money received through a grant and there aren't any restrictions on what we do with it or that allow the feds to take the property if they feel an itch to do so.  Possibly the grant that CAP operates under has different rules.

[Devil Doc]

Well, what if  the planes Mysteriously Disappear and get rebadged? Better yet, what the heck would DRMO do with Cessnas? Theyd be better off giving to the "Corporation" as a tax write off. Maybe

[EMT-83]

Does DMRO pay taxes?

[Eclipse]

For the actual answer to this question, look to where the funds go when we occasionally sell an aircraft, or scrap one that is bent.

However why would we concern ourselves with where the aircraft would go if they have to be turned in?  If we can't use it, I don't care who gets it, so long as it doesn't
become personal property of anyone through a "buddy sale", since ultimately we all paid for them.

[JoeTomasone]

I've been trying to avoid this sub-thread to prevent hi-jacking, but:

Third, 406 ELTs are not currently REQUIRED to be registered...

Not true. 47CFR87.199
(e) ''WARNING '' Failure to register this ELT with NOAA before installation could result in a monetary forfeiture being issued to the owner.'
(f)To enhance protection of life and property, it is mandatory that each 406.0–406.1 MHz ELT must be registered with NOAA before installation...
This is the same wording used for EPIRBs and PLBs.

I stand corrected..  Obviously that has changed.

The US Sarsat program has endorsed elimination of the 121.5 homing signal on the next generation of 406 beacons, scheduled to begin hitting the market in 2016.

Bad idea, IMHO. 

[FW]

For the actual answer to this question, look to where the funds go when we occasionally sell an aircraft, or scrap one that is bent.

When we scrap or sell an aircraft, the money must be used for the purchase of a new one or, the improvement of an existing one.  The Air Force has decided it would be a violation of our S.O.W. to do otherwise.  We don't "own" aircraft procurement funds.  They are "obligated" funds by congress. 

If CAP were to "deactivate" aircraft because of funding issues, nothing can stop the Air Force from taking them (for storage?).  Had we lost the $5 million for O&M, it would have been the best thing. Why would we need to spend our money for storage and upkeep of unused assets?  If the funds (the extra grant money) became available, the Air Force would have (hopefully) returned them.  If the Air Force sold the aircraft, the proceeds would (hopefully) be returned to CAP to purchase more.  These are issues that may never surface however, anything is possible. 

[RiverAux]

If CAP were to "deactivate" aircraft because of funding issues, nothing can stop the Air Force from taking them (for storage?). 

Citation please.

FW, given your history with the organization, you may very well be right about this, but these are the sort of statements that can become "CAP lore" very easily so cannot be taken at face value from anyone without proof. 

[FW]

 
From the Statement of Work:

5.4.2. CAP Responsibilities. CAP has an operational and legal responsibility
to protect and account for all materiel, services, or facilities furnished by any
source. CAP may not resell any federally appropriated or screened materiel,
vehicles or aircraft without the written permission of the HQ CAP-USAF
Commander. When approved, funds derived from such a sale will be deposited
in the CAP Aircraft Modernization Account (AMA), Aircraft Procurement Account
(APA) or CAP Support Program accounts and will be spent in accordance with
DoDGARs.
5.4.3. CAP Control of Resources. In the event the Air Force determines that
CAP has inadequate control over its resources, the Air Force may freeze or
suspend CAP Wings from receiving the following federally funded items:
acquisition of equipment/supplies from DRMO and the National Technology
Center (NTC), vehicles, aircraft, communication equipment, computers, upgrades
to aircraft, all new or used equipment, aircraft, and vehicles...

The statement of work gives the Air Force the final say in our resources coming from federal funds.  After all, we are the Air Force Auxiliary (ok, on..off...; I get it)... I could probably find more references but, I need to make a living.

[RiverAux]

Okay, still not seeing anything that allows USAF to take CAP planes (or anything else) back. 

True, we can't sell planes on our own and use the money for other purposes and they can stop us from spending funds from our federal grant on buying new planes, but that doesn't give them any ability to take things back.