Wanted to check

[Flying Pig]

You would be suprised how many people who do not know what CAP is. It is hard to explain some times.

I've been in CAP since 1986, its always been pretty simple. I find CAP members are usually the ones who try to explain in way to much detail what CAP is that they leave the audience wishing they had never asked.  Not every inquiry needs to be a recruiting drive. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Call me stubborn if you like, but I don't recognise the AUXON/AUXOFF as a valid description.  I never say that we are "sometimes" the Air Force Auxiliary.  I say we ARE the Air Force Auxiliary, just as described on our seal and nameplates.  Neither of those have "sometimes" as a descriptor.  And, no, I haven't forgotten MARS, but what do they really do in the computer/internet age?  That's not meant to be insulting.  I speak as one who has no direct experience with those volunteers; perhaps others can enlighten us.

If that were the case, it should be taken to its (il)logical conclusion and remove the "UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY" from our nameplates, seal (well, they're partway there with the hideous TT), etc., just as it was taken from our aircraft.

The military terminology is part and parcel of CAP.  We are a volunteer organisation operating on a military model.  It has been that way since virtually our inception.  Of course, many of us are prior service.  We have military-derived ranks and command structure.

I really don't intend this to become a uniform thread, but there is that aspect as well.  And that's all I'm saying about uniforms.

What sort of terminology should we use?  I know that many of the most anti-military types are the "all ES, all the time" sector (and I'm not including you in that, Major Kieloch), as was the senior squadron I did some time in.  Should we watch reruns of Emergency! and Rescue 911 and model ourselves after that?  I say that with the highest respect for firefighters/first responders (I grew up next to a fire station and got to know them very well, as well as a lot of the police officers who would stop by to see them).

My first squadron CC was also a reserve police officer.  When he was working with CAP, he used Air Force/CAP terminology.  When he was serving in his police capacity, I'm sure he used their terminology.

I still think my description of being a noncombatant, civilian "volunteer reserve" or "supplement" to the Air Force is perfectly fine.  There have been too many in CAP who have tried (and unfortunately succeeded) to pull us away from the Air Force.  I will not be a party to doing that any further.

I've been in CAP since 1986, its always been pretty simple. I find CAP members are usually the ones who try to explain in way to much detail what CAP is that they leave the audience wishing they had never asked.  Not every inquiry needs to be a recruiting drive. 

My experience has been that the CAP members who "over-explain" us are the ones who take great pains to differentiate us from the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard.

[Devil Doc]

OK, so the question is:

Why is the CGAUX more cooperative with its uniforms, regulations, and direct relationship with there parent service; than Civil Air Patrol?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

OK, so the question is:

Why is the CGAUX more cooperative with its uniforms, regulations, and direct relationship with there parent service; than Civil Air Patrol?

Having been a member of both, I can say that the CG is a lot more supportive of the Auxiliary than the AF is of us.

There are usually some standard reasons given...

- CAP was around before the Air Force (true).
- CGAUX is not also a non-profit org like CAP (true).
- CGAUX is directly part of the CG's operational sphere (true); CAP is not.
- The CG is a lot smaller than the AF (true) and does not have a large reserve component, while the AF has the ANG and AFRES; therefore, they need their Auxiliary more (excuse).
- The CGAUX has not been trying to move away from its parent service like CAP has since at least the mid-90's (bitterly true)
- CGAUX does not have cadets (I'm still trying to figure that one out).
- CGAUX does not have people trolling for salutes (Bravo Sierra).
- And, yes, CGAUX does not have the kind of uniform factionalism we do...there's some, but it's miniscule compared to the G/W/blazer/polo v. AF uniform ag we've got (true).

In structure, CAP is a lot more "military" than the CGAUX, but operationally the CGAUX is a lot more integrated with the (noncombatant) military operations of the CG.

When I was an Auxiliarist, I had several question me as to why the Air Force treats CAP as it does.

I also had one active-duty Coastie petty officer say to me "poor CAP...the Air Force's red-headed stepchild" (the first time I heard that actually used).

A senior CGAUX officer (also retired CG Reserve Lt Cdr) said he can't figure out why the Air Force blatantly overlooks the pool of enthusiastic volunteers in CAP to the degree they do.

However, I don't mean to insinuate the Auxiliary is without its problems; it has them.  With some flotillas/individuals it's all about the boat; if you don't own a boat they look at you like you're an outsider.

[Devil Doc]

Do you think that the reason that CAP is not utilized like the CGAUX or utilized as much in the public sector is because of our Cadets? Do you think they dont trust "Kids" to be running the show or have important jobs. I can tell you i have met some cadets in the pst few weeks that can run circles around some adults and do the job extremely well.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Do you think that the reason that CAP is not utilized like the CGAUX or utilized as much in the public sector is because of our Cadets? Do you think they dont trust "Kids" to be running the show or have important jobs. I can tell you i have met some cadets in the pst few weeks that can run circles around some adults and do the job extremely well.

I really don't think it's because of the cadets.

It wasn't always this way.



The relationship hasn't been good since at least the "corporatist" ascendancy in the mid '90s...they don't like the AF telling them what to do, but they sure don't mind the AF funding their flying hours.

[Walkman]

^^^

I love that poster. I bought a large print of it from the CAP museum.

<back to the thread>

[vento]

Do you think that the reason that CAP is not utilized like the CGAUX or utilized as much in the public sector is because of our Cadets? Do you think they dont trust "Kids" to be running the show or have important jobs. I can tell you i have met some cadets in the pst few weeks that can run circles around some adults and do the job extremely well.

I really don't think it's because of the cadets.

It wasn't always this way.



The relationship hasn't been good since at least the "corporatist" ascendancy in the mid '90s...they don't like the AF telling them what to do, but they sure don't mind the AF funding their flying hours.

And that poster features the "CAP Emblem" that is now prohibited to be used by 900-2. The new triangle thingy is your "Aux Off". Sort of.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^^Which is likely going to become a permanent "AUX OFF," the way things seem to be going.

[Eclipse]

The world changes, so should we.

The insignia, if not "dated", were certainly "of the era" - namely World War II, including styles and color palette. 
Not old enough to be "timeless", but old enough to look like "history".

The other services have existed much longer, and their insignia, etc., use much less "period" color palettes.

The USAF, especially, is about technology, and recruiting efforts need to attract younger people with no sense of history.
Same goes for CAP.

Change is unacceptable to some people, regardless.

[vento]

The world changes, so should we.

The insignia, if not "dated", were certainly "of the era" - namely World War II, including styles and color palette. 
Not old enough to be "timeless", but old enough to look like "history".

The other services have existed much longer, and their insignia, etc., use much less "period" color palettes.

The USAF, especially, is about technology, and recruiting efforts need to attract younger people with no sense of history.
Same goes for CAP.

Change is unacceptable to some people, regardless.

^^^
Everybody understands that change is unavoidable. And it is not unacceptable as you generalize here.

The scary part that I am pointing out, at least my own perception, is that the current change may move us further away from the USAF (or any association with it). Almost none of the new stuff, like the new TTT, that is coming out of NHQ has the wording USAF on it anymore. Right now only the seal carries the wording USAF AUX. Change in design and look is quite alright, change in our identity is a different story.

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it is my perception and my opinion.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Vento-

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Devil Doc]

So were saying that people from higher position than we, are destroying little by little the AF Heritage? or any associaton with the AF? I do know that in CGAUX the Gold side really appreciates it when your there augmenting on a mission etc. you get a sense of being. Does CAP working the AF have the same effect? or do you think we are more of a nuisance to AF personell?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Most AF Personnel don't know what CAP is.

[Eclipse]

This is reading >waaay< too much into it.

Anymore then our ability to use the updated USAF wings for the last decade brought us "closer".

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Most AF Personnel don't know what CAP is.

Who owns the problem?

[Devil Doc]

^ Im Confused?

[Cool Mace]

Devil Doc,

He's asking if it's our fault, or the AF's fault that they don't know about CAP very well.

I think it's a good mix of both. All members on either side could do a better job at promoting it. IMHO.

[Devil Doc]

If the AF dosn't know we exist, what good are we? All AF should know about us, we are there brothers in arms, we do alot of missions that they do not want to do. Would you say maybe 10% of the AF knows who CAP is? IMO I think no one associates CAP with the AF because of what were doing to take the AF name out of our seals, emblems, names, etc.

[Pylon]

IMO I think no one associates CAP with the AF because of what were doing to take the AF name out of our seals, emblems, names, etc.

I think our choice of emblems has little to do with it at all.  Think about it, why would A1C Random know anything about CAP?  We're not in his curriculum at BMT (and even if we were, that stuff is like cramming for exams — how much that's not later reinforced is quickly forgotton?), we're not in their curriculum at their tech school, we probably bear little to no relavence to 95% or more of the AFSC's out there, the Air Force Times and Air Force public affairs rarely talk about us, and we're not mentioned or involved in their "Welcome to Moralebuster AFB, XZ" welcome briefs at most places either.   So why would we expect A1C Random to know who we are?


It has nothing to do with emblems.


But I also don't think this is a problem.  Does most of the Air Force need to know who we are?  Do we want them to know who we are just so we can get the warm fuzzies instead of strange stares?  Not a compelling reason to me.