Are we really missing that many potential AF missions now?

[RiverAux]

Some have argued that because of a combination of a lack of professionalism, training, and equipment CAP is missing out on a lot of potential missions that could be given to it by the Air Force if those problems were to be solved. 

Lets assume that professionalism issues probably do keep us from getting as involved in augmenting AF units as some of us would like.  But, lets restrict this discussion to potential flying missions only. 

Let us also assume that CAP dramatically increases its standards, both in terms of who we recruit and the sort of officer training they receive in CAP both initially and throughout their CAP careers.  Lets say we have AF-quality officers in CAP. 

What is now keeping us from getting the myriad of AF missions that we're supposedly missing out on?

Equipment is obviously one factor:  If were provided with more high tech equipment such as FLIR, radiation detection equipment, etc. that there would obviously be more missions that we would be capable of performing, both for the AF as well as other agencies that we cannot do now.  Obviously, this also assumes that we could and would be properly trained in its use. 

But, what is keeping us from getting this equipment?  It can't be professionalism issues as the AF has been spending multi-million dollars upgrading CAP comm equipment, SDIS, Archer, etc.  They have shown a willingness to spend money on us for high-tech equipment and I think we've done a fairly good job of demonstrating the capability to use it. 

So, lets say we have AF-quality officers and all the high tech gizmos we can tie onto the airplanes, are there REALLY that many new missions we could get? 

I tend to not think so.  If there were a major, major need to have CAP-size aircraft flying a bunch of missions all the time with this stuff, the AF would have bought the aircraft and trained pilots to fly these missions.  If they had not done this they would have been demonstrating great negligence in protecting the homeland.

So, in fact, what we are talking about are missions that the AF has not deemed important enough to either develop their own capability to handle OR have not thought important enough to equip CAP to do. 

Okay, there it is....I now suspect a young man from Texas might have some thoughts to express.... 

[desert rat]

Very good thought.  I keep wondering why many don't just seek out career field that are in the rescue segment.  perhaps the Air Force wants us because we are good for recruiting and also we are like an ROTC for youth without an ROTC program available.  Perhaps our ES mission is still there not because of need but because it still brings recognition to the air force and it keeps adults involved with the CAP.  Without the ES flying, how many adult pilot members would still stay with CAP?

[DNall]

The "professionalism" isn't a merit badge that must be ticked off a checklist before we deserve advanced gear.

What they've bought for us to date is extremely low tech stuff. SDIS? That's a digital camera emailing pics over a dialup connection not much different than you do at home. ARCHER? Well the guts are complicated, but operating it is not much more difficult than SDIS. It's not exactly rocket science.

When you start getting into more & more complex stuff you run into a wall. I do think we're lacking in professional training & quality standards, but that's not the problem. It's the perception that we're just average civilian volunteers, no different than the folks you see at your local community center on a saturday afternoon. The guy they trust running a FLIR in the AF had a 3.8 GPA in engineering/math/science (or went to the academy taking 21 hours a semester, most of them engineering) before being selected in a highly competitive process to train for a couple years on extremely high tech stuff. I know there are most certainly exceptions on both sides of that equation, but perception is what we're talking about here, that means they judge themselves by the people they know & judge us by the worst incident of the worst member they've ever seen or heard of, that's natural.

So you have to overcome those perceptions to gain greater trust. Having those AF officers know the CAP officer they are looking at has some education & has done pretty much the same training as every other AF officer, that fosters mutual respect based on shared experiences & peer professionialism. Plus we need to be able to lead equal to military officers in other roles as well, not least of which is leadership positions in multi-agency emergency response. I thin kaugmentation is also a critical program to roll out so AF people see us working next to them making a contribution & see the professional capabiltiies of quality CAP members, that too builds mutual respect.

AF isn't the only problem though. You'd be amazed how much that perception we're all idiots attitude exists among CAP members, particularly as you move up the chain. We've expiremented with IR stuff on the way low end of the tech spectrum, so much so it was worthless, but no one seems to think our members can master a complex system, and they have some fair arguments about how few hours our average observers fly per year.

[isuhawkeye]

well Iowa is a fairly professional wing.  you ll know the stories.  in the last 6 months we have only had 3 air force missions.  if we are missing opertunities to do more let me know.

[RiverAux]

What they've bought for us to date is extremely low tech stuff. SDIS? That's a digital camera emailing pics over a dialup connection not much different than you do at home. ARCHER? Well the guts are complicated, but operating it is not much more difficult than SDIS. It's not exactly rocket science.

The point was that even if this isn't NASA quality stuff (I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment of Archer though) the AF IS spending lots of money on equipment for us and if they had a major need for us to be using FLIR, etc. I think that they've demonstrated that they would probably buy it. 

FLIR training -- this is tech that is very commonly used all across the country by a variety of aviation agencies.  I don't think it is the "capability" of our members to use it that is holding us back with it. 

We've expiremented with IR stuff on the way low end of the tech spectrum, so much so it was worthless, but no one seems to think our members can master a complex system, and they have some fair arguments about how few hours our average observers fly per year.

Well, from what I've understand it has sort of been dumped out there and no one took the time to design a training program or anything for the members to participate in to properly learn the technology.  If someone dumped a FLIR on us tomorrow, I'm not sure we could figure it out without a little bit of help.  That doesn't reflect negatively on CAP -- the same thing would apply if the local sherrif department got one with no backup or training. 

[DNall]

What they've bought for us to date is extremely low tech stuff. SDIS? That's a digital camera emailing pics over a dialup connection not much different than you do at home. ARCHER? Well the guts are complicated, but operating it is not much more difficult than SDIS. It's not exactly rocket science.

The point was that even if this isn't NASA quality stuff (I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment of Archer though) the AF IS spending lots of money on equipment for us and if they had a major need for us to be using FLIR, etc. I think that they've demonstrated that they would probably buy it. 

FLIR training -- this is tech that is very commonly used all across the country by a variety of aviation agencies.  I don't think it is the "capability" of our members to use it that is holding us back with it. 

If God wanted us to fly he'd have given us wings, and if the AF wanted us to have FLIR they'd give it to us... but that's not how things happen. The AF equips us to do the ELT & REDCAP missions to the minimum standard required of them by Congress, that's it. Then when other situations come up, if we are the right tool for the job then we get the call. There are a lot more instances on that list where we could be the right toll with some other equipment, but CAP hasn't proven to the AF we need it for our primary jobs for them, or that we could use it effectively.

Part of that justification process it to dis-prove the perception of our member's capacity based on their status as civilian volunteers. Some of that perception is warranted, and to that extent & in those areas needs to be addressed decisively. However, the majority of the problem is image, you can't correct that while their valid concerns exist, but once those are addressed you can move aggessively to promote the right image.

We've expiremented with IR stuff on the way low end of the tech spectrum, so much so it was worthless, but no one seems to think our members can master a complex system, and they have some fair arguments about how few hours our average observers fly per year.

Well, from what I've understand it has sort of been dumped out there and no one took the time to design a training program or anything for the members to participate in to properly learn the technology.  If someone dumped a FLIR on us tomorrow, I'm not sure we could figure it out without a little bit of help.  That doesn't reflect negatively on CAP -- the same thing would apply if the local sherrif department got one with no backup or training. 

National bought an IR video camera - not air mounted pod, home video camera - and stuck it up against the window trying to fly at night. That's about as retarded as a laptop duct taped to a sat phone that doesn't work & a useless expensive auto dialer so you can email digital pictures. That's not the kind of engineering, research, & development we need. We need to stick with proven technology that can be widely deployed & for which standardized, even correspondence, training exists, preferablly free from the military. Hence FLIR is an option. Anything else we talk about has to either be super common like that or it has to be completely idiot proof.

[DNall]

well Iowa is a fairly professional wing.  you ll know the stories.  in the last 6 months we have only had 3 air force missions.  if we are missing opertunities to do more let me know.

It doesn't really matter what the environment or image of Iowa is. CAP is judged nationally.

[isuhawkeye]

just giving you an idea of our ops tempo.  I would be interested in seeing how busy other wings are.

[DNall]

Ours used to be extremely busy when I was in this Gp before. Then I moved to a slow one where we were real busy with CP. Now I'm back here & the world fell apart while I was gone so it's pretty tame. Working to rebuild some of that, but it'll take time.

Far as the state though, we do quite a lot for them. Haven't seen a lot of missing persons or anything like that, but firewatch & HLS adds up to lots & lots of flight hours.