USCGAux Benefits compared to CAP Benefits

Started by SARMedTech, April 22, 2008, 04:04:03 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

Quote from: JThemann on April 22, 2008, 02:33:18 PM
Honestly, how often do you see CAP Senior Members exchanging salutes? Where does it say we're required to salute?

All the time, on a regular basis, when in uniform, and even when in civvies if you know the person is a commander or high-grade.  I would suggest you review CAPP 151(e).

As to this repeated comment above about CAP's relationship with the USAF, and this notion that there is disdain for us, I would put forth that the vast majority of CAP members never encounter a member of the USAF, or even a member of another MC$, and the majority of the whole "USAF doesn't like us" is urban legend sustained by hearsay and half-truths.

I have never personally met a member of the USAF, or any other service who showed anything but respect and appreciation for our service.  My offices are on a very active military base, and I encounter officers and enlisted personnel on a regular basis.  In all cases I am treated as a peer with real work to do and a real mission.

YMMV, but based mostly on the specific of the situation, not an overall issue.

"That Others May Zoom"

FlyingTerp

Quote"USAF doesn't like us" is urban legend sustained by hearsay and half-truths.

Couldn't agree more!  Thanks for posting that!

RiverAux

That is the CG that teaches that school.  Has nothing to do with any CG Aux mission or capability.

RRLE

QuoteEssentially you are correct the coast guard aux does not have an operational ground component, but then there is this...

The Auxiliary isn't mentioned in that announcement, CAP is.  ;D

The Aux SAR course was changed this year to another course AuxSCE. That course is based on another CG course. From the description the course is all water SAR focused.

Even Aux land mobile radio facilities are water focused since most of the land mobile facilities carry VHF Marine radios and usually nothing else but a cell phone.

QuoteThose people are from some backwater flotilla who have no members with any military service

An interesting and incorrect generalization. In my old flotilla and on public bulletin boards some of the biggest opponents of a 'more military' or paramilitary Auxiliary are prior service Auxies. They have a BTDT and don't want to do it again! attitude. Meanwhile, some of the biggest proponents of a 'more military' Auxiliary are non-service members many of whom could not serve or did not serve when they were the proper age - and hope to make up for that missing aspect by changing the civilian Auxiliary into something it is not and was never meant to be.

Quote1.  CAP is monumentally more involved in disaster relief missions.

And that is a big sticking point with some Auxies. The Aux NACO is on record in the Proceedings of the USNI as stating the Aux is not a first responder agency. If emergency response is your game, then CAP, ARES/RACES, ARC and a host of other organizations would be a better fit then the Aux.

Quotetherefore can't fathom what the CG Aux is thinking by requiring NO saluting

First it isn't the Aux - the 'not customary' rule is in the AuxMan, a Commandant Instruction, and therefore a CG not an Aux imposed rule.

Second, the CG, going back to the Aux's founding in 1939, has always tried to preserve the civilian nature of the Aux. For the first two years of its existence the Aux did not have and was not allowed to wear uniforms or insignia other then a member device.

Although, many Auxies love to talk about the relationship with the CG (see the tenor of the posts here) the CG wants to make sure that the Aux never loses its ties to the recreational boater. And letting the Aux become more paramilitary does just that. To listen to some Auxies talk or read what they write you would think the prime mission of the Aux is to augment the CG. However, if you read what the CG writes about the Aux its prime mission is recreational boating safety (RBS) and the Aux has been falling down on that mission for years as its rushes pell mell to augment with the CG.

And there is some indication that while opportunities do exist to augment with the CG, those opportunities will become increasingly hard to come by and harder to fulfill as the CG tightens the requirements.

sandman

Quote from: RRLE on April 23, 2008, 12:06:27 AM

QuoteThose people are from some backwater flotilla who have no members with any military service

An interesting and incorrect generalization. In my old flotilla and on public bulletin boards some of the biggest opponents of a 'more military' or paramilitary Auxiliary are prior service Auxies. They have a BTDT and don't want to do it again! attitude. Meanwhile, some of the biggest proponents of a 'more military' Auxiliary are non-service members many of whom could not serve or did not serve when they were the proper age - and hope to make up for that missing aspect by changing the civilian Auxiliary into something it is not and was never meant to be.

I'll agree to your correction to a point in that I have seen evidence to the fact that we are both correct having been a member in other districts.

/r

LT
MAJ, US Army (Ret)
Major, Civil Air Patrol
Major, 163rd ATKW Support, Joint Medical Command

RiverAux

QuoteAnd there is some indication that while opportunities do exist to augment with the CG, those opportunities will become increasingly hard to come by and harder to fulfill as the CG tightens the requirements.
Nah, you're talking about some of the marine enviornmental protection gigs, very few of which were bringing in Auxies in the first place.  Not a major factor.  Most CG Aux augmentation is done in more "generalist" positions such as radio watch at CG stations and a few other venues. 

We were asked to discuss the benefits of both organizations and no matter how you cut it, the CG has and apparently will continue to have much more use of Auxies than the AF will have for CAP into the future. 

No one ever said it was the primary purpose of the Aux, but it is one area of major difference between CAP and CG Aux.

JayT

Quote from: Eclipse on April 22, 2008, 11:40:45 PM
Quote from: JThemann on April 22, 2008, 02:33:18 PM
Honestly, how often do you see CAP Senior Members exchanging salutes? Where does it say we're required to salute?

All the time, on a regular basis, when in uniform, and even when in civvies if you know the person is a commander or high-grade.  I would suggest you review CAPP 151(e).

Right.

Are you sure it's CAPP? Or is it a CAPR or CAPM?
"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

Gunner C

I've been on exercises with the Auxies.  They've impressed me on the operator side - they were helpful and professional.  On the planning side, they needed some help.  Good folks all around.  In my wing, we had a really good relationship with them.

GC

SARMedTech

Quote from: RiverAux on April 22, 2008, 10:53:02 PM
CG Aux does not have any land SAR training or mission as someone mentioned earlier. 

Advantages to being a CG Aux member vs CAP --
1.  If you are near a CG unit and are interested, you can probably find an opportunity to work directly with the CG in some form or fashion and have a real impact on helping them perform their mission, or at a minimum improve morale by giving some Coastie a shift off while you do their job.
2.  More actual programs in which you can participate whether on water or land.  As noted, they all revolve around boating safety, but there is actually much more that a CG Auxie can do.  Lots of things that you can do as an individual compared to CAP which is pretty much all done as a team.
3.  Because of the wide variety of programs and opportunities for individual work you can really plan out your CG Aux activity pretty well.  A lot of certainity about when you'll be doing stuff. 
4.  Pilots in coastal areas will get way, way, way more free flying time with CG Aux than CAP since they do regular patrols. 
5.  The AF lawyers aren't involved in CG Aux!


Advantages of CAP over CG Aux:
1.  CAP is monumentally more involved in disaster relief missions.
2.  CAP is much more hooked into the local community (for the most part) and you're not tied down to just supporting the AF.
3.  I think the opportunity to work to develop kids into leaders is a net plus for CAP membership.
4.  I think CAP missions are generally more challenging than CG Aux missions.  While CG Aux occassionally does have multi-boat events (even some really big ones), they're not all that complex and are usually geared towards non-emergency situations.

Overall costs are about the same between CAP and CG Aux for most members. 

I'm not sure where you get that the USCGAux completes less complex and more non-emergent missions. If I recall, you are an Auxie as well, but I would encourage you to read the accounts of the numerous missions undertaken by Auxie crews each year which lead to the saving of lives. As for multi-element missions which are not complex and are gear toward non-emergencies, I recall a thread on this forum where cadets were directing parking and performing "security"duties at an air show. Also, how many SAR missions performed by CAP are non-emergent ELT hunts?

I disagree with the cost issue. I have spent most of the day talking to a flotilla commander and my annual dues would be $45. In addition, one can join the Aux with nothing much more than a set of the now AD defunct working blues, which are still authorized for Auxies until all stores of them become unfit for service wear. Also, of one is a member of a boat crew, its not necessary to spend enormous amounts of time and money on the perfect 24-pack, 72-pack, untold uniform varieties, etc. USCG approved, and often provided, PFD's are provided to members at no cost to themselves. And, unlike CAP, the Auxie has more choice as to where he can purchase uniform and equipment items. Once an Auxie has completed BCM training, he is ready to begin patrols with the Aux and all he needs is a set of blues, a PFD and a set of deck shoes, athletic shoes or boots depending on what the facility commander determines he/she wants worn on the deck of their vessel.

By comparing the whole cadet issue, you are comparing apples to oranges in terms of the stated missions of the respective organizations. The mission of the USCGAUX is not to prepare young men and women for military service in which they may or may not engage. It is purely and simply to act as a unarmed force multiplier in all respects for the USCG. Commandant Allen estimates that the Aux saves the CG hundred of thousands of man hours and millions of dollars each year.

I'm surprised to hear you state that CAP is much more tied to the community and less reliant on the Air Force than the Aux is on the USCG.  Active Auxies see the ties to the CG as a good thing. Regulations are more clear, since in large part Auxies are governed by the same regulations as gold-siders.  As for a visible presence in the community, well, I question that as well. I had the good fortune to travel to the Northeast Coast recently and found at most marinas, harbors, etc, there was a Auxie presence. They are there to assist the boating community. Also, if you think about it, CAP primarily supports the aviation community. How many people fly planes in the United States and how many people have boats that they use on a regular basis. Its also just a matter of how the two services work that in most cases, CAP ES shows up after the disaster has happened, while because they conduct regular patrols, the Aux is there to save lives, not retrieve bodies, as it were. Furthermore, CAP hunts ELTs and the Aux hunts EPIRBS.

And in terms of being a true force multiplier, there are approximately 39,000 men and women in the CG Gold Side. That number is virtually matched by the Aux. Auxiliarists serve functions from environmental hazard monitoring, to vessel (commercial and private) inspections with gold side boarding crews (unarmed) and a far greater number of HS related activities than CAP, since they fall under the direct jurisdiction of the DHS ( a fact well- known to any Auxie who has tried to become cleared to augment on a cutter or air station.)

The fact is that by being all Aux, all the time, the USCGAUX is able to be much more efficient in many ways because they dont have the constant argument of what missions fall under whose jurisdiction. And as far as disaster relief, check out the number of Auxies who participated in Katrina/Rita relief efforts. This may be one of the reasons that Adm. Allen has authorized a new award for the Auxiliary: The USCG Auxiliary Medal of Valor.

Also, since Gunner C writes that "On the planning side, they [USCGAUX] needs help, I would encourage him  to look at the mandatory requirements for ICS education and at the Aux's IC training program.
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

SARMedTech

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2008, 01:13:59 AM
QuoteAnd there is some indication that while opportunities do exist to augment with the CG, those opportunities will become increasingly hard to come by and harder to fulfill as the CG tightens the requirements.
Nah, you're talking about some of the marine enviornmental protection gigs, very few of which were bringing in Auxies in the first place.  Not a major factor.  Most CG Aux augmentation is done in more "generalist" positions such as radio watch at CG stations and a few other venues. 

We were asked to discuss the benefits of both organizations and no matter how you cut it, the CG has and apparently will continue to have much more use of Auxies than the AF will have for CAP into the future. 

No one ever said it was the primary purpose of the Aux, but it is one area of major difference between CAP and CG Aux.

I would disagree also with you statement that amost Aux augmentation is in a generalist role. First of all, standing radio watch on a cutter or in an air station is not all that general. Secondly, if you think that the Aux only augments in a general way, read the qualifications for and responsibilities of those who have completed the USCGAUX Trident Marine Safety Program. When you have Auxies boarding container vessels and inspecting ships manifests, I, personally dont think of that as generalist. Auxies may have no LE powers or participate in missions where weapons are carried (at least they dont participate with the boarding party in those missions, they may participate in other aspects of the job) but they certainly are not being generalists when they board a 120' cargo ship with a team of Coasties to inspect safety and HS compliance matters. If you look at the AuxOps program or the Trident program, both are rigorous and difficult to complete and hardly generalist in nature.
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

Gunner C

Quote from: SARMedTech on April 23, 2008, 04:01:27 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 22, 2008, 10:53:02 PM


Also, since Gunner C writes that "On the planning side, they [USCGAUX] needs help, I would encourage him  to look at the mandatory requirements for ICS education and at the Aux's IC training program.

I was speaking of combining air and ground SAR forces.  They said they didn't have much experience with that along with coordinating with State Police & Sheriffs Department.  They showed a great deal with their small boat ops and how to coordinate air/marine ops.  

GC

SARMedTech

Quote from: Gunner C on April 23, 2008, 04:18:02 AM
Quote from: SARMedTech on April 23, 2008, 04:01:27 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 22, 2008, 10:53:02 PM


Also, since Gunner C writes that "On the planning side, they [USCGAUX] needs help, I would encourage him  to look at the mandatory requirements for ICS education and at the Aux's IC training program.

I was speaking of combining air and ground SAR forces.  They said they didn't have much experience with that along with coordinating with State Police & Sheriffs Department.  They showed a great deal with their small boat ops and how to coordinate air/marine ops. 

GC

Thanks for the clarification. I would bet dimes to donuts, however, that my friends who are in an Auxie unit that augment in the Port of Los Angeles have a fair amount of dealing with local entities. Of course, there is no question about the ground capabilities. I have been doing some very interesting reading about how the Aux is working to grow its AuxAir program and some of the amazing successes that they have had in terms of HS type missions with their regular overflights of certain areas.
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

Eclipse

Quote from: JThemann on April 23, 2008, 02:36:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 22, 2008, 11:40:45 PM
Quote from: JThemann on April 22, 2008, 02:33:18 PM
Honestly, how often do you see CAP Senior Members exchanging salutes? Where does it say we're required to salute?

All the time, on a regular basis, when in uniform, and even when in civvies if you know the person is a commander or high-grade.  I would suggest you review CAPP 151(e).

Right.

Are you sure it's CAPP? Or is it a CAPR or CAPM?

Yes, its a pamphlet, heres a link: http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_082503084356.pdf

"That Others May Zoom"

isuhawkeye

I have often wondered how many "Distressed" SAR events each of the auxiliary's participate in, and which of the two is credited with saving more lives, and the $ spent per life saved

capchiro

In the old days, 1976-1980, (and maybe still, but I am displaced from the location) we used to fly sun down patrols in CAP in southeastern Florida.  Many times we would spot vessels in distress (out of fuel, broke down?) waving a towel at us and we would radio in the details.  I am sure that we made a difference in a lot of people's lives. but it was all in a day's work to us and we didn't file any "Find" ribbons or life saving requests.  We did this day in and day out in our group.  I thought everyone did.  Perhaps if we would have kept track we would have had as many if not more "saves" than the auxies??  It just wasn't a big deal.  Also, historically the CAP has worked very directly with the Air Force.  We (and I use that term collectively, naturally) used to tow targets for the Air Force to shoot at.  I think that qualifies as working directly for the Air Force??  I am sorry, but I will not consider the auxies to be our equivalent as far as scope, training, responsibility, etc.  It's just a different group and much more civilian oriented than we are.   JMHO after 30+ years.
Lt. Col. Harry E. Siegrist III, CAP
Commander
Sweetwater Comp. Sqdn.
GA154

SARMedTech

Quote from: capchiro on April 23, 2008, 01:52:08 PM
In the old days, 1976-1980, (and maybe still, but I am displaced from the location) we used to fly sun down patrols in CAP in southeastern Florida.  Many times we would spot vessels in distress (out of fuel, broke down?) waving a towel at us and we would radio in the details.  I am sure that we made a difference in a lot of people's lives. but it was all in a day's work to us and we didn't file any "Find" ribbons or life saving requests.  We did this day in and day out in our group.  I thought everyone did.  Perhaps if we would have kept track we would have had as many if not more "saves" than the auxies??  It just wasn't a big deal.  Also, historically the CAP has worked very directly with the Air Force.  We (and I use that term collectively, naturally) used to tow targets for the Air Force to shoot at.  I think that qualifies as working directly for the Air Force??  I am sorry, but I will not consider the auxies to be our equivalent as far as scope, training, responsibility, etc.  It's just a different group and much more civilian oriented than we are.   JMHO after 30+ years.

Col-

There is no question that CAP works very hard and closely with the USAF. I have never said otherwise. But we must set our way back machines to the symbolism of the "AuxON/AuxOFF" patches. While just a hunk of cloth meant as a tongue in cheek symbol of CAP's varied duty status, there is no denying that the USCGAUX works more for their parent service than CAP simply because they do not move without operational orders. An Auxie flotilla meandering down a narrow, muddy river is under operational orders to do so. They don't so exercises unless under orders from the gold side.

I'm not sure where all of this "they are much more civilian oriented" business comes from. Is it because they don't have ranks, but rather operational offices. Is it because they have spare bling when compared to CAP? Because their vessels are privately owned?  Well, when those vessels fly the colors of the USCG, they are considered technically and legally to be assets of the USCG.

I have written a lot in this thread about the differences and similarities between CAP and the Aux. But I'm not sure why you are getting do defensive. While they both peform missions to keep America safe, the two organizations are very different in their organization. Not only do they only receive their operational orders from teh CG, their are also governed by the DHS, as is the gold side CG.  This thread has become somewhat about CAPsters feeling like they have to defend CAP. I have a great love and respect for CAP. You don't have to defend it to me. But when you look at who administers the Aux, the fact that all members, regardless of fatness and fuzziness, are allowed to wear their parent service's uniform and that a vast majority of their training is EXACTLY the training that their gold side counterparts receive. Though it may be on a 22' cabin cruiser instead of a 41' fast boat, the Auxies are all taught the same basic seamanship as an incoming Coastie. And when was the last time that a CAP member boarded a cargo jet to check its manifest against its actual cargo. When qualified through the Trident program, Auxies board ships right along side gold siders. Auxies perform at least as many augmentation missions if not more. One of my college roomies is an Auxie and spends most weekends standing radio watch at a CG Station in Florida.

Again, I say, its not a competition. They are two seperate entities with two separate missions. This isnt a spitting match. The two exist for different reasons, are administered by different entities (the Aux being ENTIRELY governmental, all the time). Its just really not that big a deal. I dont believe that I have bashed CAP because of the respect I have for what we do. Im not sure why you feel the necessity to get up in arms when I simply asked for some comparisons in experience between CAP and the Aux. CAP has plenty of members who sign some letters "Semper Vigilans" and some "Semper Paratus."  There is no reason why CAP and the Aux cannot co-exist and even learn to be more interoperational. From the anecdotal evidence I have gained, the lack of interest in that regard comes from CAP and its officers and not the Aux.

As far as training goes...why dont you join the Aux, complete your Boat Crew quals, then complete your Coxswain quals and tests, then qualify for your AuxOps designations and then undergo the intense training required for the Trident MSP. Its all very rigorous and the scope of how they train and what they do is huge. And just as you reported distressed vessels during your sundown flights, who do you think stepped (or floated, as it were) in to handle those rescue ops. I even know of the history of Auxies being involved in the Mariel boat lift.
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

afgeo4

Quote from: Eclipse on April 22, 2008, 11:40:45 PM
Quote from: JThemann on April 22, 2008, 02:33:18 PM
Honestly, how often do you see CAP Senior Members exchanging salutes? Where does it say we're required to salute?

All the time, on a regular basis, when in uniform, and even when in civvies if you know the person is a commander or high-grade.  I would suggest you review CAPP 151(e).

As to this repeated comment above about CAP's relationship with the USAF, and this notion that there is disdain for us, I would put forth that the vast majority of CAP members never encounter a member of the USAF, or even a member of another MC$, and the majority of the whole "USAF doesn't like us" is urban legend sustained by hearsay and half-truths.

I have never personally met a member of the USAF, or any other service who showed anything but respect and appreciation for our service.  My offices are on a very active military base, and I encounter officers and enlisted personnel on a regular basis.  In all cases I am treated as a peer with real work to do and a real mission.

YMMV, but based mostly on the specific of the situation, not an overall issue.
I completely agree. When I was in the USAFR, I was stationed at McGuire AFB, NJ, a VERY busy base with 3 Flying Wings and 3 different airlift aircraft, and the Air Mobility Warfare School. Also co-located with Ft. Dix and Lakehurst NAES and near Picatinny Arsenal and Ft. Monmouth, so there was no shortage of military personnel on base at all. McGuire was also the home of HQ/NJWG and HQ/NER of CAP at the time and they had their own building, which was conveniently placed half way between the flightline and the BX, so I've seen it many times. At the time, I didn't know who CAP were or what they did, but I had seen their members and cadets eat at Falcon Hall (dining facility) and they acted extremely professional. I had no bad feelings for them AT ALL. Why would I? These people get up early to iron their uniforms, put them on and do work for my organization (maybe even work I'd have to do myself if they weren't there) and they do it for free while I get paid for it? I always felt proud that kids were interested in the Air Force enough... felt like this was the next generation of Airmen growing up.

I don't know of anyone at McGuire who felt otherwise and doubt anyone else in the USAF does either. Well... maybe xcept for some budget hungry Generals.
GEORGE LURYE

RiverAux

QuoteI'm not sure where you get that the USCGAux completes less complex and more non-emergent missions.
They are less complex because the operational "missions" generally consist of a single resource (a boat and crew).  Every now and again this boatcrew might be paired up with an aviation resource during a mission, but that is usually as complex as the emergency missions get.  Compare to CAP where our standard missing airplane search mission or mid-size SAREX usually has 5-15 aircrews, several ground teams, a mission base staff with a total personnel roster of 50-100. 

I did allow for large-scale Aux missions but I am correct in that almost all of those are non-emergency based missions such as providing "security" during waterborne fireworks shows, regattas, etc.  The Aux will sometimes be a part of even larger scale missions, but the Aux almost never runs them. 

QuoteBy comparing the whole cadet issue, you are comparing apples to oranges in terms of the stated missions of the respective organizations. The mission of the USCGAUX is not to prepare young men and women for military service in which they may or may not engage.
Well, duh.  Thats what I said.  Remember the point of this thread is comparing the two organizations and I accurately did that. 

QuoteI'm surprised to hear you state that CAP is much more tied to the community and less reliant on the Air Force than the Aux is on the USCG.
Easy to answer -- the majority of CAP Wings receive direct funding from the state and many squadrons receive direct funding from local sources.  CG Aux gets no state funding.  Also, there are quite a few hoops to jump through for the CG Aux to provide any sorts of support to local agencies.  Heck, you have to obtain specific permission from the CG to even talk to another government agency. 

QuoteAlso, since Gunner C writes that "On the planning side, they [USCGAUX] needs help, I would encourage him  to look at the mandatory requirements for ICS education and at the Aux's IC training program.
Although the CG Aux is slightly ahead of CAP in requiring ICS  100/200/700/800, CAP has decades more experience in operating in a multi-agency, large scale mission environment.  As noted above, the CG Aux just doesn't do the same sorts of missions and all the ICS stuff is mostly theory.  With CAP, it is a lot of new terms for what we've already been doing with a few twists thrown in. 

QuoteI would disagree also with you statement that amost Aux augmentation is in a generalist role.
I am very familiar with CG Aux augmentation programs.  The specific marine safety jobs that were referenced are not widely available. By "generalist" I meant that CG Auxies have the opportunity to do almost any job in the CG and that if you look hard enough, you will probably find an Auxie doing almost everything.  They may not do all things in all places, but some things everywhere. 

QuoteI have been doing some very interesting reading about how the Aux is working to grow its AuxAir program and some of the amazing successes that they have had in terms of HS type missions with their regular overflights of certain areas.
In some areas they have put severe limitations on new people coming into Aux Air due to cost concerns.  This is a shrinking program, not a growing one. 

QuoteI have often wondered how many "Distressed" SAR events each of the auxiliary's participate in, and which of the two is credited with saving more lives, and the $ spent per life saved
Last year CG Aux saved almost twice as many people as CAP in distress situations.  Non-emergency assists were in the thousands.  No real way to compare costs since most CG Aux costs are carried in regular budgets of local CG units. 

RRLE

Quotethe USCGAUX is able to be much more efficient in many ways because they dont have the constant argument of what missions fall under whose jurisdiction.

Instead the Aux has constant arguements over whether or not a mission or activity is 'military or direct law enforcement' - both of which the Aux is barred from.  That arguement then almost always leads to a discussion of the illegal blue lighters.

QuoteBut when you look at who administers the Aux, the fact that all members, regardless of fatness and fuzziness, are allowed to wear their parent service's uniform

Like many things in CAP and the Aux there is the regulations and then there is reality. And this issue is a sore point in the Aux but not as much as it appears in CAP. In fact, both organizations appear to have the same official policy regarding the gravity challenged and wearing the parent service (or reasonable facsimile thereto) uniform.

Aux official policy, as stated in the AuxMan 1.A.4.c. Weight Standards is:

QuoteAuxiliarists who wear the Auxiliary Uniform shall ensure that it fits properly and presents a trim, military appearance. The uniform should be tailored if an Auxiliarist loses or gains weight. Any Auxiliarist who has difficulty maintaining a properly fitted uniform, shall wear the Auxiliary Blue Blazer outfit as appropriate.

I think the above is pretty close to CAP policy. However, it is rarely, if ever enforced. And the reason it cannnot be enforced is a statement made by the CG Chief Director of Auxiliary (ChDirAux) at a National Conference (NACON) a few years ago. In addressing the national leadership he stated: "Discipline starts at the top." So whenever the National or lower leadership goes on some kick about proper uniform wear - the Bilge Mice quote the ChDirAux and then start posting pix on public forums of the National and District leadership who are having serious gravity challenges and do not meet the first requirement for wearing the uniform as stated in the AuxMan. That is usually enough to shut down the heirarchy for months (in one case the entire 2 year tour of a NACO (National Commodore).

FWIW - the general grooming standard is:

1.A.4.b. Grooming

QuoteAuxiliarists who desire to wear their hair, jewelry, or maintain a general appearance different from that described in Chapter 10 shall wear the Auxiliary Blue Blazer outfit instead of the Auxiliary Uniform. Waivers for any deviations from the grooming and appearance standards described in Chapter 10 must be submitted through the chain to the appropriate Director.

Here are the Chapter 10 standards:

10.C.3.n. Hair/Facial Hair

QuoteThe goal is for men's hair to be neat and clean, not touch the collar, and be away from the ears. Beards, sideburns, or mustaches if worn, shall be well groomed and neatly trimmed at all times in order not to present a ragged appearance. No portion of a mustache will extend below the lipline of the upper lip. Handlebar mustaches or other eccentric styles are not appropriate while in uniform. Full and partial beards, van dykes, and goatees are authorized. In uniform, patches and spotty clumps of facial hair are not considered beards and are not authorized. The bulk of the beard (distance that the mass of facial hair protrudes from the skin on the face) shall not exceed 1 inch. The length of individual hair shall be limited to 1½ inches. The wearing of beards and mustaches shall not interfere with the operation of oxygen masks, gas masks, or other safety/survival gear. As such, the wearing of beards and moustaches may be prohibited for those participating in certain operational missions as deemed necessary by the Director or a Coast Guard Commanding officer supervising that mission. For uniformity during public appearances as a distinctive element of the Auxiliary, personnel assigned to a Ceremonial Honor Guard shall be clean-shaven. Women's hair should not be below the collar or extend below the eyebrows when the hat is removed.

Look in almost any issue of the Aux National magazine, The Navigator or any district publication and you will find flagrant violations of the above. Why is it tolerated? See 'discipline starts at the top' above? Why are the pix published? Probably because some of the most active Auxies are also the least concerned with 'proper' uniform wear and/or grooming standards. And without them there are not pix, no stories and no Aux.

There was a time when the Aux fought over proper uniform wear on public bulletin boards, much as CAP does today. I think the difference is that most Auxies know that enforcing those rules is a waste of time and just ticks off some very active Auxies - so many adopted a 'live and let live' approach to the issue.

RiverAux

The issue is that you can't really enforce a non-specific standard even if you wanted to.  A "trim, military appearance" can be in the eye of the beholder where as specific weight requirements are something that can be enforced if you want to make a point of it.