The compromise $1.1 trillion Ryan-Murray budget measure that sailed earlier this month through both the House and Senate includes increased appropriations for Civil Air Patrol, plus language supporting CAP.
USAF Operations & Maintenance (where CAP gets most of its operational funding), boosted 15% to $28.4 million, versus a FY2014 Administration request of $24.73 million.
USAF Aircraft Procurement (which pays for our aircraft and gear on the aircraft), nearly tripled to $10.2 million compared with a FY2014 Administration request for $2.541 million.
And in Title VIII, General Provisions:
"The agreement retains a provision proposed by the House which provides funding from various appropriations for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation. The Senate bill contained a similar provision."
And keep in mind that if Ma Blue wants to reprogram any of the funds away, it has to report that reprogramming to Congress if it exceeds 15%.
Lastly, the President signed the bill a week ago; hence, it's law and the appropriations should be available.
Maybe so, but our checkbook is pretty bare, ditto for the other wings in my region or so I am told.
True that. On the other hand, it *does* take time for all those little virtual pennies to make their way from the Congress to the Treasury to the OMB to the DOD to the USAF AFAM to the USAF Commands to 1AF to...well, you get the idea.
We keep having to stop F5s and F91s because we keep running out of money. :-[
Is this from the budget or from the spending bill? Two entirely different things.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 24, 2014, 01:22:46 AM
Is this from the budget or from the spending bill? Two entirely different things.
The budget request is usually dead in the water, and last year's request for 2014 was dead-er than most. This is the final appropriated figure, the result of the FY 2014 budget compromise worked out by Sens. Paul Ryan and Patty Murray earlier this month. It went to a vote in the House about two weeks ago, and then the Senate early the following week, and then about a week ago Obama signed it. So these numbers are the FY 2014 appropriation, which covers us through the end of FY 14 on Sept. 30.
There's language throughout the measure designed to limit reprogrammings and changes, in part as a "quid" for raising the DOD's caps above the sequester level. There's also language that says that the program funding in the bill can only be used for the program line item to which it is assigned.
We expect that sometime around the end of February we'll see a Fiscal 2015 Administration request sent up to the Hill, where the fun will start all over again.
Forgive my ignorance here, as I probably knew this at one time and have, over the years, pushed that knowledge out in favor of something far less useful...
Is there someplace that explains what the requested $$ are for?
What I mean, O&M is boosted 15%. Did we have a 15% shortfall on maintenance, say, or projected flying hours last year? Or did CAP/ CAP-USAF request 15% more flying hrs (and the corresponding maintenance) for 2014 or anticipate a 15% growth in ops flying?
Procurement was slated at $2.54M and is now $10.2. That a bunch of planes.
Matter of fact, I kind of just sorta answered my own question using some docs I found (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130408-079.pdf (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130408-079.pdf))
FY2014 procurement ask from the USAF was $2.541M for 6 planes. Thats ~$423,500 per plane, FYI.
so $10.2M = 24 planes. Thats a pretty big jump. Majorly big jump.
(actually, no.. crap. The FY 14 Base request was for just 3 Cessna 206s at $847,000 each? What? Still, $10.2M means 12 C206s if thats what CAP wants to buy. Or 3 206s and 15-18 182s depending on discount)
This is why I was never an accountant.
^The $10.2M procurement figure is more in line with past years; FY 2013 being an exception. Because C182's will now be TD's (turbo diesel powered), the ratio of C182/C206 purchases may be changed. However that decision is well above my pay grade... :angel:
The O&M budget was slashed last year as well. From what I understood, vehicle maintanence reimbursement was severely reduced, and some aircraft maintanence (non essential upgrades) was eliminated. With the "plus up", it's business as usual.
Then there is the matter of cadet O' Flights... ;D
This is all good news for CAP.
I guess maybe part of my question was that the USAF (last year) documented its FY14 request at about $2.5M. Congress said "no, here's $10.2M." Who or how did the change get pushed?
Did someone in Congress (ie. Tom Harkin) decide that CAP really needed more planes, or did the AF change its requested amount in the interim due to new requirements or new information?
(My knowledge of how Congress works this kind of thing, and the machinations within the halls of power, is just slightly more than if I had only ever watched "I'm Just A Bill" on Schoolhouse Rock.)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2014, 01:10:42 AM
Maybe so, but our checkbook is pretty bare, ditto for the other wings in my region or so I am told.
Just got a small dump into the AF Training bucket overnight here.
And I would imagine that it's going to be a give and take. More money is available, but the scope of our operations have to be increased- something along those lines.
Quote from: fokkerfrenzy on January 24, 2014, 12:40:42 PM
More money is available, but the scope of our operations have to be increased- something along those lines.
Just wild speculation, but there was that GAO report recently talking studying about how CAP can augment Homeland Security and other agencies more. We've become a bigger player in natural disaster ops with aerial photography in the past few years.
It is, it's true. But it can't be overlooked by budget committees how much more cost effective CAP response is than some of the other options.
Either way, nothing is free in this world, as I see it. And it should definitely make things interesting.
And to give credit where it's due, with some of the DR responses in the last year or so, CAP has gotten a fair bit of attention as doing a commendable job in terms of effectiveness and professionalism. So, a big attaboy all around. :)
Quote from: NIN on January 24, 2014, 11:39:01 AM
I guess maybe part of my question was that the USAF (last year) documented its FY14 request at about $2.5M. Congress said "no, here's $10.2M." Who or how did the change get pushed?
Did someone in Congress (ie. Tom Harkin) decide that CAP really needed more planes, or did the AF change its requested amount in the interim due to new requirements or new information?
(My knowledge of how Congress works this kind of thing, and the machinations within the halls of power, is just slightly more than if I had only ever watched "I'm Just A Bill" on Schoolhouse Rock.)
Well, Sen Harkin is a great friend of CAP (he's a former Congressional Squadron Commander and mission pilot). It is also nice that our KAWG congressional delegation understands what $10.2 million does for Cessna. Just sayn'... 8)
I was just kind of wanting to gain a better understanding of how this works.
If CAP asked for $3,000,000 for new aircraft, and then the Air Force got handed $10,000,000, you know, is that the air forces issue to solve where it goes? I really hate to think that we would get an opportunity that we weren't ready to capitalize on.
"Surprise!"
Obviously we have a fleet size limitation so getting more aircraft permits us to modernize. Great.
And it's already been mentioned how our mission response especially in the DR arena has brought us some better visibility and possibly mission expansion, hence more ops money.
It was also mentioned recently that the new "main" mission of CAP in ES is aerial photography work.
That needs planes and related equipment and services to expand.
Right, which means aircraft like 182s with sufficient payload and range, maybe avionics, to get the job done. A round dial 172 isn't necessarily the platform anymore for that mission.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2014, 09:08:24 PM
It was also mentioned recently that the new "main" mission of CAP in ES is aerial photography work.
Super, we're now laser-focused on a mission that will be taken over by other platforms before we get ABUs.
Quote from: NIN on January 24, 2014, 08:55:03 PM
I was just kind of wanting to gain a better understanding of how this works.
If CAP asked for $3,000,000 for new aircraft, and then the Air Force got handed $10,000,000, you know, is that the air forces issue to solve where it goes? I really hate to think that we would get an opportunity that we weren't ready to capitalize on.
"Surprise!"
Obviously we have a fleet size limitation so getting more aircraft permits us to modernize. Great.
And it's already been mentioned how our mission response especially in the DR arena has brought us some better visibility and possibly mission expansion, hence more ops money.
Darin, the Air Force always cuts what CAP originally budgets. Thanks to Mr. Swain, Mr. Rowland, and an outstanding volunteer force, the powers that be (congress) gives us what we want. This has been going on for years (FY 2013 is the exception). It's an interesting game, but it's reality. CAP's fleet is set at 550. "We" usually buy about 10 new aircraft a year and refurb about 10 more; 10 are sold (CAP always asks for about $8-10M in procurement funds). Vehicles are pegged at about 1000. Thanks to the success of the aircraft consolodated maintanence program, we can use O&M money to maintain them as well.
BTW; the Air Force does not tell CAP how procurement money is to be spent; other than the parameters in the SOW and Cooperative agreement. We do ask permission for how O&M cash is spent. It's worth noting CAP has done a great job with the process, and is one of the reasons congress is on board with keeping CAP at current funding levels. :)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2014, 09:08:24 PM
It was also mentioned recently that the new "main" mission of CAP in ES is aerial photography work.
That needs planes and related equipment and services to expand.
What about digging some RF-4's out of the boneyard? 8)
Really hoping 206s are CAP's platform of choice going forward (with turbos for us mountain folk). More power, better handling, greater capacity--more capable all the way around = better value.
Anything for CP in all of this?
Quote from: PA Guy on January 25, 2014, 10:31:15 PM
Anything for CP in all of this?
None of the funds are "earmarked" in that way. CAP's annual operating budget is funded through the U.S. Air Force O&M accounts. Once the "check" goes to NHQ, they spend it on all of the various CAP stuff they need to spend it on.
This is nothing special per se...what's unusual is that we aren't waiting until the summer to get a Continuing Resolution (a crappy alternative to a real appropriations measure). It's a real appropriation. Late (as has been customary in recent years) but still a real appropriation.
Quote from: PA Guy on January 25, 2014, 10:31:15 PM
Anything for CP in all of this?
Government funds are used to fund the salaries and operations of the CP Dept at NHQ. It is also used to fund Cadet O'Flights, cadet uniforms, and helps to fund certain NCSA's. It is also used to pay for development/printing and distribution of publications in the Cadet Program. The SECAF decides what Cadet Programs are to be funded. Those programs not funded by the "grant" are paid for from "Corporate Funds"; member dues, tuition/fees, investment income, contributions, and "in kind" donations.
From my understanding, CP is getting slashed in certain areas (some national activities are being cut either completely or majorly, such as NHGA, IACE (50%), APJOC)... but those funds(along with some new appropriations) are being moved to different areas such as the Quality Cadet Unit Award program, RCLS, some of the aerospace centric familiarization courses (ATA, MKS), adding a second PJOC course, CLA, etc.
Basically, the funds are refocusing towards some of the core parts of the CP, and dropping funding on some of the more expensive activities.
Note: This data was pulled from the FY14 financial plan given out at COS, it could have dramatically changed since August.