Do you think a dual memebership with the USCGAux might ever occur? Or, at least, could our Aviation ever be interchangable?
Imagine the type of aviation community we could have if we had real joint qualifications? Are there drawbacks? Is it even possible?
I think there would be too much empire building for it to get off the ground, although it is a good idea. There is a raging discussion on the Coast Guard Auxiliary Board on military.com. RiverAux, tell the good Major about dual membership.
You can have members who are in both, but it would require a lot of work to get CAP and CG Aux's aviation programs lined up enough to allow real dual membership and cross use. The MOU between CAP and CG Aux that allows for using aircrew members of both organizations doesn't seem to be used now.
Quote from: Skyray on August 18, 2007, 02:05:16 AM
I think there would be too much empire building for it to get off the ground, although it is a good idea. There is a raging discussion on the Coast Guard Auxiliary Board on military.com. RiverAux, tell the good Major about dual membership.
Well, I guess it would be more like "parallel" membership. Like, a common "Form 5," and parallel track that woudl allow us to augment eachother if necessary.
The MOU we have now says CAP Scanner = CG Aux Observer and CAP Observer = CG Aux Aircrew. Each org agrees to honor the training done by the other for those positions. It also says that due to liability and insurance issues pilots are not allowed to act as PIC of the other organization's aircraft.
Can't ask for more than that.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 18, 2007, 03:19:55 AM
The MOU we have now says CAP Scanner = CG Aux Observer and CAP Observer = CG Aux Aircrew. Each org agrees to honor the training done by the other for those positions. It also says that due to liability and insurance issues pilots are not allowed to act as PIC of the other organization's aircraft.
Can't ask for more than that.
Why is this generally not known?
Quote from: Major Carrales on August 18, 2007, 03:41:58 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 18, 2007, 03:19:55 AM
The MOU we have now says CAP Scanner = CG Aux Observer and CAP Observer = CG Aux Aircrew. Each org agrees to honor the training done by the other for those positions. It also says that due to liability and insurance issues pilots are not allowed to act as PIC of the other organization's aircraft.
Can't ask for more than that.
Why is this generally not known?
Wait a minute! You mean to tell me there's a better kept secret than Civil Air Patrol?!
The Naval Institute's Proceedings has an interesting piece re: USCGAux in the most recent issue.
Quote from: Major Carrales on August 18, 2007, 03:41:58 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 18, 2007, 03:19:55 AM
The MOU we have now says CAP Scanner = CG Aux Observer and CAP Observer = CG Aux Aircrew. Each org agrees to honor the training done by the other for those positions. It also says that due to liability and insurance issues pilots are not allowed to act as PIC of the other organization's aircraft.
Can't ask for more than that.
Why is this generally not known?
Don't have a good answer for you there other than turf protection. FYI, the MOU is available here: http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/programs/general_counsel/national_mous.cfm (http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/programs/general_counsel/national_mous.cfm)
The rumor I get from Rumour Control is that CG AuxAir is going away. Their restrictions on use of personal airplanes has reduced the number of available airframes to nearly zero.
CG Aux (I've heard) wants to get out of the flying business.
In FL, we are working on an "Offshore Aircrew" qualification, and buying life rafts for our aircraft.
They have upped the maintenance requirements for planes that would be used for CG Aux service and in some areas have restricted participation due to a lack of funds.
Any releasable info on the missions CAP is doing for the Coast Guard in Florida that was mentioned at the last national meeting?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on August 18, 2007, 04:22:06 PM
The rumor I get from Rumour Control is that CG AuxAir is going away. Their restrictions on use of personal airplanes has reduced the number of available airframes to nearly zero.
CG Aux (I've heard) wants to get out of the flying business.
In FL, we are working on an "Offshore Aircrew" qualification, and buying life rafts for our aircraft.
I don't think they are going away, but it has gotten a lot more expensive to fly AuxAir. The story I got is that a light twin had an engine failure with an admiral aboard, and subsequent investigation showed the engine was above TBO (Time between overhauls) That is acceptable for civilian recreational flying, but not for commercial use. Shortly after this incident, the rule came out essentially that all aircraft offered for use in the Coast Guard must meet commercial standards. I am glad to see it, because I have made the usual PITA of myself complaining about the junkers that they were accepting. Just as an aside, the Aux Air accident rate is three times the CAP rate, and just about the same as the CAP rate was before they got serious about aviation safety. Anybody remember when they instituted the
FRO?
Skyray, is that AuxAir accident rate current? Have they actually started posting this info someplace like CAP has done for years? Care to post it over in the military.com AuxAir-CAP discussion? Thanks.
Sorry, it is about three years old. They don't post it anywhere. I got my information from the female safety officer at Opa Locka. We were discussing what it takes to bring it down. I think the "no components above TBO" will have a positive impact. I would like to see a Flight Release Officer with a check list like CAP has, although the active duty does tend to keep an eye on things.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 18, 2007, 04:57:47 PM
Any releasable info on the missions CAP is doing for the Coast Guard in Florida that was mentioned at the last national meeting?
No.