Much is made on this board about whether or not CAP is always considered an AF auxiliary or whether that just applies while on an AFAM. Yes, I realize this doesn't make a significant difference to anyone's actual CAP life, but since it is brought up here contanstly.....
I want to offer a new approach to this controversey.
The primary legal reference on this issue, Title 10 Section 9442 says:
QuoteThe Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
This is further expanded on by Section 9448
Quote(a) Authority.— The Secretary of the Air Force shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this chapter.
(b) Required Regulations.— The regulations shall include the following:
(1) Regulations governing the conduct of the activities of the Civil Air Patrol when it is performing its duties as a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force under section 9442 of this title.
Okay, various AF and CAP regulations authorized under Section 9448 obvioulsy make it very clear when individual CAP members are on an AFAM and how they are protected (or not, depending on their actions) by workman's comp, liability, etc laws relating to federal service. That is not what I'm talking about.
But, I do not know of any AF or CAP regulation that addresses the more general point of when CAP the corporation (and not just individual members of the organization) is considered the AF auxiliary.
Lacking further guidance on that issue I would fall back on Section 9442 which does not restrict or otherwise qualify the sentence saying that CAP is the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the AF when its services are being utilized by the AF. So, I would argue that if any individual CAP member is being utilized by the AF in accordance with the AF and CAP regulations governing AFAMs, then at that point CAP the corporation is the AF Aux even if not all of its members are on AF Aux status at that point.
Section 9442 does
not say something like:
QuoteThose members and that part of the Civil Air Patrol whose services are being used by any department or agency in any branch of the federal government is the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force"
. If that were the case, the organization as a whole would never be considered the AF Aux.
Maybe I'm exceeding my grasp of legal issues, but I think that under almost all circumstances CAP is considered one legal entity and each individual unit does not have a distinct legal identity. So, if someone wants to sue Squadron 666 they actually have to sue CAP as a whole. I think that sort of logic would extend to saying that if part of CAP is on an AFAM, then the corporation as a legal entity is actually on that AFAM at that time.
So, if all the above is true, I think it is fairly safe to say that there is probably at least one open AFAM to CAP at all times 24/7/365. So, if that is the case, CAP the corporation can almost always be considered the AF Aux even though only a fraction of its members are covered as AF Aux members at any single point in time.
CAP is always a part of the Air Force.
Just like the Air National Guard is always a part of the Air Force, even though they work for the state unless called into federal service.
This cognition only causes heatburn to the "Corporate Advocates."
This is just the difference between our title and our legal status.
We are always "Civil Air Patrol, the United States Air Force Auxiliary" by title. What is being questioned is our legal status at different times. We are not 100% of the time acting as an instrumentality of the United States Air Force.
So people assume because our legal status changes that our title does too.
I believe that our "dual-status" only benefits our organization. It allows us to assume missions that we wouldn't otherwise be able to.
It's not like when you are on a AFAM your signature block changes - just where the money and liability comes from.
One small little problem about saying we're the AF Aux is when members only say just AF Aux and not CAP. Like say at an airshow, some members are manning a traffic point and an accident happens and everyone wants to put blame on someone. If the CAP members there said only AF Aux, it would make the AF look more liable than CAP, Inc. Of course when people start going more and more into the claims, they'll figure out who is actually liable. I have nothing against using AF Aux, but it has to be used in way not to make the organization seem as if AF Aux is the most commonly used name.
Quote from: CASH172 on February 28, 2008, 02:34:35 AM
One small little problem about saying we're the AF Aux is when members only say just AF Aux and not CAP. Like say at an airshow, some members are manning a traffic point and an accident happens and everyone wants to put blame on someone. If the CAP members there said only AF Aux, it would make the AF look more liable than CAP, Inc. Of course when people start going more and more into the claims, they'll figure out who is actually liable. I have nothing against using AF Aux, but it has to be used in way not to make the organization seem as if AF Aux is the most commonly used name.
People understand "Air Force Auxiliary" more so than "Civil Air Patrol."
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 28, 2008, 03:01:15 AM
Quote from: CASH172 on February 28, 2008, 02:34:35 AM
One small little problem about saying we're the AF Aux is when members only say just AF Aux and not CAP. Like say at an airshow, some members are manning a traffic point and an accident happens and everyone wants to put blame on someone. If the CAP members there said only AF Aux, it would make the AF look more liable than CAP, Inc. Of course when people start going more and more into the claims, they'll figure out who is actually liable. I have nothing against using AF Aux, but it has to be used in way not to make the organization seem as if AF Aux is the most commonly used name.
People understand "Air Force Auxiliary" more so than "Civil Air Patrol."
Well if that is the case, then drop "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" or "Civil Air Patrol" altogether and put "USAF Aux" on our name badges and BDU tapes if people REALLY know AF Aux better than CAP... hence I don't understand why they know AF Aux better than CAP because we BEAR both "flags" CAP and USAF Aux at the SAME time! (on our airplanes we do, and many letterheads I see, sure)
"Civil Air Patrol" was our original name, and tradition demands we keep it. Plus, we cannot abbreviate "US Air Force Auxiliary" without being confused with the US Air Force Academy or the US Air Force Association.
But MOST people do not understand what "Civil Air Patrol" is. Most assume that it is a youth organization like the Boy Scouts, and some know it existed during WWII but are surprised to find that we are still in business.
The US Air Force is well known, and most people (even the ones from Palm Beach County, Florida who voted for Pat Buchanan by mistake) understand the concept embodied in the word "Auxiliary." This makes identification easier on missions and other situations, especially when people see us in AF uniforms.
Quote from: mynetdude on February 28, 2008, 04:45:45 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 28, 2008, 03:01:15 AM
Quote from: CASH172 on February 28, 2008, 02:34:35 AM
One small little problem about saying we're the AF Aux is when members only say just AF Aux and not CAP. Like say at an airshow, some members are manning a traffic point and an accident happens and everyone wants to put blame on someone. If the CAP members there said only AF Aux, it would make the AF look more liable than CAP, Inc. Of course when people start going more and more into the claims, they'll figure out who is actually liable. I have nothing against using AF Aux, but it has to be used in way not to make the organization seem as if AF Aux is the most commonly used name.
People understand "Air Force Auxiliary" more so than "Civil Air Patrol."
Well if that is the case, then drop "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" or "Civil Air Patrol" altogether and put "USAF Aux" on our name badges and BDU tapes if people REALLY know AF Aux better than CAP... hence I don't understand why they know AF Aux better than CAP because we BEAR both "flags" CAP and USAF Aux at the SAME time! (on our airplanes we do, and many letterheads I see, sure)
So rather then educate people on who we are and what we do, we should take shelter behind our 'parent' organization, just to appease the 'Military Advocates.'
People aren't gonna know the USAFAux any better then CAP. People are still gonna be confused if a fat SM with a full beard is covered in donut powder directing traffic wearing ABU's with subdued 'USAFAux' tapes versus the same in Blue BDUs. I'm sorry to all, but a name change isn't gonna help us at all.
Quote from: JThemann on February 28, 2008, 02:02:10 PM
Quote from: mynetdude on February 28, 2008, 04:45:45 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 28, 2008, 03:01:15 AM
Quote from: CASH172 on February 28, 2008, 02:34:35 AM
One small little problem about saying we're the AF Aux is when members only say just AF Aux and not CAP. Like say at an airshow, some members are manning a traffic point and an accident happens and everyone wants to put blame on someone. If the CAP members there said only AF Aux, it would make the AF look more liable than CAP, Inc. Of course when people start going more and more into the claims, they'll figure out who is actually liable. I have nothing against using AF Aux, but it has to be used in way not to make the organization seem as if AF Aux is the most commonly used name.
People understand "Air Force Auxiliary" more so than "Civil Air Patrol."
Well if that is the case, then drop "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" or "Civil Air Patrol" altogether and put "USAF Aux" on our name badges and BDU tapes if people REALLY know AF Aux better than CAP... hence I don't understand why they know AF Aux better than CAP because we BEAR both "flags" CAP and USAF Aux at the SAME time! (on our airplanes we do, and many letterheads I see, sure)
So rather then educate people on who we are and what we do, we should take shelter behind our 'parent' organization, just to appease the 'Military Advocates.'
People aren't gonna know the USAFAux any better then CAP. People are still gonna be confused if a fat SM with a full beard is covered in donut powder directing traffic wearing ABU's with subdued 'USAFAux' tapes versus the same in Blue BDUs. I'm sorry to all, but a name change isn't gonna help us at all.
The little bit about the fat SM in beard and covered with donut crumbs/powder is a bit overkill as I am SURE something like this has happened giving CAP discredit however I am sure most are not stupid enough to do this and those who are smart to make it stop fast.
I don't agree with name changes either, which is why I am not sure about the AF Aux being removed from the aircraft tails is any better or worse. It would obviously be nicer IMHO to be identified by one name legally regardless of AFAM or not.
Your analysis seems sound - the way it's worded, if at least one CAP member, somewhere is on a USAF or other Federal mission, then CAP as a whole is currently the USAF Auxiliary.
But I don't think it matters, as you pointed out. It would take a court challenge to confirm, and my guess is that a good USAF lawyer could make the case that the cadet doing traffic control at an Air Show was not authorized to do so by USAF, and therefore is "off duty" as far as USAF AUX status is concerned.
I've been using both the CAP name along with USAF Aux whenever I am in a conversation with someone. The point that most people don't know what CAP means it true, that little clarifier goes a long way IMO.
All this has to do with is lawsuits. And within that, the AF isn't liable when they don't have the authority to tell us what to do, and are liable when they do. That's it. All this law did was formalize that line so they could dodge more suits when it's CAP's fault.
As far as the name, I'd just assume drop CAP & adopt AFAux as the name, and for that matter drop the independent corporation & form up under AF, both like CGAux does it.
Quote from: Dragoon on February 28, 2008, 03:54:03 PM
Your analysis seems sound - the way it's worded, if at least one CAP member, somewhere is on a USAF or other Federal mission, then CAP as a whole is currently the USAF Auxiliary.
But I don't think it matters, as you pointed out. It would take a court challenge to confirm, and my guess is that a good USAF lawyer could make the case that the cadet doing traffic control at an Air Show was not authorized to do so by USAF, and therefore is "off duty" as far as USAF AUX status is concerned.
If a cadet, or officer, is not on an AFAM, then the AF has no responsibility for him. If he is on an AFAM, then the Air Force owns him, even if he is the famous fat, bearded, donut eating senior member who Themann seems to think populate our organization.
This is important only because of the law that establishes liability.
For ALL other purposes, "Civil Air Patrol" and "US Air Force Auxiliary" are interchangeable terms for the same thing. You use the one that suits your communications need.
yeah for conversational purposes I always include CAP as part of USAF Aux, people understand that better than just CAP alone and then trying to explain what we do and they don't realize we have some form of connection with the USAF so if you say Civil Air Patrol, an AF Aux then they will see the BIGGER picture, but also point out that there are a lot of things we do that have nothing to do with the USAF.
In our case USAF Auxiliary is a description of CAP's status in these situations rather than the name of the organization. That is a separate issue.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 28, 2008, 03:01:15 AM
Quote from: CASH172 on February 28, 2008, 02:34:35 AM
One small little problem about saying we're the AF Aux is when members only say just AF Aux and not CAP. Like say at an airshow, some members are manning a traffic point and an accident happens and everyone wants to put blame on someone. If the CAP members there said only AF Aux, it would make the AF look more liable than CAP, Inc. Of course when people start going more and more into the claims, they'll figure out who is actually liable. I have nothing against using AF Aux, but it has to be used in way not to make the organization seem as if AF Aux is the most commonly used name.
People understand "Air Force Auxiliary" more so than "Civil Air Patrol."
Ditto!! Just ask several people not connected to CAP and see what they reveal. I always say Civil Air Patrol - Air Force Auxiliary.
Quote from: DNall on February 28, 2008, 05:24:01 PM
All this has to do with is lawsuits. And within that, the AF isn't liable when they don't have the authority to tell us what to do, and are liable when they do. That's it. All this law did was formalize that line so they could dodge more suits when it's CAP's fault.
As far as the name, I'd just assume drop CAP & adopt AFAux as the name, and for that matter drop the independent corporation & form up under AF, both like CGAux does it.
Hear, hear D'Nall.
So, the CAP volunteer leadership is once again scratching their heads wondering what sort of beast is CAP.....
It's never been clearly defined for any stretch of time - and when it has been someone gets an "interesting idea" causing all sorts of mind-numbing and grossly illogical changes to our F99s and regs.
I wish our national CAP leadership and our USAF partners/overseers in the Pentagon would yearly read aloud some of our first founding documents like the letters from Gill Robb Wilson to AOPA and then to the American Red Cross and then to the Army and finally to the Office of Civilian Defense as he tried to set up CAP. And, too, some of the correspondence between the Army officers assigned to OSD to set up and run CAP from the start. The troubles they all went through to get CAP up and flying make any of our recent organizational "issues" look simple.
....there Gill was.... having to set up a new office at the Office of Civilian Defense at Dupont Circle in Washington DC, with a US Army officer as the titular top dog, while flying missions over water for the US Navy and over the Mexican border for the FBI while also flying courier sorties for private defense contractors. Confusing! But it worked.
We should remember the raw basics: we are here to have a volunteer civilian and quasi-military organization intended to put private general aviation at the disposal of the federal government and any other national organization like the Red Cross which could use our services during times of national emergency - especially during war time. Real service. Real work. Properly coordinated with all levels of federal, state and local government.
Operationally, to be effective we must be an integral part of the biggest partner we can get: the US government - and in times of war we must be part of the Department of Defense or we don't get to fly then. 9/11 anyone? Without SARDA and our AFAM status, we would not have had a single aircraft up for a week.
And not to be forgotten: when it comes to money for operations and equipment, when one thinks "readiness" training, being part of the DoD budget is a solid bet. (How many realize the US Dept of Homeland Security had about a year ago almost all its disaster prep money given back to FEMA which is not really an operational outfit? Just a funnel of money and missions like AFRCC. Does CAP really want to be with DHS and FEMA and get in line lobbying against every state government for emergency prep funds?)
So.... now CAP has this new VSAF program. What will it be? A backhanded way to put more CAP operations and service into a corporate closet or a way to get a real CAP auxiliary/volunteer reserve active to aid our country in times of emergency and for true readiness training before disasters and wars?
Alice
Quote from: DNall on February 28, 2008, 05:24:01 PM
All this has to do with is lawsuits. And within that, the AF isn't liable when they don't have the authority to tell us what to do, and are liable when they do. That's it. All this law did was formalize that line so they could dodge more suits when it's CAP's fault.
As far as the name, I'd just assume drop CAP & adopt AFAux as the name, and for that matter drop the independent corporation & form up under AF, both like CGAux does it.
DNall, be glad Congress created CAP, and the Air Force cannot dissolve what Congress created by Law, thank God!
It would have happened a long time ago, if certain Air Force Generals and IG Inspectors had their way.
It could be AFJROTC with additional and exciting Missions on Patrol!
I always state that I am a Lt in the CAP and that CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary
However if Im in uniform and someone asks what it is, I say simply "Air Force"
however, I am not a fat bearded donut eater.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on April 11, 2008, 07:21:03 AM
I always state that I am a Lt in the CAP and that CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary
However if Im in uniform and someone asks what it is, I say simply "Air Force"
however, I am not a fat bearded donut eater.
Don't start that crap again! >:(
Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 11, 2008, 03:27:56 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 28, 2008, 05:24:01 PM
All this has to do with is lawsuits. And within that, the AF isn't liable when they don't have the authority to tell us what to do, and are liable when they do. That's it. All this law did was formalize that line so they could dodge more suits when it's CAP's fault.
As far as the name, I'd just assume drop CAP & adopt AFAux as the name, and for that matter drop the independent corporation & form up under AF, both like CGAux does it.
DNall, be glad Congress created CAP, and the Air Force cannot dissolve what Congress created by Law, thank God!
It would have happened a long time ago, if certain Air Force Generals and IG Inspectors had their way.
It could be AFJROTC with additional and exciting Missions on Patrol!
If it's truly best for the country to dissolve our cadet program & roll it in with AFJROTC, or to add a middle school & community based aspect to AFJROTC, and if there's a better more efficient more effective way to do ES thru the states than thru CAP, then I would demand CAP be dissolved and those things happen. I'm not here for the glory of CAP. I'm here to serve the good of my country, and if that means no CAP, then that's what should happen.
I don't believe that's the case. It's close, but I think CAP has enormous unrealized potential. I think that's unrealized because it's horridly mismanaged across the board in deference to volunteers that aren't trusted at any level to have any fortitude. I think that's unfortunate. I think instilling some quality training, discipline, reorganization, effective governance structure, and real leadership would create revolutionary change of dramatic positive impact for the country. If I didn't believe that, and didn't believe it is possible to achieve, I'd be in Washington ensuring CAP went away.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on April 11, 2008, 07:21:03 AM
However if Im in uniform and someone asks what it is, I say simply "Air Force"
??? You tell people you're in the Air Force?
Quote from: O-Rex on April 11, 2008, 02:01:43 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 11, 2008, 07:25:23 AM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on April 11, 2008, 07:21:03 AM
I always state that I am a Lt in the CAP and that CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary
However if I'm in uniform and someone asks what it is, I say simply "Air Force"
however, I am not a fat bearded donut eater.
Don't start that crap again! >:(
sorry, my rely "timed out"
Careful, guys, I hear the jingle of the moderator's keys... :o
I am hopeful that all the controversy of the last couple of years, and the little spat our leadership had with USAF will smooth out.
CAP/USAF Aux is more a state of mind than what appears above your name on your uniform nametag, or below it on your signature block.
Just keep plugging away, and put your best foot forward. What's that phrase?
" A rose by any other name.."
Quote from: DNall on April 11, 2008, 08:31:04 AMI'm not here for the glory of CAP. I'm here to serve the good of my country..
Hear! Hear! :clap:
Quote from: DNall on April 11, 2008, 08:31:04 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 11, 2008, 03:27:56 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 28, 2008, 05:24:01 PM
All this has to do with is lawsuits. And within that, the AF isn't liable when they don't have the authority to tell us what to do, and are liable when they do. That's it. All this law did was formalize that line so they could dodge more suits when it's CAP's fault.
As far as the name, I'd just assume drop CAP & adopt AFAux as the name, and for that matter drop the independent corporation & form up under AF, both like CGAux does it.
DNall, be glad Congress created CAP, and the Air Force cannot dissolve what Congress created by Law, thank God!
It would have happened a long time ago, if certain Air Force Generals and IG Inspectors had their way.
It could be AFJROTC with additional and exciting Missions on Patrol!
If it's truly best for the country to dissolve our cadet program & roll it in with AFJROTC, or to add a middle school & community based aspect to AFJROTC, and if there's a better more efficient more effective way to do ES thru the states than thru CAP, then I would demand CAP be dissolved and those things happen. I'm not here for the glory of CAP. I'm here to serve the good of my country, and if that means no CAP, then that's what should happen.
I don't believe that's the case. It's close, but I think CAP has enormous unrealized potential. I think that's unrealized because it's horridly mismanaged across the board in deference to volunteers that aren't trusted at any level to have any fortitude. I think that's unfortunate. I think instilling some quality training, discipline, reorganization, effective governance structure, and real leadership would create revolutionary change of dramatic positive impact for the country. If I didn't believe that, and didn't believe it is possible to achieve, I'd be in Washington ensuring CAP went away.
DNall I think we agree.
Simply my position: The CAP Cadet Program, is SAFE, and it will Grow.
Middle School Program: CAP OWNS that, and AFROTC can benefit from our efforts in the Middle Schools, that is an area where there is real HOPE!
CAP is not going away, but can we get out of Beg and Survival Mode?
I want to raise CAP higher on all fronts.
HLS and Border stuff, yes, by all means, but closer to National Guard benefits for the Ground Troops and Pilots.
ES yes in the Desert states, Alaska, but in SER it's DEAD, Sheriff with Helicopters and IR can handle most of it. Have not heard of a operational Ground Team in USE in a while in Florida Wing. Training yes, actual use no.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 28, 2008, 01:35:36 PM
"Civil Air Patrol" was our original name, and tradition demands we keep it. Plus, we cannot abbreviate "US Air Force Auxiliary" without being confused with the US Air Force Academy or the US Air Force Association.
I thought when we abbreviated USAF Auxiliary we used USAFx, not USAFA I remember seeing that on some wing form ages ago (with a small "x".) What is the problem with that?
Other than the "USAF Aux" on our planes (now being replaced), I've never seen any sort of official abbreviation since it isn't actually our name, but a description.
Well, USAF Auxiliary is part of our name, I think. See CAPR 10-1, par 5a
5. Style of Letterhead:
a. A letterhead must include these elements: unit designation; the words "Civil Air Patrol"; "United States Air Force Auxiliary"; and the geographic location of the unit. Example is shown below:
HEADQUARTERS
CIVIL AIR PATROL MISSOURI WING
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY
PO Box 15604
Kansas City MO 64108-5000
Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 12, 2008, 02:06:31 AM
... ES yes in the Desert states, Alaska, but in SER it's DEAD, Sheriff with Helicopters and IR can handle most of it. Have not heard of a operational Ground Team in USE in a while in Florida Wing. Training yes, actual use no.
Somehow, I think Mr. Steinbock might disagree with you on this...
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 28, 2008, 12:15:59 AM
CAP is always a part of the Air Force.
Just like the Air National Guard is always a part of the Air Force, even though they work for the state unless called into federal service.
John, you're mistaken. CAP is NOT part of the Air Force, nor does the Air Force have direct operational control over CAP. This was the entire point of the legislation that brought us the Board of Governors; prior to its existence, the AF had no binding say in CAP affairs whatsoever, outside of existing memoranda of understanding.
CAP exists as a congressionally-sponsored organization, like the American Red Cross or the Boy Scouts. It is not a private organization, nor is it "public" in the sense of having public shareholders. CAP exists solely at the pleasure of Congress, who are its sole "owners".
Because of CAP's status as the offician civilian auxiliary of the USAF, and because CAP's federal appropriations are channeled through USAF, it's easy to draw a false conclusion that CAP is part and parcel of the USAF like the Air National Guard, as you said--but it's simply not the case. CAP's federal appropriations are now administered as grants or contracts through statements of work, and in that sense, CAP is more akin to a government contractor, only with additional protections when performing services on behalf of the federal government.
Quote from: Mustang on April 15, 2008, 12:52:55 AMCAP exists solely at the pleasure of Congress, who are its sole "owners".
Got to disagree on this one.....yes congress created us by public law...but if that law was overturned....CAP would still exists. Our charter does not affect our status as a corporation.
The Boy Scouts and Red Cross are also chartered by congress but they don't exist solely at the pleasure of congress. Otherwise the BSA would not get away with its religious and sexual orientation discrimination.
Quote from: Mustang on April 15, 2008, 12:52:55 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 28, 2008, 12:15:59 AM
CAP is always a part of the Air Force.
Just like the Air National Guard is always a part of the Air Force, even though they work for the state unless called into federal service.
John, you're mistaken. CAP is NOT part of the Air Force, nor does the Air Force have direct operational control over CAP. This was the entire point of the legislation that brought us the Board of Governors; prior to its existence, the AF had no binding say in CAP affairs whatsoever, outside of existing memoranda of understanding.
Got to disagree with you there, per the wording of the USC (and my AFROTC texts) "CAP is a member of the USAF "total force" AD, RES, ANG, AUX, and Civie. CAP is a highly valued tool for public education, community service, and recruitment. " <-- AFOATS