The NHQ PA Team posted the 2008 Annual Report to Congress at the link below:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/cap_annual_reports/
Just finished reading it and once again they have done a great job!
Thanks and have a great day.
Al.
Not to toot my own horn (OK, I will!) but two of my photos made the Report -
Pg. 23, NCC and Pg. 27 Challenger Space Center.
I'm going to wait till I get one at the Wing Conference to read it, gives me something to read during breaks.
I've got a collection of ARCs, some I personally handed to congressmen. I feel like they took a dive in quality in the mid to late 90s as the failed to show very little of our relationship with the Air Force (read: military). They seemed to focus on external AE and rarely showing cadets in uniforms. In short, I think there were about 6 or 7 years where the ARC made us look more like an after school science activity than an Air Force Auxiliary with 3 equal programs.
Today, as I look at the 2008 ARC, I am pleased to see an equal focus of all three missions with lots of pictures of members in uniform and performing "missions for America".
I'd also like to say that one of my former cadets is pictured as well as a good friend from DCWG. Ha! I know famous people.
EXCELLENT JOB NHQ PA!!! Or whomever is responsible.
Is the photo on the front cover doctored?
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 10:08:27 PM
Is the photo on the front cover doctored?
I don't see the relevance of that question, would you care to enlighten me?
1. Its a thread about the annual report.
2. Its a question about the annual report.
Therefore its relevant.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 10:08:27 PM
Is the photo on the front cover doctored?
Yeah, quite obviously, too. No way two GA aircraft are going to get that close to the capital (one had to take the pic), and the MAJCOM is shopped into the door as well.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 10:08:27 PM
Is the photo on the front cover doctored?
Yeah, quite obviously, too. No way two GA aircraft are going to get that close to the capital (one had to take the pic), and the MAJCOM is shopped into the door as well.
This is becoming a recurring theme with National and it's become a serious concern of mine. Why do they feel the need to doctor all these photos? It's embarassing, brings no value, and is somewhat dishonest.
I question the wisdom in picking apart our ARC on a public website.
^Why? We question everything else regarding CAP and discuss it on this site. Why limit that by not talking about the Annual Report to Congress?
The National PA Team did an outstanding job on this!
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 10:08:27 PM
Is the photo on the front cover doctored?
Yeah, quite obviously, too. No way two GA aircraft are going to get that close to the capital (one had to take the pic), and the MAJCOM is shopped into the door as well.
Not to mention that the base pic is at least a year olde. There is no longer parking on the east side. That's the area above the visitors center, and has large skylights in it now.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 10:08:27 PM
Is the photo on the front cover doctored?
Yeah, quite obviously, too. No way two GA aircraft are going to get that close to the capital (one had to take the pic), and the MAJCOM is shopped into the door as well.
It's only a question of getting a special clearance. I'm sure that they got a mission number to do that and ran it through the Air Force and FAA controllers.
Quote from: Cecil DP on March 11, 2009, 12:33:26 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 10:08:27 PM
Is the photo on the front cover doctored?
Yeah, quite obviously, too. No way two GA aircraft are going to get that close to the capital (one had to take the pic), and the MAJCOM is shopped into the door as well.
It's only a question of getting a special clearance. I'm sure that they got a mission number to do that and ran it through the Air Force and FAA controllers.
No, that's a shop job and not even a good one at that. My wife is a professional graphic artist and went off for a good five minutes about it.
Quote from: Cecil DP on March 11, 2009, 12:33:26 AM
It's only a question of getting a special clearance. I'm sure that they got a mission number to do that and ran it through the Air Force and FAA controllers.
There is
NO WAY you could get clearance to do that.
I have a tough enough time just getting cleared each time to fly into Andrews.
Quote from: davidsinn on March 11, 2009, 01:01:34 AM
Quote from: Cecil DP on March 11, 2009, 12:33:26 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 10:08:27 PM
Is the photo on the front cover doctored?
Yeah, quite obviously, too. No way two GA aircraft are going to get that close to the capital (one had to take the pic), and the MAJCOM is shopped into the door as well.
It's only a question of getting a special clearance. I'm sure that they got a mission number to do that and ran it through the Air Force and FAA controllers.
No, that's a shop job and not even a good one at that. My wife is a professional graphic artist and went off for a good five minutes about it.
Now that answered my question. When I was looking very closely at the picture with a high definition magnifying glass I thought I saw Snoopy at the controls of the plane. ;D
Not entirely sure I like how they reported on Wing membership on pages 38-39. "Adult volunteers" and "youth".
I think it is a perfect way to describe our membership so anyone can understand. It's how I describe myself when I'm talking to people who don't know about CAP. It helps them relate better.
Same here. Using laymans terms eliminates confusion and allows a broad understanding for those not yet familiar with CAP.
One thing I found sad about the membership part is that my squadron has more cadets than one wing has in the entire wing.