Structural Change

[lordmonar]

I'm not arguing CAP's right to lobby congress directly for funds.  What I am arguing is that if you aim is to increase the closeness of CAP and the USAF...you cannot compete with them for money.  It is simple as that.  If we are the USAF-AUX (or want to be at least) the USAF will fund us in the way that insures that we both get our missions done. (notice I said missions both CAP's and the USAF's).

But if you back door them...you are creating an adversarial situation.  Kind of like asking Daddy for a cookie after Mom says no.

So....again I say...I've got no real problem with us lobbying Congress directly and getting the money we need.  But we also have to accept the consequences of that.  

Is the USAF going to drop us?  I don't think so...not any time soon.  But I would not put it passed them...that right now there is a feasibility report sitting in a file drawer right now looking at various options to drop CAP from the AF budget.

Just off the top of my head?

Funding to local law enforcement agencies that already have an aviation capability to pick up the ELT Search mission.  Is there any state that does not have at least one Cessna type aircraft in its State Police unit?  The Air Force can easily offer them $150/hour to fly SAR.

There are various other organizations out there that do aerial SAR.  The Oregon ES report thread said something about CAP only handling something like 30% of the missions in that state.  I think Washington state has a private SAR organization.  What do you need to really start one? A plane and a DF unit.

Now I am not saying there is doom and gloom on the horizon.  I am only saying that we really need to get our priorities straight.

Until I read the GAO report I thought it what the USAF that was pushing us away.  Now I can see we are doing it ourselves.

[Earhart1971]

If we are the USAF-AUX (or want to be at least) the USAF will fund us in the way that insures that we both get our missions done. (notice I said missions both CAP's and the USAF's).

But if you back door them...you are creating an adversarial situation.  Kind of like asking Daddy for a cookie after Mom says no.

Fearing what the Air Force thinks or might do is not going to get us anywhere.

And isn't that what we've always done, depended on the Air Force to throw us an increase in budget.

The problem is CAP has far greater potential than envisioned by the Air Force.

Or else why did the Air Force see fit to circumvent the CAP Cadet Program in 1966 and form AFJROTC with our Aerospace Books and our fully developed Leadership Lab Manual, and then fund their Cadet Program with more than 6 times the entire budget of CAP?

They fund their "Cadet Program", which comparing apples to apples, the CAP Cadet Program is the stronger program, we just lack the funding to impliment it in the numbers that generate 200,000 cadets. If CAP had 200 Million Dollars a year in funding a lot could be done.

The Air Force will never pull Search and Rescue away from CAP, we operate so cheap, there is no one that can do it like we do.  A Sheriff Dept would have to pay $600 per hour for a helicopter, and Fixed Wing Sheriff Dept Aircraft would cost $300 per hour, including the crew and benefits, retirement, medical, dental and health insurance. By the way our local Sheriff just paid $500,000 for their fixed wing aircraft, a Cessna product.

Civil Air Patrol by doing SAR on the cheap has a cost too, and that cost is burning out members and having to replace members with new members every 6 years. (100% turnover in 6 years).

Here is the proposal I would run  by the DOD on the way to Congress.

Fund us at a level we can operate SAR, pay our pilots an hourly rate, and per diem, and pay our ground teams.  SAR is $300 per Aircraft Hour, we budget, maint, training, paying pilots, and instructors. This results in a increase in our mission capabilities.

Cadet Program: Abolish or phase out AFJROTC in favor of the CAP Middle School Program. We reach kids sooner than AFJROTC in High Schools. We have a broader mission for Cadets, and more extra curricular activities.  We propose to save the Air Force about 100 Million per year on not having to run and administer AFJROTC, and we show them the same Cadet numbers starting at 100,000 and progressing to 200,000 Cadets.

If the Air Force were to choose, which would they prefer a large recruiting pool of CAP Cadets or AFJROTC Cadets, who took an easy "class" in High School.


The Air Force is already starting to defund AFJROTC.

The Seniors will take care themselves, less out of pocket money from membership, more benefits, and some participation, pay will increase Senior Membership and decrease turnover.

We need to change our mind set, on funding, we are not taking away from the Air Force, everything we do enhances our relationship with the Air Force and DOD, if we execute our plan.

And no organization can duplicate the low cost of CAP operations, even with the increases to our budget.

[DNall]

I think you guys are working off some mistaken perceptions.

The federal govt funds CAP to help complete teh AF mission & for no other purpose. They don't even a tiny bit care what we have, are, or might do for anyone else at any time for any reason. We are ALLOWED to branch out a LITTLE bit in our spare time just because we have the resources & training in the right place at the right time, but we're not allowed to exist for that purpose.

Let me be VERY clear about this. There a very strong forces in Congress, including very prominant & respected senators from both parties who are each running for President, who want to do away with CAP. They have a plan, including options to sieze & sell or redistribute our aircraft & radios; push our SaR missions (and assets/funding) to NIMS compliant state law enforcement; balance funding in JROTC programs, drop AE to AFA. They are VERY VERY powerful & may get their way no matter what AF wants or how good or bad CAP is. You have 1-3 years, 5 on the outside, before CAP has to PROVE it's so critical to the AF that it must exist or AF can't accomplish their mission (at least not w/o another 80mil/year).

By the way, State/County LE is responsible to respond to SaR situations, not CAP or AF. AF is ONLY responsible for running AFRCC. If they wanted to do the minimum required by law, all they'd have to do is inform state/county LE where the hits are in their jurisdiction & tell them to call back if they find it or after they've exhausted all available mutual aid & need federal support. Even then, the AF doesn't HAVE to pay for that federal support. They just have to front the money till the appropriate authorities or victims can be billed. Of course that's not what happens, but I'm just saying they can give (sieze & sell for a buck) our planes to state police & provide tehm the training to do the missions on their own. They can do that via DHS, which means AF gets the money back elsewhere. Plus, ELTs are dropping off & a very big 10 year+ cycle of budget crunches is coming.

There's critical things CAP can be doing for AF! There's a whole big ton of things we can do in HLS, from night CN on the border w/ FLIR, to NRBC over border/ports/transportation routes... There's a federal disaster assessment function that needs type 1 & 2 capability resourced & close in w/ combined adaptable air/grd/comm teams that can switch roles on the fly to be interchangable w/ NG emergency response personnel... there's territory in the new 8AF cyber mission that's getting pushed hard, and creating a whole new CAP-like org to deal with it has been suggested - install lightbulb over head w/ CAP incorporating the job... there's the direct augmentation (CGAux style) that John & other have talked about to expand beyond Chaplains to legal, medical, & even to unskilled grunt work.... there's recruiter augmentation.... the list can be pretty endless. The thing is, al of that costs virtually nothing or the money os already available. Here's the problem. No one trusts a bunch of silly moron civilians to be close to as capable as paid AF professionals. Of course they don't think any idiot off the street can do their job, and they're right. The problem is they think of CAP as idots off the street cause we don't meet their standards. We have to fix that, and with that they'll give us a shot at the rest, but you can't put the cart before the horse.

AFJROTC is tied to other service JROTC, and it's funded by school districts. The AF spends very littel direct money on it. The reports are misleading cause they count outside money, but that's not what's appropriated. I do think they get more bang for their buck w/ CAP, but CAP is SO SO small & the quality of the program is so inconsistent, it's really hard to say....

Now you guys know I love CAP & I wouldn't be up here if I wasn't trying to wrestle it into a turn for teh better. Just don't take some of that negative sounding stuff like I'm not optomistic. I am! I'm just cognizant of the threats & driven to stay out front of them.

[wingnut]

Yea John Good Idea :clap:

[lordmonar]

Fearing what the Air Force thinks or might do is not going to get us anywhere.

And isn't that what we've always done, depended on the Air Force to throw us an increase in budget.

The problem is CAP has far greater potential than envisioned by the Air Force.

Or else why did the Air Force see fit to circumvent the CAP Cadet Program in 1966 and form AFJROTC with our Aerospace Books and our fully developed Leadership Lab Manual, and then fund their Cadet Program with more than 6 times the entire budget of CAP?

Maybe because each service had a JROTC program....and that the JROTC program in NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN the same as CAP Cadet Program.

The JROTC program was a way to get a military presence into high schools.   CAP is not in high schools.

They fund their "Cadet Program", which comparing apples to apples, the CAP Cadet Program is the stronger program, we just lack the funding to implement it in the numbers that generate 200,000 cadets. If CAP had 200 Million Dollars a year in funding a lot could be done.

Well got to ask you what you mean by "stronger".  JROTC has a lot more cadets, it has a lot more presence and it has full time professional instructors.

I was an AFJROTC cadet back in the day...while I was never a CAP cadet....I would be hard pressed to say which one is the "stronger" program.  AFJROTC is one hour 5 days a week.  Plus you have more exposure when you add staff time, or drill team.  CAP is maybe 3-4 hours once a week.

The Air Force will never pull Search and Rescue away from CAP, we operate so cheap, there is no one that can do it like we do.  A Sheriff Dept would have to pay $600 per hour for a helicopter, and Fixed Wing Sheriff Dept Aircraft would cost $300 per hour, including the crew and benefits, retirement, medical, dental and health insurance. By the way our local Sheriff just paid $500,000 for their fixed wing aircraft, a Cessna product.

You are missing the point.  The point is that there are a lot of organizations out there that already have the assists.  There are organizations out there that would be willing to pick up our SAR responsibilities for less than we do them now...because as you say...your sheriff department just bought an aircraft.  They are already paying the $300 per hour to fly it.   USAF would not have to pay for proficiency flights, o-flights, SAREXs or transporting personnel around to and from meetings.  They would only have to pay for actual mission hours.

And again I point out that there are organizations out there willing to fly those SAR flights for free!  They are already doing it.  BSA Explorer posts, Washington Search and Rescue http://www.eskimo.com/~c180tom/.  In addition the USAF would not have to pay for all the cadet and AE related programs.

http://www.eskimo.com/~c180tom/Civil Air Patrol by doing SAR on the cheap has a cost too, and that cost is burning out members and having to replace members with new members every 6 years. (100% turnover in 6 years).

Here is the proposal I would run  by the DOD on the way to Congress.

Fund us at a level we can operate SAR, pay our pilots an hourly rate, and per diem, and pay our ground teams.  SAR is $300 per Aircraft Hour, we budget, maint, training, paying pilots, and instructors. This results in a increase in our mission capabilities.

Can't happen.  If we are paid we all have to CPL's.  The FAA gives us a by on that simply because we only receive reimbursement for actual expenses.  If we got "paid" for flying SAR, then we would fall under the commercial pilot rules and the rules that commercial air serves fall under. 

Also...once you started paying pilots and ground crews, and mission base personnel we would quickly be no longer cheaper than letting the USAF doing it themselves.  You can get 40-50 people at a SAREX.  Even at a cheap rate of say $40 per diem that is $2000 per day before you fly a single hour or send out a single ground team.  Times that by 52 wings and 12 SAREXs a year (this is very very conservative) you have spent $1.2M with out flying a single hour.

Cadet Program: Abolish or phase out AFJROTC in favor of the CAP Middle School Program. We reach kids sooner than AFJROTC in High Schools. We have a broader mission for Cadets, and more extra curricular activities.  We propose to save the Air Force about 100 Million per year on not having to run and administer AFJROTC, and we show them the same Cadet numbers starting at 100,000 and progressing to 200,000 Cadets.

That is 794 high schools you would have implement a program for.  These units run 100 cadets or so each and they have two full time instructors.  Again...you cannot say CAP is stronger than AFJROTC. 

If the Air Force were to choose, which would they prefer a large recruiting pool of CAP Cadets or AFJROTC Cadets, who took an easy "class" in High School.

The Air Force is already starting to defund AFJROTC.

Really....They just expanded the number of schools in the last 3-4 years.  The Air Force could really care less about what sort of cadets the programs put out.  Heck you get the same promotion for enlisting for six years as you do for earning Mitchell or attending 3 years of AFJROTC.  USAF recruiters are not in any way shape or form dependent out our contribution to their quotas.

The Seniors will take care themselves, less out of pocket money from membership, more benefits, and some participation, pay will increase Senior Membership and decrease turnover.

Do you really thing the money a senior member would make on SAREXs and Missions would make up for all the hard work it takes to get there in the first place?  Burn out is not caused by too much training or too many missions.  Burn out is caused by lack of leadership, lack of training, sketchy oversight and arbitrary rules and regulations.  The three big reason for people quiting was lack of leadership (no one was telling them what to do), Lack of training (they could not do what they wanted because leadership was not training them to do it) and lack of meaningful job or missions (I joined to do SAR, or work with Cadets, or Teach AE, or operate radios....and they never call me for missions or they got me doing nothing but paper work that goes no where).

It is not....it's too expensive.

And no organization can duplicate the low cost of CAP operations, even with the increases to our budget.

Not true.  With a concerted effort I can organize a 3 aircraft flying club that would be willing to answer the call of any customer to fly 24/7 and they would pay for it them selves.  People have not problem doing the SARs.  They have problems with everything else.  CAP is not irreplaceable.

[lordmonar]

Now you guys know I love CAP & I wouldn't be up here if I wasn't trying to wrestle it into a turn for the better. Just don't take some of that negative sounding stuff like I'm not optomistic. I am! I'm just cognizant of the threats & driven to stay out front of them.

DNall, you and I have wrestled on this issue before and thanks to that GAO link...I've come around to your way of seeing on this issue.  I still don't buy into all your doom and gloom..but I do buy into your take on CAP is pushing the USAF away and that may be a bad thing in the long run.  However...and I said this before...just because congress stops funding us and pulls our charter....there is no reason why we cannot continue to exist as a SAR organization.

Okay....bottom line then is that we have to kiss and make up to the USAF.  We need to bow to all their oversight wishes and get with USAF's vision of CAP.

Now I got the same question to the USAF as I had to the Chief...what is that vision.

[Dragoon]

I'm very interested in hearing some of the details of who has what exact plan for dismantling CAP.

I do remember Sen McCain's plan back in the 90s.  It wasn't to dismantle CAP, but rather to move the SAR mission away from USAF.

After all, it's hardly a core USAF mission.

He wanted to move SAR to NTSB or some other worthy federal agency, so that DoD dollars could be focused on preparing to kill bad guys.

And truthfully, as a taxpayer and a soldier, I think that actually made some sense.

But, it would have hurt CAP.  Because we'd then have two bosses - USAF for the cadet mission and somebody else for SAR.  The worry was that the NTSB would want a non-military, non cadet SAR organization, and USAF would decide that the cadet program by itself wasn't worth much money.

Needless to say, CAP cranked up the 'ol lobbying machine and killed the plan.

But truthfully, this is the only "plan" I've ever heard from a prominent politician to affect CAP.  Our budget is so small it's not worth them paying much attention to.

[Dragoon]

I'm not arguing CAP's right to lobby congress directly for funds.  What I am arguing is that if you aim is to increase the closeness of CAP and the USAF...you cannot compete with them for money.  It is simple as that.  If we are the USAF-AUX (or want to be at least) the USAF will fund us in the way that insures that we both get our missions done. (notice I said missions both CAP's and the USAF's).

But if you back door them...you are creating an adversarial situation.  Kind of like asking Daddy for a cookie after Mom says no.

lordmonar summed up what I was trying to say quite nicely.

We hear two things all the time on this board.

1.  We're not close enough to the Air Force

2.  The Air Force won't let us do what we want to do.

If we care about #1, we need to back off on #2.  If we care more about #2, we need to back off on #1.  Either will work.  But if we choose #2, we may have to all go by Corporate Blues sometime soon...

[DNall]

Now you guys know I love CAP & I wouldn't be up here if I wasn't trying to wrestle it into a turn for the better. Just don't take some of that negative sounding stuff like I'm not optomistic. I am! I'm just cognizant of the threats & driven to stay out front of them.

DNall, you and I have wrestled on this issue before and thanks to that GAO link...I've come around to your way of seeing on this issue.  I still don't buy into all your doom and gloom..but I do buy into your take on CAP is pushing the USAF away and that may be a bad thing in the long run.  However...and I said this before...just because congress stops funding us and pulls our charter....there is no reason why we cannot continue to exist as a SAR organization.

Okay....bottom line then is that we have to kiss and make up to the USAF.  We need to bow to all their oversight wishes and get with USAF's vision of CAP.

Now I got the same question to the USAF as I had to the Chief...what is that vision.

Interesting turn of events... I don't necessarily think the sky is falling. My point of view comes from knowing the deal in Congress (as of this past summer anyway). There's good & bad there. Then stack it next to declining ELT missions & failure to step up to require NIMS standards. That's all jus too much ammunition for the other side.

Far as the timeline, I know major discussion will be on the agenda one way or another after the Presidential. We need to provide as much pro-CAP ammunition before that happens so the resulting action can be historic in our favor rather than historic in our demise. Especially when the forces allied agaisnt us are powerful in a way they never have been in the history of CAP or the AF.

Far as a vision... they're searching in all directions but they don't have an answer. They're talking about all the same things we are - hell a lot of our conversations play off each other believe it or not. I view it like SAC watching the cold war wind down & knowing you're about to be obselete. You stand there & take it, wait for the AF to define the future for you? OR, do you work teh issue & try to evolve your command within the lattitudse you're given (that's significant in our case) to show them what you can be. See I'd go tthat way. I'd give them more opportunities to utilize us & more choices than they have time to make.

I think you'll find though - and I just got done sayin ghtis in another thread - that the limiting factor on us is not the laws, or the AF relationship, but just ourselves. You can blame the top a bit for pushing off, but I can't do anything about that. The other part of the issue is our people. This is the line of logic that gets me to my stance on Professional Development. I think we have to run out some serious standards & a legit grade system so AF can look at us & not think of us as idiots off the street, but will have to understand that we met roughly the same quals & passed roughly the same courses... that & the people it turns out produce a degree of confidecen that has them more enthusiastic about out aircrews flying some complex gear around being the defense & deterence line against nuclear transport & that sort of big time mission that we need to be doing but can't because no one believes in us.


The plan I heard came from a particular Senator's aide, but is apparently supported by a few people - not as many as support CAP, but the detractors are pretty big names.

The plan is short & sweet... if you revoke title 36, CAP is not a properly constituted corporation capable of recieving or holding govt property. (I actually want to do away with the title 36 corporate status, but you have to change title 10 at the same time to re-estabilish us as the full time AFAux in the same kind of framework CGAux is working under.) If we get closed down, they'll take all our stuff. We won't be allowed to go on w/o them.

[lordmonar]

I understand about the title 36 proposal to make us inelelgible to receive federal property.  But legally....CAP aircraft are corporate property...they are NOT federal property.  Yes they were bought with federal money...but I don't think congress can just arbitrailly take them back.  I may be wrong...but that is one of the whole points about use NOT being part of the USAF.  If they were USAF assets and they were just loaned to us...then that would be a different story.  I just don't think that is the case in this situation.

It would be like Boeing having to turn over a factory floor to the USAF because it was built with federal money to build USAF aircraft.  The money was federal but the property is private.

[Dragoon]

The plan is short & sweet... if you revoke title 36, CAP is not a properly constituted corporation capable of recieving or holding govt property. (I actually want to do away with the title 36 corporate status, but you have to change title 10 at the same time to re-estabilish us as the full time AFAux in the same kind of framework CGAux is working under.) If we get closed down, they'll take all our stuff. We won't be allowed to go on w/o them.

Okay so the "plan" is revoke title 36.  Two questions

1. Who in congress (or in the presidential race) is in favor of this plan?

2.  Given all the problems in this country with much bigger price tags, why do they care?

Just wondering.  The whole thing sounds a bit like idle speculation.  I'm just having problems seeing a newly elected president caring at all about piddly little CAP...

Can you provide the details so we can do our own risk analysis?

Thanks!

[Major Carrales]

Uh....guys?!

Let's not start fiddleing around with the Structure of CAP and then solicit the support of people running for office to "help it along."

Why?
1) Any proposal that holds the existance of CAP in the balance and put to a vote in the Congress is likey to result in the end of CAP resulting in us all joing SDFs because the rug was pulled from under us.

Any changes to these titles would have to be done by amendment aborgating and correcting at the same time and all at once.  If not, one could get the one without the other which might open fresh wounds in CAP.  OUCH...that would smart!

2) Dealing with politicans before an election will likely yield lots of promises and even more forgetfull Jone syndrome later.

[sandman]

Uh....guys?!

Let's not start fiddleing around with the Structure of CAP and then solicit the support of people running for office to "help it along."

Why?
1) Any proposal that holds the existance of CAP in the balance and put to a vote in the Congress is likey to result in the end of CAP resulting in us all joing SDFs because the rug was pulled from under us.

Any changes to these titles would have to be done by amendment aborgating and correcting at the same time and all at once.  If not, one could get the one without the other which might open fresh wounds in CAP.  OUCH...that would smart!

2) Dealing with politicans before an election will likely yield lots of promises and even more forgetfull Jone syndrome later.

Not all of us can join SDF's either. You cannot be active, reserve, or NG. Retired is okay...

[Major Carrales]

Not all of us can join SDF's either. You cannot be active, reserve, or NG. Retired is okay...

True, but with CAP dissolved there are going to be many "homeless" volunteers.

[fyrfitrmedic]

 With all due respect, some of these 'this candidate...' and 'that candidate...' sounds an awful lot like rumor and speculation and little else.

That's not to say that our house doesn't need to be set in order - absolutely it does. It's just that I've grown more than a little weary of so many rumors over the years.

[sandman]

Not all of us can join SDF's either. You cannot be active, reserve, or NG. Retired is okay...

True, but with CAP dissolved there are going to be many "homeless" volunteers.

Yep...maybe it's a good thing. CG AUX has its air wing and needs volunteers for HLS missions. Maybe inland SAR could be AUX Air's new mission?

Just throwing a little salt on the wound

[RiverAux]

 I sincerely doubt that there are going to be too many candidates running on dissolving CAP.  Most Democrats have been making points about the under-funding of HLS while most Republicans wouldn't do it as it would tarnish their "pro-defense" image. 

CAP is very important to all of us, but you could throw darts in the air and hit hundreds of programs that cost more than CAP and have no real constituency to fight for them. 

[Major Carrales]

Not all of us can join SDF's either. You cannot be active, reserve, or NG. Retired is okay...

True, but with CAP dissolved there are going to be many "homeless" volunteers.

Yep...maybe it's a good thing. CG AUX has its air wing and needs volunteers for HLS missions. Maybe inland SAR could be AUX Air's new mission?

Just throwing a little salt on the wound

Yes, but that might not do the people in Wyoming Wing or over in Oddessa, Texas very much good. That is to assume that a Coast line is necessary for a Coast Guard and its auxiliary.   I guess one could invent "land boats." This is, of course, whimsy!!

[shorning]

I guess one could invent "land boats." This is, of course, whimsy!!

Or one could just realize that the CG can be found on "waterways", not just "coastline areas".  There was a flotilla in Idaho when I was there.  Plenty of water them to work with.

[Al Sayre]

I've owned and driven several  "Land Yachts" over the years... do those count?