Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 19, 2018, 06:00:53 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Former Members?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print
Author Topic: Former Members?  (Read 21504 times)
DakRadz
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,365

« Reply #100 on: August 31, 2011, 12:58:27 AM »

I got all excited for a second, Stonewall, because I thought I saw the word "Ohio" in there somewhere (which is my state).

Regardless, this cadet will attend CSS if you renew. That's got to be enough reason, right, sir?
Logged
Stonewall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,934

« Reply #101 on: August 31, 2011, 10:56:26 AM »

FWIW I sort of renewed today.  My membership expired in December 2010 and I did not renew.  Although I easily could have, I chose not to.  Today, I learned that because I was activated as a National Guardsman for Operation Enduring Freedom, my membership was held and will be extended 90 days following my return.  Although I returned late July, my military orders ended 24 August, so I sent them in and have been extended through November.  At which time I'll reevaluate renewing my membership.

I got this today by email, thought it was nice.

Quote from: CAP NHQ Membership
Your membership has now been extended to 30 Nov 11 free of charge in honor of your service.  You may renew at any time through e-services at www.capnhq.gov, by calling 877-227-9142 or mailing a $62.00 payment to the address below my name.  Thank you.
Logged
SunDog
Seasoned Member

Posts: 478

« Reply #102 on: September 24, 2011, 09:54:51 PM »

I drive airplanes; It started feeling like CAP was wasting a LOT of my time with some fairly low-value "just-for-show" saftey and other requirments. It looked like CAP was ignoring the essential and exalting the trivial, at least some of the time, anyway.

And it became a very time consuming effort to fly even the simplest mission (C17), as WMIRS was (is?) a mess to use, eServcies is worse, and the flight release procedures became more and more klunky. Basically, CAP tends to drive away pilots, at least ones that aren't retired, or have families. My impression was we (mission pilots) were a dime-a-dozen, and not a very high-priority resource for National to worry about.

I flew military, and still fly in a military aero-club, so I know stop-stumble-and-fall bureaucracy when I see it.  CAP ate a lot of time for stuff that didn't improve skills or provide effective training.

But, I didn't let my membership expire; I just stopped participating. I will likely get CAP re-current again, but probably not participate much in non-flying activities. Not sure if I'll press real hard to get MP currrent real soon, either. I intend to test the water, see if the hassles have been streamlined, and if CAP has a clearer, more focused vision of its mission.
Logged
Turk
Member

Posts: 83

« Reply #103 on: September 25, 2011, 11:48:09 AM »

The Coast Guard Auxiliary have their antennae out for former and "prospective former" CAP members as well as for the rest of the general public . Their flyers were certainly doing a brisk trade at the AOPA Convention last week. 

Mission-wise, the Aux has an advantage - they are an integral part of the USCG, and they have been directed (and therefore, funded) to fly regular (and long) patrol routes.  A significant portion of CAP's operational raison d'etre - namely, 121.5 searches - has disappeared with the shift to the new frequency and AFRCC's cessation of monitoring the old frequency. 

I won't open the ARCHER can too widely, but when I think of how many 172s and 182s CAP could have bought for that $15,000,000...  sigh
 
Logged

"To fly is everything."  Otto Lilienthal
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #104 on: September 27, 2011, 05:06:55 AM »

I've had a couple "breaks in service."

Usually it was because of irreconcilable differences, usually between me and the GOB network so prevalent in parts of CAP, in no small part because I took a stand and would not bend over and say "thank you sir may I have another," to "go along to get along" when something was clearly against regs.  I am not very good at that; I never have been.

WRT the USCGAux...I spent some time with them, too, and came to respect them.  However, with them I often got the feeling that there was a two-tier level of membership: those who had a boat, and those who didn't (I don't.).

Nonetheless, I greatly envy the fact that they are much more integrated with the CG than CAP is with the AF, that the CG respects them (unlike so many in the AF who unforgivably don't even know who we are) and that there isn't the element within the CGAUX that tries to distance itself from its parent service the way CAP does.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 492

« Reply #105 on: September 27, 2011, 08:08:34 AM »

Quote
was a two-tier level of membership: those who had a boat, and those who didn't (I don't.).

Within the AuxAir program that division is even worse. There are pilots and everyone else. I used to fly as an Air Observer and then Air Crew. It was not unusual for a pilot to be awarded a medal or ribbon for a mission and the rest of the crew got NADA.

If you follow the main Aux boards you will notice the same division between the upper-tier leadership and the 'bottom dwellers' that sometimes crops up here.

Quote
there isn't the element within the CGAUX that tries to distance itself from its parent service the way CAP does


You don't have to spend  much time on the Aux boards to find that isn't true. That divide comes about between several groups. There are those who feel that the alleged closeness to the USCG (and the uniforms etc) interferes with the Aux's prime and original mission RBS (Recreational Boating Safety). Another divide is between those who augment with the USCG and those who do not. The USCG is usually pretty good about making sure its Auxies are taken care of award-wise. The local unit are not so good about that. So it causes a maldistribution and resentment between the Auxie Augies and the have-nots.

You have to remember that very few Aux flotillas are near CG units and very few members within that unit augment. So overall, the number of Auxies who enjoy the alleged 'closeness' to the USCG is very small.
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #106 on: September 27, 2011, 12:17:00 PM »

^^^I suppose what I meant about the "distancing from parent service" is the increasingly corporatist element within CAP who would like us to have nothing to do with the Air Force, not wear the Air Force uniform and be ES, the whole ES, and nothing but ES.

I didn't encounter that in the CGAUX...and I was landlocked in the middle of the Midwest, with the only CG facility being a now-closed LORAN station about 50 miles away.

I never augmented for the CG and (disappointingly) got nowhere near the AuxAir side.

What I was getting at was that when I would meet someone from the gold side, they were usually very appreciative and thanked me for what I did with the Auxiliary.

With CAP it's too often an attitude of barely-benign indifference from our parent service to sometimes downright hostility: "oh, there's one of those CAP wannabes who is going to try to get me to salute them."

During one of my breaks in service I worked with a retired AF officer who was considering getting into CAP.  I told him some of what was going on at that time; the whole AUXON/OFF Bravo Sierra, etc.  Interestingly, what really got him was the uniform issues, particularly the shoulder marks: "I used to see you guys on bases all over with the blue epaulettes and had no trouble recognising you...I don't understand why they made you change."

I suspect that sort of treatment by our parent service contributes to disgruntled former members, especially those who were in the Air Force.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,256

« Reply #107 on: September 27, 2011, 12:54:06 PM »

You have to remember that very few Aux flotillas are near CG units and very few members within that unit augment. So overall, the number of Auxies who enjoy the alleged 'closeness' to the USCG is very small.

While duties may generally put CGAux people nearer to the CG, I'd hazard a guess that the overall relationship and contact hours with the military are as much or more in CAP than in the CGAux, there's still a whole lot of units and activities which are located on active bases.

Also, unless you are near a body of water that has recreational boating, your opportunities for service are going to be somewhat "limited" - how big does the body need to be?  Lake Michigan has exactly 1 CG unit and exactly 1 boat for the Chicago shoreline, and that is only manned from May - Oct.   The nearest helicopter is in Waukegan, and after that you have to go to Milwaukee to find a CG unit.  There are CGAuxers active out there, checking boats and the intake cribs, etc., but NE-ILL is somewhat unique for all the lakes we have, and they don't exactly have a significant presence off the lake front.

CGAuxers also fly their own aircraft, which from my conversations with dual/former/perspective members was a no-go for many, either from an ORM, insurance, or "don't got one" standpoint.  Think things are bad from a GOB standpoint in CAP?  That's manageable with a phone call.  Imagine what it would be like if the only flying yo could do was in a personally owned airplane.
Logged


RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 492

« Reply #108 on: September 27, 2011, 05:36:00 PM »

Quote
CGAuxers also fly their own aircraft, which from my conversations with dual/former/perspective members was a no-go for many, either from an ORM, insurance, or "don't got one" standpoint

AuxAir took a big hit in its plane numbers about two years ago. Prior to that, Auxie owned aircraft had to meet whatever FAA standards applied to recreational  GA aircraft. Then an Auxie plane had an engine fire in-flight with an admiral aboard. The fire was controlled and noone was injured. But the knees jerked. Auxie aircraft suddenly had to meet the FAA overhaul and insprection requirements for commercial aircraft - with no added funding for the increased maintenance from the USCG. Many left the program since they were already outside the commercial time frames but still comfortably within the recreational ones. Others left as they approached the limits.

It gets more complicated. Around the same time as the above, the USCG got picky about what aircraft it would accept in the program. Some areas mostly performed shore-line patrol patterns. Dual engine aircraft had a hard time being accepted since they cost more to operate and the extra engine wasn't needed for the patrol type. Other areas perform deep ocean patrols and single-engine plans aren't wanted since dual engines are required if the plane is more then gliding distance from a shore. It is the USCG who is setting those requirements. So depending on the area a pilot was in, he might have suddenly found his plane was no longer wanted.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Former Members?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.092 seconds with 25 queries.