Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 22, 2019, 01:55:06 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Decline in CG Aux Air
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Decline in CG Aux Air  (Read 7107 times)
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« on: January 18, 2007, 01:53:40 AM »

One of the reliable posters on the CG Aux board on military.com keeps very good track of CG Aux membership and activity statistics and posted some very interesting information on CG Aux Air today.

First, the background is that several years ago the CG Aux began requiring (at the direction of DHS) volunteers to do background checks.  Everybody had to do a 1-page form and fingerprint card like CAP requires.  For many "operational" jobs members had to do a 7-page form that asked for a lot of personal information, references, etc.  This extensive check is (from what I understand) the same required of people joining the military.  There have been some modifications to these requirements since then, that aren't critical.  The result of the new background check requirement has been a significant loss of members and quite a lot of complaining from some people who thought it was too intrusive. 

Well, the result on the CG Aux aviation program turns out to have been significant as well.  From December 2003 to January 2007 they've lost 30% of all their pilots, 11.5% of airplanes (they don't have corporate planes.  All are privately owned by members), and 26.9% of all aircrew members.   Overall the CG Aux lost about 28% of their members since the new policy was announced.

Right now they've got 262 aircraft and 704 people with one of the aircrew certifications.

Despite the high member losses in some Districts it may not have have affected operations.  In the 7th District (mostly Florida) they've actually been getting restrictive on allowing new members into the air program in order to save money. 

Just thought it was interesting.  I've always wondered how big a membership hit, if any, CAP took when we started fingerprinting people. 

   
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,653

« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2007, 03:13:48 AM »

The former CC of my unit told me that when they started to do the checks, about 10% of his members just disapppeared.

And to high-jack the thread, I think its a mischaracterization to say the CG Aux has ANY planes.  They don't.

CAP has the largest private fleet of aircrafts in the US (world too?), these are corporate vehicles with an expectation of readiness.

We have a fleet, the CG Aux has a sign-up sheet or promises.
Report to moderator   Logged


JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2007, 03:50:27 AM »

I read somewhere that CAP alone had more aircraft than 70-some percent of the world's air forces.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2007, 03:58:37 AM »

Quote
And to high-jack the thread, I think its a mischaracterization to say the CG Aux has ANY planes.
Jeez, I specifically said they were all privately-owned planes....
Report to moderator   Logged
afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2007, 05:43:18 AM »

Seems to me like they trimmed a lot of fat. Perhaps even got rid of some members with problematic pasts. If it has no effect or a positive effect on their operations then it's not a loss, it's a gain in efficiency.
Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
JAFO78
Seasoned Member

Posts: 385

« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2007, 11:40:06 AM »

I read somewhere that CAP alone had more aircraft than 70-some percent of the world's air forces.

Ok So now CAP can rank as a 3rd world air force?

Watch out terrorist's we are coming to get ya!!

Sgt load them bombs on my F-182, I'm going hunting for them terrorists!

OK sure thing sir!




Hey mac call the VA another one as escaped...........
Report to moderator   Logged
JAFO
BillB
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2007, 12:19:13 PM »

I think it's a misconception to ask about a drop in CAP membership "when fingerprinting was started"  The reason being since 1942, fingerprinting of CAP members have been standard. It just didn't start in 1990, or 2001, it's been there all along. When I turned senior member in 1951, I was fingerprinted, and probably have been fingerprinted for CAP 4-5 times since. At that time it was as a security measure, and had noting to do with checking for criminal records.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104
Smokey
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 501

« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2007, 05:39:58 PM »

I would like to see better background checks on CAP members.  It would give us more credibility with the AF and I'm sure that in an organization as big as ours there are a sure to be a few folks with less than desirable bacgrounds.  Not everyone bad is weeded out with fingerprints.
Report to moderator   Logged
If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
To err is human, to blame someone else shows good management skills.
Major Carrales
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,106

« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2007, 05:59:04 PM »

I read somewhere that CAP alone had more aircraft than 70-some percent of the world's air forces.

Ok So now CAP can rank as a 3rd world air force?

Watch out terrorist's we are coming to get ya!!

Sgt load them bombs on my F-182, I'm going hunting for them terrorists!

Actually, as funny as that seems, it speaks volumes about US Air Power.  We have the world's best equiped AIR FORCE that can basically hit any target on Terra Firma....and an auxiliary that seems to dwarf the air forces of other nations in a purely auxiliary role.

That also does not count private and commercial aircraft.
Report to moderator   Logged
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,653

« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2007, 07:08:19 PM »

Quote
And to high-jack the thread, I think its a mischaracterization to say the CG Aux has ANY planes.
Jeez, I specifically said they were all privately-owned planes....
I'm not trying to hold you to task, specifically, just making a general point.

Here in ILWG, the relationship between CAP and the CG Aux is very contentious, due primarily to some GOB's on each side who hate each other, live in the same area and fight for turf, etc.  These guys got run out of one org or the other and then go around how the other guys suck.

I'm constantly hearing how much easier it is to get in the air, etc., in the CG Aux.  What they never mention, until asked specifically, is that they are flying their own planes.
Report to moderator   Logged


RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2007, 12:12:10 AM »

Quote
Seems to me like they trimmed a lot of fat. Perhaps even got rid of some members with problematic pasts. If it has no effect or a positive effect on their operations then it's not a loss, it's a gain in efficiency.

That is not actually the case.  There has been an accompanying decline in actual mission performance of about the same magnitude.  There have been multiple hundreds of posts on the whole issue over on the CG Aux board, but the current consensus there (and from statements from the National Aux level) that the new policy has severely impacted actual performance. 

As to people with problematic pasts, it may have knocked out a few, but most people left over the principle of the thing.  They didn't mind the basic check, like CAP does, but the extensive check was seen as too intrusive by many.  Many were offended that they were being seen as some sort of security risk now and had to do these checks in order to keep doing the same missions they'd already been performing for years.  If you want to discuss this aspect further I suggest you go to military.com and check teh CG Aux board as it isn't appropriate here. 

The main thing for CAP folks to keep in mind as we toss out all sorts of improvement ideas is that any time you impose an additional requirement on volunteers a certain percentage are going to refuse to comply for some reason or another and you will lose them.   Based on the CG Auxs experience in implementing some MIMS requirements we should expect to lose 10-20% of our ES folks when those become mandatory here.   
Report to moderator   Logged
afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2007, 12:27:31 AM »

It's just odd to me that folks who volunteer for the Department of Homeland Security have problems with background checks. Let's suppose a terrorist decides in infiltrate the organization... this terrorist wouldn't have to be experienced, well educated, well trained or well funded to do that.

I'd have an issue with the CG Aux if they didn't go through extensive background checks. I believe people who run Homeland Security and Counter Narcotics missions do go through extensive background screenings. Am I not correct?
Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2007, 12:37:00 AM »

Remember, they volunteered for the Department of Transportation...

The CAP check for CD work is nothing like what was required for the extensive background check required of CG Auxies.  They had to fill out the SF-85 Questionnaire for National Security Positions.  Besides basic identification information you had to provide info on your residences over the last 7 years (and a reference who could vouch for you from each location), Employment information for the last 7 years, 3 general character references, ID info (including SSN) on your spouse and former spouses, names and info on your relatives, information on your foreign travel, financial background, civil court judgements, etc.  It took me a couple of hours and I didn't have anything unusual to explain (I passed by the way).



Report to moderator   Logged
flight dispatcher
Guest
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2007, 12:10:24 AM »

"I think it's a misconception to ask about a drop in CAP membership "when fingerprinting was started"  The reason being since 1942, fingerprinting of CAP members have been standard. It just didn't start in 1990, or 2001, it's been there all along. When I turned senior member in 1951, I was fingerprinted, and probably have been fingerprinted for CAP 4-5 times since. At that time it was as a security measure, and had noting to do with checking for criminal records."

I was a wing staffer in 1990. I didn't seem to impact our wing negatively. If I remember correctly, the 1990 fingerprint cards were intended to weed out the child molesters. The Boy Scouts at this time were finding a bunch in their organization. So the impetus was for us to do this too.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pumbaa
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 729

« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2007, 01:04:28 AM »

They had to fill out the SF-85 Questionnaire for National Security Positions. 

Interesting...  This is the same type of stuff I had to fill out for my Secret Security clearance...  Easy in principle, but  the execution of it has been a nightmare for me, from the Govn't website (eQuip) to having to keep redoing things...

And to think I lived in the same town for nearly 20 years, had the same job for 15 years, a clean record..

I would say if any of the Auxies had to go through what I did, then I understand why they would not bother.  It is a flawed and difficult process at times.. well at least the way I did it for my new defense industry job.

I was ready to give up the 8th time I had to make changes.. and they were for the stooopid'est things too.  Basically I had to add comments, then when I made changes I had to reanswer questions on the online form again and again...  Some parts saved but others didn't.  It took me 2 retries to figure what was really happening..

ugh...

Not the intrusion, but the process...

I think I am going to skip on my Top Secret, talk about a proctological exam.. I can imagine the Govn't process would kill me..
Report to moderator   Logged
AlaskanCFI
Member

Posts: 74

Dragonfly Aero
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2007, 10:15:35 PM »

Quote
I would like to see better background checks on CAP members.  It would give us more credibility with the AF and I'm sure that in an organization as big as ours there are a sure to be a few folks with less than desirable bacgrounds.  Not everyone bad is weeded out with fingerprints.

Don't worry, all the active duty branches have just as many "if not more" problem individuals as does the CAP or any other volunteer organization.
You are pretty safe from stone throwing on this subject....



xx
Report to moderator   Logged
Major, Squadron Commander Stan-Eval..Instructor Pilot- Alaska Wing CAP
Retired Alaska Air Guard
Retired State of Alaska Law Dawg, Retired Vol Firefighter and EMT
Ex-Navy, Ex-Army,
Firearms Instructor
Alaskan Tailwheel and Floatplane CFI
http://www.floatplanealaska.com
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2007, 10:35:13 PM »

I'd concur with having a problem if CGAux did NOT do the checks, and if anything CAP (having cadets on top of the ops role) should be well out front of them on the issue. If membership has declined or anyone has taken offense, that's real bad PR to members. If AF ordered that of CAP (somehow found all that money for bakground investigations), CAP would come out saying AF has decided to let us start doing some important national security stuff, but we have to get everyone secure first, then the best & brightest will get a shot as a few missions & as they prove our capability more & more will owrk its way out to the rest of us. In the meantime, this will help protect our resources & cadets by helping us ensure we take high quality members devoted to the Core Values... yada yada, and everyone would go take care of it. Having done the process myself, it is very annoying, but no more so than dealing with the compliation of madness that is eServices.
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2007, 10:46:10 PM »

Unfortunately, except for a few very limited circumstances I'm not aware of CG Aux getting to do anything new because of the security checks.  In fact, there have been some cutbacks in certain types of operational activities CG Aux had traditionally done. 
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2007, 11:43:35 AM »

still communications & PR. When CAP went to maroon epaulets most people took that as an insult, which it was meant to be, & didn't appreciate looking like a clown. What do you think happened to membership then. Look at the state of our PR/communication to members, and look at our retention.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eagle400
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 688

« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2007, 09:57:14 PM »

*bump*

Is there a possibility that CAP can work with the Coast Guard Auxiliary to help expand their Air Program? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Decline in CG Aux Air
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.071 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me