PA Rep to introduce legislation on CAP border & homeland security missions

[FARRIER]

The way I'm understanding it, is that the DOD has to share "us" with HLS. The bill was worded pretty slick, especially the word "communications". Is that what they are using as the "magic key" through the PCA? And by that I mean we report what we see but do nothing. But I could be wrong.

My 2 cents

[JohnKachenmeister]

That, gentlemen, is my point.  This is a law empowering the DHS and DOD to do what they have always been able to do.

This is like a new law permitting motorists to drive through green traffic lights.

Under this law, we would remain an asset of the USAF, and remain subject to the Posse Commitatus Act.

Where we stand if this bill passes is exactly where we stand today.

[lordmonar]

Yes, but up until now...we have been flying DHS missions on the USAF dime.  This I think, formalises that relationship and would force DHS to pay for their missions.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, that does make more sense.  It doesn't change our legal status with regard to the PCA, though.

[lordmonar]

Well, that does make more sense.  It doesn't change our legal status with regard to the PCA, though.

I thought we already decided that the PCA does not apply to us...even if we are the USAF AUX.  Was it not you who pointed out the National Guard Air Craft don't have to take off the U.S. Army to fly a state mission.  They are flying it on the states dime so PCA does not apply.

So I don't see it applying to us.  The removal of the USAF-AUX was at the USAF's request because they are too narrow minded in their interpretation of the law and the fact that not too many air guard units get called in to support local law enforcement agencies.

Why this has turned into a shoving match between CAP and the USAF I don't know....I don't even know if it is a shoving match.

If USAF there is a PCA issue the lawyers will work it out....in the mean time I'm going to fly missions.  I don't care where the money comes from, it all come from the wing at my level anyway.

[thefischNX01]

yeah, pretty much formalizes what we're doing already, although puts us on DHS's dime as opposed to DoD. 

However, I do interperate it as making us a more formal player in those missions outlined in SEC. 890A (b), as opposed to one that is used kinda-sorta-when-we-feel-like-it. 

I also interperate this as a way around PCA as it authorizes us to perform in a Law Enforcement manner along the border.  IMO, it neutralizes PCA in this area, making any further debate about weather or not it's legal for us to be there null and void. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, that does make more sense.  It doesn't change our legal status with regard to the PCA, though.

I thought we already decided that the PCA does not apply to us...even if we are the USAF AUX.  Was it not you who pointed out the National Guard Air Craft don't have to take off the U.S. Army to fly a state mission.  They are flying it on the states dime so PCA does not apply.

So I don't see it applying to us.  The removal of the USAF-AUX was at the USAF's request because they are too narrow minded in their interpretation of the law and the fact that not too many air guard units get called in to support local law enforcement agencies.

Why this has turned into a shoving match between CAP and the USAF I don't know....I don't even know if it is a shoving match.

If USAF there is a PCA issue the lawyers will work it out....in the mean time I'm going to fly missions.  I don't care where the money comes from, it all come from the wing at my level anyway.

Lord M:

I understand your confusion.

The National Guard is specifically exempted from the Posse Commitatus Act.  The only way that NG units are covered by PCA is when they are called into Federal service.  So, yes.  A helicopter from the NG does not have to take "US Army" off the tail boom when it is on a state mission and performing law enforcement.  And, yes, this is at state expense.

But, if we are flying missions for the (Federal) DHS, we come under our Congressional Charter, that says the CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF whenever performing missions for ANY federal agency.  So we are still USAF and still subject to PCA.

IF we fly a mission under our "CAP, Inc" identity, paid for by a state or local govt., then we are not subject to the PCA, but still subject to CAP Regulations, which place similar restrictions on our activity.  At least that is the current interpretation by our legal eagles, (And the US Attorney General), but this has never been challenged nor tested in court.

[lordmonar]

Well, that does make more sense.  It doesn't change our legal status with regard to the PCA, though.

I thought we already decided that the PCA does not apply to us...even if we are the USAF AUX.  Was it not you who pointed out the National Guard Air Craft don't have to take off the U.S. Army to fly a state mission.  They are flying it on the states dime so PCA does not apply.

So I don't see it applying to us.  The removal of the USAF-AUX was at the USAF's request because they are too narrow minded in their interpretation of the law and the fact that not too many air guard units get called in to support local law enforcement agencies.

Why this has turned into a shoving match between CAP and the USAF I don't know....I don't even know if it is a shoving match.

If USAF there is a PCA issue the lawyers will work it out....in the mean time I'm going to fly missions.  I don't care where the money comes from, it all come from the wing at my level anyway.

Lord M:

I understand your confusion.

The National Guard is specifically exempted from the Posse Commitatus Act.  The only way that NG units are covered by PCA is when they are called into Federal service.  So, yes.  A helicopter from the NG does not have to take "US Army" off the tail boom when it is on a state mission and performing law enforcement.  And, yes, this is at state expense.

But, if we are flying missions for the (Federal) DHS, we come under our Congressional Charter, that says the CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF whenever performing missions for ANY federal agency.  So we are still USAF and still subject to PCA.

IF we fly a mission under our "CAP, Inc" identity, paid for by a state or local govt., then we are not subject to the PCA, but still subject to CAP Regulations, which place similar restrictions on our activity.  At least that is the current interpretation by our legal eagles, (And the US Attorney General), but this has never been challenged nor tested in court.

So the fix is to change the language in title 10 to allow us to support other fedeal agencies with out being on AF assigned missions.

[JohnKachenmeister]

That WOULD be a fix, sure.

It would also be a fix to place CAP under the National Guard.

The problem I see is that IF you place CAP directly under DHS, and not as an auxiliary of the USAF, we will probably never see affiliation with the USAF again.  We will be permanently placed under DHS as an agency similar to the Coast Guard, that is under DHS normally, but CAN be called into Navy service.

We would end up losing the USAF uniform, we'd all be in TPU's, but we would, on paper, be able to be called back into USAF service when needed.

But the only time the USAF wants us is for inland SAR, and if Congress transfers inland SAR to DHS, the USAF and us will be effectively divorced.

That is the concern that I started with when this thread was initially posted.

[lordmonar]

That WOULD be a fix, sure.

It would also be a fix to place CAP under the National Guard.

The only problem with that is that by definition the NG is a state organisation and national coordination would be hard.  We have a lot of problems with standardisation as it is.  If we had 50 different organisations telling us how to do our jobs, how to wear our uniforms and how and when we can interact may make things even worse.

I am not against working with and maybe for the NG in and of themselves.  I just think it would be easer to work for DHS and the USAF at the national level. 

The problem I see is that IF you place CAP directly under DHS, and not as an auxiliary of the USAF, we will probably never see affiliation with the USAF again.  We will be permanently placed under DHS as an agency similar to the Coast Guard, that is under DHS normally, but CAN be called into Navy service.

I understand your position and you may be right.  But would that really be a bad thing?  I mean do we need the USAF to still do all the things we do today?  We can still wear the uniform.....just look at NOAA and the Public Health Services.  We can still fly SAR because the USAF does not even do that now.  We can still do the cadet program, just look at ACA.

[qoute]We would end up losing the USAF uniform, we'd all be in TPU's, but we would, on paper, be able to be called back into USAF service when needed.[/quote]

I have been advocating that for a while.  So long as the USAF holds us to weight standards we will look like a rinky dink operation.

But the only time the USAF wants us is for inland SAR, and if Congress transfers inland SAR to DHS, the USAF and us will be effectively divorced.

And again...how would that affect CAP?  I do ES to assist my country.  I don't care what department I work for.

[RiverAux]

Okay, this doesn't look as threatening as some had feared.  However, I do think this paragraph:

the Secretary may consider the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources for— ''(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking in goods, currency, people, and other substances;

is very interesting. 
Perhaps there is someone open to the argument that we have heard floating around that PCA does not apply to civilians affiliated with DOD (as we are).  Otherwise, I don't see how we could do this except in regards to illegal entry of drugs. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, according to the statute, we're not "Civilians" associated with DoD.  The USAF is defined by law as the Regular Air Force, The Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the Auxiliary.  We are "Civilians," but since we are not legally defined as such, we're not, except when we are, then that's what we must be, with certain exceptions.  All clear now?

(Now you realize why I never went to the "Dark Side" and attended law school.  I never wanted to corrupt my mind to the point that this crap makes sense.)

But... Pat, you have come, through 7 pages, to exactly the point that I was at somewhere around page 1 or 2.  While affiliation with the USAF is good, we got money from them, and we get ample community and professional recognition as officers in the "Air Force Auxiliary," in the end, however, we are here to serve the United States as volunteers and aviators.  Whatever is best for the country is what you will find me wanting to do.

Now DNall and I non-concur on this issue.  He seems to think that re-creating CAP on the USCG model (Assigned under DHS, but subject to USAF recall) is devastating and the end of our organization, if not Western Civilization.

I think that there will be some grumbling and gnashing of teeth, but in the end we will do what we have to do in defense of the United States, and we MAY actually get some real HD missions... who knows?

[RiverAux]

The USAF is defined by law as the Regular Air Force, The Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the Auxiliary.

Uhhh, I've never seen that law.  Please give me the citation....

[JohnKachenmeister]

I knew you would ask that.

I found it once, and I'm gonna have to look it up.

I probably won't have time tonight, since I'm at work, and I actually have to do something productive shortly.  I'll poke around the US Code tomorrow and try to find the answer for you.

[RiverAux]

No problem, take your time looking...I'm pretty confident that you will not find any federal law defines CAP as being part of the Air Force alongside the Guard and Reserve. 

[lordmonar]

But... Pat, you have come, through 7 pages, to exactly the point that I was at somewhere around page 1 or 2.  While affiliation with the USAF is good, we got money from them, and we get ample community and professional recognition as officers in the "Air Force Auxiliary," in the end, however, we are here to serve the United States as volunteers and aviators.  Whatever is best for the country is what you will find me wanting to do.

Now DNall and I non-concur on this issue.  He seems to think that re-creating CAP on the USCG model (Assigned under DHS, but subject to USAF recall) is devastating and the end of our organization, if not Western Civilization.

I think that there will be some grumbling and gnashing of teeth, but in the end we will do what we have to do in defense of the United States, and we MAY actually get some real HD missions... who knows?

I'm sorry....I must have lost the thread of the argument...I thought you were with DNall in the doom and gloom crowd.

I have always been in the "it's nice being in the USAF AUX but I want to fly" crowd.  I don't care who for....so long as they are real missions for our country, state, city.

[DeputyDog]

The USAF is defined by law as the Regular Air Force, The Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the Auxiliary.

Uhhh, I've never seen that law.  Please give me the citation....

There isn't one. Title 10, Part 1, Chapter 807, Section 8062 defines what the USAF is:

(d) The Air Force consists of—
(1) the Regular Air Force, the Air National Guard of the United States, the Air National Guard while in the service of the United States, and the Air Force Reserve;

Section 8062 does talk about "auxiliary" units in other subsections of Section 8062, but it is not refering to CAP. The mention of CAP is under a separate part and chapter.

[FARRIER]

The USAF is defined by law as the Regular Air Force, The Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the Auxiliary.

Uhhh, I've never seen that law.  Please give me the citation....

There isn't one. Title 10, Part 1, Chapter 807, Section 8062 defines what the USAF is:

(d) The Air Force consists of—
(1) the Regular Air Force, the Air National Guard of the United States, the Air National Guard while in the service of the United States, and the Air Force Reserve;

Section 8062 does talk about "auxiliary" units in other subsections of Section 8062, but it is not referring to CAP. The mention of CAP is under a separate part and chapter.

Here is the link so anyone who is interested can read the whole thing.

http://law2.house.gov/download/pls/10C807.txt

For an aviation outfit we stink at fulling quoting and referring to regulations.
To make my point, do the pilots on this board, launch an aircraft guessing what the regulations are that allow them to do so or "knowing" the regulations that allow them to do so. Anywhere on this board, we should be providing the link for the full section even though we are quoting only part of it, so others can read it and learn.

[JohnKachenmeister]

But... Pat, you have come, through 7 pages, to exactly the point that I was at somewhere around page 1 or 2.  While affiliation with the USAF is good, we got money from them, and we get ample community and professional recognition as officers in the "Air Force Auxiliary," in the end, however, we are here to serve the United States as volunteers and aviators.  Whatever is best for the country is what you will find me wanting to do.

Now DNall and I non-concur on this issue.  He seems to think that re-creating CAP on the USCG model (Assigned under DHS, but subject to USAF recall) is devastating and the end of our organization, if not Western Civilization.

I think that there will be some grumbling and gnashing of teeth, but in the end we will do what we have to do in defense of the United States, and we MAY actually get some real HD missions... who knows?

I'm sorry....I must have lost the thread of the argument...I thought you were with DNall in the doom and gloom crowd.

I have always been in the "it's nice being in the USAF AUX but I want to fly" crowd.  I don't care who for....so long as they are real missions for our country, state, city.

I am with DNall is not liking such a change, if it occurs.  I part with him in assessing the overall consequences.

But such a move WOULD free us to participate in HLS missions without having to consider the implications of the PCA.  The downside, we could be tasked with enforcement missions.  Anybody feel like bringing back the "Drop In" program at GA airports to assess compliance with security regulations?

[afgeo4]

I'd like to remind you all that although our dollars come from USAF on AF assigned missions by request of DHS, DHS reimburses USAF for those expenses at a later date. The DoD is in no position or mood to pay for other departments' work. All this law does is eliminate the middle man and the bureaucracy taht comes with it. We will see more missions faster if we are paid straight by DHS. The missions will be the same. The way we do them will be the same. We'll just see a different name on the reimbursement checks. Also, DHS might throw us some more funding for training missions (for their purposes) on top of what we currently get from USAF and that would be good.

Doesn't our slogan say "Missions for America", not "Missions for the Air Force"?